The Silver Cross stroller has been around since 1877, but its latest iteration borrows from a considerably faster form of transportation. The British brand has teamed up with Automobili Lamborghini for the Reef AL Giallo, a limited-edition stroller that translates details from the Italian automaker’s supercars into a four-wheeled design of a different sort.

Photography courtesy of Silver Cross

Photography courtesy of Silver Cross

The collaboration follows the earlier Reef AL Arancio, trading that model’s orange accents for Lamborghini’s signature giallo yellow against a predominantly matte-black frame. But it doesn’t stop at color and branding: The stroller pulls from automotive forms and materials throughout.

Photography courtesy of Silver Cross

An angular, high-gloss polycarbonate carrycot (or a “stroller bassinet,” as we call it in the U.S.) takes cues from the sculpted lines of a supercar hood, while automotive-grade suede, genuine leather, and bamboo fibers appear across the carrycot and reversible seat.

Photography courtesy of Silver Cross

Lamborghini references become more granular in the details. A debossed Y pattern on the seat comes directly from the automaker’s interiors, while the hand-finished handlebar, brake pedal, and exposed spring suspension borrow from automotive hardware. Even the storage basket gets a more engineered treatment, using origami-like folds to maintain the stroller’s angular geometry.

Photography courtesy of Silver Cross

Those visual references sit atop the functional requirements of a stroller: puncture-proof multi-terrain wheels, a reversible lie-flat seat, integrated bassinet ventilation, and a chassis that folds with the seat facing in either direction. The complete package also includes a footmuff, rain covers, car-seat adapters, a cup holder, a sun sail, and a mosquito net.

Photography courtesy of Silver Cross

Only 500 individually numbered Reef AL Giallo strollers will be produced worldwide. Priced at $3,995, the limited edition launches Aug. 27 through select retailers—making Lamborghini ownership marginally more attainable, even if this one tops out at walking speed.

Editorial Transparency: This article was developed with the assistance of AI tools, which may have been used for research, outlining, editing, or copy refinement. Reporting, fact-checking, and editorial decisions were made by the Design Milk editorial team.

“Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived,” a new preprint research paper from Samsung and the University of Warsaw said.

The paper identified a number of names that co-authored hundreds of AI-generated academic papers, articles, and books. The authors don’t actually exist, but are instead names that large language models repeatedly produce when tasked with generating experts in certain fields. 

The paper, titled “The Ghost Couple: Correlated LLM Name Priors and Their Haunting of the Web and Academic Publishing,” utilized a known phenomenon where certain LLMs will keep coming up with the same names in certain contexts. For example, In June, Sam wrote about how ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude were likely to use the name Elias Thorne in fiction they generated, and that the character was often a lighthouse keeper. Similarly, users noticed that if they ask ChatGPT to generate a software developer, their name will often be Marcus Chen.

The researchers were able to show not only that LLMs often default to the same names, but that they produce “correlated character ensembles,” meaning some names were more likely to appear together. Other names that were consistently generated by AI models include Elena Amara Okafor from Claude, Aris Thorne and Lena Petrova from Gemini, and Elara Voss from ChatGPT. 

Earlier this month, I reported a story about Research Gold, a company that offered what it claimed was human medical research, but that was in fact entirely AI generated. The founder and lead methodologist for that company was named Elena Vasquez. Research Gold removed Elena Vasquez from its site after I published the story. 

Michał Brzozowskim, the lead author of the paper, told me that searching for these names on Google turned up other instances of AI generated personalties. For example, following the killing of Alex Pretti at the hands of U.S. Border Patrol agents in January, a rumor spread on Facebook that he was fired from his nursing job for misconduct allegations. Snopes reported that the false statement was attributed to “executive director Dr. Elena Vasquez,” who does not exist. 

Brzozowskim was able to search databases of academic papers for the names they knew LLMs often generated.

“On Zenodo, a CERN operated repository that mints real DataCite DOIs, we identify 1,655 ghost-authored records claiming nonexistent journals with fabricated publication dates.” A DOI, or a Digital Object Identifier, is a string of characters and numbers used to identify academic papers. The researchers saw that many of the papers authored by these AI names were backdated, meaning their publication dates were different from the date they were uploaded to Zenodo. 

Anyone with a free account can create a DOI on Zenodo, but the existence of AI generated papers with DOIs has impacts on other parts of the web and academic publishing. 

“These [AI generated papers] carry real DOIs harvestable by any scholarly aggregator; the infrastructure for large-scale scholarly record contamination is already in place. Ghost names additionally appear on ResearchGate, forming synthetic research groups with collaborators drawn from multiple model families, and are indexed without verification by Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar [...] The academic record is being quietly haunted.” 

Research Gate and Google Scholar are both aggregators of academic publishing that are likely to come up in search results. 

The researchers say that different LLMs and versions of those LLMs generate certain names so consistently, they think they can use them to determine the provenance of AI slop. For example, the name Elena Vasquez was particularly common in content generated by Claude Sonnet 4, so papers that list her as an author were likely generated by that LLM. However, Brzozowskim said that this level of accuracy might not hold for long now that AI generated content with these names is flooding the internet and feeding back into all AI models that are scraping the internet for training data. 

The fact that AI academic publishing is struggling to deal with the load of AI generated content isn’t new. We’ve previously reported that scientific journals have published AI generated text, that AI is impacting the peer review process, and that the open-access repository for preprint academic research Arxiv will now ban authors for a year if they are caught submitting AI generated work. The potential upside of this research is that these names might allow us to detect this AI generated content more easily.

In an August call with Ohio law enforcement and government officials, Flock’s CEO Garrett Langley repeatedly lied about his surveillance technology’s role in tracking a woman who had self-administered an abortion, the context around the tracking of the woman, and 404 Media’s coverage of that watershed incident. Langley claimed that the story is “entirely false,” despite court records, police reports, and 404 Media’s other reporting documenting the case in detail.

The candid comments were recorded by Signal Akron journalist Doug Brown, who sat in on the call with an Ohio lawmaker and then shared them with 404 Media. The recording shows how Langley speaks in private with government officials when the conversation is not intended to be broadcast, and comes amid a PR campaign to recast his embattled company. Recently Langley has gone on something of a media blitz, speaking to outlets like The New York Times and appearing on the tech-focused All-In Podcast. Those conversations were, obviously, meant to be consumed publicly. Behind the scenes, Langley speaks very differently.

In the call, Langley strategized with cops about how to deal with journalists, suggesting that they avoid talking to national outlets and that cops focus on telling “sob” stories.

“Let me handle The New York Times, you handle your local media. They want to hear from you, you know your reporters, they’ll pick up a sob story,” Langley said.

“There’s a story reported by 404 Media of a Texas officer using Flock to try to find a woman who had an abortion. And it’s entirely false. They knew it was false. Because there’s a few things, right, because one, it’s not illegal to have an abortion in Texas. It’s illegal to administer an abortion. So the woman could never have been under investigation for having an abortion. So that’s problem one,” Langley said in the meeting. 

In fact, court records obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and shared with 404 Media show that Texas authorities did discuss whether they could charge the woman with a  crime on the same day they performed the Flock search. An affidavit said, “it was discussed at the time with the District Attorney’s Office and learned the State could not statutorily charge [the woman] for taking the pill to cause the abortion or miscarriage of the non-viable fetus.” Police documents categorize their work on the case as a “death investigation.” 

In that case 404 Media revealed in May 2025 which Langley called “entirely false,” authorities in Texas searched Flock cameras nationwide for a woman who self-administered an abortion. That search included cameras in states where abortion is legal. The incident showed in real terms what healthcare access and privacy advocates had warned about: that in the wake of Roe v. Wade, more law enforcement may use surveillance technology to track down people who are seeking reproductive healthcare. At the time, the Sheriff Adam King of the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office told 404 Media the woman’s “family was worried that she was going to bleed to death, and we were trying to find her to get her to a hospital.” (It later turned out the Flock search was performed more than two weeks after the abortion, making this explanation dubious).

The records were part of an arrest affidavit against the woman’s partner, who was arrested for allegedly threatening her at gunpoint on the day she took an abortion pill. Police investigative documents obtained by 404 Media further show that police were initially treating this as an investigation rather than a wellness check. A police incident report describes the police collecting evidence from the woman’s partner’s home, including the FedEx packaging and instructions for the abortion pill she took, photos her partner took, and other evidence.

In the meeting, Langley continued, “The second problem is if the 404 Media group would have taken the time to conduct an actual journalistic investigation, they would have found out that two weeks later, when all this came out, she was in an abusive relationship and the family was concerned that she was in danger. They were trying to find her because they were worried her life was at risk.”

Langley’s version of events here is misleading, too. 404 Media has repeatedly reported that the police documents do not mention the woman’s family having any concern about her. The entire investigation that led to the Flock searches was performed at the behest of her abusive partner, and the police documents show that the man had seen her a day after the abortion but did not call the police until weeks later. The man’s trial, related to charges around his alleged abuse, is scheduled for later this year.

It is unclear what Langley means by “two weeks later, when all this came out.” He may be referring to the fact that the police investigation and the Flock searches only happened more than two weeks after the woman had the abortion, which is a fact that people only know because of 404 Media’s journalistic investigation and the EFF, which obtained the relevant court records that 404 Media reported on. It was only after our reporting was published that police created a new document retroactively providing the justification as being concerned for the woman’s safety.

When 404 Media asked for comment on Langley’s comments from the call, Flock public relations manager Paris Lewbel said the court documents showed that the woman could not be charged with a crime. This ignores the fact that they did discuss doing so.

Langley has a pattern of making contradictory statements or incendiary ones he later has to walk back. In an interview with Forbes in September, Langley described DeFlock, the open source map of Flock camera locations, as a “terroristic organization.” In July, he apologized for those comments. He mocked people who attended city council meetings to raise concerns about Flock cameras, while also acknowledging that his staff have lobbied at close to 10,000 city council meetings last year.

There have been multiple cases of deception or misleading statements from and inside Flock recently. Jonathan Paz, who used to be a government affairs manager at Flock, told 404 Media he repeatedly asked internally if Flock was working with ICE. He was told no. But, beyond local cops performing lookups for ICE in the Flock system, the company actually did have a pilot program giving a division of ICE direct access to Flock’s network. Paz said he was “lied to.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) documented a case in which Flock’s chief information security officer told a city council the tool did not make a heat map of an individual’s movements. The Oshkosh City Council approved its contract with Flock, but then immediately revoked it after learning a day later that Flock had lied.

Regarding that case, Lewbel told 404 Media, “The main assertion in the ACLU article is a misspoken statement by one employee in a contentious meeting in Oshkosh, WI, which we corrected the next day. The assertion that our intent to be anything less than transparent in providing education about our products is false.”

Last week we published a story that revealed an Amazon warehouse where the company scans and destroys thousands of books for AI training data. The following is an interview with one of the Amazon employees at this warehouse. We granted this employee anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press. 

The employee worked at Amazon’s VGT3 warehouse, which is housed in the same facility as LAS8, where Amazon operates its print-on-demand business. Both operations are part of a larger complex of Amazon facilities in Las Vegas, Nevada. 

We discovered that VGT3 was used to destructively scan books for AI training data by placing a tracking device in a shipment of rare books that a bookseller suspected was being acquired by an anonymous AI company. We saw the shipment travel across the country before finally landing at VGT3. Online, Amazon employees who worked at VGT3 described the work of receiving shipments of books, cutting the spines off of them, and scanning the loose pages. 

The Amazon employee I talked to described what that operation looks like from the warehouse floor. 

This interview has been edited for clarity and length. 

404 Media: What do you do when you get to work at VGT3?

Anonymous: We have to walk past everything to get to the back of the warehouse. That's where I first saw all the scanners, and I was really wondering what was going on. I remember I even asked someone what they were doing and they said they’re not sure even the people who work there know what they’re doing. Of course, once I got over there and started putting two and two together, I kind of understood. And you know, I think people who work there probably know what was going on over there, but probably just didn't want to talk about it. 

We also saw them cutting the spines off the books and everything. And after they scan it, they throw all the loose leaf papers into a big shuttle. [Editor’s note: Shuttles is how Amazon refers to gaylords, which are big open cardboard boxes that are often used to store books in bulk.] So they're all mixed together. There's no way to put the book back together or anything. Where I worked, primarily they would bring us boxes of books, or sometimes there's shuttles of books.

What kind of books?

All kinds of books. When we first started a lot of them were brand new. Some of them are used as well. Like you could tell, they were liquidated from a library or something like that. We were even getting boxes of stuff from London. There were a lot of books from the University of London. There was even like, I don't know what you would call them, but it was like kind of stapled together papers that said that they were presented to Parliament on the behalf of Her Royal Majesty the Queen. So they were like government documents. I don't know if they're public. Probably they're public, but it was just interesting that we found all that in there. 

What did you think the books were for?

That's what we were wondering, and we were kind of like, ‘this is a lot of random information.’ They have literally any kind of book you could think of. They have ones in different languages. We saw a lot of German and Russian books, and we actually got whole pallets of Japanese books. Some of these books are brand new and they're like still sealed. A lot of the Japanese ones were, but yeah, we do get the stuff from the libraries, and that's the stuff I think is more mixed because they're not all nice in boxes and everything like that. They're kind of just thrown into the shuttle. 

What was it like working there?

Our job was to unbox the books, and honestly, they seem like a mess over there. Like they're not really well managed or organized at all. Their process wasn't solid. Their process changed every day. But we were pretty much putting them in a tote [a small plastic stackable bin] so that they can go be scanned in and sorted, so that they can go over to the people to cut the bindings off. 

They take them off the truck. The dock's right there, and then they stage them, which is just putting them on standby. People pick up the books and bring them to our station and we stack up the totes until it’s a whole pallet, and then the people with the pallet jacks come and they take the whole pallet.

And I think the next area, I think they call it receiving. What I've heard they do there is that they're scanning all the barcodes pretty much to see if they need it and just weed out duplicates. Something else they had us do was—we call it the trash but we don't we don't know exactly what they do with them—but one day we were taking all the duplicates and all the ones they said, “oh, we don't need these,” and we were throwing those in different shuttles. They're like yeeted in there, like they're not nicely placed in there or anything. And they say they're returning them to the vendors, but I'm like, you know, ‘do the vendors go through it and see which ones are actually worth it?’ Because it's like a tall shuttle that's probably six feet tall, six or seven feet tall. They're just piled in there. It’s also right next to where they start cutting the spines, and so I think right after that, that's where it's going [the trash]. 

What does it look like when they cut the spines off the books?

It's a machine people operate. Each of these machines is just like a little workstation, and there'll be one person at each of these stations. It's really safe because it has a little cover and it has a little area where you slide the book into, remove your fingers from the area, and then you press a button, and it just comes down and slices it. And then you remove the books after the blade is gone. 

After they cut the spines they have these kind of library carts, kind of like how you would stack  books, but instead, it's a stacks of paper and little cardboard things to separate—I'm guessing— the different books.

I saw the pages being thrown in a shuttle after they were scanned. We were walking by and we went over to one of the shuttles and looked into it because we could tell they were throwing the old books in it or the cut books in it, and it's just a bunch of loose paper like just sheets thrown in there.

Did you see the scanners?

They probably have like at least 20 scanners, maybe 25. They look like machines that count cash, it flips through the pages really fast. It kind of has something like that they load it into, and I can see their screens, and on their screens, you can see the scans of the book, and it's going really fast. 

What do you think about Amazon doing this?

At first what they were telling people is that it was for Kindles, but I just didn't believe that. I instantly was like, I don't think that's how they do it because of publication rights and stuff, copyright and everything. Then I saw it was for AI. I don't like it only because I wish I could take these books. There's so much knowledge and so much stuff in them and some of them look like they might be rare, and I've heard that they order rare books, and that's why I say some of these are so obscure. I definitely don't like the idea that they can't be reused or anything like that afterwards. They're reducing the amount of available copies for other people.

Michael Kalus posted a photo:

Move over beige—there’s a new take on neutral. Valspar has named Cottage Door 8004-38E its 2027 Color of the Year, a mid-tone blue that balances warm and cool undertones, offering a little more personality without sacrificing versatility.

The selection taps into a growing desire for interiors that feel personal and lived-in rather than overly perfected. Valspar describes Cottage Door as a response to that desire for comfort and authenticity, drawing on soft minimalism, organic layering, and tactile materials.

Photography courtesy of Valspar

“Cottage Door captures blue’s natural sense of security and trust while serving as a colorful new neutral that layers effortlessly into the home,” says Sue Kim, Valspar’s director of color marketing. “It creates spaces that feel balanced, comforting and inviting.”

Photography courtesy of Valspar

That “colorful neutral” designation is perhaps the shade’s most interesting quality. Neither an airy pastel nor a dramatic navy, Cottage Door sits somewhere in between, giving it enough presence to define a room while remaining subdued enough to work across different materials and palettes.

Photography courtesy of Valspar

Valspar pairs the blue with two supporting shades: Moon Shot 8005-2B, a warm gray, and Apricot Blush 8003-8A, a muted creamy pink. Light wood tones add another layer of warmth, creating a palette that feels soft without becoming overly sweet.

Valspar is making Cottage Door available across a range of interior and exterior paints, stains, and specialty finishes, allowing the blue to carry from cabinetry and furniture to exterior surfaces.

Photography courtesy of Valspar

For 2027, at least, Valspar’s version of the neutral home isn’t devoid of color. It’s simply a little quieter about it.

Editorial Transparency: This article was developed with the assistance of AI tools, which may have been used for research, outlining, editing, or copy refinement. Reporting, fact-checking, and editorial decisions were made by the Design Milk editorial team.