memoment editorial

1 HUMAN HAND AND ROBOT HAND

Ohio lawmaker proposes comprehensive ban on marrying AI systems and granting legal personhood

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
An Ohio lawmaker is taking aim at artificial intelligence in a way few expected. Rep. Thaddeus Claggett has introduced House Bill 469, which would make it illegal for AI systems to be treated like people. The proposal would officially label them as “nonsentient entities,” cutting off any path toward legal personhood.And yes, it also includes a ban on marrying AI.Claggett, a Republican from Licking County and chair of the House Technology and Innovation Committee, said the measure is meant to keep humans firmly in control of machines. He says that as AI systems begin to act more like humans, the law must draw a clear line between person and program.TEENS TURNING TO AI FOR LOVE AND COMFORTSign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter What Ohio’s AI marriage ban would doUnder the proposed legislation, AI systems would not be able to own property, manage bank accounts or serve as company executives. They would not have the same rights or responsibilities as people. The bill also makes any marriage between a human and an AI, or between two AI systems, legally impossible. Ohio lawmakers consider a bill to ban AI from being recognized as a person. (Cyberguy.com)Claggett believes the concern is not about robot weddings happening anytime soon. Instead, he wants to prevent AI from taking on the legal powers of a spouse, such as holding power of attorney or making financial and medical decisions for someone else.The bill also specifies that if an AI causes harm, the human owners or developers would be responsible. That means a person cannot blame their chatbot or automated system for mistakes or damage. Responsibility stays with the humans who built, trained or used the system.Why Ohio is taking action on AI personhoodThe timing of the bill is not random. AI is spreading fast across nearly every industry. Systems now write reports, generate artwork and analyze complex data at lightning speed. Ohio has even started requiring schools to create rules for AI use in classrooms. And major data centers are being built to power AI infrastructure in the state.At the same time, AI is becoming more personal. A survey by Florida-based marketing firm Fractl found that 22 percent of users said they had formed emotional connections with a chatbot. Three percent even considered one a romantic partner. Another 16 percent said they wondered whether the AI they were talking to was sentient.That kind of emotional attachment raises red flags for lawmakers. If people start believing AI has feelings or intent, it blurs the boundaries between human experience and digital simulation. Ohio lawmakers consider a bill to ban AI from being recognized as a person. (iStock)AI COMPANIONS REPLACE REAL FRIENDS FOR MANY TEENSThe bigger picture: Keeping humans in controlClaggett said the bill is about protecting human agency. He believes that as AI grows smarter and more capable, it must never replace the human decision-maker. Claggett told CyberGuy, “We see AI as having tremendous potential as a tool, but also tremendous potential to cause harm. We want to prevent that by establishing guardrails and a legal framework before these developments can outpace regulation and bad actors start exploiting legal loopholes. We want the human to be liable for any misconduct, and for there to be no question regarding the legal status of AI, no matter how sophisticated, in Ohio law.”The proposed law would also reinforce that AI cannot make choices that affect human lives without oversight.If passed, it would ensure that no machine can act independently in matters of marriage, property, or corporate leadership. Supporters see the bill as a safeguard for society, arguing that technology should never gain the same legal footing as people.Critics, however, say the proposal might be a solution to a problem that doesn’t yet exist. They warn that overly broad restrictions could slow down AI research and innovation in Ohio.Still, even skeptics admit that the conversation is necessary. AI is evolving faster than most laws can keep up, and questions about rights, ownership and accountability are becoming harder to ignore.What other states are doing about AI personhoodOhio isn’t alone in pushing back against AI personhood. In Utah, lawmakers passed H.B. 249, the Utah Legal Personhood Amendments, which prohibits courts and government entities from recognizing legal personhood for nonhuman entities, including AI. The law also bars recognizing personhood for entities such as bodies of water, land and plants.In Missouri, legislators introduced H.B. 1462, the “AI Non-Sentience and Responsibility Act,” which would formally declare AI systems non-sentient and prevent them from acquiring legal status, marriage rights, corporate roles or property ownership.AI-GENERATED ATTORNEY OUTRAGES JUDGE WHO SCOLDS MAN OVER COURTROOM FAKE: ‘NOT A REAL PERSON’In Idaho, H.B. 720 (2022) includes language that reserves legal rights and personhood for human beings, effectively barring personhood claims by nonhumans, including AI.These measures reflect a broader trend among state governments. Many legislators are trying to get ahead of AI’s development by setting clear legal boundaries before the technology becomes more advanced.Taken together, these proposals show that Ohio’s effort is part of a larger national movement to define where technology ends and legal personhood begins. House Bill 469 aims to keep humans in control as AI becomes more lifelike. (XPENG)What this means for youIf you live in Ohio, House Bill 469 could influence how you use and interact with artificial intelligence. It sets clear boundaries that keep AI as a tool rather than a person. By keeping decision-making and responsibility in human hands, the law aims to avoid confusion about who is accountable when technology fails. If an AI system causes harm or makes an error, the responsibility stays with the humans who designed or deployed it.For Ohio businesses, this proposal could lead to real changes in daily operations. Companies that depend on AI to handle customer support, financial decisions, or creative projects may need to review how much authority those systems have. It may also require stricter policies to ensure that a human is always supervising important decisions involving money, health, or law. Lawmakers want to keep people firmly in charge of choices that affect others.For everyday users, the message is straightforward. AI can be useful, but it cannot replace human relationships or legal rights. This bill reinforces that no matter how human-like technology appears, it cannot form genuine emotional or legal bonds with people. Conversations with chatbots might feel personal, but they remain simulations created through data and programming.DETAILS OF TRUMP’S HIGHLY ANTICIPATED AI PLAN REVEALED BY WHITE HOUSE AHEAD OF MAJOR SPEECHFor people outside Ohio, this proposal could point to what is coming next. Other states are closely watching how the bill develops, and some may adopt similar laws. If it passes, it could set a national example for defining the legal limits of artificial intelligence. What happens in Ohio may shape how courts, businesses and individuals across the country decide to manage their connection to AI in the years ahead.In the end, this debate is not limited to one state. It raises an important question about how society should balance the power of innovation with the need to protect human control.Take my quiz: How safe is your online security?Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: Cyberguy.com Kurt’s key takeawaysOhio’s House Bill 469 is bold, controversial and timely. It challenges us to define the limits of what technology should be allowed to do. Claggett’s proposal is not about stopping innovation. It’s about ensuring that as machines become more capable, humans remain in charge of the choices that shape society. The debate is far from over. Some see this as a necessary safeguard, while others believe it underestimates what AI can contribute. But one thing is certain: Ohio has thrown a spotlight on one of the biggest questions of our time.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPHow far should the law go in deciding what AI can never be? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.comSign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletterCopyright 2025 CyberGuy.com.  All rights reserved.  

Ohio lawmaker proposes comprehensive ban on marrying AI systems and granting legal personhood Read More »

elderly man voting

Scammers target retirees with election tricks and fake polling updates ahead of Nov 4 vote

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Election season should be about casting your vote and making your voice heard. But for scammers, it’s an opportunity to trick retirees into handing over personal details, money or even their vote itself.What many don’t realize is that public voter registration data is one of the biggest tools fraudsters use. With elections coming up on Nov. 4, scammers are already scraping these records and using them to create targeted scams. If you’re a retiree or helping a parent or loved one prepare to vote, here’s how to stay safe.Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter Why voter records are public and riskyHOW SCAMMERS TARGET YOU EVEN WITHOUT SOCIAL MEDIAEvery state in the U.S. keeps voter registration lists. These include personal details like:Full nameHome addressPhone number (in some states)Political party affiliationVoting history (whether you voted, not who you voted for). Scammers are targeting retirees with fake election messages and calls. (Getty Images)While these lists are meant for transparency, they’re often made available online or sold in bulk. Data brokers scoop them up, combine them with other records and suddenly scammers have a detailed profile of you: your age, address, and voting habits. For retirees, this exposure is especially dangerous. Why? Because seniors are less likely to know that this information is floating around, making scams seem more convincing.You can easily check where your personal information is exposed with a free data exposure scanner. Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web: Cyberguy.comScams targeting retirees before Nov. 4Here are the most common election-season cons fraudsters are already running:1) Fake “polling place” updatesYou might get a call, text or email saying your polling location has changed. Scammers may then direct you to a fake site that asks for your Social Security number or ID details “to confirm eligibility.”2) “Voter ID update” messagesSince some states require voter ID, scammers will pose as election officials, claiming your ID is “out of date” or that you must upload personal documents. These go straight into the wrong hands.RETIREES LOSE MILLIONS TO FAKE HOLIDAY CHARITIES AS SCAMMERS EXPLOIT SEASONAL GENEROSITY3) Donation scamsCriminals set up fake political donation sites with names resembling real campaigns. Retirees who are politically active or generous with causes are prime targets here.4) Absentee ballot phishingScammers know many seniors vote by mail. They’ll send emails offering to “help” with requests or track your ballot while stealing your personal data in the process.Red flags to watch out for Public voter data can make it easy for fraudsters to create convincing scams. (CyberGuy.com)Scammers use clever tricks to make their messages seem urgent and official. Here are the warning signs that should make you pause before responding.Urgency: “Act now or lose your right to vote.” Scammers use deadlines to scare you.Unusual payment requests: No legitimate election office will ever ask for payment to vote or register.Strange links: If you’re asked to click on a link from a text or email, stop. Always go directly to your state’s official election website instead.Requests for sensitive info: Election officials don’t need your Social Security number or bank account details.How retirees can stay safe this election seasonProtecting yourself doesn’t mean opting out of civic life. It means taking a few smart steps:1) Reduce your data footprintThis one matters most. The less personal data available about you, the fewer opportunities scammers have to trick you during election season. When they can view your age, address and even your voting history, they can craft messages that sound alarmingly real. The good news is you can take control and limit what’s out there.Reaching every voter data broker or people-search site on your own is nearly impossible, and most make the process intentionally difficult. That’s why data removal services can help. They automatically send removal requests to hundreds of data-broker sites and keeps monitoring to ensure your information doesn’t return. The result is fewer scam calls, fewer phishing emails and far less risk this election season.While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice. They aren’t cheap, and neither is your privacy. These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites.  It’s what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet. By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you.REMOVE YOUR DATA TO PROTECT YOUR RETIREMENT FROM SCAMMERSCheck out my top picks for data removal services and get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web by visiting Cyberguy.comGet a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web: Cyberguy.com2) Confirm only through official sourcesIf you get a message about your polling place, ignore any links and call your local election office directly. Each state also has an official website you can trust.3) Sign up for ballot trackingMany states offer secure ballot tracking online. Use only the official election site, not third-party services.4) Freeze your creditSince scammers use voter data to impersonate you, a credit freeze stops them from opening new accounts in your name. Retirees who don’t need frequent new credit are especially good candidates for this protection. Taking steps to remove your personal info online helps keep your vote and data safe. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)5) Be wary of political donation sitesIf you want to donate, type the campaign’s official website into your browser instead of clicking a link in an email or social media ad.Kurt’s key takeawayVoting is one of the most important rights we have. But this year, scammers will use public voter data to exploit retirees like never before. Don’t let them steal your peace of mind. By spotting the red flags, sticking to official election sources and removing your personal data from the web, you can protect yourself and your vote.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPHave you or someone you know received a suspicious message about voting or donations? How did you realize or suspect that it was a scam? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.comSign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletterCopyright 2025 CyberGuy.com.  All rights reserved.  

Scammers target retirees with election tricks and fake polling updates ahead of Nov 4 vote Read More »

image 619b99

 Introducing: the body issue

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. Introducing: the body issue We’re thrilled to share the latest edition of MIT Technology Review magazine, digging into the future of the human body, and how it could change in the years ahead thanks to scientific and technological tinkering.The below stories are just a taste of what you can expect from this fascinating issue. To read the full thing, subscribe now if you haven’t already. + A new field of science claims to be able to predict aesthetic traits, intelligence, and even moral 
character in embryos. But is this the next step in human evolution or something more dangerous? Read the full story. + How aging clocks can help us understand why we age—and if we could ever reverse it. Read the full story.
+ Instead of relying on the same old recipe biology follows, stem-cell scientist Jacob Hanna is coaxing the beginnings of animal bodies directly from stem cells. But should he? + The more we move, the more our muscle cells begin to make a memory of that exercise. Bonnie Tsui’s piece digs into how our bodies learn to remember. MIT Technology Review Narrated: How Antarctica’s history of isolation is ending—thanks to Starlink “This is one of the least visited places on planet Earth and I got to open the door,” Matty Jordan, a construction specialist at New Zealand’s Scott Base in Antarctica, wrote in the caption to the video he posted to Instagram and TikTok in October 2023.  In the video, he guides viewers through the hut, pointing out where the men of Ernest Shackleton’s 1907 expedition lived and worked.  The video has racked up millions of views from all over the world. It’s also kind of a miracle: until very recently, those who lived and worked on Antarctic bases had no hope of communicating so readily with the outside world. That’s starting to change, thanks to Starlink, the satellite constellation developed by Elon Musk’s company SpaceX to service the world with high-speed broadband internet. This is our latest story to be turned into a MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which we’re publishing each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released.

The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 OpenAI has launched its own web browser  Atlas has an Ask ChatGPT sidebar and an agent mode to complete certain tasks. (TechCrunch)+ It runs on Chromium, the open-source engine that powers Google’s Chrome. (Axios)+ OpenAI believes the future of web browsing will involve chatting to its interface. (Ars Technica)+ AI means the end of internet search as we’ve known it. (MIT Technology Review) 2 China is demanding US chip firms share their sales dataIt’s conducting a probe into American suppliers, and it wants answers. (Bloomberg $)3 AI pioneers are among those calling for a ban on superintelligent systemsIncluding Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio. (The Guardian)+ Prominent Chinese scientists have also signed the statement. (FT $)+ Read our interview with Hinton on why he’s now scared of AI. (MIT Technology Review) 4 Anthropic promises its AI is not wokeDespite what the Trump administration’s “AI Czar” says. (404 Media)+ Its CEO insists the company shares the same goals as the Trump administration. (CNBC)+ Why it’s impossible to build an unbiased AI language model. (MIT Technology Review) 5 Climate scientists expect we’ll see more solar geoengineering attemptsBut it’s a risky intervention with potentially huge repercussions. (New Scientist $)+ The hard lessons of Harvard’s failed geoengineering experiment. (MIT Technology Review)6 Why Silicon Valley is so fixated on ChinaIt marvels at the country’s ability to move fast and break things—but should it?(NYT $)+ How Trump is helping China extend its massive lead in clean energy. (MIT Technology Review) 7 YouTube has launched a likeness detector to foil AI doppelgängersBut that doesn’t guarantee that the fake videos will be removed. (Ars Technica)
8 Bots are threatening Reddit’s status as an oasis of human chatCan it keep fighting off the proliferation of AI slop? (WP $)+ It’s not just Reddit either—employers are worried about ‘workslop’ too. (FT $)+ AI trained on AI garbage spits out AI garbage. (MIT Technology Review) 9 This AI-powered pet toy is surprisingly cuteMoflin is a guinea pig-like creature that learns to become more expressive. (TechCrunch)+ AI toys are all the rage in China—and now they’re appearing on shelves in the US too. (MIT Technology Review)
10 You don’t need to know a lot about AI to get a job in AIMake of that what you will. (Fast Company $) Quote of the day “It’s wild that Google wrote the Transformers paper (that birthed GPTs) AND open sourced Chromium, both of which will (eventually) lead to the downfall of their search monopoly. History lesson in there somewhere.” —Investor Nikunj Kothari ponders the future of Google’s empire in the wake of the announcement of OpenAI’s new web browser in a post on X.
One more thing The quest to protect farmworkers from extreme heatEven as temperatures rise each summer, the people working outdoors to pick fruits, vegetables, and flowers have to keep laboring.The consequences can be severe, leading to illnesses such as heat exhaustion, heatstroke and even acute kidney injury.Now, researchers are developing an innovative sensor that tracks multiple vital signs with a goal of anticipating when a worker is at risk of developing heat illness and issuing an alert. If widely adopted and consistently used, it could represent a way to make workers safer on farms even without significant heat protections. Read the full story. —Kalena Thomhave

 Introducing: the body issue Read More »

Space debris surrounding Earth pillars

Sounding the alarm: ESA introduces space environment ‘health index’

Space Safety

22/10/2025
233 views
3 likes

The congestion and pollution of Earth orbit is quickly getting worse. We need to be able to quantify how our behaviour impacts the orbital environment in the future. To this end, the European Space Agency (ESA) is adding a new health index to its yearly Space Environment Report that summarises in one number the status of our space environment over time.

Model of the distribution of space debris around Earth

“The space environment health index is an elegant approach to link the global consequences of space debris mitigation practices to a quantifiable impact on the space debris environment,” says Stijn Lemmens, space debris mitigation analyst at ESA.“With the new metric, ESA is promoting a common language for assessing the impact of our space activities and making consequences concrete.”

The need for a yardstick

To keep our space environment safe and sustainable, we need a way to measure its overall health and quantify the impact each new mission will have.Just as climate scientists use temperature as a key indicator of global warming, the space community needs a clear, quantifiable metric to assess the impact of objects and missions on orbital sustainability.The Space Environment Health Index provides such a metric. It is a single score that reflects how healthy or stressed the orbital environment is and what the consequences will be in a 200-year time period.

Impression of the distribution of space debris around Earth

Even if one number can never explain all the intricacies involved, it will provide a useful impression of the space environment’s health that speeds up high-level conversations. Also, it will provide a framework to evaluate individual missions on how they will impact the overall state.The Health Index supports global sustainability efforts, including ESA’s own Zero Debris approach, which aims to eliminate debris generation from ESA missions by 2030.

Ingredients of the new metric

For nearly 10 years, ESA and European academia have been working on understanding the links between space traffic, operator behaviour and orbital dynamics as a combined system. The Space Environment Health Index is designed to distil complex factors into one understandable score.Each object or new mission has certain qualities that can be converted into a positive or a negative effect on the Index, such as:

Size: How big is it and what shape does it have?

Lifetime in orbit: How soon will the object naturally re-enter or be removed?

Collision avoidance capability: Can the object manoeuvre to prevent collisions?

Passivation measures: Has the object been made safe from explosions after its mission ends?

Fragmentation risk: What is the likelihood of the object breaking apart and creating debris?

Cumulative number of collisions in low-Earth orbit if we continue as is

By combining these elements, it captures the risks of a mission’s potential to create space debris, how that debris will increase collision risk for one’s neighbours, and how it will statistically have impacted the space environment after 200 years (see the full ESA Space Environment Report for calculation details).
A high score indicates a greater negative impact on the environment, while a low score reflects more sustainable behaviour. It can then work like an energy-efficiency rating for appliances: in the future, a mission could be rated “A” for sustainability, giving operators and regulators a clear benchmark.All objects’ scores together result in a global Health Index that indicates the overall state of the orbital environment compared to a reference baseline.

Our current score: the alarm is sounding

The diagram displays the Health Index forecasting the sustainability of our activities in Earth’s space environment into the future

The Space Environment Health Index measures how sustainable Earth’s orbital environment is. A value of 1 represents the proposed threshold for long-term sustainability. Anything higher means that the space environment becomes less then desirable for operations over time and could eventually become unstable.This benchmark of the Health Index is based on the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) guidelines as in 2014, before the boom in large constellations. These guidelines outlined what a ‘healthy’ space environment should have looked like in 200 years, assuming space operators follow space debris mitigation rules as established then.Even back in 2014, the forecast was not ideal. The expected future was already three times riskier than the minimum deemed desirable. Today, with more satellites and more debris, the risk has climbed to four times higher. Despite many satellite operators already adopting space debris mitigation practices, more action is needed.We are now at Health Index level 4, far beyond the sustainability threshold. Stronger action is required to protect our future in space.   

Potential uses of the Health Index

The index is more than a scientific tool – it is a practical decision-making aid. It can be applied to mission design to minimise its environmental impact, similar to other life cycle assessment tools and practices. A low score becomes a design target, encouraging choices like shorter orbital lifetimes, reliable deorbiting systems and strong collision avoidance capabilities.“Even if the definition of the Health Index may seem very theoretical, at ESA we have already successfully applied this concept in practice,” explains Francesca Letizia, space debris mitigation engineer at ESA.

Zero Debris efforts are a community effort

“We had to evaluate different policy options to define the Zero Debris approach. We used the Health Index model to translate the mandate for a Zero Debris approach into numbers, identifying a path that would not exceed the orbital sustainability threshold.”Another promising area is licensing, regulation and insurance. Authorities could adopt the index as part of licensing criteria, ensuring new missions meet sustainability thresholds and pass certain risk assessments. Over time, the index could feed into updated mitigation guidelines, ecodesign pipelines for space systems and become a part of policies in space.Why act now?Some might ask: if the real trouble is projected in 200 years, isn’t that enough time to solve it later? The reality is that the problem is urgent. Every new object now adds to the cumulative risk over time. Fragmentation events today will have consequences for decades, and the era of large constellations has accelerated the challenge.

Long before the space environment becomes truly unusable, the cost of operating in space will skyrocket. Certain orbits may become inaccessible, also impacting human spaceflight with its stringent safety standards.The Space Environment Health Index helps us act now by making sustainability measurable. It shows how ambitious efforts, such as ESA’s Zero Debris-by-2030 promise, are essential to have a chance at continued access to space. It provides an option for transparency, accountability and a shared framework for collaboration, driving responsible behaviour across the space sector.

Like
Thank you for liking
You have already liked this page, you can only like it once!

Sounding the alarm: ESA introduces space environment ‘health index’ Read More »

OpenAI ChatGPT Screen GettyImages 1572738462

AI jobs that pay $200K or more

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
I know that many of you are afraid that AI is going to take your job. And you might be right. The 2025 Global State of AI at Work report just confirmed what we’re all sensing. AI isn’t the future. It is now. But before you panic, let me offer a new way to look at this.RUDE CHATGPT PROMPTS, BETTER ANSWERS? WHAT THE DATA SAYSInstead of fearing what’s coming, maybe it’s time to think outside the box. Nearly three out of five companies say they’re hiring for AI-related roles this year. And most of these jobs don’t require a computer science degree or even coding skills.So, what are they looking for? Real people with real-world experience. They want folks who can think critically, solve problems and communicate clearly. That might sound a lot like … you. Generative AI tools can help jobseekers make their resumes and applications more visual, as well as get ideas for content.  (Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images)Here are some of the highest-paying, fastest-growing AI roles right now. Let’s dig in.Prompt Engineers$175K to $250K+These are the “AI whisperers.” Their job is to write the right prompts, so tools like ChatGPT give useful, accurate and smart responses. You don’t need to know how to code, but you do need to be a great communicator, logical thinker and problem-solver. Bonus: English majors, writers and marketers often pivot into this role.MICHIGAN WOMAN WINS $100K POWERBALL JACKPOT USING CHATGPT TO PICK NUMBERSAI Trainers (or Evaluators)$90K to $150KEver wonder how chatbots learn to sound polite or helpful? That’s the trainer’s job. They score AI responses, tweak tone and accuracy, and help refine what the AI “knows.” This is a great role for detail-oriented folks, even part-timers and remote workers. A teen using ChatGPT  (Frank Rumpenhorst/picture alliance via Getty Images)Machine Learning Engineers$150K to $210KIf you’re the technical type who likes to code, solve complex problems and build the actual brains behind AI, this is where you belong. These jobs are in super high demand, and the pay is great.AI FLAW LEAKED GMAIL DATA BEFORE OPENAI PATCHAI Product Managers$140K to $200KNot technical? Not a problem. AI PMs are the bridge between engineers and business teams. They guide strategy, make sure projects stay on time and budget, and turn AI ideas into real-world results. You’ll need communication skills, curiosity and business smarts.Generative AI Consultants$125K to $185KThis is perfect for freelancers or small-business owners. Companies are desperate to figure out how to use AI, and they’ll pay you to show them. You might help build automations, train teams or set up tools like ChatGPT, Jasper or Midjourney. In this photo illustration, a Midjourney logo is seen on a smartphone screen. (Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)Want help getting started?If you’re nervous about pivoting or don’t know where to start, I’m here to help. Whether you want to become a prompt engineer, a consultant or just to understand how to use AI to boost your current work, I’ve got your back.Let’s chat. Click here to schedule a time with me. We’ll map out your path together. You’ve got this, and the future is wide open.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPGet tech-smarter on your scheduleAward-winning host Kim Komando is your secret weapon for navigating tech.National radio:  Airing on 500+ stations across the US — Find yours or get the free podcast.Daily newsletter: Join 650,000 people who read the Current (free!)Watch: On Kim’s YouTube channel

AI jobs that pay $200K or more Read More »

1 rude chatgpt prompts better answers what the data says

Rude ChatGPT prompts, better answers? What the data says

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Do rude prompts really get better answers? Short answer: sometimes. A 2025 arXiv study tested 50 questions rewritten in five tones and found that rude prompts slightly outperformed polite ones with ChatGPT-4o. Accuracy rose from 80.8% for very polite to 84.8% for very rude. The sample was small, yet the pattern was clear.But not so fast, this story has layers. A 2024 study that looked at multiple languages painted a different picture. It found that impolite prompts often lowered performance, and that the “best” level of politeness changed depending on the language. In other words, the details really matter.OPENAI SAYS NEW GPT-5 MODELS SHOW MAJOR DROP IN POLITICAL BIASSign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CyberGuy.com/Newsletter Rude prompts made ChatGPT more accurate. Polite ones scored lower. Tone changed the outcome. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)Why tone might change outcomesLarge Language Models (LLMs) tend to mirror the wording they receive. When you sound direct or even a little blunt, you often give clearer instructions. That helps cut down on confusion and pushes the model to deliver sharper, more focused answers. A 2025 paper published on arXiv found that tone alone can shift accuracy by a few points, although more research is needed to confirm those results.In an earlier study led by researchers from Waseda University and RIKEN AIP, the team compared English, Chinese and Japanese prompts. They discovered that the ideal level of politeness varied by language, showing how cultural norms shape the way AI interprets human requests. In short, what works in one language might not land the same way in another.Americans split on whether to be polite to AI chatbotsNearly half of Americans say people should be polite to AI chatbots, according to an April 30, 2025, YouGov survey. Many users do it out of habit or courtesy. Microsoft’s design leaders even recommend basic etiquette with Copilot. “Using polite language sets a tone for the response,” says Kurtis Beavers. Models tend to mirror the professionalism and clarity of your prompt. A blunt prompt can sharpen results. Direct words help AI focus. Clear beats kind here. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)Yes, niceties have a costGood manners may be polite, but they are not free. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said people saying “please” and “thank you” to ChatGPT costs the company millions of dollars each year. Every extra word adds tokens for the model to process, and those tokens require computing power and electricity.For a single user, that cost is tiny and hardly noticeable. Yet when millions of users do it all day, those small gestures turn into a major expense. In the end, even kindness comes with a price tag.CHATGPT MAY ALERT POLICE ON SUICIDAL TEENSHow to prompt for accuracy without being a jerkGetting better answers from ChatGPT is not about yelling at it. It is about being clear and confident. Here is how to do that without crossing the line.Start with the goal. Tell the model what you want right away. Include the format and any limits up front so it knows where to focus.Get specific. Use numbers instead of vague words. “Write three bullet points” works better than “Write a few ideas.”Add a check. Ask it to review its own steps or measure its answer against a simple checklist. That keeps things on track.Keep your tone firm but calm. You can be direct without being rude. Short, clear sentences usually get the best results.Experiment a little. Try one neutral prompt, one polite version and one more direct. Compare the results and see which one performs best for your task.The point is not to be nice or nasty. It is to be clear, consistent and deliberate about what you ask. That is how you get smarter answers every time. Researchers tested three languages. Each reacted differently to politeness. Culture shaped every reply. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)Rude prompts and ChatGPT accuracy in practiceHere’s where things get interesting. If you’re writing math problems, multiple-choice questions or coding tasks, a short, no-nonsense tone might actually help. The 2025 study showed that when users dropped the polite fluff and went straight to the point, ChatGPT’s accuracy ticked upward.Still, don’t expect miracles. The difference wasn’t huge; think a few percentage points, not a full upgrade. Rude or direct prompts can sharpen a model’s focus, but they won’t suddenly turn an average prompt into a perfect one. The trick is to treat tone as just one lever in your prompt-engineering toolbox. Clarity, structure and context matter more than attitude.So, how should you use this in real life?The findings might sound odd, but they offer a clear takeaway for anyone who uses AI tools daily. Here’s how to put them into practice.Chase clarity, not cruelty. Be firm and specific. You can sound confident without sounding cranky.Read the room or the language. What’s “direct” in English might come across as rude in Japanese or overly blunt in Chinese. Culture shapes how tone lands.Mind your tokens. Every “please” and “thank you” costs a little extra computer power, and when millions of people do it, that adds up fast. Altman wasn’t joking about the price of politeness.Keep experimenting. Your best tone depends on your data, domain and goals. Try a few versions, track the results and see what works best.In short, it’s not about being rude for the sake of it. It’s about being precise, purposeful and efficient, qualities that both humans and machines respond to.Take my quiz: How safe is your online security?Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: CyberGuy.com/QuizCLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPKurt’s key takeawaysIn the end, tone really does make a difference, but it is not the whole story. Being a little blunt can sometimes help a chatbot focus better, yet clarity and structure still matter most. Think of tone as the seasoning on a meal, not the main course. The real secret is this: good prompts are clear, confident and purposeful. Whether you choose a polite tone or a more direct one, what matters is explaining exactly what you need. That is how you get consistent, high-quality answers without resorting to rudeness. So before you send your next question, ask yourself this: Are you being too polite to get results, or just polite enough to be understood?If being a little rude buys a few points of accuracy, would you trade etiquette for outcomes on your next prompt? Let us know by writing to us at CyberGuy.com/ContactSign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CyberGuy.com/NewsletterCopyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.

Rude ChatGPT prompts, better answers? What the data says Read More »

Plane pillars

ESA-supported test leads to better in-flight connectivity

Applications

21/10/2025
77 views
2 likes

Better in-flight streaming and video-calling might just become more accessible thanks to a project supported by the European Space Agency (ESA). Building upon the success of an experiment for a new type of antenna terminal together with ESA, Viasat – a global leader in satellite communications – now plans to commercialise its new in-flight connectivity solution called Viasat Amara.

Viasat Amara has a dual-beam phased array antenna that provides both better access to video calling (a latency-sensitive use), as well as video streaming such as watching a football match (a bandwidth-sensitive use). This is possible because the antenna can connect to satellites both in low Earth orbit and in geostationary orbit, depending on what is needed. Links using satellites in low Earth orbit have lower latency with minimal communication delays, whereas those with satellites in geostationary orbit have a high bandwidth and so can transmit much more data.

Testing the antenna

Antenna terminal used on a demonstration flight for Viasat, designed and tested within an ESA partnership

The antenna terminal was developed, designed and tested within an ESA partnership, under  ESA’s programme of Advanced Research in Telecommunications Systems (ARTES). The experiment, conducted in 2021, consisted of a demonstration flight from Rotterdam in the Netherlands to Payerne in Switzerland. The antenna provided a reliable satellite connection en route, enabling passengers to stream content on Youtube and Netflix, and video call with colleagues on the ground.
The antenna’s design

Visualisation of the arrays of Viasat’s in-flight connectivity antenna

The antenna uses an innovative design known as an electronically steered phased array. Rather than relying on a single large antenna that physically moves to track satellites, it uses many small components. These individual elements coordinate the timing of their signals to have a unified connection, similar to how a stadium wave forms as each person stands up consequently. This mirrors movement and provides not only a faster way to connect, but also the possibility of connecting to two satellites simultaneously.Viasat’s in-flight solution’s commercial service is expected to begin in 2028. Thanks to its modular technology, the product can be easily incorporated into existing antennas, making it cheaper and easier to incorporate in passenger airlines.“Phased array antennas are an evolutionary and much needed step towards more energy and space efficient in-flight connectivity solutions, and we are proud to have contributed to Project Aidan – a key milestone that led Viasat to developing Amara. We’re looking forward to next opportunities for cooperation with Viasat, and many other industry partners – for the benefit of all ESA Member States,” said Massimiliano Simeoni, Aidan’s Project Implementation Manager at ESA Connectivity and Secure Communications.“The Viasat Aera terminal is a key part of Viasat Amara, our next generation in-flight connectivity solution going far beyond fast and free high-speed Wi-Fi,” said Viasat on its Viasat Amara announcement. “Our pioneering mission remains to help our airline customers maximize connectivity’s enormous potential for brand, loyalty, and growth. It’s been great to work with ESA as one of our key partners to help bring it to fruition.”This antenna development marks the beginning of exciting opportunities for the future of onboard connectivity.

Like
Thank you for liking
You have already liked this page, you can only like it once!

ESA-supported test leads to better in-flight connectivity Read More »

alien woman

From Humanoid Encounters to Ultra-Secret Units: Mind-Bending UFO and Alien Accounts from the Netherlands!

When people think of the Netherlands, they might likely conjure up images of rides along the canals, tulips fields and windmills, or even the coffee houses that can be found in most towns and cities throughout the country. The fact is, though, the Netherlands can boast of some of the most thought-provoking and intriguing UFO and alien encounters on record, ranging from encounters with strange, humanoid figures, to sightings over air bases, and bizarre close encounters that span decades and involve some kind of strange secret security services. Moreover, these incidents continue to be reported today.
While we will explore several encounters from this side of the start of the Modern UFO Era, UFO sightings and encounters with strange humanoid entities in the Netherlands stretch back decades, at the very least.
Perhaps one of the earliest comes from the research files of Albert Rosales, and occurred in Heiden at around 10 pm on July 2nd, 1905, when a man named Soufian woke in the middle of the night to find he was looking down on himself lying in bed. As if that wasn’t strange enough, next to him was the female humanoid figure, who wore long robes and had pale grey skin. Then, the figure somehow moved directly over the top of him and was reaching towards his chest. The next thing he knew, he could feel an intense pain in his chest, almost as if this strange figure was parting his ribcage. Even though he was viewing this from above, when he tried to move he was unable to do so, suspecting he was somehow paralyzed.

Then, within a second, the figure had disappeared and the pain was no longer there. He was now lying in his bed. Bizarrely, rather than leap out of bed to wake anyone he could to tell them what had happened, he simply calmly went back to sleep. When he awoke the next day, however, the intense ache from his torso told him that what he had experienced during the night was not a dream. Despite the intense pain, though, there was no bruising or marks anywhere on his body, and after several days the pain eased and eventually subsided.
Just what this humanoid figure was is unclear. Some researchers, particularly when the grey skin is taken into account, insist that this must be an early interaction with a grey-type alien. Others suggest the entity was something more akin to an angel. It is equally mysterious what the figure was doing. Was this some kind of attack that failed? Or was this some kind of “intervention”, perhaps fixing an illness the witness was not even aware they had? We might even consider, if the humanoid was extraterrestrial, if they were implanting some kind of tracking device? Of course, this is all speculation, but interesting speculation nonetheless.
Arguably one of the strangest encounters involving potentially alien entities in the Netherlands occurred in the winter of 1973, and while it is little-known outside of the country, it received significant media attention from the Dutch press at the time.
According to the account, at around 2:15 am on November 10th, 1973, 55-year-old Ann Dolphjin was making her way to her bathroom at the front of her house in Uden. Still a little sleepy, as she entered the bathroom, she noticed “something white” through the window in her peripheral vision, and, as such, she quickly put it out of her mind. When she walked back from the bathroom to her bedroom, however, she stopped at the window, this time looking outside with more focus and intent. Much to her shock, a short distance from her property stood three strange human-shaped figures, each wearing some kind of white hooded robe that stretched all the way down to their feet, with a belt around their waists, each containing several strange instruments or devices. Of much more concern, though, these figures were seemingly heading towards her house.
She continued to watch, noting that the figures were approximately three feet in height. They also walked in a strict formation, with two side-by-side at the front, and one behind them, each shuffling along the ground as opposed to taking steps as a person would. In fact, the more she watched, the more Ann was certain that their feet didn’t leave the ground at all. She continued to watch the bizarre scene unfold in front of her, noticing that one of the figures had a device it was sweeping from side to side that appeared very much like a vacuum cleaner.
By now, Ann’s curiosity had turned to apprehension, and she contemplated waking her husband. However, as he suffered from a heart condition, she thought the surreal nature of the events might cause him to have a heart attack, and so she remained at the window watching the scene outside. Then, one of the figures turned toward the window and appeared to be looking straight at Ann, making it clear that they had seen her. This figure then turned back to the other two, and seemed to be communicating with them. A moment after that, the three figures turned around and “shuffled” away from the property, disappearing behind a nearby building a short distance away. Now, certain the three figures had gone, Ann turned and began towards her bedroom, intent on waking her husband and telling him what she had just seen. However, as she walked into the bedroom, she happened to look out of the bedroom window. There, just over 100 feet away from the house, was a glowing, red sphere-like object hovering several feet above the pavement.
By this point, Ann’s husband was also awake, and asked Ann what the time was. She turned to him, answering that it was almost 3 am. When she turned back to the window, the glowing object was gone. She immediately blurted out to her husband what she had witnessed, her husband not once doubting what she told him. Although they did their best to return to sleep, they mainly tossed and turned for the rest of the night. The following day, Ann set out to the police station to report the previous evening’s events. She hoped that the police would investigate the incident, as well as look to speak to other people who might witnessed the bizarre events. However, neither happened; Ann heard nothing from the police and no further witnesses came forward. It wasn’t, however, the end of the story.
One evening the following year, Ann happened to speak to her friend, Bob Muyen, of the encounter. Bob’s son, Edmund, had an interest in UFOs, and after Bob told him of the encounter, Edmund passed the details of the incident to the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) where it eventually found its way to Dutch UFO researcher, Douwe Bosga. Upon his return to the Netherlands from the United States in February 1978, Bosga contacted Ann and began an investigation into the sighting.
Bosga met Ann on several separate occasions, ultimately finding her to be a credible and reliable witness. Moreover, Ann had sought no publicity following the encounter, which further distanced her from the notion that she had concocted the story for fame or financial gain. Ultimately, Ann Dolpjin was a very serious-minded individual with no time for hoaxes or practical jokes. Although she hadn’t sought publicity herself, following Bosga’s reporting of his investigation, many other researchers and journalists wished to speak with Ann, and she found herself the focus of scrutiny all of a sudden. All of those who did speak with her shared Bosga’s conclusions that she was a very credible witness. As we might imagine, with this increased interest, several suggestions were put forward to explain the bizarre events that freezing November night in 1973.
One such explanation was put forward in the 1980 book Spooklicht by Hans van Kampen. He suggested that what Ann had seen in the early hours of that November morning was nothing more than three people who were returning home from a local carnival. He highlighted that the incident happened at the start of Carnival season in the Netherlands, with one carnival in particular, the local Prince Carnival, featuring white hats that point down to each side in a point, which was almost identical to the ”hoods” Ann said she saw the figures wearing. Moreover, some of these carnival-goers also carry a stick as part of their costume, which, van Kampen argued, Ann could have mistaken for the vacuum cleaner-like device. As we might imagine, many people dismissed the explanation as unlikely, not least as it didn’t account for the fact that the figures Ann witnessed were only three feet tall, or the glowing, red spherical UFO she witnessed moments later.
Several years later, in a 1984 letter to the Study Group for Strange Air Phenomena magazine, Mr. Maas put forward another explanation. In it, he detailed how several years earlier, he had lived on a new estate very similar to the one where Ann was living at the time, one where the streets had not yet been paved. He recalled that late one evening, a De Gasunie van had arrived on the street and several engineers, each wearing all white uniforms had gotten out and began working. Moreover, each of these engineers had a belt around their waist with tools and devices hanging from it (almost identical to the belt Ann described the figures wearing). Stranger still, Maas recalled that one of the group had an instrument that they swept along the ground, very similar to a vacuum cleaner.
Maas continued that he was so intrigued by what the men were doing that he ventured outside to speak with them. They told him they were checking for any signs of gas leaks, something that was much easier at night due to increased pressure in the gas pipes. Could this have been what Ann had seen that November night in 1973? Were the hoods she saw the figures wearing actually nothing more than hats or indeed hoods to protect from the cold? Of course, that still wouldn’t explain the fact that Ann said the figures she witnessed were only three feet tall, other than that she might have simply been mistaken on this detail. While this explanation sounded very plausible, perhaps even likely, it soon came to light that the vacuum cleaner-like instrument used by the gas companies did not exist in 1973, and, as such, pretty much ruled out the explanation. And, of course, even if the three figures had been working for the gas company, why did they run away upon noticing Ann watching them? Ultimately, the incident remains a complete mystery.
Around 18 months earlier, at around 4:30 am in the early hours of March 25th, 1972, in Soesterberg, a “strong buzzing sound” dragged John Bruinier from sleep at his home. Thinking he had left his stereo system on, John began towards it. However, he could immediately see the unit was switched off, and so dismissed this was the source of the noise. He looked around the ground floor bedroom in an attempt to locate what was making the buzzing noise when he noticed a bright light seeping into the room from outside. He made his way to the window and looked out. He later stated that he could see a “bright, blinding white light” that appeared like “some had lit a Bengal fire in front of his house!” Moreover, he could see a bizarre, thick fog wrapped around the light which also stretched a considerable distance along the pavement. It was at this point when he noticed his car was directly behind this light, making him think that his vehicle could be ablaze.

He immediately reached for his jacket, dragged on his slippers and rushed outside the house, grabbing his car keys as he went. To his relief, the vehicle was not on fire. It was, though, “soaking wet”, unlike the “other cars nearby” that “were covered in a layer of ice due to the night frost”. He decided to get inside the car, and after inserting the key, he started the engine. Then, things turned even stranger.
As soon as the engine came to life, the strange fog headed towards his vehicle, surrounding it within seconds. Stranger still, as this was happening, John recalled feeling the car “bounce, as if some was jumping on the back of it”. When he turned to look in the rearview mirror, he could see “light dancing in front of the rear window”. Once more, thinking the car was on fire, he put it motion, thinking the wind from the motion would extinguish the flames. He quickly turned down a quiet forest path through a “dry ditch in between two trees”. At this point, he pressed down on the car horn to wake other people on the estate and alert them to his plight. However, to his shock, no matter how many times he did so, the horn remained silent.
As he continued down the road he suddenly noticed a chain across the road preventing access. Having little time to react, he feared he would crash into this chain. However, at the last moment, he saw the chain tighten and then break, as of something had snapped it in two. A moment later, the bright glowing light behind the vehicle was gone, and he brought the car to a stop. He took several deep breaths and looked out of the window, just in time to see a “human-like figure” run past the car before it disappeared into thin air a short distance in front of him.
He remained where he was for several moments. Then, he stepped outside of the car and walked several feet in front of it. Before he could make out anything else, his attention was captivated by a “huge object surrounded by a greenish fluorescent glow” that was approximately 50 feet ahead of him. To his left, he could a “bright light floating over a row of trees” that seemed to be heading in his direction, almost identical to the light that had followed his vehicle. The object itself was oval-shaped and the green light seemed to come out of several windows along its side. The exterior of the object appeared to be made from one piece of material and had a definite “metallic sheen” to it. Above the object were “three diffuse green beams of light” that “shone straight up”, almost as if acting as a guide for the white light, that was continuing its approach. Then, John noticed a “human figure” looking out of one of the windows, seemingly in the direction of the approaching light. The white light eventually reached the craft and seemed to some fuse with the green glow.
At this point, John very much believed he was witnessing some kind of military experiment with advanced technology, and so continued to approach the scene, eager to see what happened next, and the closer he got, the more details he noticed. He could estimate, for example, that the craft was around 100 feet across and appeared to “float above the ground like a hovercraft”. When he got closer still, though, the figure at the window had clearly noticed his presence. Moreover, the figure – which was dressed in “dull metallic” overalls that looked like “paper foil” and was around five height tall with “large, almond-shaped eyes” – was gesturing to him. It only took a moment for John to realize this figure was counting down.
John could see a strange “panel” behind the figure that was “divided into sections with all kinds of colors” flashing on it. The figure turned to this panel, as if inspecting all was well. Then, a moment later, with the countdown now at one, the object “jumped off the ground” and rose into the air. It headed calmly towards the trees nearby. However, as soon as it reached them, it “suddenly accelerated”, disappearing within a second. John later recalled that in the moment it disappeared, he could hear “a sound reminiscent of a roof tile sliding off a roof” and also seeing “two exhaust streaks with a light green discoloration in between”.
He remained where he was for several moments, noticing how the air now appeared much colder. He then got back inside his car and set off for home. When he arrived back at a little after 4 am, he discovered his wife was awake and waiting for him, along with their children. He immediately told them of the bizarre events he just witnessed. The following day, John’s children ventured to the spot where their father had the bizarre encounter. Not only did they find the chain snapped in two, but discovered an area of flattened grass and vegetation where they presumed the object had hovered.
Several weeks later, the Dutch Ufological Center (NUSC) learned of the encounter, and their chairman, Jan Veenstra, and vice chairman, Hans van Kampen, arrived at the location to examine the area and speak with John Bruinier (van Kampen would detail the account in his 1973 book Flying Saucers: Delusion or Science?). They learned some interesting details, perhaps not least that the land the incident took place was a training ground where paratroopers used to land. Moreover, the object, it appeared, would have been right on the edge of the landing circle. Also of interest, this land was fully accessible to the public, except when exercises involved live ammunition, when a large chain was placed over the access the road, the same chain that John claimed he saw break in two in front of his eyes. Even stranger, where the chain was, the investigators discovered several metal shavings that appeared to be several weeks old.
Ultimately, although they were impressed with John Bruinier as a credible witness, they had several doubts about his claim, not least that he simply might have recalled the events incorrectly. They also suggested the possibility that Bruinier might have indeed had a bizarre experience out on the forest path, but then, after telling his family of the affair, felt a need to enhance the account in light of their questions, something which many paranormal investigators highlight as happening more than we might think. Whatever the truth of the matter, they were unable to explain the sighting, or fully debunk it. Incidentally, several years later, in 1976, John Bruinier claimed he had “made the whole thing up” amid growing recognition in the country as “the man who saw little green men”. Following this apparent admission, attention on him ceased, and the case was almost forgotten about overnight. His family, however, and those close to him, insisted for years after that his admission had been to stop the attention, and that privately, he insisted that what he had said had happened, had indeed happened.
Whatever the truth of the matter, several years later, Soesterberg would find itself at the center of not one but two UFO encounters. At around 5:45 am on February 3rd, 1979, three strange lights appeared over Soesterberg Air Force Base. These strange lights were immediately noticed by on-duty security guards, who wasted little time in radioing for all available personnel to make their way outside. Moments later, 12 military personnel were outside the base looking on in shock at this bizarre aerial anomaly.
It was quickly established that the lights were positioned on the underside of a large triangular-shaped craft, with a single red light in the middle of them, which witnesses later described as being “beam-like” in nature. Even more amazing, the object was only 500 to 600 feet above the ground, so low, in fact, that the lights lit up the ground below as it passed. Despite this proximity, the object moved in complete silence. In total, the mysterious aerial vehicle remained in sight for around five minutes before it had disappeared into the distance. As soon as it was out of sight, all of the radios and communications devices – which had also ceased operating for the duration of the sighting – burst back to life.

In the days and weeks that followed, talk of the incident swept through the base, and despite the best efforts of the military to keep such talk inside the base, accounts soon leaked out to the wider public, and by April 1979, several UFO investigators had took an interest in the case, eventually approaching the military for more information. As they researched and investigated further, they made some intriguing revelations, not least that there had been two sets of lights witnessed over the base that morning from five different locations.
The first sighting came from the west part of the base (Post A) when the guards there first noticed the lights moving overhead. These lights were approaching the men’s location with the lights shining down towards the ground as it did so, even “trapping” the men in the beam at one point. As this was happening, at the northeast part of the base (Post B), another witness saw the same object, also reporting seeing the beams of light stretching down to the ground, which from his angle, appeared to be in a diagonal direction. From the information given by these first witnesses, including the amount of time the object was visible for, investigators were able to determine that the object was around 600 feet above the ground, and was likely moving anywhere from 30 to 60 miles per hour.
According to investigators’ assertions, a short time after this initial sighting, a second object appeared over the base (which could have been the same object from the first sighting). This was witnessed from the other side of the base (Post C), although this witness only saw the object for several seconds before it disappeared out of sight. In fact, in part because he only caught a brief glimpse of the object, at the time, he didn’t realize the significance of it and so didn’t report it. Several moments later, though, personnel in a fourth location (Post D), who were watching overhead after being alerted to the bizarre aerial presence by personnel at Post A, witnessed the three lights of the object approaching them from the direction of Post C. Witnesses at Post D, who all got a prolonged look at the object, later stated that the lights were strange in that you could stare directly into them without being affected by the glare, as you might be if you stared into a car headlight, for example.
At this point, the object was barely 150 feet above them, and they were around 300 feet from the approaching craft. As it passed directly overhead, they all noticed the red light in the middle of the three white lights, as well as the beam that reached downwards from it. The group watched as the object headed towards the nearby woods, the beam of light stretching down towards the trees below. Then, a bright flash of light came from the object as it sped off into the distance with great speed. Yet another witness, this one at Post E, was watching the lights move away from Post D when the bright flash of light temporarily lit up the entire area.
Investigators also discovered that another incident occurred around a month later, on March 2nd, this time over Camp New Amsterdam, the part of the base occupied by the United States military. Like the previous sighting, this incident was witnessed by multiple personnel and even prompted the Dutch government to ask questions of the military regarding the potentially strange goings-on over their airspace. Perhaps bizarrely, the military responded by stating that both sightings were simply due to “mirages” over the base, elaborating that a car’s headlights had likely reflected against a “reflective layer of air” which then gave the impression of lights overhead. As we might imagine, both the witnesses and the investigators struggled to accept this explanation, not least as it didn’t take into account the closeness of the object, the red beam of light, and the sudden bright flash before it sped away.
Another, lesser-known or discussed detail of the sighting is that, at least according to some witnesses, the red beam of light appeared to shine down towards a particular bunker on the base – one that was said to contain United States’ nuclear weapons. Of course, there are many accounts on record of UFOs having an interest in nuclear facilities, including military facilities that have been rumored to house nuclear weapons. These suspicions were seemingly confirmed in January 2021, when the Dutch publication Volkskrant ran an article stating that the United States military did indeed store nuclear weapons at the Soesterberg base at the time in question. UFO investigators wasted little time in jumping on this revelation and examined the base in more detail. They highlighted that there were 15 “igloo bunkers”, buildings that are generally used to store high-danger materials such as explosives and ammunition. One of these buildings, however, is slightly separated from the rest and appears to be made of much sturdier material. Such structures, again, generally speaking, were most often used to store nuclear weapons.
Ultimately, the Soesterberg UFO sightings remain unexplained, although they are still of interest to researchers and investigators today, with many more details coming to the surface over the years. While the shape of the craft was reported as being triangular at the time, for example, certain details have been highlighted and further witness statements have been taken. One witness stated that they recalled seeing “connecting structures” in between the lights, while another stated the red light was much further back than the white lights. All in all, it would appear that the shape of the craft could have been more like a kite, or perhaps even rectangular. The lights themselves were huge, at least tens of feet across, with the red light only pointing straight down as opposed to diagonally like the white lights, which might suggest that the white lights were some kind of searchlights while the red light, or beam, was much more active or operational. Moreover, due to the number and overall credibility of the witnesses, it was highly unlikely that the sighting was some kind of hoax.
Undoubtedly, one of the most fascinating and unsettling UFO encounters to come out of the Netherlands is that of Josie Zwinenberg, not least as it seemingly spanned several decades and traveled with her to another country. Of further interest, the incident unfolded in the same (approximate) time window as the Soesterberg incident we have just explored, and whose locations are separated by only two miles.
According to the account, at around 4 pm one afternoon in the summer of 1979, 21-year-old Josie Zwinenberg was riding her horse through the forest in Driebergen close to the Leusderheide military training ground when her day took a sudden and drastic turn. She later recalled that she was approaching a “right-angle bend where you enter a bridal path” that ran alongside the military facility. When she made her way around the bend, however, she was confronted with a mind-bending sight. Right in front of her was a disc-shaped object, hovering a short distance above the ground in complete silence.
As soon as she saw the bizarre scene, she brought her horse to a stop and quite literally rubbed her eyes to check she wasn’t seeing something that wasn’t there. Upon opening them again, she confirmed to herself that she wasn’t hallucinating. At this point, realizing she was seeing something totally out of the ordinary, she checked around her to see if there was anyone else on the path. There wasn’t, and she realized she was on her own. It was as she was looking around that she noticed how the “air was dead and silent”.
When she turned her attention back to the object, she noticed how it was so still that it appeared to be “fixed, like a statue”. She also noticed that there appeared to be lights around the edge of the strange craft, “as if rows of gigantic spotlights had been mounted on it”. She estimated that there were, quite literally, hundreds of these lights, and they were “shining in all directions in all colors”, as well as being “very sharp beams of light (that) shone and sparkled” similar to “sharp LED lighting”. In fact, she stated years later, that it was the lights that suggested to her more than anything else that what she was witnessing was not of this world, as “we didn’t have those kinds of beams of lights at that time”. She elaborated that this was “a tangible object” and was “definitely not something paranormal (but) really something technological”.
For the next 15 minutes, Josie remained still and silent, simply watching the object. Then, she dared to move a little closer – and the closer she got, the more details that began to stand out to her. She recalled that the object was “like a large dish” and was “big and round”. Moreover, she could now see that there was some kind of “dome over it”. She stopped once more, a very short distance from the otherworldly vehicle, stating that she was “waiting for it to fly away” and that she “wanted to see that”. It remained, however, “constantly motionless”.
Josie further recalled how calm her horse was, despite the surreal nature of the events unfolding in front of them. After several more moments, she gently urged them forward a little further. Eventually, when she was only several feet away, she was able to see the “enormous curve of the dome”, which she recalled looked as though it was some kind of dull metal and was approximately 100 feet across. Moreover, at the base of the domed section, were several “giant light boxes” that glowed a bright orange, so bright, in fact, that she couldn’t make out any details immediately around these light boxes.
At this point, Josie brought the horse to a complete stop and dismounted. A moment later, though, despite having remained calm throughout the encounter, the animal suddenly became spooked by “something moving next to me on the right”. Josie also noticed the movement and immediately turned in its direction. Given that her horse was more than familiar with deer, rabbits, and foxes – none of which spooked him – she suddenly began to contemplate just what was moving in the trees and bushes. She kept her focus in the direction she had sensed the movement, but could not make out what could have been the source of the sound. Then, close by, she heard the sound of a branch snap, as if something had trodden on it. Suddenly, Josie felt a feeling of “pure fear” run through her, which “came on all at once”, an intensity of fear that she had not felt previously, or ever before in her life.

She detailed how she was “more than familiar” with the forest; how it felt, what animals she might encounter there, and the general feeling of the woodland. This time, however, there was a sudden “strange, uncanny atmosphere”, and she couldn’t shake the impression that she wasn’t alone. By this point, Josie had quietly gotten back on her horse, and after taking one last look at her surroundings, she suddenly issued the command for her horse to “get out of here”. He did so, and they “took off like a rocket” away from whatever was seemingly watching them from the trees.
Although it would be almost 40 years before she spoke fully and publicly about the incident, she claimed that the incident was like a “photographic image on my retina” and that she had not witnessed anything like it before or after. Moreover, she was certain that she had not imagined the affair, but had legitimately witnessed a “tangible object in this physical world” that was “not just lights but a very large structure. In fact, she likened the object to the spacecraft at the end of the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Ultimately, she estimated that the entire episode, from first spotting the strange object to them galloping away from the scene, lasted no longer than 20 minutes.
She arrived back at the riding school several minutes later, and after dismounting her horse and taking him to his stable, she got on her bicycle and rode home. Upon arriving, she told her mother of the bizarre encounter, who, much to Josie’s surprise, encouraged her daughter to “call the police right away!” Josie did as her mother suggested and placed a phone call to the nearest police station in Zeist. However, as soon as the conversation began, Josie felt suspicious of the person at the other end of the line.  After telling the operator that she had “seen a UFO in the forest” near the Leusderheide military facility, she was told bluntly that that was “impossible” as they “didn’t see anything on radar”. Josie responded that “the police don’t have radar”, to which the operator stated that “if something had happened, they would have called the base…and since they didn’t call, there’s nothing that can be done”. They then ended the call.
To say Josie was perplexed by the rather heated and defensive conversation would be an understatement. It was only in the days that followed as she replayed that and the strange events that led to it back in her mind that she realized the switchboard operator had not taken any of her details, such as her address, contact number, or even her name. This, she realized, meant that not only would there be no follow-up call from the police, but there wouldn’t even be a record of her report. With these events in mind, Josie simply moved on with her life, never speaking of the encounter, and, essentially, forgetting about that strange day in the woods. However, just short of four decades later, the encounter would surface out of the blue and take Josie down an equally intriguing and disturbing path.
She was sitting in the coffee shop section of an Albert Heijn supermarket in 2007 when she spotted a copy of De Telegraaf newspaper and began flicking through it. By chance, she stumbled onto an article about some of the most interesting UFO sightings in Dutch history, one of which, incidentally, was the Soesterberg UFO encounter. In fact, as she read the article, she suddenly thought about her own encounter in the woods that afternoon in 1979. She then contemplated if the object that had been witnessed in Soesterberg – which was, remember, only two miles away – was somehow connected to the object she witnessed in the woods.
By the time she had the Internet connected to her house in 2010, she had a renewed interest in trying to discover what she had witnessed on the bridal path almost half a century earlier. She began researching the subject, and eventually found a website that contained the details of UFO researcher and investigator, Robert Salas, who, the site stated, had a specific interest in UFO sightings or encounters that have taken place close to military bases and facilities. Encouraged, she sent an email to the address given. Almost immediately, she received a reply from Salas. He was full of questions, wanting to know, for example, where exactly the base was in relation to the object and location of her sightings, as well as whether the bases housed nuclear weapons, and even if there was any United States soldiers stationed at the base. Josie gathered as much detailed information as he could and sent it to Salas. He would eventually detail the account and his communications with Josie in his book Unidentified: The UFO Phenomenon, which brought the encounter into the public arena. This was, though, far from the end.
The following year, in the summer of 2011, Josie was on a vacation in Blarney in Ireland, a location she was familiar with and visited often. On this particular trip, after visiting a large public house, she decided to ask if they had a room for the night, which they did. She checked in, and then, after freshening up, she made her way downstairs for dinner. Then, however, things took a rather strange turn.
As apologetic as he was, the manager approached Josie and told her there had been a mistake with her room; it was already booked for another guest. He continued that there were, in fact, no rooms available at the pub. In light of this, the manager continued, he had arranged alternative accommodation for her at a Bed and Breakfast just outside of Blarney. As perplexed as she was, she thanked the manager for doing so, packed her things, and drove to her alternative accommodation, which was, when she eventually found it, “in the middle of nowhere”. She parked her rented car in the car park of the isolated building, next to a silver Jaguar. She got out of the car and began to collect her belongings when a man approached her, seemingly out of nowhere. He spoke to her, telling her he had “been waiting a long time” for her to arrive.  He would, he stated, help check her into the Bed and Breakfast, and introduced himself as Tom.
She followed him into the building, and he began to take her details. As he checked her in, he made small talk with her. However, Josie recalled his choice of subjects to be bizarre, to say the least. Instead of commenting on the weather or how his trip from the Netherlands had been, for example, he spoke instead about the end of the world and the alleged prophecies in the Mayan calendar. As strange as she found it, she put the thought out of her mind as Tom showed her to her room. He then asked her if she would like to join him for a drink after she had settled in. She thanks him, but declined, offering that she was planning on returning to Blarney to do some sightseeing for the evening. He then said, again quite bizarrely, that he would instead take his Jaguar to Kinsale (around 25 miles away) to have some work carried out on it.
Josie did indeed head back to Blarney and spent much of the night walking around the picturesque streets. It was, however, when she was sitting on a bench drinking a coffee that she noticed a large, black SUV moving past her, the black tinted windows capturing her attention. When she looked into the open side window, however, she was shocked to see the driver was none other than Tom, the man who had checked her into the Bed and Breakfast earlier. She quickly asked herself why he was in Blarney when he specifically claimed he was heading to Kinsale, and why he was driving such a heavy-duty vehicle instead of the sparkling Jaguar that had been parked in the car park of the Bed and Breakfast. Despite her confusion and concern, she waved at him from the bench, certainly in enough of an animated way as to get his attention. However, instead of waving back or smiling, he simply looked at her “with a steely face” and then carried on straight past her.

She finished her coffee and walked along several more streets before deciding to head back to the Bed and Breakfast on the outskirts of town. Almost as soon as she had walked through the door of the building, she was greeted by Tom. Without prompting, he offered that he had changed his mind about taking the Jaguar to Kinsale, opting to “stay home” instead. He then once more asked Josie if she would like to join him for a drink. This time, out of curiosity and in an attempt to find out a little more about this oddly behaving man, she agreed.
The evening began pleasantly enough as the two of them spoke naturally about themselves. Then, however, Tom suddenly stated to Josie, “It’s not a coincidence that you are here, is it?” Josie, a little shocked, asked what he meant. Rather cryptically, he stated, “Surely, you have a story to tell!” Josie had a sudden feeling that, due to the “extraordinary things in his stories”, she believed he was attempting to “provoke” her into telling him of her UFO sightings almost 40 years earlier. She reasoned quickly in her mind that he could have read about the incident in the book Salas published. Whatever the truth, the next thing she realized, she responded, “You’re right. I’ve seen a UFO near an Air Force base!”
Then, breaking the mood somewhat, the sound of the doorbell announced itself. Tom got up, stating this was likely a friend whom he was expecting, adding that he, too, “would probably also be interested” in hearing her UFO story. He returned to the room moments later, his friend with him, and after quick introductions, Josie told her story. They both listened before firing question after question at her. Josie noticed, however, that they both discreetly returned to the same type of question: whether she had suffered any sort of loss of memory connected to the encounter. Then, Tom said something that changed the whole mood of the evening. He told Josie that she wasn’t alone during the incident.
To begin with, Josie felt a little stunned, but she quickly responded that she was certain there was only herself and her horse on the bridal path when she witnessed the otherworldly vehicle. Tom dismissed her and stated once more that “you weren’t alone. They say you”. Now, beginning to feel less certain, Josie asked who “they” were. Tom replied that “Special Forces were there”. As if to prove his information was accurate, Tom then elaborated that Josie had “been on the heather”, adding that there was a “red and white gate and you weren’t supposed to go over there”. This information Josie confirmed as being true, and was a detail she had not told anyone, even Robert Salas. She began to suspect that Tom knew much more about her and her encounter than he was saying. She asked him how he knew about the gate. Instead of answering her, however, he simply asked her again if she had suffered any loss of memory, and, although now less sure than before, she stated that she didn’t believe so.
The trio began speaking about other things but it wasn’t long before the conversation took another bizarre turn. Seemingly out of nowhere, Tom’s friend asked Josie if the large, black SUV in the car park of the Bed and Breakfast was hers. She knew which vehicle he was referring to, although she didn’t recall seeing it when she arrived back at the establishment earlier that evening. She stated that it wasn’t hers, and kept to herself that she had seen Tom driving it earlier that evening, even when Tom’s friend asked Tom if the vehicle in question belonged to him, something Tom denied, saying that he “didn’t have a clue” who the vehicle belonged to.
Whether it was because of Tom’s apparent falsehood or not, it was at this point that Josie suddenly began to feel decidedly “surprised and scared”. As the three of them ventured outside to inspect the mystery vehicle, Josie suddenly asked them bluntly who they were and if she was safe, to which Tom’s friend replied cryptically that she was “with the safest men in Ireland”. Not entirely convinced, Josie offered that she was suddenly tired and was going up to her room. The next morning she checked out early and left the establishment immediately.
Josie didn’t see either of the two men again, but the meeting with them left a lasting impression on her. Just who were they and why were they so interested in a sighting of a strange object she had seen almost 40 years ago? Moreover, why were they seemingly obsessed with whether she had endured an episode of missing time or not? Were these men from the secret security unit they spoke of? And perhaps of most concern, was she “directed” to the Bed and Breakfast by the men, or by people they worked for, by somehow coercing the owner of the public house she had originally booked into informing her of the “mistake” in giving her a room? If there was any accuracy in this last consideration, of course, then that would suggest that what she had witnessed was of far greater importance than she had previously thought?
As usual, the accounts we have examined here are but a few of the many encounters that have unfolded in or over the Netherlands, and these encounters continue to be reported today. Indeed, much like elsewhere in the world, not only do strange objects and strange experiences continue to be reported from the Netherlands, but general awareness of such matters is perhaps higher than it has ever been. If our delve into some of the most mind-bending UFO and alien encounters from the Dutch UFO files has told us anything, it is that whatever is behind the UFO and alien mysteries, it is a truly global phenomenon.

From Humanoid Encounters to Ultra-Secret Units: Mind-Bending UFO and Alien Accounts from the Netherlands! Read More »

1 ai girlfriend apps leak millions of private chats 1

AI girlfriend apps leak millions of private chats

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Millions of private messages meant to stay secret are now public. Two AI companion apps, Chattee Chat and GiMe Chat, have exposed more than 43 million intimate messages and over 600,000 images and videos after a major data leak discovered by Cybernews, a leading cybersecurity research group known for uncovering major data breaches and privacy risks worldwide. The exposure revealed just how vulnerable you can be when you trust AI companions with deeply personal interactions.Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CyberGuy.com newsletter    Users have experienced a massive leak, exposing millions of private AI chat messages.  (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)Massive data breach exposes AI chat usersOn August 28, 2025, Cybernews researchers discovered that the Hong Kong-based developer Imagime Interactive Limited had left an entire Kafka Broker server open to the public without any security protection. This unsecured system streamed real-time chats between users and their AI companions. It contained links to personal photos, videos, and AI-generated images. In total, the exposed data involved 400,000 users across iOS and Android devices. Researchers described the content as “virtually not safe for work” and said the leak exposes a deep gap between user trust and developer responsibility.DISCORD CONFIRMS VENDOR BREACH EXPOSED USER IDS IN RANSOM PLOT iPhone and Android users’ private data was found to be streamed on an open server. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)Who was exposed in the AI leakMost affected users came from the United States. About two-thirds of the data belonged to iOS users, while the remaining third came from Android devices. Although the leak did not include full names or email addresses, it did expose IP addresses and unique device identifiers. This information can still be used to track and identify individuals through other databases. Cybernews found that users sent an average of 107 messages to their AI partners, creating a digital footprint that could be exploited for identity theft, harassment, or blackmail.AI secrets and spending habits revealedPurchase logs revealed that some users spent as much as $18,000 to chat with their AI girlfriends. The developer likely earned over $1 million before the breach was uncovered. Although the company’s privacy policy claimed that user security was “of paramount importance,” Cybernews found no authentication or access controls on the server. Anyone with a simple link could view private exchanges, photos, and videos. This lack of protection shows just how fragile digital intimacy can be when developers ignore basic safeguards. Experts warn scams, blackmail, and identity theft can be a result of the leak. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)How Cybernews discovered and closed the leakCybernews quickly reported the problem to Imagime Interactive Limited. The exposed server was finally taken offline in mid-September after appearing on public IoT search engines, where hackers could easily find it. Experts are still unsure whether cybercriminals accessed the data before it was removed. However, the threat remains. Leaked conversations and photos can fuel sextortion scams, phishing attacks, and serious reputation damage.HACKER EXPLOITS AI CHATBOT IN CYBERCRIME SPREETips to stay safe from AI data leaksEven if you never used an AI girlfriend app, this case is a clear reminder to protect your privacy online.1) Think before you shareAvoid sending personal or sensitive content to AI chat apps. Once shared, you lose control of it.2) Use reputable AI toolsChoose apps with transparent privacy policies and proven security records.3) Remove your data onlineUse a data removal service to wipe personal information from public databases. While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice.  They aren’t cheap, and neither is your privacy.  These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites.  It’s what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet.  By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you.Check out my top picks for data removal services and get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web by visiting CyberGuy.comGet a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web: CyberGuy.com4) Strengthen your cybersecurity with strong antivirus software Install strong antivirus software to block scams and detect potential intrusions. The best way to safeguard yourself from malicious links that install malware and potentially access your private information is to have strong antivirus software installed on all your devices. This protection can also alert you to phishing emails and ransomware scams, keeping your personal information and digital assets safe.Get my picks for the best 2025 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android & iOS devices at CyberGuy.com5) Protect your accounts with a password manager and MFAUse a password manager and enable multi-factor authentication to keep hackers out.Next, see if your email has been exposed in past breaches. Our #1 password manager (see CyberGuy.com) pick includes a built-in breach scanner that checks whether your email address or passwords have appeared in known leaks. If you discover a match, immediately change any reused passwords and secure those accounts with new, unique credentials. Check out the best expert-reviewed password managers of 2025 at CyberGuy.comWhat this means for youAI chat apps often feel safe and personal, but they store enormous amounts of sensitive data. When that data leaks, it can lead to blackmail, impersonation, or public embarrassment. Before trusting any AI service, check whether it uses secure encryption, access controls, and transparent privacy terms. If a company makes big promises about security but fails to protect your data, it is not worth the risk.Kurt’s key takeawaysThis leak exposes how unprepared many developers are to protect the private data of people using AI chat apps. The growing AI companion industry needs stronger security standards and more accountability to prevent these privacy disasters. Cybersecurity awareness is the first step. Knowing how your data moves and who controls it can help you stay safe before another leak puts your personal life online.Would you still confide in an AI companion if you knew anyone could read what you shared? Let us know by writing to us at CyberGuy.comSign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CyberGuy.com newsletter  CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPCopyright 2025 CyberGuy.com.  All rights reserved.  

AI girlfriend apps leak millions of private chats Read More »

1 teens face new pg 13 limits on instagram

Teens face new PG-13 limits on Instagram

Key Takeaways: Instagram has introduced new PG-13 settings to protect teenagers from mature and risky content. The new settings automatically filter out sexually suggestive material, violence, alcohol, and tobacco for users under 18. Parents can now set stricter boundaries with the Limited Content setting, which filters mature material, removes comments, and limits what teens can

Teens face new PG-13 limits on Instagram Read More »