Tech & IT

X Refuses Data Access in Epstein Victim Case

In a perplexing legal standoff, lawyers for X (formerly Twitter) are blocking access to crucial account information for Rina Oh Amen, an artist and alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein. Despite repeated subpoenas, the social media giant has refused to comply, hindering ongoing legal proceedings between Oh Amen and Virginia Giuffre, another well-known Epstein victim. This refusal has baffled both parties’ lawyers and delayed the case’s resolution.

In an unusual twist, the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, is refusing to release account data for Rina Oh Amen, an artist and alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein. Oh Amen’s lawyers have been seeking access to her locked-out accounts as part of ongoing legal disputes involving Virginia Giuffre, another prominent Epstein victim. Despite these subpoenas being issued at Oh Amen’s request, X’s legal team has not complied, advising instead that the plaintiff herself should provide the information — a request that has left many puzzled, given her locked-out status.

The backdrop to this situation involves a complex legal exchange between Oh Amen and Giuffre. On social media, Giuffre accused Oh Amen of fabricating her victimhood to access funds designated for Epstein’s real victims, recruiting other girls for Epstein’s trafficking ring, and physically harming her. In retaliation, Oh Amen filed a defamation lawsuit against Giuffre, who countersued with allegations of sexual assault. Oh Amen then launched a countersuit, accusing Giuffre of similar misconduct.

While these legal entanglements continue, lawyers for both parties have cooperated in other aspects of the case, sharing documents and moving toward discovery. However, the stalemate over the X account data has become a significant stumbling block. Oh Amen’s attorney, Alexander Dudelson, expressed frustration, stating, “If they complied, ultimately, I could set a trial date and resolve this matter. This is preventing us from pushing forward right now.”

Giuffre’s legal team also finds X’s stance baffling. Kathleen R. Thomas, Giuffre’s lawyer, questioned why Oh Amen couldn’t access her own information, saying, “The plaintiff is doing the right thing.” Thomas has since requested judicial intervention to compel X to comply with the subpoenas, though this process is expected to delay the case further.

When Business Insider contacted X for a comment, they received an automated response stating that the company was “busy.” The unexplained obstruction from X has left both parties’ lawyers at a loss, with Thomas remarking, “I don’t know why they were so obstructionist about this subpoena. It’s baffling to me.”

The situation underscores the complexities and frustrations inherent in navigating legal disputes in the digital age, especially when crucial evidence is locked behind tech company policies. As the case drags on, the involved parties and their representatives are left in limbo, awaiting the release of information that could significantly impact the lawsuit’s outcome.

Source: Business Insider

Tech & IT

PICO 4 Ultra Review: Sharp Standalone VR with Solid Passthrough

The PICO 4 Ultra is a fully standalone VR headset designed for immersive entertainment, high-resolution video playback, and mixed reality experiences. It improves on the original PICO 4 with stronger performance, sharper visuals and better overall balance.

The headset uses the Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset, putting it in the same performance class as the Meta Quest 3 and Quest 3S. It features 2160 x 2160 resolution per eye, a refresh rate of up to 90Hz, and support for 8192 x 4096 video decoding at 60 FPS, making it capable of handling high-resolution immersive video content.

Compared with the original PICO 4, the Ultra offers faster rendering, brighter visuals, and improved front-to-back weight distribution, which helps during longer sessions. It also ships with controllers, making it ready to use out of the box.

However, comfort is still an area where the PICO 4 Ultra falls slightly behind some competitors. Its rigid headband and stiff face pad can create more pressure during extended use, especially compared with the softer and more refined fit of the Quest 3 and Quest 3S.

Passthrough is one of the PICO 4 Ultra’s strengths. The headset provides a clean color view of nearby surroundings and offers a noticeable improvement over older VR devices. While it does not match the passthrough quality of Apple Vision Pro, it performs well for a standalone headset in its category.

The PICO 4 Ultra can be used with compatible VR apps from the PICO International Store, including media players, immersive video platforms, and mixed reality experiences. Browser-based access is also available for supported web content, giving users multiple ways to enjoy VR without needing a PC.

Overall, the PICO 4 Ultra is a strong standalone headset for users who want sharp visuals, good passthrough and solid performance. Its firmware and ergonomics may not feel as polished as Meta’s Quest lineup, but it remains a capable option for immersive entertainment right out of the box.

Cam Sites

Meta Quest 3 vs Quest 3S: Which VR Headset Is Better for Immersive Content?

Meta’s standalone Quest 3 and Quest 3S are two of the most popular VR headsets for users who want high-quality immersive entertainment without needing a PC or external tracking setup.

Both headsets share the same core chip and many of the same features, including 120Hz display support, Touch Plus controllers and hand tracking. The biggest difference is visual quality. The Quest 3 is the higher-end option, using sharper pancake lenses and offering a resolution of 2064 x 2208 pixels per eye. The Quest 3S is the more budget-friendly model, with 1832 x 1920 pixels per eye, making some compromises in display clarity to reach a lower price point.

For high-resolution video playback, both headsets are capable devices. They can handle 8192 x 4096 at 60 FPS, making them suitable for 8K immersive video when paired with compatible apps and properly encoded content. This makes either headset a strong option for users focused on detailed, wide-field VR experiences.

Both models also include Touch Plus controllers and support hand tracking, giving users different ways to navigate apps, menus, and media players. This flexibility makes the experience feel more natural, especially when switching between interactive content and video playback.

Passthrough is another important feature. The Quest 3 and Quest 3S use dual 4MP RGB cameras to provide color passthrough, allowing users to see their real-world surroundings while wearing the headset. The experience is useful and practical, though it does not match the sharpness and realism of Apple Vision Pro, which offers richer colors and more detailed environmental visuals.

Battery life remains a practical consideration. In continuous 8K streaming tests, the Quest 3 lasted about 120 minutes, while the Apple Vision Pro lasted about 150 minutes. Apple’s external battery has a larger capacity, but the runtime difference is smaller than the size gap might suggest.

For most users, the choice comes down to budget and image quality. The Quest 3 is the better pick for sharper visuals, clearer lenses, and a more premium viewing experience. The Quest 3S offers much of the same core performance at a lower price, making it a strong option for users who want modern VR features without paying for the highest display quality.

Overall, both headsets are reliable choices for immersive entertainment. Choose the Meta Quest 3 if visual clarity matters most, or the Quest 3S if you want a more affordable entry into standard

Tech & IT

“Bombs and Porn” Debate Highlights Growing AI Concerns

AI data center projects across the United States are facing delays, cancellations, and growing public opposition as concerns rise over energy use, pollution, taxes, and the overall impact of artificial intelligence.

Nearly half of the data center capacity planned for 2026 has reportedly already been delayed or canceled. Local communities and lawmakers are increasingly pushing back against large AI infrastructure projects, with some states introducing restrictions on new developments.

Critics continue to question whether AI is truly improving daily life. Instead, AI tools are frequently associated with fake content, misinformation, cheating in schools, and harmful online material. Concerns also grew after reports connected a suspect in the 2025 shooting at Florida State University to extensive conversations with an AI chatbot before the attack.

The debate also includes concerns about AI being used in military and surveillance operations. AI-powered systems are increasingly being adopted by defense and government agencies, raising ethical and privacy concerns.

Environmental impact remains another major issue. Massive AI data center projects are expected to increase electricity demand significantly, with some companies planning new gas-powered infrastructure to support future expansion. Critics warn this could lead to higher emissions and additional pressure on energy grids.

Public skepticism toward AI also remains high. Recent polls show that many Americans believe AI could negatively affect jobs, education, and everyday life, while large numbers oppose building AI data centers near their communities.

Critics argue that instead of focusing on futuristic promises about “superintelligence,” tech companies and politicians should better explain the practical benefits AI is currently providing to ordinary people.