Tim Cook, Elizabeth Warren is coming for you.

Speaking to The Verge at SXSW, the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate made it ultra clear: just because she didn’t explicitly mention Apple in her policy proposal to break up the big tech companies doesn’t mean it’s safe from her scrutiny. 

Under an Elizabeth Warren administration, Apple would be broken up, too.

“Apple, you’ve got to break it apart from their App Store,” said Warren, speaking to editor-in-chief of The Verge, Nilay Patel. “It’s got to be one or the other. Either they run the platform or they play in the store. They don’t get to do both at the same time.”

Warren made waves on Friday with a Medium post announcing how her administration would tackle tech monopolies like Amazon, Google, and Facebook. Basically, to end the anti-competitive practices in the industry, the Senator from Massachusetts proposes the following: break them up.

SEE ALSO: Medium, a blog good enough for presidential candidates and billionaires

The presidential candidate would designate those tech giants and any other companies with at least $25 billion in yearly global revenue which “offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties” as “platform utilities.” 

Under Warren’s proposal, a company could run these platforms but it couldn’t also sell its own products on them. In Amazon’s case, for example, it could run its ecommerce services but it couldn’t also sell its own AmazonBasics products on the platform. 

While Apple wasn’t mentioned in her post alongside Amazon, Google, and Facebook, Warren has now made it clear the same would go for the Cupertino-based iPhone maker. Apple couldn’t both run the App Store and release its own apps through the platform.

“These big companies exert enormous influence in the economy and in Washington, DC,” said Warren. “We break them apart, that backs up the influence a little bit, and it makes absolutely sure that they’re not engaged in these unfair practices that stomp out every little business that’s trying to get a start.”

Solar geoengineering is widely viewed as risky business. 

The somewhat sci-fi concept — to use blimps, planes, or other means to load Earth’s atmosphere with particles or droplets that reflect sunlight and cool the planet — has crept into the mainstream conversation as a means of reversing relentless climate change, should our efforts to slash carbon emissions fail or sputter. But geoengineering schemes come with a slew of hazards. A number of studies have cited the ill consequences of messing with Earth’s sun intake, including big falls in crop production, the likelihood of unforeseen adverse side effects, and critically, a weakened water cycle that could trigger drops in precipitation and widespread drought.

Yet new research, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, acknowledges these problems but finds a potential fix: only deploying enough reflective specks in the atmosphere to reduce about half of Earth’s warming, rather than relying on geoengineering to completely return Earth to the cooler, milder climate of the 19th century. In other words, giving Earth a geoengineering dose that would reverse a significant portion of the warming, but not enough to stoke the problematic side effects.  

“We wanted to clear up if some of the issues that we’ve seen were the result of doing too much geoengineering,” said Peter Irvine, a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard University’s John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and lead author of the study.

In the early 2000s, the notion of geoengineering sounded like a “really outlandish idea,” Irvine admitted. But this new research, building on other studies, illustrates that such a planetary-wide undertaking — if applied cautiously, incrementally, and with careful dosing — might not be so far-fetched, after all. 

“It looks like, surprisingly, it works quite well,” said Irvine. 

That’s not to say Irvine and his research team are promoting the idea of deploying geoengineering on the planet anytime soon. They aren’t. Rather, this research is a piece of the puzzle that may ultimately reveal if geoengineering could work without unleashing widescale harm to the planet, particularly plunges in rainfall (in part due to reduced sunlight resulting in less energy driving rainfall and precipitation).

“I don’t think it makes any sense to do it now,” David Keith, a solar engineering researcher at Harvard University and study coauthor, said. “And if it doesn’t make sense, we shouldn’t do it,” he added, noting that any geoengineering deployment would likely still be some two decades away.  

SEE ALSO: Will cockroaches really inherit the Earth?

“This is the type of work that researchers should be doing to understand the potential climate impacts of solar geoengineering,” said Jon Proctor, who researches the impacts of geoengineering on agriculture and had no role in the study.  “However, we are still far from understanding the full costs and benefits of solar geoengineering to economic and ecological wellbeing,” added Proctor, who is a Ph.D. candidate in agriculture and resource economics at UC Berkeley.

To see how providing a “half dose” of geoengineering would affect the planet, the study’s researchers visited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) super-advanced climate model at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory to simulate Earth’s future climate. Specifically, they doubled the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (from 1990 levels) and then “turned down the sun,” so to speak, to mimic the effects of solar geoengineering under such conditions. 

The results cut Earth’s warming by about half. And critically, the cooling effect did not wreak havoc on Earth’s water system by decreasing rainfall in vast regions around the world. In such a carbon-saturated atmosphere, the simulated geoengineering also tempered extreme, crippling deluges (which are becoming more common as the climate warms) and reduced the intensity of hurricanes. “By choosing to half warming, we’re going to get close to restoring the water cycle,” said Irvine. 

A smaller portion of the world — about half a percent — saw an uptick in the extreme weather stoked by climate change. 

Such a geoengineering endeavor certainly wouldn’t solve all the planet’s environmental woes in a warmer world. “No — it’s not perfect,” said Irvine. But halving warming might cut into the weather extremes wrought by the highest atmospheric carbon dioxide levels Earth has experienced in millions of years. Already, Earth’s CO2 levels are likely the highest they’ve been in some 15 million years. 

“I hope that the paper can be a springboard to rethink some common assumptions.”

The possibility that geoengineering could alter the globe’s water cycle and produce widescale drought is a big red flag, said Keith, but he hopes this study illustrates that such damaging changes might be avoided, though there’s still ample research to be done. “I hope that the paper can be a springboard to rethink some common assumptions [about geoengineering],” he said. 

What’s more, Keith emphasized that this study isn’t just coauthored by known geoengineering researchers like Keith and Irvine, but diverse, well-respected atmospheric scientists like MIT’s Kerry Emanuel, an accomplished climate researcher. “Having these different names on the paper should make this be considered more seriously,” said Keith. 

If the time ever comes for geoengineering — in a political climate where climate deniers in powerful government positions still make unfounded claims that plants are in dire need of more carbon — Keith underscores that it can’t be an emergency, last ditch effort, like deploying a parachute. Whether achieved by big weather balloons, blimps, or other methods, solar geoengineering would have to be done carefully, methodically, and incrementally. 

In short, it’s a fantasy that a massive fleet of blimps will one day suddenly take to air and release bounties of reflective particles in the skies when crops fail and Antarctica unleashes an unstoppable flow of ice into the seas. 

“Solar engineering might not be a good choice in an emergency,” said Keith. “If it makes any sense at all, it makes sense to gradually ramp it up.”

Nvidia has come out on top in a bidding war for chipmaker Mellanox.

In a press release on Monday, Nvidia announced its $6.9 billion acquisition of Mellanox, an Israel and California-based networking technology and supercomputer chipmaker. The all-cash acquisition is the largest ever for Nvidia, a company best known for its graphics processors for high-performance gaming.

Mellanox’s focus is on technology for networking and data storage. The company creates InfiniBand and Ethernet products for use in the cloud and data centers as well as in the artificial intelligence sector. It boasts that its technology is used in half of the top 500 most powerful supercomputers.

“The emergence of AI and data science, as well as billions of simultaneous computer users, is fueling skyrocketing demand on the world’s datacenters,” said Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang in a statement. “Addressing this demand will require holistic architectures that connect vast numbers of fast computing nodes over intelligent networking fabrics to form a giant datacenter-scale compute engine.”

Some of the industry’s biggest players were interested in acquiring Mellanox and had submitted offers before Nvidia swooped in to make a bid over the last day. Microsoft, Intel, Xilinx, and Broadcom had all emerged as potential buyers before the Nvidia deal was announced. 

SEE ALSO: Think you can tell between a real and computer-generated face? This website will test you.

Microsoft is one of Mellanox’s biggest customers, as it uses the company’s products for its Azure cloud. 

In Intel’s case, the tech giant was likely looking to “corner the market” with its bid as Engadget points out. The company develops a number of products which overlap with Mellanox’s offerings. Intel reportedly offered $6 billion for the chipmaker.

Nvidia ended up outbidding the other suitors, paying $125 per share.

“We’re excited to unite Nvidia’s accelerated computing platform with Mellanox’s world-renowned accelerated networking platform under one roof to create next-generation datacenter-scale computing solutions,” said Huang.

With the acquisition, the combination of Nvidia and Mellanox will have “every major cloud service provider and computer maker” as a customer.