2026-06-25 21:47:00
In February, police in Claremore, Oklahoma arrested farmer Darren Blanchard for speaking a little too long during a community meeting about data centers. The city charged Blanchard with criminal trespass, a crime with a $200 penalty, but he’s vowed to fight the charge. He recently shared video of the bodycam footage for the first time with 404 Media and answered our questions about the moment cops arrested him for going over his time at a February 17 community meeting of the Claremore City Council.
The plan in February was for the City Council to listen to the concerns citizens had about a planned data center called Project Mustang. The residents of Claremore don’t want the data center and largely feel like the construction project was approved without their input. City officials signed non-disclosure agreements on behalf of the project’s developers and haven’t been forthcoming with details about its construction.
2026-06-24 23:00:43
Scientists have discovered new evidence that the cosmic structures connecting the universe are much larger than previously predicted—persisting over billions of light years—a finding that challenges a core tenet of cosmology and hints at the possibility of new physics, according to a study published on Wednesday in Nature.
The standard model of cosmology, a well-corroborated framework for understanding the universe that is also known as the Lambda cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model, predicts that the large-scale structure of space looks the same in all areas (homogeneity) and in all directions (isotropy). While there is variation in the distribution of matter on small scales, such as thousands or millions of light years, these distinctions should smooth out into a uniform pattern on the scale of the cosmic web, which is a network of large-scale structures made of dark matter, gas, and galaxies that stretches across the universe.
But in recent years, new observational data has started to hint that galaxies cluster in “preferred directions,” forming distinct structures known as “anisotropies” that are not uniform, even across vast distances. Now, a pair of physicists has discovered that these distinct directions and patterns persist even to the scale of a gigaparsec, which is a unit equal to 3.26 billion light years, possibly signalling “the need for a shift in modern cosmology,” according to their new study.
“The structures observed in the real Universe are significantly larger and more persistent than those formed in state-of-the-art simulations based on the standard model of cosmology,” said authors Francesco Sylos Labini of the Enrico Fermi Research Center in Rome, Italy, and Marco Galoppo of the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, in an email exchange with 404 Media.
“The key advance of our analysis is that it allows this difference to be quantified,” they added. “By measuring the spatial extent and coherence of the observed structures and comparing them directly with theoretical predictions, we found that the discrepancy is statistically highly significant. In other words, the largest structures in the real Universe appear to be substantially larger than expected in standard models of galaxy formation.”
According to existing models, the cosmic web emerged from small density fluctuations in the early universe and gradually developed into large-scale filaments and nodes made of dark matter that gravitationally attract gas, galaxies, and other forms of matter.
Last year, the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), a major astronomical survey based in Arizona, released the largest high-resolution 3D map of the universe, which has revolutionized cosmology and allowed scientists to test those theories against observational data.
Labini and Galoppo analyzed the DESI release with statistical tools, including the Angular Distribution of Pairwise Distances (ADPD), which is especially effective for detecting and characterizing large-scale anisotropies in DESI’s dataset.
“The idea was to try to really test whether the idea that isotropies reached very large scales is now supported by data,” said Galoppo in a follow-up call. “Even just five or ten years ago, we didn't really have the data to test on gigaparsec scales. But now, we had a chance, so we decided to take it.”
“What we are able to do is to characterize how large are the largest structures inside this sample” of DESI observations, added Labini in the call.
The results revealed that even in DESI’s super-zoomed-out observations, large-scale structures create preferred directions of galaxy distribution, as opposed to an overall isotropic pattern. This contrasts with expectations derived from the cosmic microwave background, the oldest light in the universe, which suggests that directional correlations should fade rapidly at large scales.
“In the standard model, it's not that there aren’t structures,” said Galoppo in the call. “It is just that they are supposed to be smaller and less persistent than what we found. That's the crux of the matter.”
To that end, DESI is expected to release a new batch of observations within a year, and similar datasets will also be forthcoming from Europe’s Euclid space telescope and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory in Chile in the near term. These new and improved views of the universe will help scientists grapple with just how vast these large-scale structures are, and what that means for our understanding of our cosmic surroundings.
“At present, there is no simple or widely accepted modification of the ΛCDM framework that naturally explains structures of this size while remaining consistent with the observed uniformity of the cosmic microwave background,” Labini and Galoppo wrote over email. “That is precisely why these observations are so interesting: they point to a potentially important gap between theory and observation that deserves further investigation.”
“If future surveys continue to find coherent directional structures on even larger scales, the implications for cosmology would be profound,” they concluded.
2026-06-24 22:39:21
Behind closed doors and without expert input, the Trump administration issued a major policy change to how census data is released. Data experts are concerned the result will be less reliable public data related to redistricting, natural disasters, the workforce, housing, and more.
On June 4, the Trump administration released an order, Disclosure Avoidance for Statistical Products, that forbids “any use of noise infusion” for statistical products. “Coarsening shall be the preferred category of Disclosure Avoidance methods for all statistical products,” the order states. “Suppression shall be permitted as a last resort, only to be used when coarsening is prohibited by law or would substantially defeat the accuracy or usability of a statistical product.”
In statistical terms, noise infusion is a common and accepted technique for privacy protection when working with data: it creates “fuzz” or random values within a dataset, making the published statistics slightly different from the actual, sensitive data. Coarsening is the process of grouping and rounding data, or reporting it in ranges instead of potentially identifiable specifics. Suppression is what it sounds like: redacting information, replacing it with asterisks, or not releasing the data entirely.
NPR’s Hansi Lo Wang first reported on the policy change and its implications. People who work with census data and statistical analysis are worried that limiting the ways the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) can release data will severely limit what information ends up available to the public.
Data coming out of small communities and industries, especially, could be heavily affected by the change. “Because ‘coarsening’ (grouping, rounding, reporting in ranges) and suppression are the only not-prohibited tools named in the order, it means that to keep information safe, the Census Bureau and BEA need to group small things (like small communities or small business types) into larger ones, or they need suppress the data completely,” Beth Jarosz, a senior fellow at Georgetown University's Massive Data Institute and vice president of the Association of Public Data Users, told me in an email. “Small industries may get rolled into bigger industry categories. Small counties may get rolled into county groups or not reported at all.”
On June 17, five groups — the Population Association of America, Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, Association of Public Data Users, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, and Association of Population Centers — released a joint statement condemning the order. “This order subverts processes developed over decades to foster transparency and public trust and creates a scenario in which there will either be less privacy for our personal information, or less usable data, or both,” the statement says.
The Director of Science Policy for the American Statistics Association Steve Pierson wrote that the order “handcuffs the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis in terms of the techniques they can use for protecting the privacy of respondents.”
John Abowd, the former Associate Director for Research and Methodology and Chief Scientist at the Census Bureau, posted a list of data products on Linkedin that this order would affect. These include the OnTheMap for Emergency Management system, a public data tool that provides real-time U.S. population and workforce statistics for areas being affected by natural disasters; Quarterly Workforce Indicators which include data about employment, job creation and destruction, wages, hires, and more; business formation and dynamics statistics; veteran employment statistics; data related to post-secondary educational outcomes, and many more. Many of these use noise infusion, which Trump’s order just banned.
There’s also confusion about how this order will even be enacted in practice. “Regarding the datasets that used noise infusion, it is unclear how this policy will impact public access,” Lynda Kellam, who leads the Research Data and Digital Scholarship team at the University of Pennsylvania Libraries and is a founding organizer of the Data Rescue Project, wrote following the order. “The policy is intended to be retroactive, raising concerns that data might be removed, but how that will play out is uncertain.”
In the immediate fallout, at least, we’re already losing some public information. As Wang from NPR pointed out on Bluesky last week, multiple webpages related to noise infusion and differential privacy on the Census Bureau's website were removed following the order. Most of those pages have since been restored. At the Data Rescue Project, a team led by Lena Bohman has been proactively collecting and archiving Census Bureau working papers and making them available to the public.
Jaroz said that along with the risk of unreliable or missing data, the abandonment of long-agreed-upon privacy protection methods can damage public trust in Census data. “When the Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis gather data, they promise respondents that they will keep responses confidential. When a person responded to the American Community Survey or a business owner provided information about their employees or sales, they expected that the Census Bureau and BEA would protect that information. By taking away tools that those agencies use to protect privacy and confidentiality, people may question whether or not Census and BEA can live up to that promise,” she said. “Similarly, the Census Bureau and BEA are producing information for public benefit. People respond, for example, to the American Community Survey (at least in part) because it will benefit their community. If the new rule results in cutting back how the data can be published and used, it also weakens trust and it is worth responding.”
As Wang noted, America First Legal, a law group co-founded by Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller, attempted to force the release of new 2020 Census data in a lawsuit last year, by challenging the Census Bureau's differential privacy system. Judges ruled it was too late to sue, but they refiled the case in February.
As NPR also reported last year, Trump and Republicans in Congress have been pushing to exclude people living in the U.S. without legal status in the 2030 Census. “People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in August 2025. This would be a radical change in how the Census has been conducted for more than 200 years. Redistricting and gerrymandering have been a massive fight for the Trump administration for years, and has ramped up ahead of the 2026 midterms, as the Supreme Court recently weakened the Voting Rights Act and allowed for more redistricting that would favor Republican control of the House.
The data policy change is also happening in light of the Trump administration’s gutting of Census practice test locations in the South. In February, the Associated Press reported that the administration is eliminating four out of the six locations that were slated to test new methods for the 2030 census. “The Census Bureau would be essentially flying blind into communities that need testing most — tribal lands, rural areas with limited connectivity and places with historically low response rates,” Mark Mather, an associate vice president at the Population Reference Bureau, told the AP. “You can’t fix what you don’t test.”
2026-06-24 21:34:14
I am staring at a painted portrait of King Charles, who is wearing a red suit. The comically oversized and heavy Snap Specs I am wearing have basically created a digital version of the real painting and overlaid it over the real thing. A narrator speaking through the glasses asks me to reach out and touch a butterfly perched on his right shoulder. Through the glasses, I see a digital version of my hand reach out. The butterfly takes off and floats toward my ghostly hand. It lands on my fake fingers, and clips through them. Imagine yourself as royalty, a narrator in the Snap Specs says to me. King Charles’ face morphs into a version of my own, though it’s been run through an AI filter to look thinner, smoother, yet somehow older.
I walk to the next painting and stand on the black dot I’ve been told to stand on. The painting looks like a blank-ish canvas. I am positive I am about to see the same magic trick I’ve seen several times in the last few minutes; my face is going to be “painted” on the canvas the way it has been on several other portraits. The narrator starts talking to me. His voice is much fainter. He starts talking, and I look slightly away from the painting. The experience stops. I get a staffer to help me reset the glasses. I look back at the painting. The narrator begins talking. I slightly turn my head. The experience stops. I look at the painting again. It starts over. I remember that a staffer had told me not to look away from the paintings or the experience would stop. I do not move my head this time. Another AI version of my face appears on the canvas. I walk away, and do not feel as though I have just tried transcendent futuristic technology.
Snap let people try the glasses at “Spectacular, The Art of Jonathan Yeo in Augmented Reality,” a museum takeover at the Cannes Lions advertising festival in France, where nearly every big tech brand was pitching its platform’s advertising capabilities, and where I am working on a few stories for 404 Media. I don’t write about gadgets all that often, but with the Snap Specs getting lots of mostly negative attention and with investors actively begging CEO Evan Spiegel to not make them, I figured that, given the opportunity, I would put them on my face. Snap’s experience was tightly curated (the glasses don’t come out for four months), and was basically an audio/video tour of a few paintings of celebrities.
The flagship augmented reality experience for Snap’s new, widely clowned-upon glasses is essentially the same thing that brands have been doing at museums for 15 years now. Rather than use your phone to make art pop off the wall, it uses the $2,195 glasses that weigh “just 132 grams,” a Snap press release says (most regular glasses weigh between 25-50 grams) to make paintings of celebrities blink at you. At the beginning of the experience, my face was scanned on an iPad and then was presumably run through various AI filters to let me replace celebrity faces with my own. A portrait of Jony Ive in which he is holding an iPhone put my face on that iPhone, for example. A portrait of David Attenborough allowed me to “look into the past” and “look into the future” by running my face through different age filters; the result was an AI-ified version of me with a tiny head and a goatee as a child, wearing an enormous hat, and an older version of myself that I could flick back and forth to with my hand.
This was the type of brand experience I’ve done a million times at different conferences and it was so surface level as to be barely notable, but the glasses are indeed very heavy. They didn’t hurt to wear on my big head for 10 minutes, but I couldn’t imagine wearing them much longer than that. The visuals didn’t make me dizzy or nauseous like some virtual reality glasses have, but the visuals and audio also weren’t that great, and the glasses are augmented reality rather than fully engrossed virtual reality. There were clipping issues and, again, the experience stopped if I even slightly turned my head away from a painting—it is hard to imagine these things working well in real life. I have tried other VR and AR demos. So many are like this. They all have problems even in highly controlled environments and barely do anything more than your phone can do, with the added bonus of being incredibly expensive, uncomfortable, and branding you as an asshole. It was hard to imagine trying these and not dunking on them and, indeed, what I thought would happen did come to pass.
This is to say nothing of the privacy concerns associated with shoving AI into a camera and pair of comically large display glasses. We have written repeatedly about these dangers and they are not worth delving back into in a Snap-specific context, because these glasses are so big, heavy, dorky, and expensive that it is impossible to fantasize a world in which anyone wears them.
2026-06-24 21:03:21
We start this week with Matthew’s story about a fascinating paper that argues if LLMs are sentient, then by those metrics so is the classic game Age of Empires II. After the break, Matthew tells us about a wild story out of Texas with a data center being built on land that was donated to be a park. In the subscribers-only section, we talk hacking and basketball.
Listen to the weekly podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube. Become a paid subscriber for access to this episode's bonus content and to power our journalism. If you become a paid subscriber, check your inbox for an email from our podcast host Transistor for a link to the subscribers-only version! You can also add that subscribers feed to your podcast app of choice and never miss an episode that way. The email should also contain the subscribers-only unlisted YouTube link for the extended video version too. It will also be in the show notes in your podcast player.
2026-06-24 21:00:25
The hackers that stole a large cache of data from Madison Square Garden called a low level employee and tricked them into letting the hackers into MSG’s systems, according to the hackers and 404 Media’s review of the stolen data.
The breach highlights the risk of social engineering over voice calls, sometimes called ‘vishing’. Whereas phishing, where hackers social engineer someone over email or send them a fake login page, has been common for decades, vishing has only become prevalent more recently, especially as young and native English speaking hackers have become a serious cybersecurity threat.