The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) was designed to give us the ability to look at one of the earliest periods in the evolution of the Universe, a time when some of the earliest stars were putting out enough light to ionize the hydrogen that accounted for almost all of the normal matter present at the time. There were lots of ideas about what we might see, but the Universe is full of surprises.

One of the first surprises was the existence of what picked up the moniker "little red dots," which are exactly what their name suggests. After some initial arguments, it became clear that these were early versions of the supermassive black holes that presently sit at the center of almost every galaxy. Now, gravitational lensing has allowed astronomers to confirm that a little red dot is little more than a supermassive black hole without much in the way of a galaxy around it.

Making a little red dot bigger

The little red dot in question is called Abell 2744−QSO1, and gravitational lensing has both magnified it and caused it to appear three times in the vicinity of the galaxy cluster that did the lensing. Based on details in its spectrum, we're looking at the object as it appeared just 700 million years after the Big Bang.

We've already known about QSO1 for a couple of years, and it has been the subject of intense study. One paper noted that the three lensed images of the object differ in some of their details. Since the light from each of those took different paths to Earth, and thus different amounts of time, this suggests there have been variations in QSO1's emissions—consistent with a black hole feeding on different amounts of material over time. And, based on the luminosity of the object, people had estimated that the black hole itself was quite large for that early in the Universe's history, at above 10 million times the mass of the Sun.

Other work revealed that most of the material around it was gas that had formed relatively few stars. And, just last month, a detailed look at the spectrum of QSO1 showed that there is very little other than hydrogen present, consistent with the object having produced very few stars by this point in its history.

The big uncertainty in all of this is the relationship between the luminosity of the object and the mass of the black hole. We derive that relationship from the recent Universe, where supermassive black holes are embedded in mature galaxies that provide some structure to the material that the black hole is feeding on. There's no guarantee that this same relationship would hold this early in the Universe's history.

Fortunately, thanks to the magnification of the gravitational lensing, QSO1 provides us a fantastic opportunity to find out how far back this relationship holds.

A "galaxy" with very few stars

To get a more detailed picture of what's at the center of QSO1, a large international team constructed a detailed picture of the environment around it. These included the amount of light emitted by different areas, as well as how fast the material in those areas was moving relative to the Earth, as determined by the red- and blue-shifting of hydrogen emissions. (The data is nicely consistent, with one side of the object showing red shifting, and the opposite side blue.) They also looked at the velocity dispersion, which registers how much variation there is relative to the mean velocity.

With this data in hand, they built models to test which system best explained it. In every case, the best fit was a system with a massive point source at its center, and the rest of the material rotating around it. Attempts to build versions with a star cluster around the black hole similar to that seen in the Milky Way led to a much less accurate match to the real-world data.

These models placed the black hole's mass at about 50 million times that of the Sun, which is in line with previous estimates. That suggests the rules governing black hole luminosity haven't changed in at least 13 billion years.

Attempting to estimate the mass of any stars surrounding the black hole suggested there were very few. "The Keplerian rotation curve leaves little room for any stellar component," the researchers conclude. Attempts to estimate the total stellar mass in the "galaxy" that the black hole sits in came up with an upper limit of 20 million solar masses—less than half of the mass of the black hole itself.

In other words, over two-thirds of the mass of QSO1 resides in the black hole, with the stars accounting for less than one-third. Which explains why the word 'galaxy' is in quotes above. "To our knowledge, this upper limit makes QSO1 the most ‘naked’ massive BH ever found," the team concludes.

Making supermassives

A lot of the paper is dedicated to the consideration of how this particular black hole got so big so early in the Universe's history. There are three leading ideas for it: primordial black holes formed in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang; direct collapse of massive gas clouds that skip the formation of stars entirely; or runaway mergers of black holes formed in early, dense star clusters.

Here, the researchers argue that having a supermassive black hole with so few stars around suggests we can ignore option three. If there are no dense stellar clusters, you can't form enough black holes to merge. This leaves two mechanisms that are entirely theoretical at this point.

That said, the discussion seems to suggest that many of the direct collapse models that currently work require a major source of ultraviolet radiation, and more mass around than we see in QSO1. That would seemingly favor a primordial black hole as the source, although that would likely require it to have grown by a factor of 10 in the 700 million years of its existence. That, in turn, would suggest there were mergers among this population early in the Universe's history.

All of which makes for an interesting discussion that will certainly not be resolved until we have additional examples of this sort of naked supermassive black hole.

Nature, 2026. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-026-10579-4 (About DOIs).

Read full article

Comments

In a splashy move that signals that Taiwan remains irreplaceable to the AI industry's short-term and long-term goals, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang announced Wednesday that his chip company will invest $150 billion a year to make sure Taiwan remains at the "epicenter" of the "AI revolution."

"This is where the chips come, packaging comes, this is where the systems are made, this is where AI supercomputers were created," Huang said. "The number of partners we work with here in Taiwan, incredible."

As Reuters reported, the substantial investments will be used to create a new Taiwan headquarters for Nvidia, which Huang expects will drive so much AI innovation that the partnership will cement Taiwan as "the world's tech manufacturing hub for a long time." That ambitious project will be operational by 2030, Nvidia anticipates, after breaking ground this year.

"Four years ago, five years ago, Nvidia was spending about 10, 15 billion dollars a year in Taiwan," Huang said at a ceremony celebrating the launch of the company's new Taiwan base. "Now we're spending 100, going to 150 billion dollars in Taiwan each year."

Nvidia is currently the world's most valuable company, making history in 2025 after becoming the first company to reach a $5 trillion market capitalization. And Huang bragged that the Taiwan base will make sure Nvidia is "worth even more in three ⁠to five years."

But Huang has so far not explained how Nvidia's plans in Taiwan may potentially conflict with Donald Trump's push to make the US the world's AI hub.

Nvidia did not immediately respond to Ars' request to comment on this seeming tension.

Nvidia needs Taiwan HQ to meet demand

Last April, Nvidia started producing AI chips on US soil for the first time. The move seemed designed to appease Trump, who had been pressuring US firms to increase domestic manufacturing, a top priority of his AI Action Plan.

At that time, Huang said that "the engines of the world’s AI infrastructure are being built in the United States for the first time," because "adding American manufacturing helps us better meet the incredible and growing demand for AI chips and supercomputers, strengthens our supply chain, and boosts our resiliency."

Over the next four years, he projected that Nvidia could produce up to half a trillion dollars of AI infrastructure in the US—but it was hard to see how Nvidia could race to achieve that result when the company still relied on shipping chips to Taiwan for advanced packaging.

Now, Huang seems to be confronting that reality head-on, prioritizing more investments and deepening partnerships in Taiwan at a time when Huang claims that overwhelming demand for agentic AI is accelerating AI factory buildouts "at extraordinary speed," The Guardian reported.

While the US investments will surely factor into Nvidia's growth, it's the Taiwan HQ that seemingly matters most.

Tech giants collectively plan to spend $750 billion on AI infrastructure this year, with "a significant portion" of that expected to "go towards chips for data centers," the Guardian noted, and Nvidia needs a plan to keep up with that rapidly spiking demand. Then there's also Nvidia's new AI system, Vera Rubin, to consider, which Huang claimed would be a "generational leap” that’s going to be "kicking off the greatest infrastructure buildout in history." Nvidia fears it will face supply chain constraints "throughout the entire life of Vera Rubin," Huang said.

Perhaps to Huang, the Taiwan base looks like a lifeline for that and future systems.

Before Trump's AI Action Plan rolled out, Nvidia had previously manufactured all its AI chips exclusively in Taiwan. So, the firm is well acquainted with the benefits of working in that ecosystem.

With its Taiwan HQ, Nvidia hopes to expand its partnership with the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), while benefiting from close proximity to advanced packaging technology not yet available at TSMC's US factories. And Nvidia can also "boost its alliances" with other nearby partners playing "key roles in the build-out of AI servers and infrastructure," like Foxconn, Wistron, and Quanta Computer, Reuters reported.

For Nvidia, the focus appears to be on expanding the AI ecosystem to further its bottom line. Earlier this month, Huang told CNBC that Nvidia would be "aggressively" expanding its supply chain and suggested that the "first priority for its growing cash pile was supporting suppliers amid surging demand."

Trump's plans for Nvidia chips backfired

Trump has not yet commented on Nvidia's plans in Taiwan, but the US president has repeatedly praised Huang as brilliant, while consulting with Huang on AI industry and tariff questions. Over the past year, their ties have grown, with Huang making commitments to perhaps avoid the consequences of Trump's tariff regimes. Last year, Huang paid $1 million to attend a Mar-a-Lago dinner, then promised to invest $500 billion in US data centers. Shortly afterward, Trump halted plans for export controls blocking some of Nvidia's chips from China's market.

But Huang may be too smart to be all-in on Trump's AI plans, perhaps increasingly recognizing that Trump's export controls and tariffs aren't working as planned to ensure US dominance in AI.

Directly impacting Nvidia, Trump's plan to give the US a 25 percent cut of certain Nvidia chips sold to China seemingly backfired, since China has refused to purchase the chips. China's refusal is reportedly not due to paying the fee, but due to a requirement that all chips subjected to the fee must be routed through the US. China seems worried that the US might tamper with chips sold in its markets, and Nvidia is pretty sure that Beijing won't budge on buying its chips any time soon, so long as Trump's policy remains in place.

For Huang, the goal remains to sell Nvidia chips in China's market, which the company recently told investors it has "largely conceded" to Huawei. And about a month ahead of Trump's meeting with China's president, Xi Jinping, Huang told the US think tank the Special Competitive Studies Project that Trump's export curbs blocking its chips from China have "already largely backfired."

"Conceding an entire market the size of China probably don’t make a lot of strategic sense," Huang said, whereas giving US chip companies access to China's market where AI demand is spiking "makes a lot of sense."

But Huang has to be careful navigating Trump, who likely still relies on Huang despite their perhaps disparate views on where the global AI hub should be. When Trump tapped Huang at the last minute to attend a summit with China's president, Xi Jinping, in Beijing, Huang reportedly dropped everything to go, seemingly in the hopes that Trump would convince China to buy Nvidia chips.

However, experts agreed that Trump had little leverage at the summit, and it was later confirmed that US export curbs were not discussed. After the meeting, Trump confirmed that China had no plans to buy Nvidia's chips because "they want to develop their own" and already have a chip that's more advanced than Nvidia's product, the H200.

Looming chip tariffs

Ultimately, the summit may have been a wasted trip for Huang, who might be tiring of Trump's trade tactics, despite exemptions from tariffs that have seemingly benefited Nvidia.

So far, Trump has exempted semiconductors to be used in data centers from tariffs. But Nvidia likely knows that could change soon.

In July, official investigations into whether more tariffs are needed to protect national security will conclude. Among the most feared tariffs that could come, there's a threat looming over the AI industry that Trump "may issue 'significant' additional tariffs" on semiconductors used in data centers in order "to encourage domestic manufacturing," a supply chain management newsletter called Supply Chain Dive reported.

Currently, the US only fully manufactures about 10 percent of the chips it requires, a Trump proclamation read. That is "too low to meet projected national defense needs and to match the requirements of a growing commercial industry," Trump said, ordering the probes to see if substantial tariffs might be needed to stop firms from relying so much on importing semiconductors.

Last week, US trade representative Jamieson Greer said that "the Trump administration continues to weigh US tariffs on imported semiconductors to boost domestic chip manufacturing, though there are no immediate plans to impose any new levies," Bloomberg reported. However, "Greer stressed the importance of using import duties to bring chip production back to the US," confirming that Trump's goal is to "facilitate the reshoring" of the semiconductor supply chain.

Huang bets on Taiwan

For Nvidia, commitments to invest in the US may be enough to avoid future tariffs, Greer suggested. That makes it appear as if Huang has been successful at both influencing and staying ahead of Trump's next moves.

But Trump seems unlikely to take kindly to Huang's mission to ensure Taiwan maintains dominance in the semiconductor industry.

Trump has recently sent confusing signals on the US position on Taiwan, which he has irrationally accused of stealing the semiconductor industry from the US. Last October, Taiwan rejected Trump's demands to move 50 percent of its chip production into the US or else lose US protection from a potential Chinese invasion. Although Trump recently approved the largest-ever weapons package to support Taiwan's defense, he has said it's up to Xi to decide if China will invade Taiwan or not, which experts warned expressed US indifference.

Although the US likely needs more time than Trump's presidency to achieve the goals of the AI Action Plan, Trump seemingly thinks that pressuring Taiwan to shift its production could be a shortcut.

Whether Taiwan will ever bend to that pressure remains to be seen, as it has sought to strengthen its own communications with the Trump administration. Experts have suggested that explosive AI demand will, over time, diminish Taiwan's lead, currently producing over 90 percent of the world’s most advanced semiconductor chips. Countries that have experienced global chip shortages have realized that it's foolish to rely on one supplier, and it's expected that the supply chain will diversify, as leading nations pioneering AI build up their own domestic manufacturing or seek to support allies doing the same.

Huang does not appear to expect Taiwan's dominance to wane any time soon, though. He was born in Taiwan before emigrating to the US at the age of 9, and while he did not indicate exactly how long he intends to invest $150 billion a year into Taiwan projects, he did suggest that Nvidia's future hinged on establishing a headquarters there, while seeming to take pride in Taiwan's accomplishments.

"Taiwan is booming," Huang said at the launch.

Read full article

Comments

Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez have a fascinating piece (gift link) on California’s proposed billionaire tax, which will be on the ballot in November. This is a one-time 5% tax on household wealth over one billion dollars. The value of non-rental residences doesn’t count, either, so this is unlikely to render Page, Brin, Zuckerberg, Ellison et al homeless.

Just a couple of numbers from the piece, which has great graphs to go along with it:

Inflation-adjusted, the wealth of the very richest residents of California (not the same people) increased by 73-fold between 1982 and 2026.

Mark Zuckerberg had an income of $2.8 million per day between 2019 and 2025. Assuming he spent 100% of this money, his personal fortune would have grown by $185 billion over those seven years. He “enjoyed” $143 billion in stock gains and $42 billion in retained profits over these years, to go along with $7.1 billion in reported income. This means that almost all of his money went completely untaxed, which is the situation with all these people.

A particularly fiendish little loophole in the tax code is that Zuckerberg can simply borrow, at rock-bottom interest rates, whatever money he actually spends against his capital, and as long as that capital grows faster than the interest he owes on the loans before he repays them, he will never pay any tax at all on that income.

The notion that unlimited personal wealth is compatible with anything resembling democracy is the kind of proposition you have to be mind-bogglingly stupid to consider plausible. The richest people in America are fifty times richer, literally, in real dollars than the richest people in America were when I was in college in the early 1980s. Another big difference is that I didn’t know the names of almost any of the latter people (I recognized Nelson and Bunker Hunt because of the fiasco when they tried to corner the silver market, plus I knew Lamar Hunt owned the Kansas City Chiefs), while I’m all too familiar with all of the schmucks profiled in this article, except for one of them (Huang).

Saez and Zucman do a good job responding to phony arguments about how this is all futile because these people will just flee the interview/jurisdiction. In short no they won’t because people don’t actually react that way to this sort of measure, and in any event it’s too late now because this is a one-tine tax on wealth as of 1/1/2026 so even if Larry Page wants to go to Katmandu because no one loves him here anyway that won’t effect the operation of the tax.

BTW this tax would raise $100 billion dollars to fund gaps created in California’s Medicaid system because of the rapacity of the plutocrats who bought Trump’s 2025 tax bill. And again this just a one-time tax, that will barely slow the growth of these men’s fortunes, let alone actually affect their economic circumstances in any measurable way. They’re against it because they’re pathologically addicted to wealth accumulation, and their addiction needs far more radical treatment than this, but this is the beginning of a good start.

. . . funny/not funny illustration of the problem here: A commenter tried to make a mathematical correction, pointing out that when I claimed Zuckerberg’s income was $2.8 million a day between 2019 and 2025 I was mis-stating the facts, since that was the daily increase in his wealth, which wasn’t taxable. No! His INCOME was $7.1 billion over seven years, which is $2.8 million per day. His WEALTH increased by $192 billion, which is $75 million per day.

The post California’s billionaire tax appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

For the last several years, Motorola's smartphone headliners were the Razr flip phones, but 2026 is different. This time around, Moto's first tablet-style foldable, the Razr Fold, somewhat overshadows the flip phones, but a bulky $2,000 folding phone that isn't made by Samsung occupies the smallest niche in the smartphone market. A Razr flip phone is much more practical, both financially and logistically. But are these phones actually worth buying over a flat phone?

Smartphones are no longer something you need to convince people to buy. Unless you're going out of your way to exclude technology from your daily life, a smartphone is just a necessary convenience. The way some companies market their phones—making relatively boring phones look like a lifestyle choice—doesn't really take this into account. However, Motorola knows what a Razr is.

All the Razrs are big phones when you open them up (Razr Ultra seen here). Credit: Ryan Whitwam

These phones are first and foremost about vibes. They're fun and colorful; there are desk clock displays, mini apps for the outer display, and a quirky camcorder camera mode. Foldables are universally gadgety and visually interesting, but the Razrs take this to the extreme with unique textures and Pantone-certified colorways. That gives the Razrs a selling point before you even get to the specs or hardware. And they need that because the speeds and feeds are nothing special.

The 2026 Razrs don't change much in the design department versus last year's versions, but that's fine. They still look great. There are wood panels, soft touch plastics, vegan leather, and synthetic fabrics—all things you won't find on the latest devices from Samsung, Google, or Apple. These are, hands down, the prettiest phones you can buy right now.

The Razr Ultra's Orient Blue fabric back feels really nice, but it can pick up dust. Credit: Ryan Whitwam

However, even years into the foldable era, these phones are still not an easy choice for smartphone buyers, and some people shouldn't even consider getting one despite the stylish design. When buying a new phone, many folks immediately put it in an OtterBox or similarly armored case and slap on a screen protector. Then, a year or two later, when they need to take the case off for some reason, they are surprised by the color of their phone. If that's you, the 2026 Motorola Razrs are not the phones you are looking for—just move along.

Flip phone flops

All of Motorola's Razr flip phones have big external screens, offering enough real estate to run apps and reply to messages, and Moto lets you do a lot more with this screen compared to Samsung's Z Flip line.

On one hand, having an external screen can be a bit gimmicky. The phones come with a collection of games optimized for the external display, and opening the phone to use the big foldable OLED will often be faster for most tasks, but using the external screen can help steer you away from distracting apps. It provides just enough functionality to check a notification or reply to a message without tempting you to start doom scrolling.

Bundled mini games? Sure, why not? Credit: Ryan Whitwam

The foldable form factor also pays off if taking selfies is your thing. While there is a selfie camera under the foldable OLED, you can and should use the primary cameras with the external display instead. Motorola's cameras aren't up to the standards of Google or Apple, but the larger main camera sensors on these phones do a better job than any camera peeking through a hole in your screen.

But a phone that folds in half also comes with some inevitable downsides. While Motorola says its hinge is reinforced with titanium and has been tested to many thousands of folds, this is still a possible point of failure. The kind of day-to-day abuse that wouldn't affect a flat phone could cause serious problems for one with a hinge in the middle. These devices are also only IP48-rated, which means fine particles could work their way inside and affect the hinge's functionality, although the Razrs are just as water-resistant as traditional designs.

The Razr Ultra is a flagship phone with a flagship price (and then some). Credit: Ryan Whitwam

Even if the hinge is mechanically sound, the constant folding could be a problem for the phone's flexible OLED. With several generations of Razrs behind us, there are enough user reports to say that OLED damage from wear and tear is possible. Most of these screens will last for as long as the phone itself does, but some won't.

This is something that you won't see in reviews—we've long moved past the point where foldable durability issues would be apparent during the few weeks reviewers use these devices before publishing the results. I try to use the hinge on foldables as much as possible when reviewing them, but I've never seen a hinge or screen fail. We know from user reports that they sometimes fail, though.

When a Razr is your daily driver for months or years, there's a higher risk of breakage than with a phone that doesn't fold in half. So if you're going to buy a foldable, it's smart to factor in the added cost of insurance. That can make an already expensive phone even more of a financial burden.

The bottom line

As gorgeous as these phones are, that alone cannot justify spending a ton of money on them. If your main concern is pure functionality, the 2026 Razrs aren't as reliable or capable as the best non-foldables from Samsung, Google, or Apple. Foldable flips don't even have the multitasking advantages of a tablet-style foldable. You have to care about the vibes to justify a Razr, and the prices don't make that easy.

The Razr+ and Razr Ultra got more expensive this year, clocking in at $1,100 and $1,500, respectively. Motorola has offered some earbuds and tracking tags as freebies to try to offset the sticker shock, but that's not enough. The Razr Ultra has flagship specs and solid cameras, but I can't think of any smartphone buyer who should seriously consider paying $1,500 for it.

The 2026 Razr lineup looks nice, but only the base model clocks in at a reasonable price. Credit: Ryan Whitwam

The Snapdragon 8s Gen 3 in the Razr+ won't be much slower in daily use, and it still has a reasonable 12GB of RAM. So that's probably a better choice for picky foldable fans. But still, $1,100 for that phone is a tough sell.

If you find yourself enamored with the idea of a stylish flip phone, neither of those phones is probably the right call. However, the base model still embodies the spirit of the Razr even if it cuts a few corners.

The 2026 Razr looks just as good as the more expensive versions—maybe even a little better. The slightly smaller screen leaves more room for the cool materials and colors to wrap around to the front. It also comes in four colors, versus two for the Razr Ultra and just one for the Razr+.

The cheapest Razr is probably the one to get. Credit: Ryan Whitwam

The Moto Razr comes with a weaker MediaTek processor and just 8GB of RAM, but that doesn't make it any less pretty. The lower specs may benefit a certain type of smartphone buyer. Motorola has a ton of AI features crammed into its current Android software, like every other smartphone OEM, but it's a bit more restrained on the base model Razr due to the lower RAM. It doesn't even have the physical AI button from the more expensive models. I consider that a total win.

And the best part: This phone is $800. For a phone that mainly exists to look good and carries a higher risk of failure versus a non-foldable one, that's about the right price.

The Good

• They look great
• Hinge feels solid
• Outer displays are big and just useful enough

The Bad

• The Razr+ and Razr Ultra are way too expensive
• Hinge and flexible OLED are possible points of failure
• Silly AI button on Razr+ and Razr Ultra
• Last year's chips in Razr+ and Ultra, mid-range specs in the base model

Read full article

Comments

There’s been a strange little revolution brewing over the last few years in the world of modern pentathlon—the weirdest, most expensive, and least-watched event of the entire Summer Olympic Games catalogue. The sport (based around a very early 20th century understanding of the skills of a modern soldier, including sword fighting, swimming, running, and firing what were later turned into laser-based guns) ran into some PR problems back at the 2020 Games, when participants complained that the fifth event, equestrian show-jumping, introduced an unwelcome random element to the sport. (Your event’s reputation is not doing great, modern-popularity wise, when it generates headlines about a pissed-off coach reportedly punching a horse.) All of which somehow trickled down to today, when Variety reports that Japanese TV series Ninja Warrior is now an official part of the Summer Olympic Games.