DIGITAL LIFE

Google Chrome and the dictatorship of ads: the end of the line for traditional Ad Blockers

If you're one of those users who can't live without a clean internet free of annoying ads, we have bad news. Google has finally decided to deliver the coup de grâce to the traditional ad blockers we use daily in its browser.

The controversial transition to the new Manifest V3 architecture has been announced for years, but now the company has begun ruthlessly disabling extensions based on the old system. This means your browsing experience is about to change drastically.

The official justification from the search giant focuses on the privacy and security of the entire ecosystem, but the tech community has little doubt. For most experts, the real reason for this move is to shield and protect its billion-dollar online advertising empire.

To understand the magnitude of this resource cut, Manifest V3 fundamentally changes how extensions interact with your browser. By drastically limiting network rules and dynamic filtering, powerful and complex blockers, such as the famous uBlock Origin, simply cease to operate at their full potential.

It's frustrating, to say the least, to see Google using the pretext of security to crush tools that users legitimately installed to protect their own privacy. With this change to the codebase, the effective interception of network requests – the real magic behind blocking aggressive ads on YouTube or Twitch – becomes an almost impossible task to accomplish in Chrome.

What Google took away and why it took it...The technical change is the replacement of Chrome’s webRequest API with the declarativeNetRequest API.

Under the old system, extensions like uBlock Origin could watch your browser’s traffic as it happened, see an ad or tracker trying to load, and block it on the spot before it ever reached your screen.

Under the new system, extensions have to hand Google a pre-written list of things to block and Chrome decides whether to follow those instructions. The lists are capped at a fixed number of rules, and the extension can’t react to anything that isn’t already on the list.

uBlock Origin’s developer, Raymond Hill, has been clear that a Manifest V3 version cannot replicate the original’s full capabilities. A stripped-down version called uBlock Origin Lite exists for MV3, but it handles only a fraction of the filter lists, the community-maintained databases of known ads and trackers, that the original supported.

It also can’t perform cosmetic filtering, the process of hiding ad containers and promotional elements that remain on a page even after the ad itself is blocked. Without it, you get blank boxes where ads used to be, or sponsored content that looks native to the page. For more than 40 million Chrome users who relied on the original, the replacement is a downgrade by design.

Google engineer Devlin Cronin confirmed the timeline in a Chromium code review commit, a logged change to Chrome’s underlying source code that other developers can inspect, writing that “MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in any supported version of Chrome, and we are removing support for them and the associated functionality. We won’t be able to provide / maintain this functionality indefinitely due to the complexity and tech debt, as well as the security risks it entails (we’ve actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately). Of course, other browsers can continue supporting these if they so desire.”

Cronin’s sign-off, that “other browsers can continue supporting these if they so desire,” suggests the removal as a Chrome-specific choice. It isn’t. Google controls 65% of the desktop browser market and the MV2 code being stripped from Chromium, the open-source project that Chrome and many other browsers are built on top of, affects every browser that shares that foundation.

Google justifies the migration on security grounds and there’s some substance to the argument. The old webRequest API gives extensions deep access to every network request a browser makes, from images and page loads to login credentials, and the extension sees the data before Chrome acts on it.

A compromised or malicious extension with that access can read your passwords as you type them, redirect you to fake websites, or slip harmful code into pages you trust.

The declarativeNetRequest API is designed to prevent exactly this kind of attack by restricting extensions to predefined rule sets. Instead of giving an extension free rein over your browser traffic, Chrome only lets it submit a list of instructions in advance and handles the blocking itself. That narrows the ways a bad actor can exploit an extension because the extension never gets to touch your data directly.

But Google generated roughly $239.5 billion in advertising revenue in 2025, and content blockers directly reduce the number of ads users see. The MV3 restrictions don’t ban ad blocking entirely. They cap how many rules an extension can use and eliminate dynamic blocking, the ability to recognize and stop new ad formats and trackers as they appear in real time.

Ad companies constantly change how they deliver ads, rotating domains and disguising tracking scripts, and the old extensions could keep up with that. The new ones can only block what’s already on a list that was written before the ad loaded. The result is ad blockers that work against yesterday’s ads but struggle against the ones that adapt daily.

The same company that built Chrome and sells the ads it displays also wrote the rules governing what ad blockers can do inside it. Whether those incentives shaped MV3’s design is the most obvious question in the room, and Google has never given a convincing answer.

Microsoft Edge and Opera, both built on Google’s Chromium engine, are expected to follow suit because the MV2 code being removed is shared across all Chromium-based browsers. Maintaining it independently would require significant engineering resources that most of those browsers are unlikely to commit.

Brave, also Chromium-based, supports MV2 but also sidesteps the problem by building its own ad-blocking engine directly into the browser, bypassing the extension framework entirely.

Firefox, which runs on its own engine, continues to support Manifest V2 and uBlock Origin without restriction. Mozilla implemented its own version of Manifest V3 but kept the old webRequest API working alongside it, so extensions that need real-time traffic access can still use it. That proves security improvements and effective content blocking can coexist. Google chose not to make them coexist.

What you can do...For Chrome users who want effective content blocking, the options are leaving Chrome or accepting reduced protection.

Firefox supports uBlock Origin in full and shows no signs of changing that. Brave blocks ads natively. Both are free and work well, and switching takes about ten minutes.

You can also install uBlock Origin Lite on Chrome and accept that it blocks less, adapts more slowly to new threats and can’t match the original. Or you can do nothing, and Chrome 150 will disable the extension through a routine update and show you a notification that it’s no longer supported.

Your current alternatives and solutions...With the forced deactivation of Manifest V2 in the stable version of Chrome, you can't simply ignore the problem. You'll have to make some firm decisions about the software you use to browse the internet if you want to keep your sanity intact and your screen free of visual distractions.

The transition requires you to take immediate action to avoid being inundated with intrusive advertising. Fortunately, the development community hasn't thrown in the towel and has already begun preparing concrete answers and alternative paths to mitigate this genuine technological headache.

To help you navigate this new and grim reality, we've compiled the main options available to you to circumvent these severe restrictions:

Install uBlock Origin Lite, a version officially adapted to Manifest V3, although considerably less effective on video platforms.

Transfer to tools like AdGuard or Blockify, which have already been rewritten from scratch and optimized for this new imposed architecture.

Switch to Brave, which offers a robust native shield against ads without relying on external extensions at all.

Adopt Firefox as your main browser, as Mozilla has already promised to maintain continuous and lifetime support for the full version of uBlock Origin.

Regardless of the path you choose, it's clear that Google's absolute dominance over the Chromium engine has given it total power to dictate the rules in its favor. Now we must wait patiently to see if this controversial stance will ultimately motivate a significant exodus of users to rival, more open and free ecosystems.

TECH

Advanced 3D printing creates origami-inspired structures

Researchers at the Department of Energy's Manufacturing Demonstration Facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory have introduced an innovation in additive manufacturing by integrating origami-inspired 3D printing techniques with hybrid composites—materials made from mixed reinforcing components. By eliminating the need for molds to fabricate a part, this process produces lightweight, cost-efficient structures with faster build times and greater adaptability.

Traditional composite manufacturing, while highly effective for producing strong, durable components, can involve long lead times and high mold costs that limit design flexibility. The ORNL method uses hybrid materials in an additive process without molds to produce flat-to-foldable structures that merge flexible and rigid components into a single design.

"This pioneering method redefines advanced manufacturing by fusing material science with transformative design principles," said ORNL's Steven Guzorek, lead researcher on the project. "By applying origami-inspired principles to hybrid composites, we are improving the efficiency and scalability of large-structure manufacturing and achieving forms unattainable with traditional additive approaches—advancing robust, cost-effective solutions for a broad range of applications."

ORNL's Steven Guzorek demonstrates the lab's hybrid 3D printing method, which deposits an integration layer and composite material directly onto flexible nylon fabric, creating a mold-free, flat-to-foldable structure that reduces production costs and increases design flexibility. Credit: Amy Smotherman Burgess/ORNL, U.S. Dept. of Energy

The innovative process works by depositing materials onto a flexible, fabric-based surface, allowing precise control over the material's form and strength. This flexibility enables foldable 3D forms without molds or extensive finishing.

The structures are composed of a high-strength fabric base such as nylon, glass fiber or resin-infused composite fibers, followed by an integration or bonding layer such as thermoplastic polyurethane for compatibility and adhesion. The reinforcing layer is then applied using deposited composite materials, including thermoplastic carbon-fiber acrylonitrile butadiene styrene for lightweight structural performance or thermoset formulations such as styrene-based or epoxy-based resins for enhanced stiffness, geometry control and durability. The materials bond at the molecular level, forming a strong connection between the grid and the outer layer.

Guzorek said the key to this bond lies in material selection. "By understanding the materials science, we chose materials that we knew would bond effectively, producing a truly integrated component."

This advancement opens the door to next-generation composite manufacturing strategies that bypass molds and expand the boundaries of lightweight structural design.

Integrated fold geometries and structural reinforcement patterns enable this origami-inspired composite to transition from a flat panel into a three-dimensional form. Credit: Andrew Sproles/ORNL, U.S. Dept. of Energy

Benefits of mold-free hybrid composite 3D printing...The method enables the production of complex geometries that traditional mold-based methods cannot economically achieve. It also allows the fabrication of objects larger than the printing machine itself, reducing capital costs and boosting production efficiency. In a test print, researchers found that eliminating molds reduced fabrication time by 95% and costs by 90% for printing a unique design compared with conventional mold-based composite manufacturing.

The new method eliminates mold storage challenges, enables rapid deployment and facilitates rapid printing of flat components directly onto sheet materials, which keeps costs down and supports both thermoplastic and thermoset materials.

"Our goal is to make this innovation scalable so manufacturers across industries can harness its potential," said Guzorek. "By broadening access to mold-free hybrid composites, we're empowering manufacturers to explore new design possibilities and unlock entirely new applications for this transformative technology."

ORNL has filed a patent, and the team is preparing the innovation for future licensing.

In addition to Guzorek, the research team includes Ahmed Arabi Hassen, Katie Copenhaver, Duncan Frazier, Brian Post and Tyler Smith with ORNL's Manufacturing Science Division.

Provided by Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

 

DIGITAL LIFE

Is net neutrality at risk in Europe? organizations warn of the Impact of the digital networks act

In a statement, a group of organizations condemns two aspects of the proposal presented by the European Commission for the Digital Networks Act, pointing to risks to net neutrality and asking legislators to review it.

At the beginning of the year, the European Commission presented the Digital Networks Act (DNA) proposal with the aim of revising the rules of the telecommunications sector. At the time, industry opinions were divided and now, in a joint statement, a group of organizations expresses its concerns about the effects of the proposal on net neutrality.

As explained by the Portuguese chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC Portugal), which is part of the group of organizations represented, the joint statement specifically condemns two aspects of the proposal presented by the European Commission for the DNA.

On the one hand, the statement warns of the possibility that the proposed framework could open the door to mechanisms for intervention in the internet network interconnection market, including "Sender Pays" type models, in which digital platforms and services could bear additional costs for the traffic generated.

ISOC Portugal points out that the introduction of these mechanisms was already proposed by the European Commission about three years ago, and was publicly condemned.

On the other hand, the organizations express concern about the introduction of new rules on net neutrality, replacing the current European regulation, which defends and imposes the principle of "Net Neutrality".

"This is an attempt to create regulatory chaos that invalidates the principle of 'Net Neutrality' currently enshrined in European regulation," they argue.

In the statement, the organizations consider that, given the significant impact on the European digital ecosystem, the proposals of the European Commission "raise serious questions about their proportionality and necessity," risking "weakening fundamental safeguards that protect European consumers and businesses," including SMEs and startups, while "harming the digital single market."

The organizations are calling on the European Union co-legislators to amend the proposal to ensure a telecommunications regulatory framework that is "clear and evidence-based, maintaining and protecting net neutrality," arguing that the final version of the DNA should promote "innovation, fair competition and consumer protection, while preserving an open Internet."

"We've lost the internet"... "Currently it's impossible" to store data entirely in Europe, because European cyber defenses are dependent on cooperation with American private companies, says the director of the Belgian Cybersecurity Center

European digital infrastructure is losing ground to the United States, which may be getting closer and closer to dominating the internet empire.

"We've lost the entire cloud. Let's be honest, we've lost the internet." This is the understanding of Miguel De Bruycker, director of the Belgian Cybersecurity Center (CCB), who warns of a "huge security problem" for the European Union.

In statements to the Financial Times, he explained that it is increasingly less "realistic," and even "impossible," to imagine that our information can remain "100% in the EU," since Europe's cyber defenses are dependent on the cooperation of private companies - most of them American. "In cyberspace, everything is commercial, everything is private property," he stressed.

According to the director of the CCB, the US's progress has been ensured by innovation and the development of "crucial" technologies such as cloud computing and Artificial Intelligence, essential in combating cyberattacks.

De Bruycker points to legislation as part of the problem, accusing it of "blocking" innovation. This is the case with the European Artificial Intelligence Act, he notes, designed to regulate the development of this technology and guarantee the "transparency and security" of systems in the market.

While reiterating the continent's concern regarding American dependence, the director calls for reflection on a possible "technological sovereignty" for Europe. "I think that, at the EU level, we should clearly identify what sovereignty in the digital domain means for us," De Bruycker told the newspaper, adding that, "instead of focusing on how we can stop the US 'hyperscalers' [the large cloud computing providers], perhaps we should invest our energy in building something for ourselves."

To that end, it is up to European governments to support private initiatives to gain traction in areas such as cloud computing or digital identification technologies, argued the director of the CCB, recalling the time when Europe united in a similar initiative to manufacture Airbus aircraft: “Everyone supported Airbus initiatives for decades. We need the same initiative at the EU level in the cyber domain.”

Although there has been an undeniable increase in attacks, De Bruycker does not consider them particularly harmful, admitting that they mainly serve to cause disruption. “It’s temporary and doesn’t steal any information. In fact, it disrupts the normal functioning of the website or portal,” says the expert.

Despite the dependence that worries Europeans, De Bruycker acknowledges the importance of American “hyperscalers” in combating the Russian cyber offensive and expressed hope regarding continued cooperation with American companies.

Sapotek-Portugal

DIGITAL LIFE

Love at first prompt? How AI-assisted courtship is rewriting the rules of online dating

In the famous French play Cyrano de Bergerac, the brilliant but insecure Cyrano lends his eloquence to the handsome, tongue-tied Christian to help him woo his lover. Today, a remarkably similar scene is playing out among millions of dating app users, with the role of the lovelorn poet played not by a human but by AI. New research from Constructor University professor Dr. Lennart Ante analyzes the growing impact of dating app users outsourcing the delicate work of courtship—from the witty opening line to the flirtatious reply—to AI assistants like ChatGPT, Gemini or even specialized "wingman" apps like Rizz and Winggg.

The paper, "The Cyrano Effect: LLM-Assisted Impression Management and Authenticity in Online Dating," published in Telematics and Informatics, examines the implications of AI's growing incursion into the human dating pool. Recent surveys suggest more than 1 in 4 singles in the United States have already used AI to augment their dating lives, while a majority of dating app users believe they have exchanged messages with an algorithm at some point.

Drawing on 45 in-depth interviews with dating app users—including both those who use AI to write their messages and those who have received AI-assisted messages from a match—Ante's study contributes vital understanding of a phenomenon that is rapidly reshaping how millions of people meet, court and connect online.

"I had been seeing more and more stories in the news and online about LLMs, lovebots and people forming romantic relationships with these AI tools, something I find utterly fascinating," said Ante on the inspiration behind the research project. "While my own experience with dating apps is limited to occasionally seeing my friends swipe through Tinder, I couldn't help but wonder how AI might be creeping into these spaces as well."

How AI is changing dating...Over the past decade, online dating has become the definitive mainstream pathway to romantic relationships. It is now the most common way couples meet in the U.S. and is underpinned by a $3.2 billion dating app industry boasting hundreds of millions of users worldwide. Against this backdrop, generative AI is not a marginal curiosity but a tool that is becoming increasingly embedded in one of the most intimate domains of everyday life.

When the words that spark a first connection are no longer entirely one's own, it raises fundamental questions about what it means to be authentic, the nature of the human connections being formed and the real-world implications when AI-augmented online personas eventually meet in person and unassisted across a dinner table.

To address these questions, Ante conducted semistructured interviews with two distinct groups of dating app users: 23 individuals who reported using LLMs to help write profiles or messages, and 22 individuals who suspected or confirmed that a match had used AI in their communication. Participants were recruited from English-language online dating communities based primarily in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and parts of Europe. The interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, an interpretive approach designed to identify and understand the meanings that participants themselves attach to their experiences.

"What we see in the result is a nuanced, qualitative portrait of an emerging social practice that quantitative studies have so far only been able to gesture at," Ante said. "Existing surveys and experimental work convincingly show that disclosing AI involvement tends to reduce trust and attraction. While this establishes that a problem exists, it doesn't tell us why, or what people are actually feeling in these moments.

"A number on a trust scale doesn't capture a recipient's experience of feeling 'violated' or 'stupid' for opening up emotionally, only to learn that they are interacting with AI responses. This is where the true value of this research lies."

Three themes from the study...Ante's study found three notable themes emerging from the data:

"The Authenticity Paradox" describes how users justify AI use not as deception, but as a way to express their "true" selves more accurately, with AI acting as a sort of prosthesis for social anxiety, linguistic insecurity or the perceived inefficiency of online dating.

"The Digital Betrayal" captures the experience of recipients who describe the moment they suspect or discover AI use as a violation of trust, and a sense that something fundamental about the interaction has been "faked."

"The Persona-to-Person Leap" traces the anxiety of moving from an AI-polished chat to an unassisted offline encounter—a transition that, in many cases, exposes a gap too wide to bridge.

Together, these themes give rise to what Ante calls the "Cyrano Effect": the entanglement of human and algorithmic authorship that reconfigures impression management, authenticity and trust in digitally mediated romance.

"My research focuses on actual lived experiences, where the real mechanism lives," Ante said. "By directly speaking with people, both those using the tools and those on the receiving end, I was able to assess the full arc, from the justification to the reveal, and finally, the awkward first date."

"What surprised me most was how coherent the justifications of AI users were, and at the same time, how deeply betrayed the recipients felt," Ante said. "The same act—such as using ChatGPT to draft a flirtatious message—can be experienced from one side as the ability to finally express one's true self, and yet from the other side as a fundamental violation of trust. That asymmetry is what makes this phenomenon so difficult for users, platforms and the broader culture of online dating."

Broader implications for online romance...Ante's study contributes to research on computer-mediated communication by extending classical theories of impression management, authenticity and trust into the age of generative AI. It introduces the notion of "prosthetic authenticity"—the idea that authenticity may increasingly be understood not as the absence of mediation but as alignment between one's inner self and outward expression, even when that expression is algorithmically augmented—and points to an emerging crisis of authorship, in which the once-safe assumption that "the person who writes is the person who speaks" no longer holds.

The findings also speak to a longer cultural trajectory in which intimate relationships are increasingly framed through the logic of markets, efficiency and self-optimization, with AI now extending that logic from the search for a partner to the communicative act itself.

Beyond its theoretical contribution, the study has direct practical implications. For platform designers, it raises the difficult question of how to respond to AI assistance. Outright bans are difficult to enforce and may penalize users who rely on AI for legitimate reasons, such as overcoming language barriers or communication anxiety, while a laissez-faire approach risks an undeclared arms race between AI generation and human detection.

The article argues that some form of transparency—optional, verifiable disclosure of AI assistance—may be the most viable, if imperfect, path forward. For individuals, it points to the need for a new kind of digital literacy: the ability to recognize when an eloquent message on screen may not be authored by the person on the other side, without sliding into blanket cynicism that makes genuine connection impossible.

"Ultimately, the question that animated Cyrano de Bergerac remains unresolved in AI-mediated romance," Ante said. "When we fall for these words, who or what are we really falling for? How we as scholars, designers and users answer that question will shape not only the future of online dating, but also our broader understanding of agency, responsibility and intimacy in a world where algorithms increasingly speak in our name."

Provided by Constructor University

TECH

Galaxy S27 and Xiaomi 18 spotted: Major Leica camera lineup changes expected

Months before launch, early traces of two of next year's likely most important camera flagship rivals have appeared in databases. Model numbers have been discovered for both the Samsung Galaxy S27 and an initial Xiaomi 18 model, with major changes to the lineup becoming apparent for the latter in particular.

In recent hours and days, traces of new next-generation Samsung and Xiaomi flagships have appeared in the GSMA database, better known as the IMEI database, usually one of the first concrete indications of a smartphone in development. Neither Samsung's 2027 lineup nor the Leica camera flagships from China are fully represented in the database yet, but the Xiaomi flagships in particular are already showing the first signs of changes that are also likely to affect the global Xiaomi 18 generation.

Samsung Galaxy S27...But let's start with the successor to the 6.3-inch Galaxy S26, which identifies itself as the US version of the Galaxy S27 with the model number SM-S952U. The number 952 can clearly be identified as the successor to the Galaxy S26 base model with the number 942, so despite rumors of a Galaxy S27 Pro model, there will likely once again be a more compact entry-level model in the roughly $900 price range in 2027.

Four global Xiaomi 18 models...The Xiaomi lineup is less clear, as Ximitime currently suggests. Here, too, an informative model number has been discovered in the IMEI database, namely 2611FPNFA, which has appeared in the database in multiple versions. 2611FPNFAR is the model for Japan, 2611FPNFAI is the model for India, and 2611FPNFAG is the global version. Interestingly, the China model does not use the usual C at the end but, according to the screenshot, carries the number M154FF, which the article unfortunately does not address.

Xiaomi 18 or Xiaomi 18 Pro? The fact that global Xiaomi 18 variants are being developed alongside the China model points to a change in launch strategy compared to recent years, something we already reported a few weeks ago. This could finally mean there will no longer be an almost six-month wait between the launch in China and the global release. A global Xiaomi 18 Pro would also be conceivable, though neither has been proven at this point.

According to earlier indications, the Xiaomi 18 is being developed under the codename "madrid", and in combination with a HyperOS code analysis by Ximitime, that now raises some questions. In theory, "madrid" should be assigned the abbreviation Q3, analogous to P3 for the Xiaomi 17. Instead, however, the code snippet below shows Q2, which according to the previous logic would actually point to the Xiaomi 18 Pro. Given the paused and potentially discontinued development of the Xiaomi 18 Ultra, it is conceivable that Xiaomi's model number logic has changed, according to Ximitime. It should be noted that model number analysis always carries some risk, since the manufacturer often follows a certain structure but can also change it at any time.

Xiaomi 18 launch not until November? That may also apply to another conclusion that could potentially be drawn from the discovered model numbers. As many readers may know, the first four digits of the number often indicate the earliest possible launch date, in this case 2611, meaning November 2026. Compared to recent years, that would be very late for the China launch, which took place in September 2025 last year. For the global launch, however, it would be early, as Xiaomi fans in Europe previously had to wait until the end of February of the following year. We are somewhat skeptical that Xiaomi will actually wait until November to launch the Xiaomi 18, so caution is also advised when interpreting these numbers.

mundophone

TECH

QNAP launches web-managed QSW-M2130 switches

QNAP announced the launch of the QSW-M2130 series, a web-managed L2 networking solution that combines access and aggregation functions in a single device, aimed at SMEs and multi-story enterprise environments. Introduced on May 27, 2026, the series consists of two models, the QSW-M2130-4C2S24T and the QSW-M2130P-2C2S26T, with 2.5GbE ports and 10GbE uplinks, the latter being compatible with the IEEE 802.3bt PoE++ standard.

The QNAP QSW-M2130 switches address a recurring problem in mid-sized IT infrastructures: the proliferation of network equipment as organizations grow. Each model integrates 24 RJ45 2.5GbE ports for connecting workstations, NAS devices, and peripherals, and 10GbE ports for aggregating traffic to the core network. This architecture eliminates the need for two separate switches per segment, reducing management complexity and infrastructure costs.

The standard model, QSW-M2130-4C2S24T, includes two 10GbE SFP+ fiber ports and four combined (RJ45/SFP+) 10GbE ports, allowing IT administrators to choose the connection type depending on the existing cabling. Connection flexibility is a relevant argument in buildings with mixed infrastructures, where fiber and copper cable runs coexist.

The QSW-M2130P-2C2S26T is a next-generation L2 managed switch with 24 2.5GbE Base-T ports, 2 10GbE SFP+ ports, 2 10GbE Base-T ports, and 2 10GbE Combo ports, integrating high-speed connectivity and PoE into a single device. The multi-Gigabit port design makes it ideal for deployment as an access and aggregation switch, supporting Wi-Fi 6/6E/7 APs, IP surveillance, and various powered devices. With support for VLAN, QoS, LACP, and ACL, in addition to the intuitive QSS (QNAP Switch System), it allows businesses to build a scalable, efficient, and easy-to-manage network infrastructure. The QSW-M2130P-2C2S26T is manufactured in Taiwan (MIT), offering a reliable and high-quality networking solution.

IEEE 802.3bt PoE++...Compatible with IEEE 802.3bt PoE++ standards. Offers PoE capabilities for 12 90-watt ports and 16 45-watt ports. Can provide a total power budget of 375 watts to meet the demands of high-power devices (PDs).

10GbE Connectivity...Two 10GbE SFP+ ports, two 10GbE combo ports, and two RJ45 ports can be connected to NAS, servers, or backbone uplinks, allowing for high bandwidth and redundancy.

Layer 2 Networking...Offers comprehensive Layer 2 management features (such as VLAN, LACP, ACL, and LLDP) so IT administrators can efficiently control network bandwidth and enhance security through the switch's easy-to-use web management interface.

Access and Aggregation in one...Suitable for both edge access and aggregation layers, it consolidates traffic from multiple 2.5GbE devices and uplinks via 10GbE to the core network, simplifying deployment in SMB environments.

SFP+/RJ45 Ports...Compatible with 10GBASE-T and 5GBASE-T technologies to support five speeds (10G / 5G / 2.5G / 1G / 100M), the QSW-M2130P-2C2S26T offers higher transmission speeds when used with existing cabling.

Online Operating System Update...QSS (QNAP Switch System) helps administrators update firmware with just one click, ensuring network security.

PoE++ for modern wireless infrastructure...The QSW-M2130P-2C2S26T model is designed for environments with high density of network-powered devices. Supports the IEEE 802.3bt PoE++ standard with a total power of 375W, ports with individual capacities of up to 90W and 45W, making it compatible with Wi-Fi 6, Wi-Fi 6E, and Wi-Fi 7 access points, 4K IP cameras, IP phones, and digital signage systems. Eliminating external power supplies for these devices simplifies installation and reduces the number of network failure points.

“The biggest challenge in today’s network is a disorganized architecture that expands out of control. The QSW-M2130 series offers a network that expands without losing control,” said Ronald Hsu, product manager at QNAP. Hsu added that the goal is to allow businesses to “maintain a simplified topology and predictable performance,” for both high-speed environments and infrastructures with high power requirements.

QNAP QSW-M2130: Centralized Management and Layer 2 Security...QNAP QSW-M2130 switches are managed by the QNAP Switch System (QSS), a web-based graphical interface that allows port configuration, traffic monitoring, and firmware updates without the need for command-line tools. The platform supports Layer 2 features such as LACP, QoS, VLAN, and IGMP Snooping, essential for efficient traffic segmentation in corporate networks.

In terms of security, both models integrate Access Control Lists (ACLs), DoS attack prevention, the Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol (RSTP), and flow control. These features protect the network against malicious traffic, prevent routing loops, and reduce packet loss in congestion situations.

QNAP positions the QSW-M2130 series as superior quality equipment, manufactured in-house in Taiwan. The availability date in Portugal and local distribution channels were not disclosed at the time of the announcement. The QNAP QSW-M2130 switches arrive in a market where the migration to multigigabit networks in SMEs is accelerating, driven by the adoption of Wi-Fi 6/7 and the growth of high-capacity network storage. The series positions itself as a direct response to this trend, without requiring a complete overhaul of the existing cabling infrastructure.

mundophone

 

TECH

Bitcoin in a zone of brutal fall and growing pessimism

After a brutal fall and a climate of growing pessimism, Bitcoin has returned to the spotlight. Experts disagree on the next step, but some signs are beginning to attract attention.

When an asset loses half its value in a few months, the natural reaction is fear. That is exactly what happened with Bitcoin, which went from historical highs to facing one of the most delicate phases in recent years. While investors try to understand if the worst is over or if new falls are on the way, analysts observe indicators that, in previous cycles, preceded important movements. The question now is simple, but the answer is far from being a consensus.

The recent devaluation of Bitcoin has shaken the confidence of part of the market. Not even the new purchase made by Strategy, a company led by Michael Saylor and known for its strong exposure to cryptocurrency, managed to change the prevailing sentiment among investors.

After falling about 50% from its all-time high above $120,000, Bitcoin began trading near the $60,000 range. This movement reignited discussions about the possibility of the market approaching a cycle bottom.

Some indicators used by analysts suggest exactly that. Among them is the MVRV Z-Score, a metric that compares the current price of the cryptocurrency with the average cost of acquiring the coins in circulation. Historically, when this indicator approaches certain zones, Bitcoin is usually close to ending major corrections.

Another piece of data observed by the market shows that more than half of cryptocurrency holders are operating at a loss. In previous cycles, similar situations occurred shortly before significant recoveries.

Analysts at the asset management firm 21Shares highlight that the current sentiment is reminiscent of moments of extreme pessimism seen after traumatic events for the sector, such as the collapse of the FTX brokerage in 2022. At that time, many investors believed that the recovery would take years, but the market surprised in the following months.

For more optimistic managers, the current correction still fits within the historical patterns observed in Bitcoin. The difference is that recent drops have been less deep than those recorded in the major bear markets of the past, something interpreted by some experts as a sign of the asset's maturation.

Risks remain and require caution...Despite the positive signs, not everyone shares the same enthusiasm.

Some analysts believe that the market may still face a prolonged period of weakness. Among the factors cited are the reduction in institutional interest, the search for opportunities in companies linked to artificial intelligence, and the migration of capital to other sectors considered more promising in the short term.

According to this view, Bitcoin ends up suffering as an indirect consequence of a large reallocation of resources within global markets. As it is a highly liquid asset, it often becomes one of the first sources of funds when investors decide to seek new opportunities.

Another point that worries some experts is the lack of a significant price reaction even after announcements considered positive. When good news fails to trigger significant increases, this usually indicates that the market has not yet fully recovered its confidence. Furthermore, some technical indicators show that the recovery potential may be more limited than in previous corrections. This does not necessarily mean that a rally is impossible, but it suggests that the path may be slower and more turbulent.

Why the long-term thesis remains alive...Even in the face of volatility, many analysts continue to defend Bitcoin's structural thesis.

One of the main arguments is related to the increasing diversification of investors participating in this market. Unlike the first cycles, when demand depended mainly on retail investors, today the ecosystem includes ETFs, pension funds, wealth managers, and even sovereign investors.

This change helps reduce dependence on short-term speculation and strengthens the institutional presence in the sector.

Another frequently cited factor is the protocol's own structure. Since its launch, Bitcoin has continued to operate according to the original rules established by its creator. The maximum limit of 21 million units remains unchanged, and issuance follows a rigid mathematical schedule.

For cryptocurrency advocates, this predictability remains one of the asset's most valuable characteristics, especially in a global landscape marked by economic and monetary uncertainties.

Buy, wait, or sell? Most experts avoid extreme answers. Instead of recommending aggressive buying or total liquidation of positions, many advocate a gradual strategy. The idea is to build exposure over time, making periodic contributions and reducing the impact of short-term fluctuations.

This method avoids trying to pinpoint the exact bottom of the market, something that has historically proven almost impossible even for experienced investors.

Among the most optimistic projections, some analysis firms are working with the possibility of Bitcoin surpassing significantly higher levels by the end of 2026. For this to happen, however, the cryptocurrency will need to recover important technical regions and rely on favorable external factors, such as an improved macroeconomic scenario, a resumption of flows to ETFs, and regulatory advances in the United States.

Meanwhile, the main recommendation remains the same: discipline, risk management, and a long-term focus. After all, if there's one thing Bitcoin's history has shown many times, it's that periods of extreme fear are usually precisely those that most test investors' conviction.

mundophone