 |
|
|
|||||
Anbernic, a popular retro handheld maker, has announced that its suspending shipments of its devices from China to the US because of tariffs. The company, which makes a variety of emulation-focused consoles and has appeared in Engadget's "Best gaming handhelds" list, is still selling devices it's already shipped to the US while supplies last. "Due to changes in U.S. tariff policies, we will be suspending all orders shipping from China to the United States starting today," Anbernic writes. "We strongly recommend prioritizing products shipped from our U.S. warehouse, which are currently not affected by import duties and can be purchased with confidence." Anbernic has long offered the option to choose which warehouse your device is shipped from as a way to avoid additional customs fees or a model being out of stock in specific region. Because of this policy change, though, US customers will no longer be able to order directly from China and could miss out on the company's future hardware launches. The decision to stop shipping to the US is understandable given the current chaos around tariffs. President Donald Trump announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs on April 9, but increased the tariffs companies would pay to import goods from China. Specific exemptions were carved out for certain electronics, but then the Trump administration later clarified that electronics would get their own separate semiconductor tariffs at some point, too. All of this flip-flopping over trade policies was also paired with the removal of the "de minimis exemption" which allows packages shipped to the US under $800 to be duty-free, a key ingredient in cheap Amazon-alternatives like Temu and the budget products Anbernic sells. Given how messy the current approach to trade is, it's possible Anbernic might be able to ship to the US again in the future. For now, though, not everyone is able to eat the costs of tariffs like Nintendo is.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/retro-handheld-maker-anbernic-stops-us-shipments-due-to-tariffs-220217833.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has decide that its official stance towards AI-use in films is to take no stance at all, according to a statement the organization shared outlining changes to voting for the 98th Oscars. The issue of award-nominated films using AI was first raised in 2024 when the productions behind Best Picture nominees The Brutalist and Emilia Pérez admitted to using the tech to alter performances. "With regard to Generative Artificial Intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination, " AMPAS writes. "The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award." While the organization at least reaffirms that human involvement is their primary concern, they also don't seem to believe that using AI potentially trained on the ill-gotten work of their membership is an existential problem. Hollywood labor unions have historically felt differently: One of several issues raised during the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes in 2023 was that AI could be used to replace the work of real people. The Brutalist and Emilia Pérez used it to modify vocal performances, but you don't have to connect too many dots to see generative AI playing an even more substantial role in the future. The Academy is more flexible than it's been in years, expanding membership, adding new award categories and alongside this AI statement, improving awards voting for the better. But it still seems like most industries are waiting for a decisive legal victory against an AI company to set a new standard before they change their tune towards the tech.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/tv-movies/using-generative-ai-will-neither-help-nor-harm-the-chances-of-achieving-oscar-nominations-201719890.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
The American Civil Liberties Union is suing to find out exactly what information the so-called Department of Government Efficiency has accessed from federal agencies. The civil rights organization submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to several goverment departments in February; it is now suing to get responses from the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The SSA denied the group's request for expedited processing and has not responded to the ACLU's appeal, while the VA did not act on the FOIA request, according to the press release announcing the lawsuit. The ACLU requested any records that would show whether DOGE members have accessed databases that contain personally identifying information about citizens. The request also seeks information about whether AI is being used to analyze government data. "The federal government cannot dodge accountability by ignoring our lawful demands for transparency," said Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project within the ACLU. "The American people have an urgent need to know if their private financial, medical and personal records are being illegally accessed, analyzed or weaponized by Trump's unaccountable team of unvetted outsiders. This is doubly true for our seniors and veterans, who are at particular risk if their data has been accessed illegally." DOGE, a group headed by Elon Musk, has been leading the move to cut jobs across federal agencies, including those that oversee Musk's business endeavors. Although there have been other lawsuits trying to prevent people who are not civil servants from accessing sensitive government data, other reports claim DOGE members have been trying to circumvent court orders that limit their reach.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/aclu-sues-two-federal-agencies-for-transparency-around-doge-activity-195916390.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
The Federal Trade Commission has decided to take formal action against ride-hailing service Uber over what it describes as "deceptive billing and cancellation practices." The FTC's lawsuit, filed on Monday, specifically takes issue with the Uber One service, which lets subscribers earn cash back on rides, get free deliveries and avoid cancellation fees. According to the FTC, Uber made it easy for subscribers to join Uber One, but much harder to cancel. "Users can be forced to navigate as many as 23 screens and take as many as 32 actions to cancel," the commission claims. The company also reportedly charged some users before their bill their free trial was up, and misrepresented the savings Uber One offered by not taking its subscription fee into account. The lawsuit says that Uber's actions violated the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act, which "requires online retailers to clearly disclose the terms of the service they are selling, obtain consumers' consent before charging them for a service and provide a simple way to cancel a recurring subscription." Uber intends to fight the lawsuit and believes that the FTC has misrepresented the facts in some key ways. The company says that it "does not sign up or charge consumers without their consent" and that subscription cancellations can happen in-app, at any point. Uber does acknowledge that subscriptions previously had to be cancelled 48 hours before a charge through the company's support team, but that's apparently no longer the case. Despite the best efforts of tech executives, the Trump administration has maintained a level of animosity towards tech companies. New FTC chair Andrew Ferguson suggested that censorship would be a major concern for the FTC under President Donald Trump, but the commission is still moving forward with an antitrust case against Meta, for example. The possibility for the (technically) independent organization to be wielded as a weapon by Trump feels a lot more likely without any Democrat members.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/ftc-sues-uber-over-claims-the-company-makes-subscriptions-hard-to-cancel-191552906.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
We know Cassian Andor is doomed. 2016's Rogue One makes clear he will meet an untimely death in a massive explosion. That sense of inevitable destruction lingered in the background of the first season of Andor, the prequel series that follows his journey from a low-rent criminal to a rebel spy. But his fate is even more crushing in Andor's second (and final) season, where the cost of fighting against the seemingly all-powerful Empire chips away at his soul. "Rebellions are built on hope," was an iconic line from Rogue One, first uttered by Andor and then repeated triumphantly by that film's lead, Jyn Erso. In the streaming series' second season, we see how that idea is formed and inspires many people. Rebellions aren't just about massive space battles, and Death Star trench runs. They don't rely on an untrained kid hopping into a spaceship and scoring a major victory thanks to the Force and destiny. Rebellions start with small decisions by normal people, and through collective action they evolve into something powerful enough to take down empires. Read into that what you will. Lucasfilm Ltdâ„ Andor always seemed like an odd series for Disney, which spent the last decade milking the Star Wars franchise for all it's worth. Created by Tony Gilroy, the Bourne Identity screenwriter who reportedly swooped in to save Rogue One at the last minute, Andor has no lightsabers and minimal references to the Force. While it's filling in the gaps for a storyline that leads to A New Hope, the series also feels refreshingly free of the stifling mythology that has plagued shows like The Mandalorian and Ahsoka (and Boba Fett, and Obi-Wan Kenobi). Andor takes its time, building up its characters and laying out complex ideas, instead of rushing between action set pieces. It's Star Wars for grownups, something I never thought we'd see for a franchise so devoted to kids. In season one, we're introduced to Andor as he's searching for his sister, who disappeared years ago. After being targeted by two local police officers, he ends up killing them both and is forced to hide out in his home planet of Ferrix. There he meets up with his friend Bix (Adria Arjona), who is working for Luthen Rael, a mysterious man who has devoted his life to taking down the Empire. It doesn't take long before Luthen sees potential in Andor, and begins to court him for his rebel cause. Lucasfilm Ltdâ„ Minor spoilers ahead for Andor season two. Taking place over the course of a few years (and counting down to the Battle of Yavin, where the Death Star was destroyed in A New Hope), season two follows Andor and Bix as they delve further into the rebellion. Bix is still recovering from the events of the first season, where she was imprisoned and tortured. And Andor splits his time caring for Bix and going on spy missions to help rebels on other planets. I won't say too much about what happens in the season specifically, but in general it builds on everything that made Gilroy's first stab such a refreshing Star Wars entry. We see how the heartless machinations of the Empire affect real people, and how it can push entire populations to fight against tyranny. Small moments, like a hotel bellhop revealing his true thoughts about the Empire to Andor, can lead to more profound acts of rebellion. Lucasfilm Ltdâ„ Star Wars has always been about the battle between good and evil. But Andor breaks down what that means for ordinary people, not hyper-powerful space wizards with laser swords. An average citizen could be killed on the spot if they decide to speak up against the Empire. Or, with self-preservation in mind, they could keep their heads down or even volunteer to be a cog in the fascist machine. Not everyone can be Han Solo (though Andor himself is a bit close). But when living under an authoritarian regime, there comes a time for everyone to draw a line. Resist, or lose your soul. Andor also spends plenty of time on Senator Mon Mothma (Genevieve O'Reilly) before she eventually becomes the leader of the Rebel Alliance. We see her dealing with the difficulty of funding Luthen's rebel activities, especially as they lead to explosive outcomes. But after the Empire massacres thousands of civilians on the planet Ghorman, an event thats been referenced in recent Star Wars books, Mothma and other rebel leaders conclude that violent rebellion is the only way to fight back against the fascist Empire. Lucasfilm Ltdâ„ "The Empire has been choking us so slowly, we're starting not to notice. The time has come to force their hand," Luthen tells Senator Mothma in Andor's first season. When she notes that people will suffer, he replies "That's the plan. You're not angry at me. I'm just saying out loud what you already know. There will be no rules going forward. If you're notwilling to risk your conscience, then surrender and be done with it." Even though this is Andor's final season, I have a feeling this series will live on in viewer's minds far longer than whatever the hell happened in The Book of Boba Fett. It forces you to think about how the Empire directly affects everyone, from civilians on remote planets to the bureaucratic stooges devoting their lives to fascism. In many ways, it's practically a blueprint for rebellion. And not to put too much on a Disney TV show, but that feels like something we could use right now.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/tv-movies/andor-season-2-review-a-star-wars-miracle-an-ode-to-rebellion-190057159.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
Sites : [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] next »