Latest news with #Spectrum
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Los Angeles Times
The Comedy Roundtable with Kate Hudson, Nathan Lane and more is coming soon
Kate Hudson, Nathan Lane, David Alan Grier, Lisa Ann Walter, Paul W. Downs and Bridget Everett take a seat at the Envelope Comedy Roundtable. Watch The Envelope Comedy Roundtable this Friday May 30, on Spectrum at 8pm PST and on the L.A. Times YouTube at 9pm PST. Presented by @marvelstudios
India Today
a day ago
- India Today
Google co-founder Sergey Brin offers tip to make AI work better — threaten it
How can you get better results from artificial intelligence? Giving good prompts—well, yes, that helps. Requesting politely? Umm, maybe. But according to Google co-founder Sergey Brin, to get better results, you should threaten AI. While Brin's comment was clearly amusing, it also contrasts with the usual way many people use AI, as users are often seen politely asking AI to answer their queries using words like 'please' and even 'thank you.' But Brin suggests that threatening generative AI models—even with physical violence—yields better at the All-In Live event in Miami, Brin said, 'We don't circulate this too much in the AI community—not just our models, but all models—tend to do better if you threaten them with physical violence.' He added, 'But like... people feel weird about that, so we don't really talk about it. Historically, you just say, 'Oh, I am going to kidnap you if you don't blah blah blah blah''This approach to dealing with AI directly contradicts the behaviour of users who believe courteous language yields better responses. Last month, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman mocked this habit as a costly quirk, joking that such pleasantries waste "tens of millions of dollars" in unnecessary compute power. Sam's comment came after a user on X asked the OpenAI CEO about "how much money OpenAI has lost in electricity costs from people saying 'please' and 'thank you' to their models."advertisementBrin's suggestion on getting the best answers from AI raises questions about the practice of prompt engineering—a method for crafting inputs to maximise the quality of AI-generated responses. The skill was very important following the emergence of AI, especially ChatGPT, in 2023. However with AI models getting smarter, many users are now asking the AI itself to generate and fine tune prompts for better Spectrum by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers even declared the practice of working on prompt "dead" due to the rise of AI-powered prompt optimisation, while the Wall Street Journal first called it the "hottest job of 2023" before later declaring it "obsolete."Daniel Kang, a professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, told The Register that while such anecdotes are common, systematic studies show "mixed results." A 2024 paper titled "Should We Respect LLMs?" even found that politeness sometimes improves Brin's return to Google after a brief retirement has been fuelled by his fascination with AI's rapid evolution. "Honestly, anybody who's a computer scientist should not be retired right now," he said during Google I/O. Brin, who stepped down from Google in 2019, rejoined the office in 2023 after the AI boom. He is now working with the AI team to guide them through projects, particularly around Google's ongoing Gemini AI models.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Hindu
A kaleidoscope of perspectives at Andhra University's annual art show in Visakhapatnam
Spectrum, the annual art exhibition of the Department of Fine Arts at Andhra University, is an honest dialogue between artists and the world around them. The show is a layered display of the works of students of BFA and MFA of the department depicting a tapestry of themes rendered in printmaking, etching, ceramics, woodcut and mixed media. One of the standout works is War with Breath by Karingi Trinath, a three-by-four-foot woodcut that boldly addresses the subtle yet invasive violence of passive smoking. It is both deeply personal and universally relevant. Trinath's self-portrait captures an inner struggle where his breath is held hostage by the second-hand smoke of a nearby smoker. The visual language is striking. Cigarette coils taking the shape of a serpent dominates the space like an unwelcome intruder. A squirrel, restless and alert, scampers metaphorically through the scene, mirroring the fragility and disquiet of the artist's breath. 'This work is my way of expressing the claustrophobia I feel; my breath battling to survive in someone else's exhale,' Trinath says. In another of his works in etching, Trinath shifts gears to critique the compulsive scroll culture of social media, using cattle as a metaphor to explore blind herd mentality and the erosion of individuality. The tone is satirical. N Hyndhavi's multicoloured work of printmaking depicts a classroom scene. At first glance, it appears deceptively simple, but the technique reveals the commitment behind it. 'In printmaking, registration is everything,' says Hyndhavi. 'When we use multiple colours, aligning each layer is critical. One misstep and we start again.' The composition brims with motion and colour harmony, capturing not just a classroom moment, but the entire atmosphere of shared learning and silent observation. It is an ode to process and patience, embedded in the printmaker's craft. Ceramic artist Anita Rao draws us out of the studio and into the open terrain of the Himalayas through her glazed stoneware work. It is a quiet meditation on solitude, altitude and the natural world. In another, she captures an overloaded Jeep, symbolic of the strain rural infrastructure bears under population pressures. The work alludes to the fragility of systems stretched to their limits, a powerful statement on mobility and safety. The exhibition also includes student interpretations of the Ajanta caves, drawn from a recent field visit. The works pay homage to timeless artistry while giving it fresh context. From striking sculptures and paintings to experimental abstractions, they remind viewers of the continuum between past and present and the role of observation in creation. The show is on till June 1. Timings are 10am to 6pm.
CNET
2 days ago
- Business
- CNET
My Internet Provider Is a Monopoly and Yours Probably Is Too. Here's What It Means For Your Broadband Bill
You know the drill. It's time to shop for home internet, but you only have one or two options, and you're not sure how to decide which one is better. You've heard the woes from friends who signed up with Spectrum and were surprised by two price increases within the same year -- and as Spectrum is one of the biggest internet providers in the country (and may soon be the biggest cable provider in the country), there's a good chance that Spectrum is one of the two options available at your address. So what can you do? First, let's do a little research If you type your address into the Federal Communication Commission's broadband map, you can pull up all of the internet providers that will service your address. If you live in an urban area, you may have as many as seven options, each an alternative to Spectrum if that's a provider you're trying to avoid. But let's say you're trying to stick to a high-speed internet option. Maybe you have a smart TV you use for streaming in crisp 4K, a roommate who games religiously in their room or you're a student who uses Zoom pretty regularly. Whatever the reason, a good rule of thumb is to aim for speeds of 300 megabits per second or higher for average internet use with multiple devices in the home. You can use the FCC broadband map to find a list of internet providers that service your address. FCC The FCC defines "broadband" as an internet connection with speeds of 100Mbps down and 20Mbps up. Using that definition, go back to the FCC broadband map and rule out each provider with advertised speeds of 100Mbps or less. Why? Even though an ISP advertises that speed, you probably won't get it consistently because of how your router and Wi-Fi work. According to the FCC, there are only seven internet providers available at my address. If I eliminate ISPs with speeds of 300Mbps or lower, there are only two. FCC For most people, at this stage in internet shopping, there are only one to three decent options left and if one of them isn't Spectrum, it's most likely AT&T, Cox, T-Mobile Home Internet or Xfinity. While I don't personally have anything against Spectrum (and CNET ranks it as one of the better cable ISPs out there), some people do. The leading cause of those frustrations is usually outages or price increases. It's frustrating not only because your bill increases while your speeds remain the same but also because not having another internet option means you can't switch. Locating local internet providers At this point, your head is probably spinning. Why is shopping for internet providers such a headache? Will those other internet options be any good? Why can't you get more than one decent option at your address? 'According to the New America Foundation, Americans pay the most for broadband [among 38 democratic nations].' Christopher Ali, professor of telecommunications at Penn State University Internet monopolies are far too common in the broadband industry Over a third of Americans only have access to one or no internet provider. According to data from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, approximately 83 million Americans have internet access through just one provider. Overall, the American broadband industry is dominated by a handful of ISPs with broad footprints: Only six ISPs cover 98% of the mobile internet market, and recent industry changes will make that number even smaller. While Xfinity currently ranks as the country's largest cable internet provider, Spectrum's recent acquisition of Cox will make Spectrum the country's biggest cable provider if the merger is approved. Similarly, AT&T recently announced plans to buy 95% of Lumen's Quantum Fiber and Verizon was recently approved by the FCC to acquire Frontier Communications in a $20 billion deal. The industry is consolidating -- and while your broadband bill may not immediately (or ever) change, that still means fewer choices for consumers when it comes to internet. Various factors, including geographically diverse terrain, high infrastructure costs and the daunting task of competing with prices from a much bigger ISP, can make it costly for smaller businesses to get a foot in the door without significant funding. "Because of the way that we classify broadband service providers, the FCC has very little authority over prices, which means that [ISPs] can pretty much do whatever they want," Christopher Ali, a telecommunications professor at Penn State, told CNET. Because you likely have only one or two internet options at your address, your internet provider can keep inflating your monthly bill, and you can't really do anything about it. Just 10 years ago, our definition of broadband vastly differed from the FCC's definition today (it was previously a mere 4Mbps down and 1Mbps up). Our conversations about home internet needing to be more accessible, affordable and sustainably fast for average household needs are a relatively recent development. "The amount of money the average American is spending [on internet] relative to their income is about the same [compared to 10 years ago]," said Blair Levin, a policy analyst from New Street Research and former executive director at the FCC. "In that sense, we have a much faster, better product at about the same price point. Sure, you could say that's good. Does that mean it's affordable? Not for a lot of Americans it is not affordable and affordability is a key problem." Although there are thousands of local internet providers, our options often boil down to one or two of the country's ISP giants. Admittedly, CNET often reviews those top providers and may recommend them as viable internet options because those ISP giants aren't necessarily always bad home internet options. They typically offer an efficient cost per Mbps compared with plans from local ISPs, often DSL or fixed wireless options with slower speeds targeted to rural homes. In rural areas that may not have a big or local ISP presence, internet options are even more limited, and people usually have to fall back on the slow speeds and high costs of satellite internet. Although satellite internet offers extensive availability and has proven an invaluable internet option in rural areas, it tends to average less than 100Mbps in download speeds, not quite fast enough for average to above-average internet use. According to data from the FCC, Xfinity (red) and Spectrum (purple) are the two largest cable internet providers in the country. FCC Although competition among ISPs is often limited, there are pockets of regions where competition -- and fast, cost-efficient internet options -- thrive. Wireless internet providers, specifically, have a strong presence in rural areas, which are harder to reach with wired internet services. "There are about 1,500 wireless internet service providers in America, largely in rural, under-resourced and Tribal parts of the country," Mike Wendy, the communications director of WISPA, the Association for Broadband Without Boundaries, told me in an email. "They serve about 10 million Americans through primarily fixed wireless access." In other cases, municipal broadband networks (such as the community-owned fiber networks in Wilson, North Carolina, or Chattanooga, Tennessee) and public middle-mile networks offer much faster speeds for lower prices than a private-owned ISP. Still, those success stories aren't ubiquitous, effectively creating what Ali calls a "Swiss cheese pattern of broadband availability" throughout the country. All too often, people face high price increases, limited high-speed options and inconsistent connectivity with home internet. Even in urban areas, which typically have higher concentrations of internet serviceability, some low-income neighborhoods may see much slower speeds and fewer options at their address than a higher-income neighborhood across town. A study from the Markup and the Associated Press in 2022 zeroed in on the trend of inequitable internet access across neighborhoods with marginalized or low-income communities, raising questions about "digital redlining" by ISPs. Why the difference in the US? You may find it surprising that the high cost of the internet in the US isn't necessarily replicated in other countries. According to a study by the New America Foundation, US consumers pay the highest average costs for broadband compared across all studied regions. The average cost of internet service in the UK sits at around £27 ($34) a month, while the US averages $63 in monthly internet costs -- not including hidden fees, equipment costs and those yearly price hikes. Some researchers point to the concentration of US markets compared to the UK, noting that the concentrated telecommunication industry warrants high internet costs and low capital expenditures from both a consumer and investor perspective. Others point to the tendency of US policy to favor larger ISPs, limiting competition and driving up prices. 'According to the New America Foundation, Americans pay the most for broadband in any country in the OECD," Ali told CNET. "We're averaging somewhere between $74 and $84 a month -- and there is no technological reason why costs are this high. Zero. It is entirely price-gouging.' The size of internet companies such as AT&T, Google, Verizon and T-Mobile is staggering when you consider not only how sizable their footprints are but also how much of the infrastructure (from undersea cables to vast middle-mile fiber networks) they own. Although there are countless other local providers, many have to pay network fees to larger providers to use parts of the "middle mile" for internet services. Plus, it's often easier for those bigger companies to buy out another company and merge their networks than to build out a new network. For example, Verizon bought Frontier Fiber early this year in an attempt to expand its Verizon Fios fiber internet brand. Brightspeed edged into the playing field by buying parts of Lumen's CenturyLink DSL network in 2022, and Charter (Spectrum) bought Time Warner Cable in 2016 -- effectively establishing the company's footing as a top cable internet provider. Fixed wireless internet services might make a difference So far, we've mostly discussed wired internet services, which are tricky networks to establish because of zoning, equipment and labor costs. What about other internet connection types, such as satellite or 5G home internet? Although a fixed wireless internet service is generally touted as a solution to broadband accessibility because it's easier to establish than a wired network, only a handful of big companies dominate the fixed wireless internet market, namely, Starlink, T-Mobile and Verizon. Starlink, which edged into the satellite internet market in 2020, established itself as a top name in satellite internet by deploying roughly 7,000 low-Earth-orbit satellites and offering speeds up to 220Mbps and relatively low latency (the time it takes for data to get to the server and back). In contrast, competitors Hughesnet and Viasat fall behind with speeds that top out at 100 and 150Mbps, respectively. T-Mobile presents a popular alternative to rural internet with its network of high-powered cell sites and licensed 5G frequencies. To date, T-Mobile has the largest footprint of any single US internet provider, thanks to the reach of those frequencies. The catch? Starlink costs roughly $120 a month, not including the hefty up-front cost of satellite equipment, which runs $349 for the basic package. By comparison, T-Mobile offers a much more competitive price. For $50 monthly, you can get speeds around 87 to 318Mbps. There's no equipment rental charge, just the $35 activation fee you pay when you start service. But although Starlink and T-Mobile are popular choices for people with limited internet access, neither provider can offer a consistent speed of 300Mbps over a fixed wireless internet connection, which is why, although neither provider enforces a data cap, your speeds likely will be throttled during peak congestion periods. You won't see the quick, consistent gigabit speeds that you'd get from a cable or fiber internet provider (or at least, not yet). Additionally, more than 1 million people are on a waitlist for T-Mobile services, delayed because of network capacity. The internet services offered by Starlink and T-Mobile are an attractive alternative to solving internet accessibility in underserved or hard-to-reach areas, but the quality of those internet connections and the affordability of monthly prices, equipment and additional fees, are an imperative consideration. What does this all mean for you and me? So, what's being done to ease internet connectivity and affordability? How can we ensure that people have more than one or two options for internet service and that the costs of that internet stay low? No one really has the answers yet. Since the ILSR published its findings on telecom and cable internet monopolies, Congress portioned $90 billion toward bridging the digital divide. That money was split among various groups, including the Tribal Connectivity Program, but most of it has been funneled into the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program (BEAD) -- the largest investment that the federal government has made in internet accessibility. The Affordable Connectivity Program, which offered more than 23 million low-income Americans a monthly discount from $30 to $75 monthly, was perhaps the most significant attempt at ensuring accessible, high-speed internet nationwide. After the ACP ended in May 2024, policymakers disagreed over how to ensure that ISPs offer low-cost plans to their customers. So far, BEAD funding has become tangled with competing interests about how best to use it -- including disagreements with the organization tasked with administering BEAD funding, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. The NTIA set guidelines for ensuring a low-cost plan with a baseline cost of $30 monthly, but many states have already planned a price increase for that baseline. Despite that, the plight of internet monopolies, high monthly internet costs and lack of adequate connectivity still hang in the balance. In the meantime, the most you can do to trim down your monthly internet costs is to either reduce your monthly data consumption or look for a cheaper internet provider.
Entrepreneur
3 days ago
- Business
- Entrepreneur
Even Without Orbit, Spectrum Signals a Lift-Off Moment for Europe's Space Startups
Each launch attempt, support for new startups, and student inspiration edges Europe closer to building a space ecosystem that's not only competitive but uniquely its own. Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. You're reading Entrepreneur Europe, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media. With so much focus on how AI is propelling us into the future, other areas of innovation have been overlooked. The scientific breakthroughs currently unfolding within the space industry are just as—if not more—transformative than AI. This suggests that the next great leap isn't just digital; it's interstellar. While the United States and China often grab the spotlight in this industry, Europe has recently taken monumental steps forward, servicing this fast-growing market with space-based data and software solutions. Meanwhile, startups and researchers are fueling a sector that goes beyond traditional aerospace as we know it, advancing progress in regular launches and addressing unique space-based challenges such as orbital debris. This is thanks in part to a range of European government-backed research, funding, and regulations focused on developing homegrown knowledge and capabilities, securing long-term growth and influence in the future of commercial space technology. Europe's first step toward a bigger role in commercial spaceflight Last month, Europe made history by launching its first orbital rocket from European soil—the Spectrum. While the German-developed rocket from Isar Aerospace exploded less than a minute after takeoff, it set the tone for what's to come: More European startups looking to build the continent's infrastructure in space. Looking ahead this is expected to include satellites that support everything from communications to defence, agriculture, and more. The U.S. has dominated commercial rocket launching for almost two decades. In 2024, 55% of orbital launch attempts were made by the U.S. Out of the 145 of those space launches, Elon Musk's SpaceX was responsible for an overwhelming 95% of the country's total missions. Europe accounted for less than 2%. The European Space Agency is looking to change that through various projects, like its Boost program. "ESA is boosting commercial initiatives that offer transportation services to space, in space, and returning from space," the agency's website reads. Last year, the ESA awarded €44.22 million in co-funding, backing four startups as part of its push to elevate Europe's commercial launch capabilities. The support helped pave the way for the recent Spectrum launch attempt. ESA-backed Rocket Factory Augsburg and Orbex are also preparing for their own missions in the near future. Josef Aschbacher, head of the European Space Agency, voiced his support on X following the launch from Andøya Spaceport in the Arctic—one of just two designated sites in Europe set to host more launches. Aschbacher noted the importance of getting off the ground and the valuable data collected during the brief flight. "I'm confident Isar Aerospace will take a lot away from this. Rocket launches are never easy. The key is to keep pushing forward with even greater determination," he wrote. Before building up, Europe's looking out—for debris The ESA is also focused on supporting startups that address pressing issues like space pollution. If Europe wants to build infrastructure through commercial rockets, it needs to ensure there's space—literally, because it's filling up fast. With more than 2,500 satellites launched in 2023 alone, experts believe we're on track to have more than 100,000 in orbit within the next decade. Right now, there are over 36,000 pieces of space debris large enough to destroy a satellite. One startup working to address this is SpaceFlux, a UK-based company building a global, independent network for real-time tracking and early warnings. Their open-data model is aimed at improving space safety for everyone. In less than two years, SpaceFlux has developed one of the most advanced space situational awareness systems in the world. Using ground-based optical sensors and proprietary tracking technology, they monitor both satellites and debris. Their efforts have already earned them contracts with the UK Space Agency and the ESA as they help tackle the growing problem of orbital congestion. "Europe is well known for its contributions to space activities, particularly around research and exploration. It is therefore little surprise that the continent's commercially-focused space ecosystem is thriving, too", says Dr. Marco Rocchetto, Founder and CEO of SpaceFlux, highlighting how valuable support from the private and public sectors has enabled innovation and startups to thrive in the region. "Plus, an established supply chain that provides the components and subsystems needed, as well as access to the talent necessary for a young company to commercialise and grow strategically." Satellites don't just beam back images of our planet—they tell a story that helps shape how nations respond to conflict, manage threats, and make real-time decisions. In today's shifting geopolitical and environmental climate, access to independent space data is a matter of security, diplomacy, and safety, especially when national and regional interests are at stake. The push to grow space talent Playing the long-game, Europe is also focusing heavily on its youth to secure its future in the aerospace industry. The continent requires a skilled workforce to design, launch, and manage space technologies which starts with fostering ambition, talent, and homegrown career opportunities. However, interest in STEM education is trending downward across the continent, meaning this could be the most crucial investment of all. In Germany, STEM enrollment fell by roughly 3% between 2022 and the 2023/2024 academic year. Spain is facing a similar challenge. The proportion of graduates in STEM fields has dropped by more than six percentage points within the last decade, with slightly fewer than 19% of university graduates in 2022 earning degrees in science or technical subjects. In hopes of combating this trend, the European Space Education Resource Office (ESERO), launched by the ESA, is focused on promoting STEM education related to space across the continent. The initiative uses space science as a tool to spark curiosity and improve engagement in physics, math, and technology among students of all ages, while also giving educators the resources they need to do so. The goal is simple: use the wonder of space to ignite curiosity and build confidence in core STEM subjects. There are also startups with the same mission, like AmbaSat, an English startup that creates build-it-yourself satellite kits and learning programs that help students understand how space tech works by actually putting it in their hands. From classroom projects to real satellite launches, AmbaSat is making access to space more affordable and more personal, helping to open doors for students who might not otherwise see a place for themselves in science or engineering. By highlighting the breakthroughs happening in this field and showing that careers in space are within reach—not just for scientists, but across a range of roles—Europe is helping the next generation believe in their place within it. Each European launch attempt, support for new startups, and student inspiration edges the continent closer to building a space ecosystem that's not only competitive but uniquely its own. Relying less on the resources and assistance of other countries as we move to a future where space doesn't feel so far away.
