The Elites are Claiming the World’s Water Supply and Plan to Trade It on the Stock Market.

Yep, you heard me right. This is not a joke or exaggeration. The facts are out there for all to see. I wrote about the tokenization of nature in my article “From Blockchain to Ball and Chain: Are We Being Borged?” [1] This article will deal primarily with the tokenization of the world’s water supply.

Tokenization: Turning Life Itself into a Tradeable Chip

For those who do not understand tokenization, here is a short and simple explanation: Tokenization means turning something real, like a share of water rights, a measured volume of water from a river or aquifer, or even credits for water that was “saved” or recycled, into a digital token (a unique digital certificate) that lives on a blockchain.

A blockchain is simply a shared digital notebook that many computers keep identical copies of at the same time, so the records of who owns what cannot be secretly changed by any one person or company.

That token can then be bought, sold, or traded on markets the same way people trade stocks or other assets. Instead of water simply belonging to the land, the local community, or the people who rely on it, it becomes a financial product that large investors, corporations, and institutions can own fractions of and exchange for profit. The right to use, claim, offset, or trade that water becomes the commodity.

Offset means making up for the water you use by helping save or restore the same amount somewhere else. A farmer switches to drip irrigation, a project restores a wetland, or a company reuses treated wastewater. That saved or restored water is measured and turned into credit. You buy or claim the credit. On paper your water use is balanced.

How Dare They Profit from Stealing Our Water

How dare they make money off this corrupt plan to steal, control, measure and meter the world’s water supply. Yes, I sound like Greta. The irony is thick: the same girl who made “How dare you” famous has been thoroughly programmed to cheer for Agenda 2030 and the very control grid she should be screaming against. Since she refuses to use her catchphrase where it actually belongs, then I will.

Water is the foundation of life itself. Every human, every animal, every plant depends on it. Yet the same elites who lecture the public about scarcity and climate are building the machinery to turn every last drop into a tradable asset they can profit from while ordinary people face rationing and surveillance.

This is exactly the process already described and promoted in official reports. Goldman Sachs itself published “Securing and Financing the Future of Water” in 2026, openly stating that tokenization can turn water rights into traceable tokens that track use across markets and deliver credits for companies that conserve or recycle water through connections to flow meters. Read it yourself: https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/securing-and-financing-the-future-of-water

The United Nations has declared the world has entered an era of “Global Water Bankruptcy.” Their report argues that the old system of local rights is finished and that new enforceable limits, transparent accounting, and centralized management are required. See the official collection: https://unu.edu/inweh/collection/global-water-bankruptcy

The Mapping Machines Are Already Flying Over Your Head

Look at how they are already doing it. Across the United States, helicopters now fly low over farms and aquifers towing giant electromagnetic loops that map the groundwater beneath our feet like an MRI of the earth. California’s Department of Water Resources runs statewide Airborne Electromagnetic Surveys for exactly this purpose. Click here to read how the water mapping technology works: https://water.ca.gov/programs/sgma/aem

hese surveys create detailed maps of every major water source so that usage can later be tracked and limited.

The All-Seeing Eye of Oracle Returns: Now It Watches Every Drop You Use

Oracle Utilities already processes data from more than 100 million meters worldwide with AI systems that detect irrigation, leaks, and individual household use in real time. Their customer platform is designed for exactly this level of precise control: https://www.oracle.com/utilities/customer-platform/

Larry Ellison didn’t just dream of a panopticon. He said the quiet part out loud: “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.” That wasn’t a warning. That was a sales pitch from the man who still owns roughly 40% of Oracle, the company now quietly embedding itself into the pipes that deliver the most basic resource on Earth: water.

Once you own the real-time ledger of every drop that enters every home, every farm, every factory, you don’t need jackboots. You just need a dashboard. Throttle the water, and compliance follows. The same technocratic elite that spent decades consolidating data, finance, and surveillance is now moving on the last ungoverned commons, water itself, under the soothing branding of “customer platforms” and “smart utilities.”

And Ellison isn’t some lone eccentric billionaire operating in a vacuum. He’s a Trump donor who poured roughly $45 million into supporting the 2024 campaign and has since enjoyed the kind of access that turns political proximity into regulatory profit. The same circle that lectures about freedom while building the tools to score, monitor, and ration everyday life now has one of its most unapologetic surveillance advocates sitting in their inner circle.

The water meters are just the latest sensor in a system that already knows when you open the fridge, when and where you drive, when you yawn, drink, text or speak and soon, how long you shower and how many times you flush your toilet.

This is not innovation. This is the elite’s operating system for managed scarcity and behavioral compliance, dressed up as progress and sold by a man who openly celebrated the idea that constant recording would keep the public “on their best behavior.” Oracle isn’t managing utilities. It’s helping construct the choke points. What’s next Larry? Are you going to regulate and tokenize oxygen?

The infrastructure for control is already being paired with the financial machinery. Chainlink, a decentralized oracle network that feeds real-world data such as meter readings and conservation verification into blockchain systems, has published detailed guides on digitizing water rights and conservation credits into tokens so companies can buy offsets just like carbon credits: https://chain.link/article/tokenized-water-rights-credits

In Dubai, the DMCC (Dubai Multi Commodities Centre), a government-backed free zone and major international trading hub, has signed agreements to launch the world’s first digital token backed by verified freshwater reserves, positioning water itself as a tradable commodity on global markets: https://mediaoffice.ae/en/news/2025/june/17-06/dmcc-signs-strategic-mou

They Already Seized the Food and Are Playing God with the Weather

The elites have been systematically taking control of the world’s food supply for years. Bill Gates, through Cascade Investment, has become the largest private owner of U.S. farmland, holding hundreds of thousands of acres across nearly twenty states. At the same time, major asset managers like BlackRock hold massive stakes in the dominant agribusiness corporations that control seeds, fertilizers, processing, and distribution.

Simultaneously, cloud seeding programs and solar geoengineering research, backed by Silicon Valley money and governments, are rapidly expanding. These efforts claim to manage rainfall and cool the planet, yet they place the power to influence weather patterns in the hands of the very institutions already pushing centralized control over water and food.

In other words, they are running the classic Hegelian dialectic to consolidate power:

1. Create the droughts through weather geoengineering/modification
2. Declare an emergency and frighten the public.
3. Arrive with the “solution,” water tokenization that will supposedly save the planet but in reality just make them richer.

The pattern is unmistakable. Connect the dots. First, they buy the land that grows the food. Then they experiment with altering the weather that waters the crops. Now they are mapping, metering, and tokenizing the water itself so that every drop can be tracked, rationed, and sold.

This Is Not Theory. This Is the Takeover in Progress. Technocracy 101

They tell us water is too important to leave in local hands. They declare bankruptcy on systems that have sustained communities for generations. Then they create the digital and physical infrastructure to measure every use, enforce every limit, and profit from every token. The shared nature of water is being rewritten into a system of permission slips owned by the elite few who say that they, the experts, the financiers, the scientists, know best how to manage nature and humanity. It is all part and parcel of the plan of Technocracy Inc.

And make no mistake, this entire scheme sits squarely inside the United Nations Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals. SDG 6 pretends to be about “clean water and sanitation for all,” yet the real machinery being built is the global accounting, metering, and financialization of every drop. The same institutions that wrote the goals now promote water “bankruptcy,” enforceable limits, transparent tracking, and market-based solutions that turn a basic necessity of life into a tradable asset class. What is sold to the public as sustainability and equity is in practice the transfer of control from communities and nations to the very financial and bureaucratic elites who drafted the blueprint. Agenda 2030 is the framework being used to justify seizing, measuring, and selling the world’s water under the banner of saving it.

This is the plan. It is already in motion. And the people pushing it expect the public to accept it as inevitable.

It is NOT inevitable.

Resistance is NOT futile.

Expose the plan. Shout if from the rooftops, news sites, podcasts and council meetings.

Don’t let the elites complete their takeover plan. They have the money but we have the numbers.

Read full story here…

If you’re thinking about moving house or just feeling nosy about your neighbours, your first port of call may be an online property marketing site: Rightmove and Zoopla in the UK, Zillow in the US or Magic Bricks in India.

They offer 3D plans of their properties and a video walkthrough, sometimes with added interactive tools. It all seems very modern – yet it turns out, at least one pioneering London estate agent was offering its clients 3D visual walkthroughs long before the advent of commercial photography.

In the UK, estate agents came into being as a specialised profession in the mid-19th century, as rapid urbanisation and greater social and geographic mobility led to a dramatic increase in the demand for housing.

But in this pre-photography era, how did the Victorian era’s newly monied see what they could buy with their gains from trade or industry? One high-end London estate agent, Brooks & Green, came up with a novel answer.

In 1838, the year of Queen Victoria’s coronation, this Old Bond Street estate agent began advertising an early form of immersive visual technology called a “cosmorama”, to offer prospective buyers a virtual tour of the properties it was selling.

A cosmorama involved looking at paintings or artists’ prints through a large convex lens, which magnified the image and enhanced the perspectival depth, creating a basic 3D effect.

A blackened square frame between the lens and picture hid the edges – enhancing the viewer’s sense of looking at a large scene through an extended opening. Clever lighting effects further enhanced the depth and immersive effects.

To create this cosmoramic view, a skilled artist would have had to visit the estate to prepare the sketches. For 20 years, Brooks & Green promoted its “cosmoramic gallery” as a proto-version of a digital walkthrough. This was nearly 50 years before photography was widely used to advertise property.

The estate agent advertised heavily in the London press. An 1842 advert claimed its office property gallery included “several hundred views of different estates”. Prospective buyers of one property were promised an “aerial perspective, the site and architectural elevation of a mansion, the local scenery and features of a park [and] ornamental grounds”.

The viewing experience of the cosmorama supposedly offered much more realism and detail than a written prospectus – without rich London buyers having to travel miles to inspect the property in question.

But this service was definitely not available to ordinary families. Only high-value mansions and estates were valuable enough to be visualised in this way. Entrance to the Brooks & Green gallery was supposedly free, but you needed an admission card – probably granted only to those who looked like they had suitably deep pockets.

Exhibits around the world

For the first half of the 19th century, the cosmorama was one of the most common forms of visual show across Europe and the Americas. It was first revealed at a Paris exhibition in 1808 by the French showman Abbot Constant Gazzera. His success led to many more exhibitions throughout Europe during the 1820s and ‘30s.

In London, the Cosmorama Rooms opened in 1821 at 29 St James’s Street, moving to Regent Street in 1823. The gallery became one of the established London attractions for over 30 years. With Regent Street only a mile from Old Bond Street, it may have prompted an ambitious Brooks & Green employee to have the idea of using this innovation to market its property.

Also shown across Europe in pleasure gardens, popular science institutions, retail bazaars and fairgrounds, the cosmorama was successful because urbanisation and population growth had created a critical mass of middle-class audiences. It offered a new kind of immersive visual exhibition, reaching audiences who would never visit a fine-art gallery.

Cosmorama means “views of the world” in Greek. It was mainly used to display picturesque landscapes, renowned European sites and striking architectural interiors – such as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, the canals of Venice or the interior of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The interest in this device reflected the public’s growing desire to be cultivated, and to learn about the wonders of the wider world.

Fascination with 3D worlds

But the cosmorama is just part of the story of immersive pictorial entertainment from the early 19th century. Other popular technologies included peepshows, panoramas and dioramas, all of which offered users a sense of virtual travel.

Panoramas were large circular paintings – the Imax cinema of the age – and dioramas were illusionistic spectacles created from 3D models. At the same time, itinerant exhibitors of peepshow boxes travelled the country’s fairgrounds displaying scenes of national events and sensational murders. Picturegoing had become part of everyday life.

I came across the Brooks & Green adverts for its cosmorama in my research for a historical project led by the Universidade Lusófona in Lisbon, which has mapped cosmorama exhibits across Europe and beyond. In all, Curiositas: Peeping Before Virtual Reality has catalogued more than 650 cosmoramas in Portugal, Spain and the UK.

Many more of these devices were exhibited in countries as far apart as North America, Brazil, Cuba and Australia. The famous US showman P.T. Barnum installed a cosmoramic gallery in his American Museum in New York.

The cosmorama was ultimately superseded by the stereoscope, which also created a 3D photographic experience by looking through lenses. Thus, the cosmorama was an early part of the story of our fascination with virtual worlds – of being taken outside and beyond ourselves, and immersed in another environment.

John Plunkett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. He is the co-author of Popular Visual Shows 1800-1914: Picturegoing from Peep Shows to Film (Oxford University Press, 2025)

Battles between rival groups are a story as old as time. This sounds like a human story, but it is also one that is playing out across nature.

Conflict between groups of animals competing for territory and resources is widespread, and contests between animals can be dangerous. Getting ambushed, especially by a larger or more powerful group, can have disastrous consequences.

However, conflict is sometimes unavoidable.

Emerging research shows war preparations are not a trait unique to humans.

A new article by my colleagues and I highlights how many of the same principles apply to animals too, and not just in our closest relatives like apes. We reviewed the literature and found examples throughout the animal kingdom of animals preparing for future conflicts. This behaviour probably explains how animals persist in the face of often intense conflict.

Animals may sense the recent presence of their rivals. Many species, such as dwarf mongooses, leave scent marks to advertise their presence, and react to those laid down by rival groups. Others animals may rely on their memories of past conflict to change their behaviour in situations they deem risky, such as at territory edges or contested resources.

There can be sex differences in how animals approach conflict. Vervet monkeys are a good example here. Males often stand to lose more from conflict, while females stand to benefit – as it could lead to securing long-term access to high-quality food. Researchers have observed males attempting to defuse conflict yet females try to promote male participation.

When assessing that the risk of conflict, there are many questions for animals to consider. Are rival groups likely to be close by? How powerful are they? Are they restricting access to key resources? Do you have vulnerable offspring to protect?

Animals use many different approaches to reduce the dangers rivals may pose. Here are three main ones:

1. Inform yourself

Information is power. Across group-living species, from mongooses to invertebrates, there is evidence that animals can prioritise gathering information in risky situations. Chimpanzees have been seen to climb to the top of hills and wait quietly, listening out for rivals before making their next move.

Similarly, when groups of dwarf mongooses encounter the scent of rivals, they move less, investigate their surroundings more and post more sentinels to look out for danger. Gathering information comes at a cost, often in the form of lost opportunities to find food and engage in social interactions. But if the risk is high this can be a small price to pay.

2. Strategise

The way animals use space can be crucial. Some species, such as long-tailed tits and chacma baboons, choose to minimise the time they spend in risky areas, such as where territory overlaps. Others animals, such as meerkats, lay down scent marks near their burrows, which are a valuable resource.

Staying within familiar areas and defending them can give groups of animals a home advantage, as groups are more likely to win when they are on familiar ground. Groups can also stay closer to one another, reducing the chances of animals getting isolated should a contest arise suddenly.

Many species, including ants and apes, raid rival groups. These include targeted forays into rival territory with the goal of injuring and even killing rivals to reduce the threat they pose to their own group. Raids in ant species also allow groups to steal the brood of their rivals, bolstering their future fighting force.

3. Stick together

Make sure your groupmates have your back. Although groups often cooperate with one another, animals can be out for themselves, especially those less related to their groupmates or with less to gain from winning.

Group members therefore need to be confident that the others won’t turn tail when the going gets tough. This can be achieved by both carrot and stick. Chimpanzees play and groom more before conflict occurs. These bond-building activities aim to ensure nobody defects if backs are against the wall. It happens more on days when they later engage in conflict, which suggests they know to some degree that an attack will be more likely.

Vervet monkeys, however, take a different approach. Monkeys that failed to participate in previous contests can face aggression from groupmates, coercing them to step up and help next time.

All of this preemptive behaviour can require animals to keep track of who their rivals are, how strong they are and where they might be. Gathering and processing this information can take a lot of effort. But if it allows animal groups to survive, then intergroup conflict may lead to the evolution of cognitive abilities. Indeed, researchers have suggested the need to outmanoeuvre rivals contributed to the intelligence we have as humans today. That is not to say that all anticipation is mentally costly. When rivals are predictable, simple rules can suffice.

Although our work focused on animals in groups, many of the same principles should generalise to solitary and pair-living animals too. Just imagine how many potential cold wars are playing out between rival animals, each trying to preempt the other while going about their daily lives.

Josh Arbon receives funding from the University of Cambridge Herchel Smith Fund. He works for the University of Cambridge and has previously worked for the University of Bristol.

At this point, it’s a pretty well known fact that electric vehicles — and, at least in the popular imagination, Teslas especially — have a nagging habit of erupting into flames.

One Tesla owner in Maine evidently has that concern hovering in the back of their mind every time they leave the driveway.

While driving around the town of Tremont in a sleek red Model S, an unnamed driver hit an object on the road which punctured the vehicle’s lithium-ion battery, local station WABI5 reported. As most EV drivers are hopefully aware, any kind of damage to a car’s battery can easily spark a fire fueled by thermal runaway, resulting in a uniquely dangerous inferno that can be difficult to put out.

Luckily, this driver kept their head, driving straight to the Tremont fire station where the high-voltage battery immediately burst into flames, Bangor Daily News reported.

With help from the nearby Southwest Harbor Fire Department, the crew of the Tremont Volunteer Fire Department sprang into action, shutting down the road and dousing the Tesla using an arsenal of firehoses.

Based on photos of the incident, it seems the Tesla was totaled, but the driver is said to be doing alright.

The Tremont fire comes just days after an exploding Tesla in Seattle sent two firefighters to the hospital. That particular EV was parked inside an attached garage at the time, resulting in a two-alarm housefire that displaced an unfortunate family.

All told, if you drive an EV, it’s probably smart to have the address of the nearest fire department drilled into your head — especially if it’s a Tesla.

More on Tesla: It’s Looking Like the Cybertruck Is the Biggest Flop in Automotive History

The post Driver Pulls Up Directly to Firehouse When His Tesla Inexplicably Bursts Into Flames appeared first on Futurism.

For protestors rising up against the data centers undergirding the AI boom, the math is simple: wherever they sprout, the facilities make frightfully poor neighbors — inflating utility prices, discharging hazardous waste, and blasting horrid noise at all hours of the night.

For data center developers, there’s a different calculation to be made: namely, one of supply and demand around the seemingly infinite drive for computing power.

Against the backdrop of an industry measured in the trillions of dollars, a few scattered protests at city hall may seem inconsequential. Yet as more and more local campaigns arise in opposition to data centers, the collective financial implications are becoming impossible to ignore.

According to new reporting by Reuters, which indexed data compiled by the research firm Data Center Watch, there are now hundreds of billions of dollars exposed to the growing risk of local opposition.

In the first three months of 2026 alone, at least 75 separate data center projects faced some kind of organized opposition at the local level. Together, those 75 developments represent a combined $130 billion worth of investments.

The funders of those data centers include major banks, but also more than a few private equity firms, which are sure to notice as the social risk to their data center investments climb.

Simply put, the potential that any given data center could be cancelled due to local opposition is rising, a sign that organized efforts against data centers are becoming more than the sum of their parts.

Yet despite growing costs, opposition alone may not be enough to slow the behemoth industry. As one anonymous senior official at a foreign lending firm told Reuters, investors are now becoming more comfortable pricing in cancellation risks as the demand for AI compute grows — like frogs adjusting to boiling water.

More on data centers: Google Data Center Announces Plans to Pave Over Protected Wetlands

The post Protests Against Data Centers Are Now Threatening $130 Billion of Big Tech’s Crucial Investments appeared first on Futurism.

Bad news for anyone seeking a job in this AI-infested hiring hellscape: not even Google’s top AI lab can figure it out.

That’s according to an HR memo viewed by Bloomberg, encouraging job-seekers to fill out a special AI-proof form on top of their standard application so that a “real human” will know they applied.

The document, which contains the delicious disclaimer “PLEASE DO NOT SHARE THIS DOC WIDELY,” is ironically the product of Google DeepMind’s AGI Safety and Alignment Team. Taken at face value, it pretty blatantly admits that whatever AI-integrated hiring software the lab uses to review candidates has been dumping CVs straight into the garbage.

“We have an applications system with a non-trivial probability your CV will be screened out incorrectly or take too long to reach us,” the memo explains. “Filling out this form makes sure that a real human on the team will get to see your application.”

Even in the face of the memo, a spokesperson for Google’s DeepMind project insisted to Bloomberg that the company’s AI hiring software is working just fine.

“This team set up a special form to go past the recruiter review, and get their resumes direct to the people on the team,” the spokesperson said. “But there are no shortcuts to getting hired.”

All told, it’s a wild admission from any Google division, not to mention its flagship AI research hub. For the DeepMind crew, specifically, to throw up their hands and invent a workaround to sneak past the company’s own AI hiring software is galling beyond words.

It’s safe to say AI slop has completely obliterated the digital hiring ecosystem millions depend on to find work — and if Google’s top AI minds can’t fix it, what hope do the rest of us have?

More on Google: Google’s AI Is Telling Users That Flock Cameras Are Filled With Valuable Gold and Copper

The post Internal Google Document Reveals That Its HR AI Has Been Throwing Résumés From Qualified Applicants Straight Into the Trash appeared first on Futurism.

Whether you’re looking for medical advice or tips on industrial agriculture, one thing is abundantly clear: never trust an AI chatbot without first getting a second opinion, preferably from a human who has actual expertise in the topic.

That’s the takeaway from an incident in the small city of Chuzhou, China, after a large langue model dispensed some advice that led to the untimely death of 25 acres worth of produce.

According to the Taiwanese publication CTWANT, a 67-year-old farmer surnamed Wu decided to start consulting an AI chatbot for advice nearly a year ago. He was reportedly skeptical at first, though the farmer began to let his guard down after some early successes with the AI’s farming tips.

Since that time, Wu has come to rely on his LLM for everything from fertilizing guidance to scheduling various tasks around the farm. After months of fruitful consultations, he decided to follow his AI chatbot’s new pesticide plan to the letter, letting loose on some 25 acres of precious sesame seedlings, all without ever double-checking with an expert or outside documentation.

The plan generated for him was basically a Long Island ice tea of agro-chemicals: a mix of “high-efficiency flupyridine” and “flufenazate” for pesky weeds, with plenty of “thiamethoxam” and “emamectin benzoate” for bugs and other pests, CT reported.

Not even a day after treatment, Wu says his juvenile sesame crop began to wither and die.

Per a video interview later translated by Tom’s Hardware, the farmer offered some hard-earned advice to any other growers looking to use his concoction: “If you spray it, the next day the seedlings won’t survive.”

“Both the grass and the seedlings will die, and the seedlings will die even faster,” Wu lamented.

It’s just the latest case of an LLM cooking up some slop that lands a professional in hot water. If nothing else, Wu’s in good company: he joins a host of other dupes across the legal, medical, financial, education, and media industries who’ve likewise fallen prey to an AI chatbot’s inaccurate output.

More on farms: The Diarrhea Lettuce Company Has Been Linked to Forced Labor

The post Farmer Horrified as AI Gives Bad Advice That Kills 25 Acres of Crops appeared first on Futurism.

Over 30 student activists came together on Monday afternoon to occupy the Gallup Building in Washington DC, home to a public-facing lobbying office belonging to ChatGPT developer OpenAI.

Once inside the lobby, the demonstrators unfurled a massive banner reading “Stop Stealing Our Future,” while others held signs with messages like “OpenAI bought my Senator.” The demonstration lasted two hours, and ended when police stormed the lobby, arresting 13 protestors.

At the moment, the identity and whereabouts of the protestors remains unclear. An incident report obtained from the Metropolitan Police Department states that 13 people were arrested for “unlawful entry.” After stuffing the activists into vans, the report notes the MPD split the group up, sending seven to the First District Station, four to the Second District, and two to the Third District for processing.

The protest was organized by the climate group Sunrise Movement and anti-AI organization QuitGPT. According to a joint statement shared with Futurism, Monday’s action is just one of many across over 20 states in August calling on politicians to “Dump Big Tech.”

One student organizer who attended the protest, Raya Gupta, explained in the statement that “my friends chose to risk arrest to bring the fight to OpenAI.”

“Our generation doesn’t have any guarantees about whether we’ll have jobs after college, or whether there will be clean drinking water for all of us or whether people will have any power left in politics since our elections keep getting bought by Big Tech,” Gupta continued. “We all believe that not taking action now, as the scales slide between the people and the billionaires, puts our future in great jeopardy.”

Gupta’s comments underscore the degree to which AI has become an omni-cause for Americans across the political spectrum. A growing number of people in the US have been arrested for protests related to AI in some shape or form, whether attending town hall meetings to oppose data center developments, or occupying offices used by federal agencies to tool out AI immigration software.

Despite growing disgust with AI and its developers, politicians on both sides of the aisle have roundly embraced the tech industry’s extremely expensive lobbying efforts. Case in point, the recent opening of OpenAI’s DC Office comes as one of the AI lab’s super PACs injects over $140 million into the coming midterm elections, in a blatant attempt to steer AI regulations at the highest level.

Updated with new information from the MPD.

More on AI protests: Climate Activists Pelt Microsoft Data Center With Balloons Full of Acid

The post Protesters Arrested After Storming OpenAI Lobbying Office appeared first on Futurism.

Tech Goliaths are scrambling to build as much AI computing capacity as they possibly can, come hell or low water. One of the dominant players in the space, Amazon Web Services, has its heart set on an AI data center so enormous that it could easily become the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.

According to the New York Times, Amazon has confirmed its investment in a massive gas-burning power plant in Texas, meant to supply up to 7.65 gigawatts of energy to a planned data center in Pecos County. Should it come online as planned, the plant’s 35 turbines would be allowed to spew 33 million tons of CO2 a year, the NYT notes, which would easily make it the largest single fount of emissions in the country.

That’s a stunning amount of carbon exhaust, putting that single data center in a league with entire countries including Switzerland, Ireland, and Bulgaria.

It would also be in stark defiance of Amazon’s stated climate goals, which center on reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.

That’s not lost on the tech giant. But as Amazon spokesperson Margaret Callahan told the NYT, the “world looks different now than when we co-founded the climate pledge.”

“We’re being transparent about the challenges, investing in innovation, and delivering measurable results,” Callahan continued. “Growth and sustainability don’t have to be in opposition — in fact, our results show they reinforce each other.”

Even without the new Pecos County plant, Amazon’s emissions are staggering. The company recently disclosed a record increase in its total emissions last year, with company-wide electricity usage rising by 34 percent across 2025.

That the company is blatantly papering over its previous climate commitments isn’t a shocker at this point, in other words, as the company reaches new emission highs with each passing year.

More on Amazon: Jeff Bezos Harshly Criticized for $200 Million Pledge to Protect the World’s Most Endangered Species

The post Amazon’s New AI Data Center Is So Enormous That It Appears It Will Become the Largest Single Source of Pollution in the United States appeared first on Futurism.

Most people set out in life wanting to believe the world is fair. They expect people to wait their turn in queues, to be treated equally in their job, and to be rewarded for hard work. These expectations influence how they understand the world around them, and shape their responses to it.

But what happens when life repeatedly challenges those assumptions? Psychologists have long been interested in this question. Our new research, published in the British Journal of Psychology, suggests adverse experiences shape both how fair people believe the world is, and how they view their place in society.

Over the course of a lifetime, personal setbacks – from illness and bereavement to being a victim of crime – may have a cumulative effect, leading to a growing sense that the world is unfair. We think this is important in the context of today’s increasingly polarised societies, in which trust in institutions has declined severely in the UK and many other countries.

Adversity and unfairness

Our research set out to answer two key questions: do experiences of adversity influence whether people see the world as fundamentally unfair – and if so, what are the societal consequences? We conducted three surveys involving more than 1,200 British participants with an equal gender split and average age of 39.

In one study, we found that people who reported experiencing more lifetime adversity – including illness, bereavement, financial hardship and violence – were more likely to believe the world was unfair.

In another, we compared people who had experienced violent victimisation with those who had not. After accounting for demographic factors, people who had experienced violent crime reported stronger perceptions of injustice.

Our final study found that greater lifetime adversity was associated with lower trust in institutions through perceptions of injustice. This is important because trust underpins many aspects of society, from confidence in public institutions to democratic participation.

Together, these findings suggest that people don’t simply interpret information based on the facts available to them. They also interpret it through the lens of their previous experiences.

Two people can read the same news story, watch the same political debate or hear the same public health advice, yet come away with very different conclusions that may not simply reflect differences in knowledge or politics. It may also reflect differences in how they have come to see the world as a result of the hardships they have faced.

Furthermore, if someone increasingly believes that the world is unfair, they may be more likely to notice fresh examples of perceived injustice, corruption or hidden motives – and interpret new events through that lens.

Belief in conspiracy theories

Previous research has shown that people who feel uncertain, powerless or threatened are often more likely to endorse conspiracy theories. Most of this work, however, has focused on their identities, traits and beliefs.

In our investigation of the impact of adverse life experiences on people, we found a remarkably consistent pattern. When these hardships are associated with stronger perceptions of injustice in the world, the same people more strongly endorse conspiracy beliefs.

Conspiracy theories rarely describe events as random. Instead, they tend to suggest that powerful individuals or organisations are secretly responsible for what happens. They offer explanations that identify intentional causes behind events that might otherwise seem confusing or unjust.

Research suggests that across societies, the level of belief in conspiracy theories is relatively stable over time. But once these beliefs become part of how someone understands the world, they can be difficult to shift.

This makes it all the more important to understand the experiences and psychological processes that may contribute to these worldviews developing in the first place. Our findings suggest that perceptions of injustice are one such pathway.

For someone who increasingly feels the world is unfair, conspiracy theories may become more psychologically appealing – providing a way of making sense of experiences that otherwise feel difficult to understand.

Our research does not suggest that adversity inevitably leads to conspiracy beliefs; nor that conspiracy theories are an inevitable consequence of trauma. Rather, it highlights a long-term psychological process that may help explain why some people become more receptive to these ideas.

In an increasingly polarised world, the media and political focus is often concentrated on what information people consume. But our research suggests we should pay more attention to the experiences that shape the lens through which people interpret information. This could help explain why people can look at the same events and reach very different conclusions.

Ultimately, people’s experiences don’t just affect them in the moment. They shape their worldview – which can influence how they interpret and respond to events and other people’s behaviour far into the future.

So, we believe any effort to reach greater consensus in society may require a deeper understanding of the hardships people have lived through over the course of their lives – and how these can affect their sense of injustice.

Daniel Jolley has received funding from the Leverhulme Trust, the British Academy, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). The studies mentioned in this piece were funded by the British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grants Scheme (SRG23/230720) and carried out in collaboration between Daniel Jolley, Laura Blackie, and research assistant Anna Maughan.

Laura Blackie has received funding from the British Academy.

Pick up your phone. Open the settings. Find the small blue rectangle with the pointy angular symbol inside it, the one you have been ignoring since the first mobile device you ever owned. That specific little glyph, on the accumulated historical evidence of the past thirty years of wireless technology, is the personal monogram of a Danish king who ruled from approximately 958 to 986 AD, died in the year Halley’s Comet last returned to Earth before 1066, and has been buried in Roskilde Cathedral for the better part of a thousand years.

His name was Harald Gormsson. His nickname, according to the surviving Old Norse records, was Blåtand. Which translates directly into modern English as Bluetooth.

The whole story of how his personal monogram ended up on every wireless device on the planet is one of the more genuinely accidental facts of the modern technology industry.

The king in question

According to the official history maintained by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group, the industry consortium that owns the technology standard and runs its trademark, Harald Bluetooth was a considerably more interesting historical figure than the somewhat comic nickname suggests. Between roughly 958 and 986, he unified the previously fragmented tribes of what is now Denmark into a single kingdom, brought Norway into the same political sphere, and was responsible for the formal Christianisation of the Danes, an achievement he commemorated by carving one of the earliest known references to the country of Denmark on a runestone that still stands today in the small town of Jelling.

The nickname itself, on the surviving linguistic record, appears to have come from a physical peculiarity. He had, according to the accounts that reached the medieval Icelandic chroniclers, a prominent dead tooth that had darkened to a shade closer to grey-blue than to healthy white. In an era before dentistry, this was the kind of visible personal feature that stuck. The great unifier of Scandinavia became, in the mouths of his contemporaries and their descendants, the man with the blue tooth.

His initials, in the runic alphabet of his time, were ᚼ for the H sound in Harald and ᛒ for the B in Blåtand. In the Younger Futhark script used in tenth-century Scandinavia, those two characters look nothing like the modern Latin letters H and B. What they look like, when combined into a single glyph in what scholars call a bind rune, is the exact symbol currently sitting on every Bluetooth-enabled device in the world.

On a related note, I came across a video that dives into the effect our phones are quietly having on us. You’ve probably felt it before, but this video will put a name to the feeling:

The Toronto bar

The story of how the king’s monogram ended up on modern electronics has been recounted in detail by the person primarily responsible, an Intel engineer named Jim Kardach. According to Kardach’s own 2008 account, published in EE Times under the title “Tech History: How Bluetooth got its name”, the origin of the whole naming decision took place in a Toronto bar in late 1997.

Kardach was at the time working on short-range wireless radio at Intel. Three separate industry efforts were running in parallel. Intel had a project called Biz-RF. Ericsson had one called MC-Link. Nokia had a third called Low Power RF. All three companies were trying to build essentially the same thing, which was a small, low-power wireless standard that would let phones, computers, and peripheral devices talk to each other without cables. In late 1997, after a joint industry meeting in Toronto that Kardach later described as having gone badly, he and Ericsson engineer Sven Mattisson went out drinking together and, being history enthusiasts, started swapping stories about the medieval Scandinavian kings Mattisson had been reading about in Frans G. Bengtsson’s Viking-era novel The Long Ships.

One of the kings in the book was Harald Bluetooth. Kardach, on his own subsequent account, went home from the trip and read further, ordering Gwyn Jones’s A History of the Vikings, and found a photograph of the runestone Harald had commissioned. Harald had united the fragmented tribes of Scandinavia into a single political unit. The three technology companies, if they could ever agree on a single standard, would be uniting the previously fragmented world of consumer electronics into a single wireless protocol. The parallel was, on Kardach’s telling, too neat to ignore. He proposed the name Bluetooth as a temporary internal code name for the project.

The bind rune of Harald’s initials became the working logo. Kardach later created a PowerPoint slide showing Harald holding a mobile phone in one hand and a notebook in the other.

How it stayed

The name was not, on any of the surviving contemporary correspondence, meant to be permanent. According to both the Bluetooth SIG’s own account and Kardach’s, the intention was for the marketing departments of the participating companies to come up with a more polished official name in due course, and for Bluetooth to be quietly retired once something better arrived.

Two names were shortlisted as replacements. One was RadioWire, which was Intel’s preferred candidate. The other was PAN, which stood for Personal Area Networking. The launch of the industry consortium was scheduled for early 1998. The trademark clearance process for RadioWire dragged past the deadline. A search for PAN turned up so many unrelated uses of the acronym on the newly emerging commercial internet that its usefulness as a brand collapsed. The Bluetooth Special Interest Group was formed in February 1998, under Kardach’s temporary code name, on the understanding that the name would be replaced later.

The first Bluetooth-enabled products shipped in 1999. By then, according to a National Geographic feature on the technology’s Viking origins, the name had already acquired sufficient market recognition that rebranding would have cost more than continuing to use it. The tech press was writing about Bluetooth. Trade shows had Bluetooth banners. Product packaging was going to press. Nobody wanted to spend the money to change everything. The temporary code name became the permanent one, and the bind rune of a tenth-century Danish king’s initials became the visual identity of a wireless standard that would, over the following quarter century, be installed on more than five billion devices per year.

Kardach himself, on his own account of the whole episode, has been surprised at the trajectory ever since. He was inducted into the Bluetooth Hall of Fame for his role in the naming decision. He retired from Intel as chief power architect in 2012. And the symbol he first proposed as a working code, drawn from a book about medieval Scandinavians he happened to be reading during a badly-timed Toronto business trip, has become one of the most reproduced pieces of graphic design in the world.

None of this was meant to happen. Harald Bluetooth did not know his initials would end up in the pocket of every person on the planet. Kardach did not intend the code name to survive marketing review. The Bluetooth SIG did not plan to build a global brand around a Scandinavian pun. What connects all of these accidents is the strange gravitational pull of anything that becomes familiar quickly enough. Once a placeholder gets attached to a project long enough for the trade press to start using it, and long enough for it to appear on the sides of shipping products, the cost of changing it starts to exceed the cost of simply leaving it in place. And so, on the accumulated evidence of thirty years of consumer electronics history, the temporary becomes the permanent, and the initials of a long-dead Viking king continue to appear, every day, on the connection screen of every device you own.

Kiran Athar is not a historian or a technology industry analyst. She writes about history, technology, and the ordinary corners of modern life where the two intersect, drawing on peer-reviewed research and primary-source scholarship.

The post The Bluetooth symbol on your phone is actually a thousand-year-old Viking monogram. It belongs to a Danish king who united warring tribes, and the reason his name ended up on billions of devices was never even meant to be permanent. appeared first on Space Daily.

As if the practice of homeschooling wasn’t fraught enough already, parents are now bragging about using large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT to school their kids.

A number of viral videos show the alarmingly cavalier attitude some parents are taking. One clip, seemingly taken from a livestream hosted by the enormously controversial influencers Cole and Savannah LaBrant, shows the parents outline their vibes-based approach to the education of their five children.

“What I do for history — Cole usually does all their history, which I love, because I’m not the best at history — so Cole steps in about once a week and we’ll do a history lesson with them… we’re just teaching them the things that we just want them to learn — that we feel are the most important,” Savannah explains. “And same with science, and geography.”

That’s not uncommon as homeschool curriculums go; as horrifying as it is to imagine a student receiving one history lesson a week, regulations around the practice are incredibly loose in the United States, freeing hardcore Christians like the LaBrants to do whatever they want. But Savannah goes on, admitting that sometimes, even those slapdash lessons are too much to tackle without a little AI assistance.

“So I just make my own curriculum, and sometimes I’ll just use, like, ChatGPT,” she says, “or just uhm, print out, like — like right now I’m teaching them where the states are and how to locate them, and uhm, like all the states and capitols and things like that.” (Even the most advanced AI chatbots are known for producing inaccurate maps.)

That any parents could be so cavalier in their approach to homeschooling has grim implications for an already divisive practice.

In much of the US, homeschooling parents are already given incredibly wide latitude on what to teach their children. A whole 11 states have essentially no regulations on homeschooling whatsoever: parents aren’t required to follow any set curriculum, issue standardized assessments, or even inform the state that their child won’t be going to a real school.

Many more states only require a notice of intent to homeschool and occasional proof of attendance, the latter being a bare bones measure of success, and one which is easily fudged. Unfortunately, it’s easier to count the number of states that definitively require standardized testing and a rigid curriculum: Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, and Massachusetts.

Of course, the LaBrants aren’t alone. The popular influencer account Heavenly Homeschool has similar reels out, walking parents through the process of generating entire years’ worth of lesson plans, tailor-made to their specific worldview. It all begs the question: do AI chatbots have any safeguards around education?

Turns out, not really. We tasked ChatGPT with developing a homeschooling curriculum for a 3rd grade student in Michigan — a state with virtually no regulations around DIY education — “following a strictly evangelical doctrine,” including “no woke history or science.”

ChatGPT was more than happy to oblige: “I can build this around a conservative, explicitly Christian/evangelical worldview, with Scripture integrated across subjects and with history and science taught from a young-earth/creationist perspective rather than through a secular or progressive framework,” the chatbot explained.

While it didn’t push back against our intentions to indoctrinate our hypothetical child, the LLM did make sure to clarify that “no woke” can “mean different things to different families.” So, to avoid ambiguity, the chatbot specified that the course calendar would use “Biblical authority, traditional Christian ethics… and creation-based science” as standard-bearers.

True to its word, the LLM-generated curriculum included “bible and Christian studies,” a traditionalist approach to American history, with specific chunks on both “Westward expansion” and Henry Ford — a renowned racist and antisemite — as well as a creationist approach to Earth science and astronomy.

For the portion on space, the curriculum would teach “the heavens as God’s creation while distinguishing observations from interpretations about the age and origin of the universe,” the LLM promised.

Put together, it paints a dire picture for the estimated 3.75 million K-12 homeschooled children in the US. Beyond the potential for wild AI hallucinations to leach into educational material, the technology is a Pandora’s Box for parents, who can now effortlessly inculcate their children with any number of unscientific conspiracy theories or anti-social worldviews while facing no pushback whatsoever.

Do you know anything about how homeschooling families are using AI? Email us: tips@futurism.com. We can keep you anonymous.

More on education: Mark Zuckerberg’s Wife Shuts Down School for the Disadvantaged

The post Homeschool Parents Are Planning Lessons With ChatGPT appeared first on Futurism.

Chinese researchers have developed a high-energy lithium-metal primary battery that combines long endurance with powerful bursts while operating at temperatures as low as -40°F (-40°C).

Developed by a team led by researchers from the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the 25Ah pouch-type battery is designed to maintain stable performance in extreme cold.

According to Chinese online media reports, validation tests showed that the battery achieved an energy density exceeding 750Wh/kg at a low discharge rate.

The technology could support applications requiring reliable, high-energy power in harsh and low-temperature environments.

High-energy battery

The new lithium-metal primary battery is designed to combine high energy density, long storage life and rapid power delivery, while continuing to operate reliably in temperatures as low as -40°F.

The researchers developed a 25Ah pouch-type lithium-metal primary battery that achieved an energy density of more than 750Wh/kg under low-rate discharge conditions, according to Science and Technology Daily. Testing by the safety laboratory of the China Electronics Standardization Institute also found that the battery could increase its discharge rate by as much as 100 times, enabling short bursts of high-current output at up to 10C, reports the Global Times (GT).

The C-rate indicates how quickly a battery can charge or discharge relative to its rated capacity. A 1C discharge means a battery can theoretically deliver its full rated capacity in one hour, while a 10C discharge allows the same capacity to be delivered in roughly one-tenth of an hour. This capability is particularly important for primary batteries, which are designed for single-use operation and are not intended to be routinely recharged.

At room temperature, the new battery reportedly reaches a specific power of 4,487W/kg. It can sustain discharge at 4C and deliver short bursts at up to 10C, addressing a major limitation of conventional lithium primary batteries, which can offer high energy density and long shelf life but may struggle to release large amounts of energy rapidly.

Cold-ready battery

The battery also demonstrated significant performance at extreme cold. At -40°F, it retained an energy density of 447Wh/kg when discharged at 1C. Its annual self-discharge rate remained below 1 percent, indicating that the battery can retain most of its stored energy during extended periods of standby, reports GT.

The combination of high specific energy, low self-discharge and high power output could be valuable in situations where batteries must remain ready for long periods but suddenly deliver substantial power. Potential applications include drones and robots operating in remote locations, spacecraft systems, field-deployed sensors, rescue equipment and other devices where regular battery replacement or recharging is difficult.

Primary batteries are particularly useful in applications where charging infrastructure is unavailable or impractical. They can remain stored for long periods and provide power immediately when required, making them relevant to military operations, emergency response, rescue missions and forest-fire monitoring.

According to the team, they achieved the performance improvement through a new cathode material based on a high-entropy oxide. The team has also established a pilot production line with an annual capacity of 10 tons, providing a pathway from laboratory-scale material development toward battery manufacturing.

The battery has completed third-party testing and is undergoing additional validation for potential use in drones, robots, spaceflight simulators, and field sensor nodes. Further testing will determine how the technology performs under specific operating conditions and whether it can be scaled for broader commercial applications.

US-based Agility Robotics is preparing to launch its Digit V5 humanoid robot, with the company positioning it as a step toward safer human-robot collaboration in warehouses and factories.

The robot is designed to operate alongside workers without traditional safety fencing, addressing a key challenge in deploying humanoids in real-world workplaces.

Digit V5 is expected to support 20-hour operational days and use interchangeable end-effectors for different material-handling tasks, with autonomous tool changes planned for the future.

Recently, Agility Robotics revealed its plans to go public through a $2.5 billion SPAC deal, raising over $620 million to fund product development, research, and expansion.

Robots go cageless

Agility Robotics is preparing to deploy its next-generation Digit V5 humanoid robot to early customers in December, marking a major step toward wider commercial use of humanoid machines in industrial environments.

Digit V5 is designed specifically for warehouse and factory operations, where it can work alongside people without requiring the extensive safety fencing typically used around industrial robots. The humanoid platform combines a human-scale form factor with autonomous mobility, allowing it to navigate facilities and perform material-handling tasks in spaces designed for human workers.

Agility says Digit V5 incorporates upgraded safety systems intended to let the robot operate in close proximity to people. This could eliminate the need for dedicated cages and barriers that can consume valuable floor space, require costly facility modifications, disrupt traffic patterns and force changes to existing workflows, reports Humanoids Daily.

The ability to operate without conventional fencing could make Digit V5 particularly useful in crowded warehouses and factories where installing a dedicated robotic enclosure is impractical. Workers could also move through areas where the robot is operating, potentially allowing more flexible collaboration between humans and machines.

Agility expects early customer deployments to validate Digit V5’s safety capabilities under real-world conditions before broader production begins. The company believes the technology could expand humanoid applications beyond logistics and manufacturing into sectors such as retail and pharmaceuticals, where earlier systems faced greater operational restrictions.

Advances robot safety

Agility is placing safety at the center of its next-generation Digit V5 humanoid robot, with a new system designed to let it operate in close proximity to people without traditional safety fencing.

The robot combines cameras, sensors and software that can detect and interpret people in its surroundings with hardware designed to respond safely to unexpected movements. Its proprietary cycloidal actuators in the hips and knees provide the strength and dynamic stability needed to react quickly without losing balance, dropping a payload or falling.

Agility has tested this capability by suddenly removing the surface beneath the robot, prompting it to take a corrective step and maintain its load. The company considers this dynamic stability an important part of its overall safety approach.

Digit V5 also introduces other features intended to support safer and more flexible operation. Its battery system is designed to support more than 20 hours of work per day, potentially allowing one robot to operate across three shifts. The humanoid also uses an ISO-standard flange that allows it to work with a broad range of robotic end-effectors. Agility has demonstrated Digit changing grippers and plans to eventually enable autonomous tool changes.

These capabilities could expand the robot beyond bulk material handling into tasks such as kitting and sorting, while maintaining the safety requirements needed for workplaces where humans and robots operate together.

DEEP Robotics’ intelligent robots are helping researchers observe Tibetan antelopes in the high-altitude Serling Tso Nature Reserve in China.

Located at an average elevation of 4,700 meters (around 15,420 feet), the reserve becomes a key observation site between July and September, when large herds return with newborn calves during the annual migration season.

The robots captured footage of the animals migrating, nursing, and foraging around Cuo’e Lake, providing researchers with visual data that could support wildlife behavior.

Recently, Deep Robotics’ DR02 humanoid showcased enhanced mobility, running on grass, jumping obstacles, climbing stairs, and operating near hazardous electrical infrastructure for industrial applications.

Robots aid wildlife

At an average elevation of about 4,700 meters, China’s Serling Tso Nature Reserve provides an important habitat for Tibetan antelopes. From July through September, large herds return to the region with newborn calves, creating an ideal period for researchers to study migration, nursing and feeding behavior.

During this year’s migration season, DEEP Robotics deployed its robots around Cuo’e Lake to support wildlife research and ecological conservation. The machines captured natural footage of Tibetan antelopes while minimizing human interference, providing researchers with valuable visual data for long-term population and behavioral studies.

DEEP Robotics has previously used robotic systems for high-altitude wildlife observation. In 2025, its X30 quadruped robot operated in the Hoh Xil region at an elevation of around 4,800 meters (around 15,750 feet). Its biomimetic design helped it blend into the environment and reduce disturbance to animals.

This year, the company deployed its Lynx M20 wheeled-legged robot in the Serling Tso Reserve, primarily for close-range visual documentation. The robot was required to operate across soft meadows, uneven permafrost and scattered gravel, where conventional equipment can struggle with stability.

Cold temperatures, rain, snow and other harsh weather conditions further complicate fieldwork, highlighting the potential of rugged robotic platforms for scientific observation in extreme environments.

Lynx M20 advances

DEEP Robotics’ Lynx M20 wheeled-legged robot is being used to support ecological research in the challenging high-altitude environment in Serling Tso Nature Reserve.

Designed for all-terrain operation, the Lynx M20 combines the speed of wheeled movement with the obstacle-crossing ability of legged locomotion. Its IP66 protection rating helps shield the robot from dust and water, while its operating temperature range of -20°C (-4°F) to 55°C (131°F) allows it to function in unpredictable plateau conditions.

The robot is also equipped with LiDAR and depth cameras that enable it to perceive changes in terrain, including meadows, uneven permafrost and gravel slopes. Using this environmental data, the system can adjust its posture and movement in real time, helping it maintain stability while navigating difficult ground.

A key advantage is its low-interference operation. Tibetan antelopes are highly sensitive to unfamiliar sounds and movements, making conventional close-range observation difficult. The Lynx M20’s relatively quiet movement allows researchers to approach herds with less disturbance and remotely document behaviors such as migration, grazing, and nursing.

Researchers observed the robot approaching a herd near Cuo’e Lake without causing the animals to flee. According to DEEP, the exercise demonstrates how increasingly capable mobile robots can extend scientific monitoring into remote and extreme environments.