Ypsilanti Township in Michigan passed a six month moratorium on “major electric utility infrastructure” on Tuesday night. The moratorium is a delaying tactic, the latest in the Township’s long fight to stop the construction of a $1.2 billion data center that’s backed by the University of Michigan and the Pentagon’s nuclear war scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL).

Last year, the university announced it was partnering with LANL on the construction of a massive 220,000 square foot hyperscale data center in Ypsilanti Township and residents have been fighting it ever since. During a meeting of the Township Board on August 18, the council unanimously passed a resolution that will delay the construction of new electrical infrastructure for 180 days.

Data centers need a lot of energy, and Michigan’s power authority will have to build new substations in the Township to power the proposed facility. The moratorium asked the local power authorities to use the six month delay to study noise pollution and how the new infrastructure would affect existing customers. 

The moratorium is narrowly focused on “the nature and scale of electrical infrastructure necessary to serve new high-energy-demand land uses [...] including infrastructure associated, but not limited to hyper-scale data centers, mid-sized data centers, artificial intelligence computing facilities, and high-performance computational centers, industrial facilities, and other intensive electrical users.”

Earlier this month, the University of Michigan announced it had settled on a specific plot of land in Ypsilanti Township — a 144-acre plot on Textile Road. In a press release about the decision, the University said the data center would have the “capacity to change the world” and insisted it would not be a “high value target risk” in a war, that it would not store any hazardous nuclear material, and was not a weapons production facility. LANL previously confirmed that the data center will be used for nuclear weapons research. Ypsilanti Township Supervisor Brenda Stumbo told WEMU news that the selection of the site was a “travesty of justice” because it ignores constituents’ concerns about environmental impact.

During the August 18 moratorium vote, the Board projected a large stock photograph of an electric substation behind its members. The photo was meant to remind people of the size of the incoming infrastructure and the lack of communication from the university about it.

“This picture’s really important to think about because U of M has been so crystal clear that they’ve been communicating to us abundantly — which is not true,” Strumbo said during the meeting. “That speaks to the lack of respect.”

Ypsilanti Township's data center fight is unique in that its board of local leaders are united with the community in opposition to the project. Township Board members have repeatedly spoken about the University's lack of respect and lack of communication. “We will fight to our very last breath,” Strumbo said during a Board meeting in June. In April, the Board voted to institute a 365 moratorium on delivering water to data centers. The University threatened legal action in response and called the move “discriminatory.” 

The University of Michigan declined to comment on this story.

Thirty years after Pokémon first arrived in Japan, Pikachu and friends have found their way onto just about every type of merch. Polaroid’s latest collaboration, however, gives the familiar characters a new canvas.

Photography courtesy of Polaroid

Created to celebrate Pokémon’s 30th anniversary, the limited-edition Polaroid x Pokémon collection reworks three of the photography brand’s instant cameras around Pikachu, Sylveon, and the franchise’s ubiquitous Poké Ball. Rather than relying solely on printed graphics, the designs borrow their recognizable colors and silhouettes.

Photography courtesy of Polaroid

The compact Polaroid Go takes on two of the more character-driven transformations. The Pikachu edition comes wrapped in the Pokémon’s signature yellow, complete with a lightning-bolt-shaped detail that rises from the camera body. Sylveon gets a softer treatment, pairing a primarily white camera with pink and blue accents and a coordinating ribbon-like strap.

Photography courtesy of Polaroid

For the larger Polaroid Now Generation 3, the Poké Ball provides the inspiration. Its white body is capped with red and punctuated by a circular detail around the lens, translating the familiar object into the existing geometry of the camera.

Photography courtesy of Polaroid

The collaboration also extends beyond the hardware. Special-edition i-Type and Go films add Pokémon-themed frames and custom dark slides, while a camera case, photo album, and strap carry the visual language into accessories. Together, the nine-piece collection turns the act of instant photography into part of the collaboration itself: Pokémon appears not only on the object used to take a picture, but on the physical image it produces.

Photography courtesy of Polaroid

The Polaroid Now Generation 3 Pokémon Edition is priced at $139.99, while the Pikachu and Sylveon Polaroid Go cameras are $99.99 each. Preorders open Aug. 25, 2026, through Polaroid and Pokémon Center in the U.S., U.K., and Canada, with the full collection launching Oct. 5 in limited quantities.

X’s algorithm learns what you hate and shows you more of it, according to a new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The paper, titled Value misalignment of X’s feed algorithm is a reflection of value tensions in engagement, found that the site’s algorithm prioritized engagement above all else when it generated a user’s For You Page. It also showed that X serves more ragebait to people who say they are Democrats, although the exact reason for that is unclear.

“In 2026 that’s maybe not the most surprising headline ever,” Ziv Epstein, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford University, and co-author of the paper, told 404 Media. “So we actually dug in a little deeper to figure out why this is actually happening, and it turns out that X's feed algorithm, like a lot of these social media algorithms, is optimized for engagement [but] it turns out that not all types of engagement are considered equally.”

The study’s goal was to understand how a user’s self-professed values system might shape what they see on X. “We recruited a nationally representative sample of N = 715 Americans who are active users of X in September and October 2024, quota matched on ethnicity, gender and partisanship, to install a browser extension to collect their [For You Page] and Following feeds,” the study said.

Epstein said the study was observational and meant to get people asking questions about what they want to see on social media, how their feed is designed, and by whom. “There are these social media algorithms that have enormous amounts of power in our lives, they shape the information that we consume, and we have very little transparency into how they operate and what their implications are,” he said. “And so, we were very interested in trying to understand the particular effects of this particular algorithm, and so I think that has kind of important implications for civil society and just fighting some of the technofeudalistic tendencies of platforms to control these algorithms.”

For the study, researchers collected a “values inventory” of the volunteers using a research tool called the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. The values inventory in the study is presented as a wheel with 19 points that corresponded to features like “tolerance,” “dominance,” “hedonism,” and “openness to change.” Users also reported their political alignments.

Then researchers watched how users engaged with posts on X and how those posts reflected their self-reported values. “We observe that the inventory of posts from followed accounts reflects users’ self-stated values — but that there is an overall negative correlation (misalignment) between users’ explicit values and the values in content that the algorithm is more likely to amplify,” the study said.

When a user on X sees a post that makes them mad — like a press release from a politician from a political party they don’t like — sometimes they’ll fight about the post in the replies. It doesn’t matter who you follow or what your stated values are, X reads replying as engagement and will send more of the infuriating posts the user’s way.

“When we look at commenting, the act of replying to posts, that's where we actually see some kind of meaningful misalignment between people’s values and the values of the content they’re replying to,” Epstein explained.

Most of the participants liked and reposted content on X and got served more of the same sort of content. Replying was rare, just 6.8% of the interactions according to the study, but had an outsized impact on the algorithm. “Replying is only a fraction of engagement, but there does seem to be some evidence that these algorithms are prioritizing and learning more from this kind of rarer form of engagement,” Epstein said. “So it’s this feedback loop of outrage baiting. The algorithm learns that you get outraged and then continues to serve more content in that direction and that seems to be particularly true of the Democratic users of our study.”

Though this happened across the political spectrum, the study found that ragebaiting occurred more for users that identified themselves as Democrats. “Democrat users confront the abundant value-misaligned content by replying to it, which the algorithm in turn preferentially learns from and continues to feed them,” the study said. “This highlights a core tension with how engagement-maximizing algorithms operate on social media: frictions between users’ stated preferences and their behaviors of reactive confrontation are exploited by engagement-maximizing algorithms to create runaway feedback loops of increasing value misalignment.”

Epstein said he’d need to do more research to find out why X seems to serve ragebait to Democrats more often than Republicans. It could be that there’s more rightwing content on X overall or it could be that Democrats tend to engage with posts they disagree with more often. “There might be some kind of differential effects on information diets there, or it might be something more psychological about how different you know partisan identities are triggering different kinds of actions and reactions, but ultimately I don't want to speculate too much,” he said.

I asked Epstein if he worried that prioritizing “values” in a social media algorithm might lead to more siloed user bases and more echo chambers. “I do think that if we go kind of down this path of thinking through and imagining value line social media feeds, we do have to be very aware of the potentials of value echo chambers, right?” he said. “Where people just, you know, they have the certain values that they have, and all the content they see is just aligned with those values. I think that is a very scary and dark reality.”

But he also said that values are intentional and that thinking about the kind of stuff you want to see on a social media site before you pull up your feed is a positive. “You're pumping the brakes, you're taking a breath, and you're thinking about what you actually really care about. In this world — and I don't have the data for this — but I would speculate that a lot of people actually do care about seeing a diverse set of content and engaging meaningfully across these lines, and you know maybe that isn't a particular value on my 19-dimensional wheel, but this is just a starting point of thinking about our intentions and thinking very deliberately about the kind of information we want to be exposed to, versus the the knee-jerk reaction that we're kind of learning in this very kind of short, shallow attention span, emotion and negative affect-driven model of these very myopic forms of engagement.”

X did not return 404 Media’s request for comment.

The National Park Service (NPS), the agency tasked with managing the U.S. national parks and monuments, has purchased Flock cameras and had them installed at parks including in Yosemite.

Current and former NPS rangers are not happy about it.

“Flock protects property, not people or parks. People should be free to recreate in ways that are respectful to the ecosystem — but the surveillance is a disrespectful invasion of privacy,” a current NPS ranger told 404 Media. 404 Media granted the ranger and others anonymity because they weren’t permitted to speak to the press.

Another current NPS ranger said, “I just think that every American should be free to visit our national parks without their location being traced and tracked by the federal government. Wild places are at the core of American freedom and nobody should be afraid to visit them.”

A former NPS ranger added, “I think if the public knew that their public lands were being surveilled, they would push back.”

Flock cameras constantly scan the license plate, color, model, make, and other identifying features of every vehicle that drives past, creating a timestamped record of where a vehicle was at a particular time, and by extension, a person. This data is then available to Flock’s law enforcement customers and is usually queried by police without a warrant. Many of Flock’s cameras are part of a national network that other law enforcement officials can then query. For example, a cop in Texas might query the network to look for a specific vehicle and search cameras across the country. This, among increased reporting of cops abusing their access to Flock to stalk people with no legitimate investigative purpose, and local cops performing lookups for ICE, has contributed to a nationwide conversation around Flock and whether communities want the company’s cameras in their neighborhoods.

Flock cameras are installed inside Yosemite, WBTW News 13 reported earlier this month. The outlet referenced data from DeFlock, an open source map of Flock and other automatic license plate reader (ALPR) locations. 

There is also a Flock camera on a road towards the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, according to the data.

NPS also plans to install cameras from Verkada, a controversial company with a history of abusing its own products and whose products sometimes have facial detection capabilities, according to a letter from Michael Donato, the acting deputy superintendent of National Capital Parks - East, sent to the Washington Support Office Visitor and Resource Protection Program.

“Some parks have USPP [United States Park Police] Flock cameras for license plate recognition, but for parks that don’t, the Verkada cameras will provide LPR,” the letter, which 404 Media viewed, reads.

The NPS told 404 Media in a statement: “Yosemite National Park uses a traffic-monitoring system to measure vehicle counts, travel times and entrance-station wait times. The system helps the park better understand traffic conditions and provide visitors with information to help them make informed decisions about when to visit and where parking is available. The cameras are not connected to law enforcement or DMV databases.”

One of the current rangers said, “Last year Yosemite changed the rules about hanging flags on El Capitan and tried to backdate the rule change to make it look like the people involved had committed a crime. What happens when that sort of malfeasance is combined with the ability to track any park visitor's location, anywhere in the country? If that happens, we are no longer free in this country.”

They added, “I fear for the day when a visitor's National Park experience is interrupted by being pulled over and held at gunpoint because a license plate reader misread their plate.”