Consumer champion Which? has warned that telephone fraudsters posing as BT are exploiting the UK’s digital landline switchover, tricking consumers into sharing payment details under false threats of disconnection.

Which? says the scam callers have been telling victims the switchover requires immediate payments or confirmation of financial details, using the now-defunct January 2025 deadline to create urgency. Victims report receiving calls where they are being pressured with threats of service termination. Which? also reports that the scammers have targeted both landline and mobile users and are often armed with personal details to appear credible.

BT has confirmed that the switchover to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) involves no charges, and customers will only be contacted via official channels. Legitimate providers will never request payment information for this process.

To avoid falling victim, the advice is to never share personal or payment information during unsolicited calls, verify any claims directly with your provider, and use call-blocking services. Businesses can educate employees, implement secure protocols, and promptly report scams to Action Fraud to help combat these threats.

In a UK-first, researchers have achieved a significant milestone in the journey towards sustainable energy by producing fusion-ready steel on an industrial scale.

NEURONE Producing RAFM

In a UK-first, the NEURONE (Neutron Irradiation of Advanced Steels) consortium, led by the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), has successfully forged 5.5 tonnes of reduced-activation ferritic-martensitic (RAFM) steel. This material is uniquely capable of withstanding the intense heat and neutron radiation inside a fusion reactor, laying the groundwork for cost-effective manufacturing of fusion-grade materials. This groundbreaking achievement not only holds the promise of reducing the costs of nuclear fusion but also addresses key challenges in the development of this cleaner, virtually limitless energy source.

The Challenge of Fusion Energy Materials

Nuclear fusion, the process that powers the Sun, is thought to be the ultimate solution to the world’s energy crisis. Unlike nuclear fission (from current nuclear reactors), fusion produces no long-lived radioactive waste and relies on fuels like deuterium, which can be extracted from seawater, and tritium, which can be bred from lithium, both of which are abundantly available. Fusion, therefore, has the potential to provide virtually limitless energy without greenhouse gas emissions, addressing the twin challenges of energy security and climate change.

Fusion’s promise comes at a time when the world urgently needs scalable, clean energy alternatives to fossil fuels. Unlike solar or wind, fusion could deliver consistent, base-load power without dependence on weather conditions. However, achieving this vision is no small feat. Inside a fusion reactor, hydrogen atoms are superheated to temperatures over 150 million degrees Celsius to form plasma, which must be contained and stabilised to sustain the reaction.

It’s Not So Much The Heat, It’s The Neutron Radiation Damage

Materials play a critical role in this process, as reactor walls must be able to withstand the extreme environment created by fusion reaction. Neutron radiation from the fusion process is particularly damaging, degrading materials over time. As explained by Ryan Ramsey, Chief Operating Officer at British fusion startup First Light Fusion, “The biggest problem isn’t the heat, it’s neutron damage.” Without materials like reduced-activation ferritic-martensitic (RAFM) steel, capable of enduring both intense heat and neutron loads, reactors would face frequent repairs, undermining their efficiency and commercial viability.

The Breakthrough By UK Researchers

The NEURONE team, working in collaboration with the Materials Processing Institute (MPI) in Middlesbrough, used a seven-tonne electric arc furnace (EAF) to produce RAFM steel at an industrial scale. Previously, the production of such steel was limited to laboratory-scale quantities. This technological leap is set to reduce production costs by up to 90 per cent, thanks to the scalability and efficiency of EAF technology.

“This is a groundbreaking moment for nuclear fusion R&D,” says Richard Birley, NEURONE project lead at MPI. “As the only sovereign UK steel research facility able to produce RAFM steel at this scale, we are proud to contribute to a future powered by sustainable fusion energy.”

Fast Workers

The project’s achievements were surprisingly swift. For example, within its first year, NEURONE was able to produce a substantial 5.5 tonnes of fusion-grade steel. The programme has also developed over 50 variants of advanced RAFM steel, designed for analysis and optimisation, ranging from small-scale melts of 100 grams to full industrial batches.

Why It Matters for Sustainability

This breakthrough could have far-reaching implications for the future of fusion energy and sustainability. Fusion powerplants, for example, could offer a virtually limitless source of clean energy with no greenhouse gas emissions and minimal long-lived radioactive waste. However, building commercially viable reactors hinges on solving technical challenges like material durability and cost efficiency.

On the UKAEA website, David Bowden, NEURONE programme lead and Group Team Leader for Materials Science and Engineering at UKAEA, highlights the importance of this achievement, saying: “One of the major challenges for delivering fusion energy is developing structural materials able to withstand the extreme temperatures and high neutron loads required by future fusion powerplants.”

The new steel’s ability to withstand temperatures up to 650°C is particularly significant. Higher operational temperatures mean more heat can be extracted from the fusion reactor, improving overall energy efficiency. As Bowden puts it, “Developing these types of steel could also benefit adjacent industries that require high-strength, high-temperature structural steels, such as nuclear fission or petrochemicals.”

Economic and Environmental Impact

With this latest breakthrough, the electric arc furnace used by MPI operates on electricity rather than coal, thereby aligning with broader goals to decarbonise industrial processes. By leveraging existing supply chain infrastructure, NEURONE’s approach could make fusion steel production not only cheaper but also more environmentally sustainable.

UK Could Now Be a Key Player in Global Transition to Clean Energy

The UK’s leadership in fusion-ready steel production may also now position it as a key player in the global transition to clean energy. Also, fusion startups, such as Oxford-based First Light Fusion, stand to benefit directly from this progress. For example, as Light Fusion’s CEO Ryan Ramsey notes, “This is really positive and potentially has relevance for all fusion energy projects.”

Collaboration Driving Innovation

The NEURONE consortium’s success is rooted in collaboration. For example, supported by a £12 million investment, the project brings together academic and industrial partners from across the UK and beyond, including the Universities of Swansea, Sheffield, Birmingham, Manchester, and Oxford, as well as the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).

By supporting PhD students and internships, NEURONE is also nurturing the next generation of researchers in fusion materials science. This is a vital investment in the future of both the fusion industry and the UK’s scientific leadership.

Still a Long Road Ahead

While this breakthrough is a significant step forward, fusion energy remains a challenging goal that still seems some way off. That said, the International Atomic Energy Agency optimistically estimates that commercially viable fusion powerplants could be operational by 2035. However, scaling up the production of advanced materials, like NEURONE’s RAFM steel, is essential for realising this timeline.

Looking ahead, the NEURONE team aims to refine and optimise RAFM alloys to meet even higher performance targets. As Bowden explains, “We plan to produce advanced variants of RAFM steel capable of operating at up to 650°C – a stretch target, given the solid-state physics of irradiated materials behaviour.”

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation?

This breakthrough in fusion-ready steel production could be a crucial step forward in the quest to make nuclear fusion a viable, sustainable energy source because it tackles the key challenge of developing structural materials capable of withstanding the extreme environments inside fusion reactors. The success of the NEURONE consortium demonstrates that industrial-scale production of specialised RAFM steel is actually achievable and cost-effective, thereby making fusion technology one step closer to reality. Also, the collaboration between UK industry and academic partners has not only advanced materials science but also positioned the UK as a key contributor to global fusion research.

However, while this progress is remarkable, the path to commercial fusion remains long and complex. Challenges still exist in perfecting reactor designs, scaling up materials production, and proving that fusion power can deliver electricity at a competitive price. For all its potential, fusion is not a guaranteed solution yet.

That said, the global push toward cleaner energy sources makes breakthroughs like this all the more significant. If nuclear fusion can eventually be realised, it would represent an energy revolution that’s capable of addressing climate change, ensuring energy security, and reshaping the way power is generated across the globe. Until then, every advance, such as NEURONE’s success with RAFM steel, should be celebrated because it brings that vision closer to becoming reality.

Unstructured prompts with your AI platform significantly diminishes the power of this amazing technology so in this video, Jonathan shares eight helpful suggestions around structuring your prompts to get much more out of your AI.

[Note – To Watch This Video without glitches/interruptions, It may be best to download it first]

Save time by being able to access all desktop files and shortcuts directly from the taskbar without minimising windows. Here’s how:

To Enable Desktop Toolbar (Windows 10) :

– Right-click the taskbar, go to Toolbars, and select Desktop.

Use the Toolbar:

– Access desktop items from the dropdown arrow on the taskbar.

To Enable Desktop Toolbar (Windows 11) :

– Open Taskbar Settings

– Select Taskbar behaviours

– Choose Select the far corner of the taskbar to show the desktop

– Click the empty box to enable it

This is tip is especially helpful for multitasking or managing shortcuts.

Google has filed a set of proposed remedies in its high-profile antitrust case concerning its dominance in the online search market, a case that has drawn significant scrutiny from regulators and competitors alike.

Background to the Antitrust Case

The case centres on allegations brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of state attorneys general that Google’s business practices have unlawfully entrenched its dominance in online search. The central issue lies in Google’s agreements with companies such as Apple, Mozilla, and various Android device manufacturers to make Google Search the default search engine on their devices and browsers. Critics have argued that these deals stifle competition, leaving little room for rivals to gain a foothold.

Finally, in August 2024, US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that certain Google agreements violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by substantially foreclosing competition. The ruling stopped short of accusing Google of acquiring its dominance through anti-competitive conduct but concluded that some of its contracts were exclusive and unlawful. This judgement marked a significant development in the case, prompting the court to require Google to propose remedies while preparing its appeal.

Google’s Proposed Remedies

In a recent detailed legal filing, Google has outlined several measures it believes should address the court’s findings. For example, the proposed remedies aim to grant more flexibility to device manufacturers, browser developers, and partners, while allowing Google to continue competing on the merits of its products.

To summarise what Google said in the filing, the key proposals (remedies) relate to:

– Browser Agreements

Google has said that it will allow browser developers, such as Apple (Safari) and Mozilla (Firefox), to “continue to have the freedom to do deals with whatever search engine they think is best for their users”, i.e. to be able to enter into deals with alternative search engines. These agreements will include provisions for browsers to set different default search engines across platforms or browsing modes, as well as the ability to change default providers annually.

– Android Flexibility

Device manufacturers will have the option to preload multiple search engines and apps without being compelled to preload Google Search or Chrome. Also, Google will no longer tie the licensing of its Google Play Store to the preloading of its search engine. Google’s filing noted that these changes would provide “additional flexibility” to manufacturers and allow rivals “more chances to bid for placement.”

– Generative AI Products

Addressing concerns over the emerging field of generative AI, Google’s new proposal includes measures to ensure its Gemini Assistant chatbot does not gain an unfair advantage. Manufacturers can license Google’s other products without being required to include Gemini, and rivals’ chatbots can be preloaded without restrictions.

– Oversight and Compliance

Google has suggested that it will have a robust oversight mechanism to ensure adherence to the remedies without granting excessive governmental control over its operations. Google emphasised that its proposal aims to balance regulatory compliance with its ability to innovate and compete.

– Duration of Remedies

Interestingly (and in contrast to the DOJ’s recommendation of a decade-long duration), Google has proposed only a three-year term for the remedies. Google has justified this by saying that “regulating a fast-changing industry like search with an invasive decree” would harm competition and innovation.

Google’s Defence of Its Proposals

As may be expected, in its filing, Google characterised the proposed remedies as “overbroad” and warned of potential harm to both consumers and American technological leadership. For example, the company stated, “Markets are often more effective than the heavy hand of judicial power when it comes to enhancing consumer welfare,” citing the pace of innovation in artificial intelligence as a key factor.

Google also argued that its contracts have benefited users and partners, with the filing noting that “Google’s partners value its quality, and they continue to select Google as the default because its search engine provides the best bet for monetising queries.” Google was also keen to point out that people use Google because they choose to, not because they are forced to.

Potential Impact of the Remedies

If accepted, Google’s proposals could reshape the search market, offering competitors such as Microsoft’s Bing and DuckDuckGo a greater chance to gain prominence. Device manufacturers and browser developers would have increased flexibility, potentially leading to more diverse search options for consumers.

However, the three-year duration of the remedies has raised questions. Critics argue that this timeframe may be insufficient to dismantle Google’s entrenched dominance. Additionally, some observers view Google’s ability to continue entering revenue-sharing agreements as a potential loophole that may maintain its market position.

Reactions to Google’s Filing

Unfortunately for Google, the DOJ appears sceptical of the proposals, suggesting that they fall short of addressing the root issues. In fact, the DOJ lawyers have called for more stringent measures, including a prohibition on revenue-sharing contracts and the potential divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser. For example, the DOJ argued in its own filings that, “Structural remedies are necessary to restore competition.”

Google’s competitors in the search world have also, as expected, voiced concerns. Microsoft has reportedly expressed scepticism, suggesting that Google’s proposed remedies are unlikely to fundamentally change the dynamics of a market Google has dominated for years.

However, some industry analysts have noted the significance of Google’s inclusion of generative AI in its proposals in terms of Google perhaps acknowledging AI as a potential disruptor to traditional search.

The Road Ahead

As regards the next steps in this case, the judge (Judge Mehta) is expected to issue a decision on the remedies by August 2025, following hearings in April. The court’s ruling will determine whether Google’s proposed remedies are sufficient to address its antitrust violations or if more aggressive measures are warranted. As the case progresses, its outcome could have lasting implications for the tech industry and the competitive landscape of online search.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Although the proposed remedies in Google’s high-profile antitrust case have been presented as a balanced approach that addresses regulatory concerns without stifling innovation, the measures have drawn mixed reactions from stakeholders, raising questions about their adequacy and long-term impact.

For businesses and consumers, the outcome of this case could reshape how search engines are integrated into devices and browsers, potentially increasing competition and providing more diverse options. Google’s willingness to grant manufacturers and developers greater flexibility in preloading search engines and apps could foster a more level playing field for rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo. Similarly, its commitments around generative AI reflect an awareness of the evolving landscape and the need to address concerns in emerging technologies.

However, scepticism surrounding the three-year duration of the remedies and the continued use of revenue-sharing agreements highlights lingering doubts about whether these changes will meaningfully curb Google’s dominance. Critics argue that such a short timeframe might not provide sufficient opportunity for competitors to challenge Google’s entrenched position, while the proposed oversight mechanisms may lack the robustness needed to ensure compliance.

The scepticism from the DOJ and competitors, therefore, highlights the challenges of addressing monopolistic behaviour in what is a particularly dynamic, fast-evolving industry with some very wealthy, powerful and influential key players. Calls for structural remedies, such as divesting Chrome or imposing stricter limits on Google’s contracts, suggest that some stakeholders believe only more dramatic interventions can restore genuine competition.

This case, which is still ongoing, serves as a kind of litmus test for how regulators can try to balance promoting innovation with curbing monopolistic practices in the tech sector. It seems that Judge Mehta’s eventual decision will have far-reaching implications, not only for Google and its rivals but also for the broader regulatory framework governing dominant players in technology. As the case moves towards its next hearings, the tension between fostering competition and preserving innovation remains at the heart of the debate, making this what appears to be a defining moment for the future of the online search market.

Following a recent Wall Street Journal article highlighting how Microsoft has made Copilot part of its 365 subscription service in several markets and raised prices, we now look at Microsoft’s strategies for deploying its AI assistant, and the broader implications of its AI initiatives.

Microsoft’s AI Expansion Through Copilot

As the recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted, Microsoft has embarked on an ambitious strategy to integrate its AI assistant, Copilot, into its flagship Microsoft 365 software suite, comprising tools such as Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. This effort has, however, raised eyebrows due to its apparently aggressive implementation approach, particularly in markets like Australia and several Southeast Asian countries. In these markets, Microsoft has bundled Copilot into its 365 subscription service, thereby mandating its inclusion for all users and accompanying the move with price hikes – hence the WSJ’s accusation that Microsoft is essentially forcing its AI assistant on people and making them pay for the privilege. It’s perhaps no surprise, therefore, that these developments have sparked discussions about user choice, AI utility, and Microsoft’s long-term vision for AI.

Not Quite The Same In The UK

Before continuing, it’s worth noting here that Microsoft 365 Copilot is available in the UK as an optional add-on for both individual and enterprise users and, unlike in Australia and certain Southeast Asian countries, UK users have the choice to add Copilot to their existing Microsoft 365 subscriptions, i.e. UK users are not subject to the mandatory inclusion and price hikes experienced in other regions. The pricing for Copilot in the UK is around £24.70 plus VAT per user per month, or £296.40 plus VAT per user per year. That said, Microsoft’s offer of allowing customers to pay on a monthly basis rather than making an upfront annual payment will mean a 5 per cent higher cost than the annual billing option.

A Controversial Approach?

Copilot’s forced inclusion in Australia and several Southeast Asian countries has been met with mixed reactions. For example, it’s been reported that some users have found the AI’s pop-ups (offering unsolicited assistance while using Word) a source of frustration, especially since being charged more for their monthly subscription. Some have likened this pop-up intrusion to Microsoft’s ill-fated “Clippy” from the late 1990s.

Also, it’s been reported that Microsoft’s pricing strategy has added to user dissatisfaction. For example, in the US, the premium consumer version of Copilot is offered at $20 per month on top of the $7 base fee for an individual 365 subscription. For enterprise customers, Copilot costs $30 per user per month. This apparently aggressive monetisation approach is being seen by some commentators as Microsoft’s determination to recoup its significant investments in AI.

The Stakes Behind Copilot

It’s worth noting here that Microsoft’s AI efforts are not just about enhancing productivity tools but are a critical part of CEO Satya Nadella’s strategy to dominate the AI landscape, and Copilot, built on technology developed by OpenAI, is central to this plan. Microsoft’s $14 billion investment in OpenAI highlights the high stakes of its AI ambitions.

Copilot Still A Long Way Behind ChatGPT

Since its launch, Copilot has been positioned as a tool to transform workflows with its capabilities including drafting emails, summarising meetings, and creating presentations. However, despite Microsoft’s efforts to highlight these potential benefits, Copilot has struggled to gain traction compared to OpenAI’s ChatGPT. For example, Sensor Tower data shows that from May 2023 to December 2023, the Copilot app was downloaded 37 million times, dwarfed by ChatGPT’s 433 million downloads over the same period. This disparity appears to have intensified internal and external scrutiny of Copilot’s performance and value.

Business and Consumer Reception

Incorporating AI into productivity tools is not a new idea, yet Microsoft’s execution appears to have polarised opinion. For example, for corporate clients, Copilot’s utility has come under question. Concerns about the accuracy of its outputs, privacy safeguards, and overall cost-effectiveness remain unresolved. Microsoft maintains that Copilot adheres to stringent data protection standards and meets privacy regulations across multiple jurisdictions, although it has refrained from disclosing detailed sales figures or comprehensive user satisfaction metrics.

That said, Microsoft’s AI revenue looks set to surpass $10 billion annually, driven by both Copilot and its broader AI services, including cloud computing solutions. The company also claims that nearly 70 per cent of Fortune 500 companies have adopted Copilot in some capacity, an indicator of its traction in the enterprise market.

Competitive Pressures

Microsoft’s Copilot faces fierce competition not only from established tech companies like Salesforce but also from OpenAI, its key partner and rival. OpenAI’s ChatGPT Enterprise directly challenges Copilot in the corporate space, offering advanced language model capabilities with robust customisation options. Jared Spataro, head of Microsoft’s workplace AI efforts, reportedly identified ChatGPT Enterprise as Copilot’s biggest competitor internally.

The competitive landscape is further complicated by Microsoft’s roadmap for AI. While Copilot represents the first phase of its AI strategy, the next phase (i.e. AI agents) aims to provide more advanced functionalities such as customer service automation and travel booking. These tools will rely heavily on Copilot’s adoption as a stepping stone, raising the stakes for its current deployment.

Balancing Innovation and User Trust

The forced integration of Copilot highlights broader industry trends where AI tools are often marketed aggressively before reaching full maturity. For example, a recent critique from Michael Parekh, an industry analyst, summarised this as “selling AI before it’s time.” The comparison draws parallels to past instances of over-promised and under-delivered tech products, raising questions about whether Copilot’s current capabilities justify its premium pricing.

Attracting Attention From Regulators

Microsoft’s bundling strategy is not unique to the tech sector, but it has rekindled scrutiny from regulators. The company’s history of bundling products (e.g. from Internet Explorer to Teams) has previously attracted antitrust investigations and Copilot’s integration could prompt similar concerns, particularly in regions with stricter competition laws.

A Broader AI Vision

Despite these challenges, Microsoft’s long-term AI vision appears to remain clear. By embedding Copilot into its software ecosystem, the company is aiming to familiarise users with AI tools as an integral part of daily workflows. This approach seeks to ensure smoother transitions to more advanced AI applications in the future. However, user satisfaction will be pivotal to achieving this vision, as evidenced by the recent backlash in Australia.

Microsoft’s expansive investments in AI, coupled with its dominance in the software market, therefore, appear to place it in a strong position to shape the future of AI in productivity. However, the balance between innovation, user experience, and ethical deployment may likely determine the ultimate success of Copilot and subsequent AI initiatives.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The integration of Copilot into Microsoft’s ecosystem highlights both the promise and the challenges of adopting AI-driven tools in productivity software. On the one hand, what some would say is Microsoft’s aggressive strategy highlights its confidence in AI’s transformative potential, underpinned by substantial investments in OpenAI and the vision of embedding AI at the heart of daily workflows. For businesses, this offers the possibility of improved efficiency through tools designed to streamline communication, automate repetitive tasks, and generate content.

However, the controversy surrounding Copilot’s deployment illustrates the fine line between innovation and imposition. The backlash in markets like Australia, where the bundling of Copilot with mandatory inclusion and price hikes left users with no choice, reflects the risks of pushing technology too hard, too fast. Such an approach can alienate customers, particularly if the perceived value does not justify the cost or if the tools are seen as intrusive rather than helpful. Comparisons to Microsoft’s infamous Clippy, for example, have highlighted the enduring challenges of balancing user engagement with overreach.

Microsoft’s approach in the UK and other regions where Copilot is offered as an optional add-on shows a more tempered strategy, allowing businesses and individuals to decide whether the tool meets their needs. This model may be better for fostering adoption while respecting user choice. That said, the question of value remains central. With Copilot facing stiff competition from established players like Salesforce and even its partner-turned-rival OpenAI, businesses will scrutinise whether the AI assistant’s benefits outweigh its costs.

Also, from a regulatory perspective, Microsoft’s history of bundling products raises important questions about competition and consumer rights. As Copilot becomes a central feature of Microsoft 365, scrutiny from regulators looks likely to increase, particularly in regions with stringent antitrust laws. This highlights the importance of transparency and fair pricing in the rollout of new AI services.

Microsoft’s success (or failure) with Copilot will likely serve as an indicator for how the market responds to this new wave of AI-driven innovation.