Month: August 2024

Backpage co-founder sentenced to five years in prison

Lacey still faces about 30 other charges related to prostitution facilitation and money laundering. | Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos from Getty Images

Michael Lacey, a founder of the defunct classified site Backpage.com, received a five-year prison sentence on Wednesday and was fined $3 million. Lacey was found guilty of money laundering last year in a sweeping case that alleged Backpage executives promoted and profited from prostitution.
Lacey was convicted on a single count of international concealment money laundering in November 2023 but was acquitted of 50 other charges related to prostitution facilitation and money laundering due to insufficient evidence. He still faces about 30 related charges, according to the Associated Press. Two other Backpage executives — former chief financial officer John Brunst and executive vice president Scott Spear — received 10-year prison sentences on Wednesday after being convicted of money laundering and prostitution facilitation last year.
“The defendants and their conspirators obtained more than $500 million from operating an online forum that facilitated the sexual exploitation of countless victims,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri in a Department of Justice press release. “The defendants thought they could hide their illicit proceeds by laundering the funds through shell companies in foreign countries. But they were wrong.”
The case is one of many that Backpage has faced regarding sexual exploitation over the last decade, having shuttered its “Adult Services” ads section in 2017 in response to pressure from lawmakers and critics. All three men have been ordered to turn themselves in by September 11th to begin serving their sentences. According to The New York Times, both Lacey and Brunst are planning to appeal the sentencing.

Lacey still faces about 30 other charges related to prostitution facilitation and money laundering. | Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos from Getty Images

Michael Lacey, a founder of the defunct classified site Backpage.com, received a five-year prison sentence on Wednesday and was fined $3 million. Lacey was found guilty of money laundering last year in a sweeping case that alleged Backpage executives promoted and profited from prostitution.

Lacey was convicted on a single count of international concealment money laundering in November 2023 but was acquitted of 50 other charges related to prostitution facilitation and money laundering due to insufficient evidence. He still faces about 30 related charges, according to the Associated Press. Two other Backpage executives — former chief financial officer John Brunst and executive vice president Scott Spear — received 10-year prison sentences on Wednesday after being convicted of money laundering and prostitution facilitation last year.

“The defendants and their conspirators obtained more than $500 million from operating an online forum that facilitated the sexual exploitation of countless victims,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri in a Department of Justice press release. “The defendants thought they could hide their illicit proceeds by laundering the funds through shell companies in foreign countries. But they were wrong.”

The case is one of many that Backpage has faced regarding sexual exploitation over the last decade, having shuttered its “Adult Services” ads section in 2017 in response to pressure from lawmakers and critics. All three men have been ordered to turn themselves in by September 11th to begin serving their sentences. According to The New York Times, both Lacey and Brunst are planning to appeal the sentencing.

Read More 

Best CD Rates Today, Aug. 30, 2024: APYs Above 5% Won’t Stick Around Forever

Protect your returns with an APY up to 5.35%.

Protect your returns with an APY up to 5.35%.

Read More 

Napoleon: The Director’s Cut gets a surprise release on Apple TV Plus, but I still refuse to watch it

An extended cut of Ridley Scott’s divisive Napoleon movie has been shadow dropped on Apple’s streaming service.

Ridley Scott fans rejoice, because Apple just shadow dropped a director’s cut of the iconic filmmaker’s Napoleon movie on its streaming service.

Five months after Napoleon‘s theatrical version initially charged onto Apple TV Plus, the historical epic is getting a runtime upgrade with a boatload of never-before-seen footage. Indeed, Napoleon: The Director’s Cut will be 48 minutes longer than the movie that arrived in cinemas last November, meaning this version’s runtime clocks in at a mammoth three hours and 26 minutes.

Napoleon: The Director’s Cut is now available to stream with 48 minutes of new footage. Only available on Apple TV+ pic.twitter.com/b64x4DkfA0August 29, 2024

A cut that’s nearly an hour longer than its predecessor? What on earth has Scott included in this version that the legendary auteur previously left on the cutting room floor? I’m glad you asked, dear reader – and, for your troubles, here’s an insight into what to expect from this extended cut, courtesy of an Apple press release.

Napoleon: The Director’s Cut stars Joaquin Phoenix as the French emperor and military leader,” the press blast reveals. “The film is a fresh and personal look at Napoleon’s origins and his swift, ruthless climb to emperor, viewed through the prism of his addictive and often volatile relationship with his wife and one true love, Josephine, played by Vanessa Kirby. 

“The director’s cut delves deeper into Josephine’s origin story and features more extravagant costumes, new larger-than-life sets, and the previously unreleased Battle of Marengo scene. The audience is also given more details about Napoleon’s demise, from his attempted assassination to his failed invasion of Russia.”

That’s… a lot of new content, but I doubt it’ll be enough to improve Napoleon‘s standing on our best Ridley Scott movies list, nor do I believe it’ll completely change people’s views on the movie as a whole.

The release of Napoleon: The Director’s Cut won’t convince me to watch it (Image credit: Apple TV+)

Why is that the case? Because, based on what I’ve read and heard, it’s not very good. Now, I’ve not seen Napoleon, so I can’t rattle off a list of problems I had with it, but there are many others who were left underwhelmed by the Phoenix and Kirby-starring flick. A cursory glance at review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes confirms as much, with mixed reviews from critics (it currently holds a 58% critical score) and general viewers (59%) alike.

Now, Rotten Tomatoes isn’t the universal authority on whether a movie is good or bad. Its cross-section of opinions is pretty small in the grand scheme of things, but it gives us an idea of the common consensus surrounding new movies once they’re released. If enough people have said Napoleon is a bang average flick, the likelihood is that’s the case. That’s in spite of the fact that Napoleon landed three Oscar and four BAFTA nominations during the 2024 awards circuit (NB: it didn’t win any of the prizes it was put forward for), too.

So, as much as I admire many of Scott’s films – I’m a huge fan of Gladiator, Alien, Blade Runner, The Martian, American Gangster, Hannibal, and Thelma & Louise in particular – I couldn’t bring myself to watch Napoleon. Faced with the prospect of spending an extra 50 minutes streaming a film I’m unlikely to enjoy, I simply can’t face the prospect of streaming Napoleon: The Director’s Cut, either. Sorry, Ridley, it’s nothing personal, but this is not only one of your films I won’t be loading up on one of the world’s best streaming services, but I also doubt its extended cut will have enough about it to re-join our best Apple TV Plus movies list, too. I’m sure Gladiator II will make up for it, though!

You might also like

These are the best Apple TV Plus shows to stream right nowGet the lowdown on everything we know about Severance season 2Or catch up on the latest news surrounding Foundation season 3

Read More 

The Telegram Problem + Gov. Kathy Hochul on School Phone Bans + Kevin’s A.I. Reputation Rehab

Tech platforms and governments are in a standoff.

Tech platforms and governments are in a standoff.

Read More 

Best Labor Day Sales: The Biggest Discounts from Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy and More

CNET’s shopping experts have pulled together the best deals of the tens of thousands of Labor Day discounts across Walmart, Amazon, Best Buy and more.

CNET’s shopping experts have pulled together the best deals of the tens of thousands of Labor Day discounts across Walmart, Amazon, Best Buy and more.

Read More 

‘You deserve better’: Honor apologizes to Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 owners who feel ‘let down’ by their ‘chunky’ folding phone

Honor has taken aim at Samsung for the supposed lack of innovation in its Galaxy Z Fold 6 foldable.

Brand-on-brand jibes are not uncommon in the mobile industry, and Samsung – which routinely pokes fun at Apple for its missteps – has been given a taste of its own medicine in the run-up to this year’s IFA showcase.

As part of a marketing stunt for the upcoming Honor Magic V3 foldable – aka the world’s thinnest inward-folding foldable phone – Chinese mobile maker Honor has apologized to Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 owners who may feel “let down” by their new foldable purchase.

The Honor Magic V3 – which is set for a global unveiling at IFA 2024 – measures just 4.35mm when unfolded and 9.2mm when folded. The Galaxy Z Fold 6, by contrast, measures 5.6mm when unfolded and a comparatively huge 12.1mm when folded. Honor’s upcoming foldable is significantly lighter, too, at 226g versus 239g.

To hammer home these (admittedly stark) differences, Honor commissioned micro-artist Graham Short to engrave “the world’s smallest apology” on the hinge of a special edition version of the Honor Magic V3.

Honor’s ‘apology’ engraved on the hinge of the Magic V3 (Image credit: Honor)

The full message reads as follows:

Dear Samsung Galaxy Z Fold owners, we’re sorry. We know you were excited to buy a phone that folds in half and fits in your pocket, awkwardly. You were promised the future, a technical marvel, a world of boundless multitasking and performance.

And now, you’re probably looking at the new HONOR Magic V3 and feeling a little… betrayed. Size matters, and we feel your pain. Like being tipped for a gold medal and then coming last in the race, the knowledge that a thinner, lighter, and more durable foldable exists is enough to make anyone question their choices.

We get it. You were an early adopter, a pioneer bravely venturing into the uncharted territory of foldable screens with questionable durability. You deserve better. In fact, you deserve a gold medal.

In all seriousness, we at Honor are committed to pushing the boundaries of technology and bringing you the best possible foldable experience. We’re just saying… it’s okay to feel let down. We’d feel the same way.

Jeez, talk about cojones. In fairness to Honor, the company is right to toot its own horn – at least in terms of the physical design of the Magic V3. The upcoming device is objectively “thinner, lighter, and more durable” than the Galaxy Z Fold 6, with Honor describing Samsung’s latest foldable as the “chunkier alternative” in a press release accompanying its aforementioned apology.

Heck, even last year’s Honor Magic V2 is “thinner and lighter” than the newly released Galaxy Z Fold 6 – these are just the facts, people.

Image 1 of 4

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 in Silver Shadow (Image credit: Future / Lance Ulanoff)

Image 2 of 4

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 in Silver Shadow (Image credit: Future / Lance Ulanoff)

Image 3 of 4

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 in Silver Shadow (Image credit: Future / Lance Ulanoff)

Image 4 of 4

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 in Silver Shadow (Image credit: Future / Lance Ulanoff)

Of course, the Galaxy Z Fold 6 is not a bad phone, by any means. In fact, it’s an exceptionally powerful and versatile handset that we described as “a bold reimagining of Samsung’s flagship foldable” in our Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 review.

Its AI-powered software is the best of its kind, too, and we doubt that Honor’s upcoming foldable – despite coming equipped with impressive AI features including Face to Face Translation and AI Eraser – will boast the software bite to match its design bark. That said, if sleek aesthetics are what you value most in a folding phone, then the Magic V3 is the clear winner.

As mentioned, the Honor Magic V3 is slated to launch globally at Honor’s IFA 2024 keynote, which is due to kick off at 5am PT / 8am ET / 1pm BST on Thursday, September 5. The new phone won’t be launching in the US, but US folks curious about whether Honor’s supreme confidence is justified should nonetheless check out our imminent Honor Magic V3 review.

You might also like

Best Honor phones 2024: the top Honor handsets you should considerHonor’s ‘cutting-edge’ generative AI features could rival Samsung’s Galaxy AI suite‘No VR product satisfies my requirements, not even Apple Vision Pro,’ says Honor CEO

Read More 

Slingshot review: Casey Affleck’s sci-fi comeback fumbles

Review of “Slingshot,” Casey Affleck’s sci-fi comeback, which also stars Tomer Capone, Emily Beecham, and Laurence Fishburne,

Casey Affleck leads a small but impressive cast who end up terribly short-changed.

A psychological thriller with few thrills and a weak grasp of psychology, Mikael Håfström’s Slingshot sees three capable actors monologuing in space about nothing in particular. The sci-fi drama has logical start and end points, but meanders aimlessly along the way, desperately searching for anything resembling plot or thematic meaning.


Credit: Bleecker Street

As a trio of astronauts embarks on an interplanetary mission, they find themselves gripped by paranoia — at least in theory — and are unable to trust each other, or their own faculties. The problem, however, is that little-to-none of this conflict is rooted in discernible human drama.

The appearance of drama certainly exists, both aboard the space vessel and in numerous flashbacks. However, Slingshot‘s images feel entirely disconnected from one another, since the film is less concerned with emotional impact, and more focused on indiscriminately tossing out twists and turns. By the end, the film is unable to sustain the weight of its attempted surprises, yielding a head-scratching experience. 

What is Slingshot about?

Aboard the confines of a pristine spaceship, the Apple Store-like Odyssey One, astronaut John (Casey Affleck) wakes up from his fourth 90-day nap, a drug-induced hibernation that saves on energy and keeps the mission participants young. He’s been gone from Earth for more than a year, and for the few days he’s spent awake tinkering and taking measurements, his only company has been his comrade Nash (Tomer Capone) and their leader, Captain Franks (Laurence Fishburne). The trio only spends a day or two walking around at any given time, but these precious moments of consciousness are spent in a groggy haze, at least at first. 

Their mission, in the short run, is to fly past Jupiter and use the planet’s gravity to slingshot their way to Titan, one of Saturn’s moons. They hope to scout the surface and eventually establish a human colony there, but despite the movie laying out these broad strokes, it never really features a sense of a wider objective or wider danger, be it images of a ravaged world left behind or any other existential threats. It’s Interstellar without the blight or the sense of cosmic mystery, but it does feature a red-headed woman back home, who our protagonist constantly thinks of.  


Credit: Bleecker Street

Emily Beecham plays John’s lover, Zoe, a design technician whose work on the space project remains unspecified, but who we meet through the familiar, mawkish framing of a fleeting memory of her under a bedsheet, staring lovingly at John. There’s nothing inherently wrong with doing what dozens of movies have done before — “If it ain’t broke,” and all that — but Zoe seldom exists as a real, complete person outside of her adoration for the protagonist, despite appearing in numerous flashbacks.

What is it that actually threatens the Titan mission? Well, that’s not exactly clear. The camera whirls around the ship’s halls a few times, as if to embody some invisible creature threatening our characters, but those are the only indications of any noticeable aesthetic flourish — one that isn’t just aping 2001: A Space Odyssey, that is. (For instance, the scene in Kubrick’s film in which two astronauts speak in secret to avoid a super-computer’s prying ears is re-created here, but without the certainty that anyone else is listening.) This thread of some kind of lurking presence aboard the ship unfortunately doesn’t last, so it doesn’t really come to represent anything for the characters as they lumber through the movie’s plot (or lack thereof), making observations and relaying those observations back to one another.

John finds parts of the ship damaged, possibly due to external impact, which theoretically endangers their upcoming gravitational slingshot, but the captain disagrees. John sees (or imagines) things going wrong all around him, but the crew can find no evidence of something overtly wrong. This disconnect is a central wedge aimed at creating tension and mystery, but it thrusts the film into a strange narrative limbo where it’s hard to know if there are any stakes at all.

Slingshot‘s stellar performances can’t save the movie.

Upon emerging from his drug-induced sleep, John gradually loses his grip on reality, seeing people on the ship who clearly aren’t there. Zoe is among these hallucinations, though curiously, her phantom appearance is rarely used as fuel for the movie’s flashbacks. When the trio loses communication with Earth, their sense of uncertainty turns toward one another. John suggests there may be a problem with the vessel; Nash is more certain of this, albeit without any evidence; and Captain Franks dismisses their concerns. This leads to the closest thing the movie has to an interesting theme: a dynamic between the three characters that forces John to mediate between two extremes. 

As John, Affleck harbors a weary exhaustion in every scene, selling the fact that he can’t be trusted to make rational decisions, since he has trouble remembering basic details about his life on Earth. His first time trying to recall these details is the only time the movie’s many flashbacks feel motivated. The rest appear at random, presenting a patchwork story of a man driven to pilot a space mission (for unspecified reasons) at the cost of his relationship. 

Amid his delirium, John is shouldered with the burden of being the most calm, logical, and centered character, while his coworkers gradually drift toward opposing extremes. Affleck does his level best to connect the dots between these past and present narratives, putting on a stern front in either case and gradually letting cracks appear in his stoic armor. But the film is fatally flawed: Its structure seldom allows for any causality between these timelines — any ripple effects or regrets, even though John’s decision to join the three-man crew is a sticking point for his relationship with Zoe. Their fate as a couple seems to become clearer as the film goes on, though it’s eventually muddied in service of unearned surprises that, at the end of the day, do little more than obscure its actors’ stellar dramatic work. What they draw on emotionally seems to shift at a moment’s notice, making it hard to latch on to the leading trio. 


Credit: Bleecker Street

Capone, like Affleck, captures his character’s unraveling with aplomb, as Nash steps further toward madness and away from reality. He threatens to turn the film truly intense, though his ravings about what might go wrong are short-lived. The film keeps brushing past any sense of immediate danger the moment it arises, and in the process, doesn’t allow Capone to access the full extent of Nash’s unhinged trajectory, despite the actor hinting toward a mental snap of some kind.

Captain Franks, on the other hand, has a much icier demeanor, and Fishburne is granted the movie’s most complete (and really, only) marriage between story and performance. As John and Nash lose their grip on reality and question their own eyes, Franks is much more certain of what he sees, which makes him all the more terrifying. With dialogue that borders on Shakespearean, Fishburne taps into a sense of misguided human ambition, and gestures toward a thematic layer to the movie that, while ever-present, goes mostly unexplored.

No, really, what is Slingshot actually about?

The three men aboard the ship take wildly different approaches to the scenario at hand, and in the process, they come to represent the three prongs of human personality through a Freudian lens. Nash, with his erratic moments and instinct-driven concerns, embodies the id. Captain Franks, who places constraints on his comrades and claims a rational high ground, is the superego. And John, who’s forced to mediate between them and make moral compromises, is the ego in this scenario.

The problem, however, is that despite the movie employing this particular framework (one it harps on quite overtly by the end), it doesn’t use it to explore the fraught dynamics between the characters in any meaningful way. What they each represent feels set in stone, with little sense of dilemma or evolution. How they behave in any moment is dictated by their respective “types” rather than by the unfolding plot, or even by one another’s words or actions. One could, in theory, map out exactly what each of them might do in practically any scenario, which robs the movie of tension at every turn.


Credit: Bleecker Street

To make matters worse, there aren’t even enough interesting scenarios that arise during the film, which might in theory pose dramatic challenges. As Slingshot goes on, any sense of psychological or dramatic framing is superseded by an insistence on surprise at any cost, though these attempted zigzags are mostly delivered in the form of dialogue, rather than anything visual (and thus, emotionally lasting). The film takes full advantage of the characters’ unreliable perspectives, perhaps to a baffling degree. Each moment of realization, each discovery that things may not be exactly as they seem, is followed by another, and another, and yet another, with no room for any revelations to breathe or sink in, let alone alter the characters’ sense of self.

Beyond a point, shifting reality becomes Slingshot‘s status quo, even though it largely presents these shifts in the form of dialogue. Characters simply explain to each other what may or may not be their version of the truth, until every other line hints at some new twist or surprise with no impact whatsoever, eliciting no more than a shrug.

With little by way of character psychology to latch onto, and even less by way of actual stakes, the movie’s thrills and science-fiction elements are practically null, rendering Slingshot an entirely meaningless sci-fi thriller. Its basic premise would be hard to explain to a friend, because it doesn’t even feel like it has one.

Slingshot opens exclusively in theaters Aug. 30.

Read More 

Scroll to top
Generated by Feedzy