ArduinoMania

If you're a Pokémon fan and want to boost your Nintendo Switch game collection, Best Buy has just launched an interesting sale. It cut the price of recent titles including Pokémon Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl, Pokémon Sword Edition and Pokémon Snap to $40, saving you $20 off the regular price. Even better, you can find the Pokemon: Let's Go Pikachu and Let's Go Eevee titles for half off. 

Pokémon Brilliant Diamond ($40) and Shining Pearl ($40) are remakes of the original 2006 DS games with much improved visuals thanks to the Switch's hardware capabilities. They launched less than a year ago, so it's rare to see them with up with a one-third off discount. Pokémon Snap ($40), meanwhile, is a sequel to the 1999 Nintendo 64 classic. It came out early last year, and again, gives you the same wildly original concept (take the best photos from a train to gain points), with much improved Switch visuals. 

The other two titles with $20 discounts are Pokémon Shield Edition ($40) and Pokémon Sword ($40), released in 2019. While the games faced a backlash for not including all pre-existing Pokémon, they've gone on to sell nearly 25 million copies world-wide, becoming one of the fastest selling games on Switch. That popularity makes it hard to find them on sale, so a $20 discount is welcome news.

Finally, there's Pokémon: Let's Go Eevee! ($30) and Let's Go, Pikachu! ($30). Both those launched in 2018, ostensibly as remakes to Pokémon Yellow. At the same time, they bridge the gap between the core series and popular Pokémon Go mobile game, by turning the experience of catching Pokémon into a Go-style minigame. Half off is a very solid deal for these games, but it's not likely to last long. 

Follow @EngadgetDeals on Twitter for the latest tech deals and buying advice.

• Read more about Highly Accurate Three-In-One Soil Sensor for Data-Driven Sustainable Agriculture
• Log in or register to post comments

• Read more about Tata Electronics Expresses Interests to Enter into Packaging of Semiconductor Components
• Log in or register to post comments

• Read more about Three-Axis MEMS Accelerometer Provides Ultralow Power for Healthcare and Industrial Applications
• Log in or register to post comments

Due to the ongoing chip shortage, BMW is temporarily shipping some vehicles without support for Android Auto or Apple CarPlay, according to report from Automotive News Europe (which we found through 9to5 Google). According to a statement the company gave to Automotive News Europe, BMW has changed suppliers and begun using a chip that does not fully support Android Auto or CarPlay. As a result, the company continued in its statement, affected vehicles will receive an over-the-air software update by "the end of June at the latest."

As 9to5Google notes, you can check if your recently purchased vehicle is affected by checking for "6P1" in the car's production code. It also seems that all of the vehicles in question were manufactured in the first four months of 2022, and have final destinations in the US, France, Italy, Spain and the UK.

This is not the first time that BMW has delivered cars missing certain non-essential features in order to avoid shipping delays. Last fall, the company omitted touchscreen features from some vehicles, also due to the global chip shortage. And BMW is hardly the only automaker to take this tack either. Last fall, around the same time BMW was grappling with the touchscreen issue, Tesla decided to ship some cars without USB ports. Then, earlier this year, Ford, shipped some Explorer SUVs without rear climate controls. 

In the case of BMW's missing Android Auto and CarPlay support, it could be worse. As Automotive News Europe notes, when Mercedes-Benz was faced with a similar dilemma, it chose not to include the requisite chips in some vehicles, at which point customers would be forced to bring their cars into a ship to have them installed later.

Tesla has sued a former employee who it is accusing of stealing trade secrets related to its supercomputer project, Bloomberg reported on Friday. According to a filing in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, thermal engineer Alexander Yatskov quit on May 2 after having joined the company only a few months earlier, in January. According to Tesla, Yatskov admitted to transferring confidential information to his personal devices and later handing over a "dummy" laptop after company officials confronted him on suspicion of theft.

In addition to breaching a non-disclosure agreement intended to protect trade secrets, Bloomberg reports that Tesla is also accusing Yatskov of misrepresenting his experience and skills on his resume. Bloomberg also says that Yatskov declined to comment. 

“This is a case about illicit retention of trade secrets by an employee who, in his short time at Tesla, already demonstrated a track record of lying and then lying again by providing a ‘dummy’ device to try and cover his tracks,” Tesla wrote in the filing, reports Bloomberg.

CEO Elon Musk has been teasing Tesla's supercomputer project, called "Dojo," since at least 2019. Last summer, the company finally explained the project in more detail, laying out a goal of using AI to analyze massive amounts of vehicle data, ideally resulting in a safer, more refined autonomous driving experience. The computer, which offers 1.8 exaflops of performance and 10 petabytes of NVME storage running at 1.6 terabytes per second, trains itself using video from eight cameras inside Tesla vehicles running at 36 frames per second. 

Tesla claimed last year that although this approach generates a tremendous amount of data, it is still more scalable than building high-definition maps around the world. At the time, Tesla indicated that the system was most successful in sparsely populated areas where cars could mostly drive uninterrupted. Even so, the company also touted some early successes in denser areas, including Dojo's ability to learn new types of traffic warnings, pedestrian collision detection and pedal misapplications (accidentally hitting the gas instead of the brakes). 

Xbox users hoping to enjoy some solid playtime over the weekend were stymied on Saturday, following an outage that lasted about nine hours. Microsoft issued a tweet around 4pm ET on Saturday, acknowledging that some users were unable to purchase and launch games or join Cloud Gaming sessions. The service Downdetector also logged a spike in error reports around that time.

Players could have switched to physical discs (if they owned a console that even had a disc slot) or, in theory, they could have played offline. But, as The Verge reports, even offline play wasn't working for some users.

Microsoft posted an update around 1am ET on Sunday, saying users should no longer be experiencing those issues, though Downdetector notes a trickle of new complaints that has continued into Sunday morning. 

Adding to players' frustrations, this was in fact the second Xbox Network outage so far this weekend. Xbox suffered a similar outage that began late Friday afternoon and extended into Saturday morning, with Microsoft then, too, warning of problems with launching and buying games, and starting Cloud Gaming sessions. In addition, Microsoft admitted, some users were also struggling during the earlier outage accessing streaming apps such as Netflix and Disney+. 

Microsoft only claimed to have fully resolved the Friday outage at 1pm on Saturday, about three hours before user complaints began to spike again. 

Today's technology landscape is dominated by a small cadre of massive corporations with the likes of Meta, Amazon and Google snapping up fledgling startups before they can grow into potential competitors, ignoring labor laws that don't suit their immediate needs, and generally operating like the dystopian corpro-villains Johnny Mnemonic warned us about. Traditionally, state regulation has acted as a gentle brake against American industries' more problematic tendencies, however the speed at which modern computing and communications technologies advance has overwhelmed the government's capacity to, well, govern them. 

In their new book, Access Rules: Freeing Data from Big Tech for a Better Future, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation at Oxford, and Thomas Ramge, author of Who's Afraid of AI?, argue passionately against the data-hoarding practices of today's biggest tech companies and call for a more open, equitable means of accessing the information that these companies have amassed. One such method, explored in the excerpt below, involves addressing Big Tech's monopoly power directly, as the Biden administration has in recent years, though the efforts have not been particularly effective. 

UC Press

Excerpted from Access Rules: Freeing Data from Big Tech for a Better Future by Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Thomas Ramge, published by the University of California Press. © 2022 by Thomas Ramge and Viktor Mayer-Schönberger.

Early into his term, President Biden appointed Tim Wu, who had argued in favor of breaking up Facebook and written popular books on the dangers of Big Tech market concentration, to the National Economic Council as a special assistant to the president for technology and competition policy. Putting one of the most outspoken advocates of Big Tech trustbusting into a top advisory role is a powerful signal the Biden administration is taking a far more confrontational course.

Wu isn’t alone. His appointment was followed by the choice of Lina Khan for chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Khan’s youth — she was in her early 30s when nominated — belies her intellectual power and political credentials. A professor at Columbia Law School like Wu, Khan had authored influential papers on the need to fight Big Tech’s unchecked power. And she had explained why existing antitrust law was ill equipped to deal with Silicon Valley platform providers. But Khan isn’t just a Big Tech critic; she also offered a radical solution: regulate Big Tech companies as utilities, much like electricity providers or the venerable AT&T before telecom deregulation. With Khan at the FTC and Wu as advisor having the ear of the president, Big Tech could be in serious trouble.

Not just antitrust experts serving in government like Tim Wu and Lina Khan fear that the monopolistic structure of American tech dominance could turn into its Achilles heel. Think tanks and advocacy groups on both left and right have been joining the critics. Disruptive entrepreneurs and venture capitalists such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel regard the well-rehearsed dance of Big Tech and venture capital with increasing skepticism, concerned that the intricate choreography is thwarting the next generation of disruptive founders and technologies. Taken together these voices are calling on and supporting regulators and legislators to prevent the most obvious cases of large companies removing potential competitors from the market by acquiring them—cases comparable to Facebook’s takeover of Instagram or Google’s acquisition of Waze. And they call on venture capitalists to take on the role for which Joseph Schumpeter originally conceived this class of investment capital, the role that the venture capitalists on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park fulfilled up to the first decade of this century: financially support the bringing to market of new, radically better ideas and then enable them to be scaled up.

The antitrust tide is rising in the United States. And yet it’s questionable that well-intentioned activist regulators bolstered by broad public support will succeed. The challenge is a combination of the structural and the political. As Lina Khan herself argued, existing antitrust laws are less than useful. Big Tech may not have violated them sufficiently to warrant breaking them up. And other powerful measures, such as declaring them utilities, require legislative action. Given the delicate power balance in Congress and hyper-partisan politics, it’s likely that such bold legislative proposals would not get enough votes to become enacted. The political factions may agree on the problem, but they are far apart on the solution. The left wants an effective remedy, while the right insists on the importance of market forces and worries about antitrust action micromanaging economic activity. That leaves a fairly narrow corridor of acceptable incremental legislative steps, such as “post-acquisition lockups.” This may be politically palatable, but insufficient to achieve real and sustained success.

The truth is that the current game based on exit strategies works only too well for everyone involved, at least in the short term. The monopolists continue to increase their rents. Entrepreneurs get rich quickly. Venture capitalists reduce risk by optimizing their investments for exiting through a sale. And government? It too earns money on every “Goliath buying David” transaction. Preventing such transactions causes annoyance for everyone involved. Any politician mounting a serious attack on Big Tech USA exposes themselves to the charge of endangering the great successes of American technology companies on global markets—a charge few politicians could fend off.

Despite renewed resolve by the Biden administration to get serious against Big Tech overreach, substantial change still seems elusive in the United States. In contrast, European antitrust authorities have been far more active. The billion-dollar fines lobbed at US Big Tech by Commissioner Vestager’s team surely sound impressive. But, as we mentioned, most of them were reduced on appeal to an amount that the superstar companies with huge cash reserves and skyrocketing profits could easily afford. The European Parliament may not suffer from hyper-partisanship and be willing to strengthen antitrust rules, but their effectiveness is limited by the very fact that almost all Big Tech is not European. At best, Europeans might prevent US Big Tech from buying up innovative European start-ups; the necessary laws for this are increasingly being enacted. But that will do little to break Big Tech’s information power.

The challenge faced by European regulators is shared by regulators around the globe, from the Asian Tigers to the Global South: how can national regulators effectively counter the information might amassed by Silicon Valley superstars? Sure, one could prohibit US Big Tech from operating. But that would deprive the local economy of valuable services. For most nations, such binary disengagement is not an option. And for nations that to an extent can and have disengaged, such as China, their homegrown Big Tech companies confront them with similar problems. The huge fines levied on Alibaba in 2021 surely are surprising for outside observers, but they, too, are targeting symptoms, not the root cause of Big Tech’s power.

Sooner or later, regulators and legislators will have to confront the real problem of reining in Big Tech: whether we look at Draconian measures like breakups or incremental ones like fines and acquisition lockups, these target the symptoms of Big Tech’s information power, but do little to undo the structural advantages the digital superstars possess. It’s little more than cutting a head off Hydra, only to see a new one grow.

To tackle the structural advantage, we have to remember Schumpeter. Schumpeter’s nightmare was that the capacity for innovation would become concentrated within a few large companies. This would lead to a downward spiral of innovation, as major players have less incentive to be disruptive and far more reason to enjoy market power. Contrary to Schumpeter’s fear, this concentration process didn’t occur after World War II, mainly because entrepreneurs had access to abundant capital and could thrive on disruptive ideas. They stood a real chance against the large incumbents of their time, a role more than a few of them took on themselves. But money is no longer the scarce resource limiting innovation. What’s scarce today is access to data. More precisely, such a scarcity is being artificially created.

In the data economy, we’re observing a concentration dynamic driven by narrowing access to the key resource for innovation and accelerated by AI. The dynamic therefore turns on access to data as a raw material. Economic policy to counteract market concentration and a weakening of competition must focus on this structural lever.

If we want to avert Schumpeter’s nightmare, preserve the competitiveness of our economy, and strengthen its capacity for innovation, we have to drastically widen access to data — for entrepreneurs and start-ups and for all players who can’t translate their ideas into innovations without data access. Today, they can only hope to enter the kill zone and be bought up by one of the digital giants. If data flows more freely through broader access, the incentive to use data and gain innovative insights from it increases. We’d turbocharge our economy’s capacity for innovation in a way not seen since the first wave of Internet companies. We would also learn more about the world, make better decisions, and distribute data dividends more broadly.

Michelob Ultra and ESPN have decided to use AI to answer an enduring question: what would happen if tennis legend John McEnroe played against himself? An upcoming ESPN+ special entitled "McEnroe vs. McEnroe" will feature the 63-year-old star, who retired from singles competition in 1992, playing against a complicated, AI-trained version of himself. 

According to TechCrunch, the process for the actual game is fairly involved. After the real McEnroe sends a ball over the net, the AI avatar responds to its direction and "swings" — at this point, a new ball is launched from a ball cannon, which is obscured by a smokescreen. The positioning of the ball cannon and smokescreen are designed to make the ball appear as if it's coming off the avatar's racket. The avatar itself is projected onto a hologram particle screen. This teaser below shows off a tantalizingly small amount of footage.

As for how this all came together, the real McEnroe spent a day with production company Unit 9, who used full-body motion capture and scans combined with Unreal Engine's MetaHuman Creator technology. Adweek says that the McEnroe avatar and its programming are based on five different points in McEnroe's career, including his debut in 1979, his ascent to the top of the sport in 1981, and his final year as a pro in 1992.

Besides the work with the real McEnroe, Unit 9 also analyzed hundreds of hours of footage from his career and recorded 308 different shots for the virtual avatar. Given that McEnroe is now 63, he'll be playing against a much younger version of himself — whether or not that means the AI will have the edge remains to be seen, of course. If this somewhat odd matchup has piqued your interest, TechCrunch says the special will air tonight, May 7th, on ESPN+ at 10PM ET. 

Among the biggest questions on people's mind since Elon Musk made his bid to buy Twitter is how the service might change under his ownership. We're still a long way off from the deal becoming official, but Musk nonetheless has had to pitch investors on his vision for the company to get the funding he needs. As it so happens, the New York Times has obtained a copy of a pitch deck for investors, which gives us an idea of the preposterously grand vision that Musk has for the company. Here are a few highlights.

For starters, Musk wants to grow Twitter's monthly users from the 217 million it had at the end of 2021 to nearly 600 million in 2025 and 931 million users by 2028. That's more than quadrupling its monthly users in the next six years. Musk also wants to have 104 million paid subscribers for a service only referred to as "X." There weren't any details on what sort of product X would be, but Musk has cryptically hinted at an ad-free paid Twitter experience. 

Speaking of paying for Twitter, Musk's pitch deck has a lot of details on some ambitious revenue goals, as well. He believes that Twitter can quintuple its annual revenue to $26.4 billion by 2028, up from the approximately $5 billion the company made last year. And Musk wants to significantly diversify how Twitter makes money, as well. Right now, advertising makes up about 90 percent of Twitter's revenue; Musk wants to cut that to about 45 percent by 2028. His forecast would include $12 billion in advertising revenue and $10 billion in subscription revenue. 

To meet those lofty goals, Twitter would obviously need a lot more paid users. Musk forecasted 69 million Twitter Blue users by 2025 and 159 million by 2028. Twitter Blue is a $3 per month service that launched in the US this past November and offers perks like ad-free news articles, the ability to undo sending a tweet and a few other small niceties. Between the mysterious product X and Twitter Blue, Musk is clearly putting a lot of importance on getting users to opt into some sort of paid Twitter experience.

Finally, Musk sees Twitter making some moves in the payment space as well. He wants the company to bring in a modest $15 million in revenue from a payments business in 2023, with that number growing to around $1.3 billion by 2028. Currently, Twitter offers very limited shopping and tipping features that the NYT says make no notable impact on the company's bottom line. 

The NYT didn't have any details on how Musk expects to meet these lofty goals — only that he expects big things from Twitter once his takeover is complete. Quadrupling users and quintupling revenue is an extremely tall order for a company like Twitter that's already well established. But Musk clearly didn't want to spend $44 billion on Twitter just to keep the status quo.