You can upgrade this modular guitar controller with 3D-printed parts.
Drakong, a new gaming hardware subsidiary of Hyperkin, has partnered with Fender for a new rhythm game guitar controller called the InfinaKore Telecaster Edition. What sets it apart from Hyperkin's Hyper Strummer is a modular design allowing the body, fret buttons, whammy and strum bars to be customized and replaced with 3D-printed alternatives.
The controller supports Bluetooth and 2.4GHz connections, the Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, and PCs, and games including Fortnite Festival , Guitar Hero , and Rock Band . 1/4 The controller's design is inspired by the iconic Fender Telecaster guitar, and includes connection points for a shoulder strap. Image: Drakong
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wall Street Says Datadog (DDOG) Is One of Two Key Winners in Observability
Datadog, Inc. (NASDAQ:DDOG) is one of the . On August 5, DA Davidson analyst Gil Luria raised the price target on the stock to $160.00 (from $125.00) while maintaining a 'Buy' rating. The rating affirmation is based on the firm's strong observability demand. According to the research firm, proprietary developer datasets demonstrate significant growth in usage and strong quarterly demand for Datadog's services. Checks further reveal how observability has become a 'two-horse race,' and that Datadog is clearly positioned as one of the market leaders. 'We provide our updated thoughts on DDOG based on analysis from our proprietary developer datasets which showed significant growth in usage suggesting a strong quarter in terms of demand. Checks with the DEN and key industry players emphasized Observability as a two-horse race with Datadog clearly one of the winners." A financial analyst in their office, monitoring the daily performance of the stock market. "Overall, we continue to look past the narrative around OpenAI and view the company as well positioned for growth and a benefactor in the rotation from AI hardware to AI software infrastructure. Reiterate BUY rating. PT to $160 from $125.' Datadog, Inc. (NASDAQ:DDOG) offers a cloud-based SaaS platform for monitoring and analytics, specializing in cloud computing and AI-powered cybersecurity products. While we acknowledge the potential of DDOG as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and . Disclosure: None. Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
Analysis Of Whether Generic Generative AI Falls Within The Purview Of Providing Therapy And Psychotherapeutic Advice
In today's column, I examine a seemingly straightforward question that asks whether contemporary generic generative AI and large language models (LLMs) are said to be providing therapy and psychotherapeutic advice. The deal is this. When you use ChatGPT, Claude, Llama, Gemini, Grok, and other such popular generative AI systems, you can readily engage the AI in conversations about mental health. This can be of a general nature. It can also be a very personal dialogue. Many people are using AI as their de facto therapist and doing so without nary a thought of reaching out to a human therapist or mental health professional. Does the use of those LLMs in this manner signify that the AI is proffering services constituting therapy and psychotherapy? You might declare that yes, of course, that is precisely what the AI is doing. It is blatantly obvious. But AI makers who make and maintain the AI are undoubtedly reluctant to agree with that plain-stated assessment or ad hoc opinion. You see, new laws are starting to be enacted that bear down on generic AI that provides unfettered services within the scope of therapy and psychotherapy. AI makers are likely to desperately contend that their generic AI falls outside that regulatory scope. The question arises whether they will be successful in making that kind of tortuous argument. Some would say they don't have a ghost of a chance. Others believe they can dance their way around the legally troubling matter and come out scot-free. Let's talk about it. This analysis of AI breakthroughs is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here). AI And Mental Health Therapy As a quick background, I've been extensively covering and analyzing a myriad of facets regarding the advent of modern-era AI that produces mental health advice and performs AI-driven therapy. This rising use of AI has principally been spurred by the evolving advances and widespread adoption of generative AI. For a quick summary of some of my posted columns on this evolving topic, see the link here, which briefly recaps about forty of the over one hundred column postings that I've made on the subject. There is little doubt that this is a rapidly developing field and that there are tremendous upsides to be had, but at the same time, regrettably, hidden risks and outright gotchas come into these endeavors too. I frequently speak up about these pressing matters, including in an appearance last year on an episode of CBS's 60 Minutes, see the link here. State Law Ups The Ante I recently analyzed a newly enacted law on AI for mental health that had been signed and enacted in Illinois on August 1, 2025, see my coverage at the link here. This new law is quite a doozy. The reason that it is a doozy is that it lays out violations and penalties for AI that provides unfettered therapy and psychotherapy services. The implication is that any generic generative AI, such as the popular ones I noted earlier, is now subject to potential legal troubles. Admittedly, the legal troubles right now would seemingly be confined to aspects of or within Illinois, since this is a state law and not a broader federal law. Nonetheless, in theory, the use of generic generative AI by users in Illinois that, by happenstance, provides therapy or psychotherapeutic advice is presumably within the scope of getting dinged by the new law. You can bet your bottom dollar that similar new laws are going to be popping up in many other states. The clock is ticking. And the odds are that this type of legislation will also spur action in the U.S. Congress and potentially lead to federal laws of a like nature. It all could have a tremendous impact on AI makers, along with major impacts on how generative AI is devised and made available to the public. All in all, few realize the significance of this otherwise innocuous and under-the-radar concern. My view is that this is the first tiny snowball that is starting to roll down a snowy hill and soon will be a gigantic avalanche that everybody will be talking about. Time will tell. Background On AI For Mental Health I'd like to set the stage before we get into the particulars of this heady topic. You might be vaguely aware that the top-ranked public use of generative AI and LLMs is to consult with the AI on mental health considerations, see my coverage at the link here. This makes abundant sense. You can access most of the major generative AI systems for nearly free or at a super low cost, doing so anywhere and at any time. Thus, if you have any mental health qualms that you want to chat about, all you need to do is log in to AI and proceed forthwith on a 24/7 basis. Compared to using a human therapist, the AI usage is a breeze and readily undertaken. AI makers already find themselves in a bit of a pickle on this usage of their AI. The deal is this. By allowing their AI to be used for mental health purposes, they are opening the door to legal liability if their AI gets caught dispensing inappropriate guidance and someone suffers harm accordingly. So far, AI makers have been relatively lucky and have not yet gotten severely stung by their AI serving in a therapist role. You might wonder why the AI makers don't just shut off the capability of their AI to produce mental health insights. That would solve the problem of the business exposures involved. Well, as noted above, this is the top attractor for people to use generative AI. It would be usurping the cash cow, or like capping an oil well that is gushing out liquid gold. One aspect that the AI makers have already undertaken is to emphasize in their online licensing agreements that users aren't supposed to use the AI for mental health advice, see my coverage at the link here. The aim is that by telling users not to use the AI in this manner, perhaps the AI maker can shield itself from adverse exposure. The thing is, despite the warnings, the AI makers often do whatever they can to essentially encourage or support the use of their AI for this claimed-to-be don't use capacity. Some would insist this is a wink-wink of trying to play both sides of the gambit at the same time, see my discussion at the link here. The Services Question My commentary on these sobering matters is merely a layman's viewpoint. Make sure to consult with your attorney to garner any legal ramifications pertaining to your situation and any potential legal entanglements regarding AI and mental health. Let's take a look at the Illinois law that was recently passed. According to the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, known as HB1806, these two elements are a core consideration (excerpts): Regarding the use of unregulated AI in this realm, a crucial statement about AI usage for mental health purposes is stated this way in the Act (excerpt): There are varying ways to interpret this wording. One interpretation is that if an AI maker has a generic generative AI that also happens to provide mental health advice, and if this is taking place without the supervision of a licensed professional, and this occurs in Illinois, the AI maker is seemingly in violation of this law. The AI maker might not even be advertising that their AI can be used that way, but all it takes is for the AI to act in such a manner (since it provides or offers as such). Generic AI Versus Purpose-Built AI Closely observe that the new law stipulates that the scope involves 'therapy or psychotherapy services'. This brings us back to my opening question: Before we unpack the thorny issue, I'd like to clarify something about the topic of AI for mental health. You might have noticed that I referred to generic generative AI. What does the word 'generic' mean in this context? Let me explain. Well, first, there are customized generative AI systems and AI-based apps that are devised specifically to carry out mental health activities. Those are specially built for that purpose. It is the obvious and clear-cut intent of the AI developer that they want their AI to be used that way, including that they are likely to advertise and promote the AI for said usage. See my coverage on such purpose-built AI for mental health at the link here and the link here. In contrast, there is generic generative AI that just so happens to have a capability that encompasses providing mental health advisement. Generic generative AI is intended to answer all kinds of questions and delve into just about any topic under the sun. The AI wasn't especially tuned or customized to support mental health guidance. It just happens to be able to do so. I am focusing here on the generic generative AI aspects. The custom-built AI entails somewhat similar concerns but has its own distinct considerations. I'll be going into those facets in an upcoming posting, so be on the watch. Definitions And Meaning Are Crucial An AI maker might claim that they aren't offering therapy or psychotherapy services and that their generic generative AI has nothing to do with therapy or psychotherapy services. It is merely AI that interacts with people on a wide variety of topics. Period, end of story. The likely retort is that if your AI is giving out mental health advice, it falls within the rubric of therapy and psychotherapy services (attorneys will have a field day on this). Thus, trying to dodge the law by being sneaky about wording isn't going to get you off the hook. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, by gosh, it surely is a duck. One angle on this disparity or dispute would be to nail down what the meaning and scope of therapy and psychotherapy encompass. Before we look at what the Illinois law says, it is useful to consider definitions from a variety of informed sources. Definitions At Hand According to the online dictionary of the American Psychological Association (APA), therapy and psychotherapy are defined this way: The Mayo Clinic provides this online definition: The National Institute Of Health (NIH) provides this online definition: And, the popular website and publication Psychology Today has this online definition: Interpreting The Meanings Those somewhat informal definitions seem to suggest that the nature of therapy and psychotherapy includes these notable elements: (1) aiding mental health problems, (2) use 'talk' or interactive chatting as a mode of communication, and (3) undertaken by a mental health professional. Let's see what the Illinois law says about therapy and psychotherapy (excerpts per the Act): It is interesting and notable that some carve-outs were made. The scope appears to exclude peer support, along with excluding religious counseling. Contemplating The Matter It might be worthwhile to noodle on how an AI maker might seek to avoid repercussions from their generic generative AI getting caught up in this messy milieu. First, if therapy and psychotherapy were defined as requiring that a mental health professional be involved, this provides an angle of escape. Why so? Oddly enough, an AI maker could simply point out that their AI doesn't employ or otherwise make use of a mental health professional. Therefore, the AI cannot be providing these said services since it fails to incorporate a supposed requirement. Notably, the Illinois law seems not to fall into that trap, since it seems to simply indicate that there are services and does not name that a mental health professional is part and parcel of the definition. Some of the other definitions that I listed would potentially be in a murkier condition due to explicitly mentioning a required role of having a trained professional or other similar verbiage. Second, an AI maker might try to claim that their generic generative AI is more akin to peer support. The beauty there is that since peer support is a carve-out, perhaps their AI is no longer within scope. It would be a tough row to hoe. Peer support stipulates that individuals are involved. At this juncture, we do not genuinely recognize AI as having legal personhood, see my discussion at the link here, and therefore, trying to assert that AI is an 'individual' would be an extraordinary stretch. Third, an AI maker might go the route of claiming that their generic generative AI is a form of religious counseling. The advantage would be that the matter of religious consulting is a carve-out. In that case, if AI were said to be doing religious counseling when providing mental health advice, the AI maker would apparently be free of the constraint. This appears to be a failing strategy for several reasons, including that the AI is presumably not a clergy member, pastoral counselor, or other religious leader (maybe a desperate attempt could be made to anoint the AI in that fashion, but this would seem readily overturned). Caught In A Web Other potential dodges or efforts to skirt the coming set of laws will indubitably be a keen topic for legal beagles and legal scholars. If an AI maker doesn't find a viable workaround, they are going to be subject to various fines and penalties. Those could add up. For example, Illinois has a population of approximately twelve million people. Of those, suppose that half are using generic generative AI (that's a wild guess), and that half of those use the AI for mental health aspects from time to time (another wild guess). That would be three million people, and each time they use the AI for that purpose might be construed as a violation. If each person does so once per week, that's twelve million violations in a month. The Illinois law says that each violation is up to a maximum fine of $10,000. We'll imagine that instead of the maximum, an AI maker gets fined a modest $1,000 per violation. In one month, based on this spitball conjecture, that could be $12 billion in fines. Even the richest tech firms are going to pay attention to that kind of fine. Plus, once other states go the same route, you can multiply this by bigger numbers for each of the additional states and how they opt to penalize AI that goes over the line. Crucial Juncture At Hand An ongoing and vociferously heated debate concerns whether the use of generic generative AI for mental health advisement on a population-level basis is going to be a positive outcome or a negative outcome for society. If that kind of AI can do a proper job on this monumental task, then the world will be a lot better off. You see, many people cannot otherwise afford or gain access to human therapists, but access to generic generative AI is generally plentiful in comparison. It could be that such AI will greatly benefit the mental status of humankind. A dour counterargument is that such AI might be the worst destroyer of mental health in the history of humanity. See my analysis of the potential widespread impacts at the link here. So far, AI makers have generally had free rein with their generic generative AI. It seems that the proverbial rooster has finally headed home to roost. Gradually, new laws are going to be enacted that seek to prohibit generic generative AI from dispensing mental health advice that is absent of a human therapist performing counseling. Get yourself primed and ready for quite a royal battle that might determine the future mental status of us all.
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
Test Driving The Hybrid-Powered 2025 Lamborghini Urus SE
As a brand, Lamborghini has never been about subtlety or trepidation. They've always been bold, and even in the practical world of SUVs the Lamborghini Uris has always put the "funk" in functionality. But this year Lamborghini has added a new domain to its SUV. This is the first hybrid version of the Lamborghini Urus, dubbed the Urus 'SE' – where the 'E' stands for electrification. This is actually a plug-in hybrid, giving the Lamborghini Urus SE an EPA-rated 37 miles of pure electric travel before the 4.0-liter internal combustion engine fires up. Like every version of a plug-in hybrid, the Urus SE gains power and torque…but it also gains weight. How much? About 700 pounds, giving it a curb weight of 5,500 pounds versus the non-hybrid 2025 Urus S and Urus Performante, both of which weigh in at 4,800 pounds. Those two other Urus trims are not electrified, and they are both going away after the 2025 model year, so if you like your Urus without a hybrid component you better get to your dealer right now and get your Lambo SUV ordered. In terms of price, the base Lamborghini Uris S costs about $242,000 while the top-of-the-line Performante trim costs about $274,000. This new Urus SE electrified version lands right between them, at about $263,000. Lamborghini Urus SE: One Hybrid to Rule Them All While every Urus is powered by the same 4.0-liter, twin turbocharged V8, in the S and Performante trims the V8 'only' makes 657 hp. This Urus SE, with its 192 hp electric motor and 25.9 kWr battery pack helping out, makes 789 hp and 701 pound-feet of torque. This makes the SE the most powerful Lamborghini Urus you can buy, and also the quickest, with a 0-to-60 time around 3.1 seconds and a top speed of 194 mph. So, despite the substantial weight gain, the Urus SE clearly benefits from the hybrid components. It's also the most fuel efficient Urus, with an EPA mixed fuel rating of 20 miles per gallon versus 16 mpg for the Urus S and the Performante. The electric motor is embedded in the 8-speed automatic transmission, and like every Urus the SE includes standard all-wheel drive. And because this is a plug-in hybrid the Urus SE gets an EPA-rated 48 MPGe when it's leveraging a fully charged battery and the hybrid drivetrain. Thankfully, this is a Lamborghini, so we know it's not really about fuel efficiency – it's about performance. And in the Urus SE's case Lamborghini has made maximum torque arrive, with the help of that motor, at an easily-accessible 1,750 RPM. You can really feel it when you roll into the throttle, as that wall of torque readily pulls the 5,500-pound SUV away from stops and up to highway speeds with minimal effort. The 2025 Lamborghini Urus SE also benefits from a new electrohydraulic multi-plate clutch and electronic rear differential, giving the vehicle more effective torque vectoring in all circumstances. This benefits the SUV not just at the track or on dry pavement, but also on slippery surfaces or when off roading. I'm impressed by the Urus SE's performance, despite the weight gain. Obviously the performance figures speak for themselves, but driving it really tells the story as its relentless pull conveys its 'torque everywhere' approach Lamborghini is striving for. Working in tandem with the drivetrain's immense pulling power are paddle shifters that make swapping gears in the 8-speed automatic an instantaneous experience. Using them lets the driver maximize engine power under varying driving conditions, such as accelerating in a straight line or blasting between apexes at a track or on a twisty road. The Lamborghini Urus SE's responsive driving dynamics reflect the engineering team's ability to hide the reality of this large, tall SUV gaining hundreds of pounds from the hybrid drivetrain infusion, and that's impressive. Lamborghini Urus SE Represents the Next-Gen Urus Beyond the hybrid technology, the Urus SE previews the mid-cycle refresh we'll see across the entire Urus model line in 2026. This includes the SE's more prominent hood that extends to the front of the vehicle instead of stopping short of the Lamborghini emblem. The SE also features matrix LED headlights that are both narrower and sharper, and more effective at providing nighttime lighting. These headlights flank a larger Urus grill we'll see on the other two models next year, confirming the simple reality that every vehicle redesign and refresh must include a larger grille. When you look at the side of the new Lamborghini Urus SE it's the same as the previous year, though there are new 23-inch wheels available. Our press car 'only' had 22-inch wheels, probably because the larger 23s would have negatively impacted both fuel efficiency and the SE's all-electric range. Out back, a new mesh wraparound treatment, just below the taillights, gives the Urus SE a more sinister look. This feature was supposedly inspired by past Lamborghini supercars, including the Gallardo. A new rear spoiler and lower rear splitter have increased downforce by 35 percent. The mid-cycle refresh continues inside, where Lamborghini's familiar 'jet-fighter-inspired' cabin design remains in place. The familiar joystick controls for reverse and driving modes have been supplemented by new drivetrain buttons for hybrid, recharge, and performance settings. Recharge mode is represented by a button with a battery on it, and in this setting the Urus SE can actually charge its battery during low speed and stop-and-go driving. Of course you can also plug the Urus SE in to a wall outlet to recharge the 25.9 kWr battery. Lamborghini Urus SE's Hybrid Tech Really Works! My experience with the Lamborghini Urus SE included driving in 'recharge' mode during a 60-mile, mostly freeway-speed trip from south Orange County to Santa Monica. This was followed by putting it in pure electric mode for the drive back. The battery remained nearly fully charged during the initial travel, then delivered 40 miles of pure electric travel on the way back, proving the effectiveness of both the hybrid drivetrain's charging capabilities and its pure EV efficiency (though speeds were reduced to between 20 and 60 mph on the return drive, as is typical of the LA area…). Additional interior upgrades include a new 12.3 inch central touchscreen with a streamlined control interface, and a new gauge cluster with higher-quality graphics. Our test car was highly equipped, adding about $80,000 to the Lamborghini Urus SE's base price. The most expensive options were the 'Big Interior Carbon Package - Shny' for $8,113, and the 'Sportivo Leather Interior' for $6,082. Actually our test vehicle's beautiful blue paint was the most expensive option, at $13,384. But that's a small price to pay given it lets you tell people your Urus is painted 'Blu Uranus', right? With all 29 options added to the Lamborghini Urus SE's base price of $262,,631, our test car rang in at $341,708. Probably not a realistic price for most of today's SUV buyers, but that's kind of the point, right. Buying the Urus SE provides not only the unique performance, prestige, and premium experience Lamborghini is known for, but in a package that doesn't flinch when it's time to perform serious utility vehicle duties, whether that's going off road, carrying up to five people in comfort, or hauling up to 22 cubic feet of cargo (56 cubic feet if you fold the second-row seats down). Lamborghini Urus SE: The Future of Performance? But the most important feature of this super SUV is the advanced hybrid technology it brings to customers, giving them a glimpse of the future of Lamborghini (and likely every other performance brand). The Porsche 911 is now a hybrid. So is the Ferrari SF90, McLaren Artura, and Lamborghini's own top-dog sports car, the Reveulto. If the 2025 Lamborghini Urus SE's combination of fuel efficiency and performance – both in a straight line and around corners – points to the road ahead, it's going to be a lovely ride.
