Author: openjargon

• Trump's lawyers argued that portions of Stormy Daniels' testimony warranted a mistrial.
• Daniels had testified Tuesday that Trump didn't use a condom during their sexual encounter in 2006.
• Trump's lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, called that testimony "a dog whistle for rape."

Stormy Daniels blew "a dog whistle for rape" when she testified that Donald Trump did not use a condom during their alleged sexual encounter, a defense lawyer complained Thursday.

The remarkable accusation was made by Trump attorney Todd Blanche on Thursday afternoon, during a failed bid for a mistrial in the ongoing hush-money trial in Manhattan.

The porn star and director had testified on direct examination Tuesday that she'd always worked for a condom-mandatory company — but that Trump did not use a condom as she lay "blacked out" during sex.

"We didn't know that this was coming," Blanche complained Thursday of the testimony. "It's a dog whistle for rape."

Blanche was complaining about multiple times in Daniels' testimony when she made graphic, highly salacious accusations against Trump that the lawyer said irreparably prejudiced the jury.

But the judge countered that Blanche and the rest of the defense team have no one to blame but themselves.

Trump's lawyers denied the sex ever happened, creating a credibility battle

In her testimony — and in a book, documentaries, and multiple media interviews — Daniels said she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, during a Lake Tahoe golf tournament in California.

She was working for Wicked Pictures, a pornography production company, which had sponsored a single hole on a golf course.

After meeting Trump during the tournament, she was invited to his hotel suite for dinner. Hoping to avoid some coworkers who had planned their own dinner, she reluctantly agreed, she said.

In his hotel room, Trump never actually got food for them, she said. Instead, they spent hours talking as her stomach growled, Daniels said.

Daniels has not explicitly accused Trump of rape. But in her testimony this week, she described the encounter with Trump in anxious terms.

She said that, after leaving the bathroom attached to the bedroom of his penthouse hotel suite, she saw him on the bed wearing only boxers and a T-shirt. Seeing him there "minus a lot of clothing" was a "jump scare," she said.

"That's when I had that moment where I felt the room spin in slow motion," Daniels told jurors. "I felt the blood basically leave my hands and my feet and almost like if you stand up too fast, and everything kind of spinned, that happened too."

"I was moving like I was in a funhouse, like slow motion," she added later.

Daniels said she tried to make a joke out of the situation, and then Trump stood up between her body and the room's door.

She was also aware that Keith Schiller, Trump's bodyguard, was nearby and that if she wanted to leave the suite, she would have to wait by the elevator. She stressed, however, that she "was not threatened verbally or physically."

"There was an imbalance of power for sure," she said. "He was bigger and blocking the way."

Daniels said she didn't drink or use drugs that night. She didn't share the details of what happened next.

"I just think I blacked out," Daniels testified.

Trump reacted with fury toward Daniels' testimony. In court, he audibly cursed, the judge said later, threatening to hold him in contempt yet again.

And Daniels reacted with caution. Under intense cross-examination from Necheles, she was circumspect about discussing her family and whispered to the judge out of concern when shown documents that included her address.

Trump has denied having any sex with Daniels at all, saying they met only once, during the golf tournament earlier that day.

In his opening statement, Blanche accused Daniels of inventing a story about sex.

That made it necessary for prosecutors to elicit vivid, credibility-bolstering details from her on the stand, Merchan said.

And Necheles repeatedly failed to object to the testimony when she could have the judge added— including when Daniels dropped the word "condom" in front of jurors.

"There were many times where Ms Necheles could have objected but didn't," Merchan said.

"Yet, for some unexplained reason, which I still don't understand," there were no objections to some testimony, he continued. "For example, the condom."

Merchan said he wished the discussion of the condom didn't come into the trial and wasn't heard by the jury.

"For the life of me, I don't know why Ms. Necheles didn't object," he said, while the defense attorney looked toward the floor.

The details were only necessary, he noted, because the defense has outright denied the sex ever happened.

Merchan said that it's only because the defense set up their case accusing Daniels' of lying that he had to allow the prosecution to "rehabilitate" her.

• Twitter cofounder Jack Dorsey helped found Bluesky as a Twitter alternative.
• But Dorsey says he left Bluesky because it was "literally repeating all the mistakes" Twitter made.
• Dorsey's back on Twitter, posting up a storm. But he believes the best version of Twitter will be something called Nostr.

Why did Twitter cofounder Jack Dorsey leave Bluesky, the Twitter alternative he helped create?

Because — in Dorsey's telling, at least — Bluesky was "literally repeating all the mistakes [Twitter] made as a company."

That's the TLDR from an interview Dorsey conducted with journalist Mike Solana at his Pirate Wires site.

The longer version of that explanation: Very early in Twitter's history, Dorsey imagined that Twitter could be an open-source protocol that wasn't controlled by anyone, instead of a venture-backed, for-profit company. But that didn't happen. And later on, when Dorsey got frustrated while running the for-profit version of Twitter, he imagined that Twitter could help start an independent, open-source protocol version of itself — Bluesky.

But then — in Dorsey's telling — he got frustrated that Bluesky was doing things like the old Twitter. Things like raising money, and moderating what happened on its platform, and having a board. Which Dorsey was on.

And then Dorsey decided what he really wanted to do was help Nostr, another Twitter alternative, which promises to actually be an open-source protocol, instead.

"So I just decided to delete my account on Bluesky, and really focus on Nostr, and funding that to the best of my ability. I asked to get off the board as well, because I just don't think a protocol needs a board or wants a board. And if it has a board, that's not the thing that I wanted to help build or wanted to help fund."

So there you go. That's the whole mystery, solved.

There's more to the interview. Dorsey, for instance, has some mostly kind words about Elon Musk, who bought Twitter in 2022. And there's a lot of space dedicated to Dorsey's telling around What Went Wrong With Twitter. Though that mostly repeats his idea that Twitter's original sin was becoming a venture-backed, for-profit company that went public with a business model based on advertising, positioned as a Facebook competitor.

But that story/argument isn't a new one — you can find it in this four-episode podcast series I hosted last year, for instance.

And the version of it that Dorsey tells here doesn't touch on any of Dorsey's responsibility for Twitter's problems, which he lays at the feet of Wall Street investors, his board of directors and his advertisers. And not, for instance, the fact that he was running Twitter at the same time he was running Square.

For a more complete version, I'd suggest Kurt Wagner's Battle for the Bird.

• Google cofounder Larry Page is the world's seventh-richest person, worth $128.6 billion
• Fellow Google cofounder Sergey Brin is No. 9, with a reported net worth of $123.5 billion.
• The centibillionaires spend their fortunes on sprawling estates, superyachts, and trapeze lessons.

Larry Page and Sergey Brin may have only taken salaries of $1 during their time at Google, but they're still two of the richest people in the world.

Both Page and Brin are among the largest shareholders of Google's parent company, Alphabet, despite stepping down from their posts in December 2019. Their combined fortune is valued at $257 billion, according to the Forbes Billionaires List.

Here's a look at how Page and Brin made and spend their fortunes.

Brin and Page met in 1995, when Brin gave Page a tour around Stanford University

Brin was a second-year graduate student in Stanford's computer science department and Page was considering attending. They reportedly both found each other "obnoxious" at first, but they became classmates.

Despite their initial spats, Brin and Page started working together on an interesting idea Page had about cataloging every link on the internet. BackRub, as it was called at its inception in 1996, took off.

After dropping out of Stanford, the two founded Google in 1998

Google was first launched in a garage in Menlo Park, California.

Page had two stints as Google's CEO while Brin was president. In 2019, the billionaire duo announced that they would be stepping back from their roles at Alphabet.

"We've never been ones to hold on to management roles when we think there's a better way to run the company," their letter read.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai then took on the additional title of CEO of Alphabet.

In 2005, Larry Page bought a $7.2 million home in Old Palo Alto

The home, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, was built from 1931 to 1941 for Bay Area artist Pedro de Lemos.

At 9,000 square feet, the two-story home was built in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. It's constructed of stucco and tile around a courtyard. Parts of the home were salvaged from a chapel that was partially destroyed during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

In 2009, after Page bought the historic home, he started buying adjacent properties to construct an environmentally friendly estate. The 6,000-square-foot home has a roof garden with solar panels and four bedrooms.

Brin has even swankier digs in New York City's tony West Village

Brin bought a West Village penthouse for $8.5 million in 2008. Celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker and Tiger Woods have also scooped up property in that neighborhood.

The two-story, three-bedroom, 3,457-square-foot penthouse also has a 1,200-square-foot wraparound terrace with views of lower Manhattan. The kitchen is outfitted with custom Moroccan tiles and top-of-the-line appliances.

Brin has also purchased an estate in an undisclosed location in Los Altos Hills, California.

The Google cofounders are both regulars at Burning Man

Page and Brin are known for attending Burning Man. To disguise their identities, they've worn full spandex body suits.

They've also been known to spend time vacationing in Fiji.

Page and Brin also regularly traveled to Sicily to host the super-exclusive Google Camp.

Google Camp takes place at the Verdura Resort, which has a 200-foot infinity pool, a mile of private coastline on the Mediterranean, and two 18-hole golf courses.

Brin and Page have each bought superyachts

While they were in Fiji in 2012, Brin and Page rode in Brin's superyacht, the Dragonfly, a vessel measuring 240 feet Brin reportedly bought for $80 million in 2011. Previously, it was available to charter for $773,000 per week.

Constructed in 2009, the Dragonfly was the world's fastest superyacht. It has an open-air cinema, a Jacuzzi, and a dance floor. It can hold 18 guests and 16 crew members.

Brin has several luxury yachts and water-sports vehicles that those in his inner circle call the "Fly Fleet."

Besides the Dragonfly, the fleet also includes a 130-foot yacht called the Butterfly, as well as a smaller pleasure craft called the Firefly.

Meanwhile, Page's superyacht, called "Senses," measures 60 meters and accommodates up to 12, has six decks, open and shaded sun decks, a gym, and Jacuzzi — as well as five Waverunners. He reportedly paid $45 million for it in 2011.

Brin and Page also travel in style by air

They bought a Boeing 767-200 in 2005 — an unusual choice as executives usually prefer Gulfstream jets.

The former passenger jet carries 50 passengers. There are several seating areas, two staterooms with connecting bathrooms and showers, and a dining area.

These guys don't just have a private plane — they also have an $82 million private airport. Google began building its own private airport near the San Jose airport in 2014.

Page doesn't just dabble in typical aircraft. While we don't know how often Page himself is taking the products for a spin, he has funded three flying car companies — a fitting hobby for the man who once oversaw Waymo, Google's self-driving car service.

Page and Brin both have been taken with Teslas

The duo led an investment round of $40 million in Elon Musk's EV company back in 2006.

Brin was the fourth person to receive a Tesla Model X Crossover SUV in 2015 when it was first released — he snagged a white one.

Page took his interest in Tesla even further in 2014 when he said he would donate his billions to Elon Musk instead of a charity, his family, or his own business.

Page and Brin have both frequently given to philanthropic causes

From 2000 to 2017, Brin donated donated $37.5 billion and Page $38.5 billion. In 2018, however, both Brin and Page gave 0% of their fortunes to charity.

Brin has reportedly donated more than $1.1 billion to Parkinson's disease research, making him the largest individual donor to the cause. (Brin has previously said his mother has Parkinson's, and he has a rare genetic mutation that puts him at a higher risk for developing it than the general population.)

In both 2020 and 2021, The Sergey Brin Family Foundation gave roughly $250 million to groups with causes like tackling climate change and homelessness, and even a nonprofit supporting colonization of the moon.

Page's Carl Victor Page Memorial Foundation disbursed nearly $200 million to charities in 2021, of which 99% went to the National Philanthropic Trust, a donor-advised fund. DAFs, as they're known, let donors make tax-deductible contributions that are given to charities over time, though money can stay in DAFs indefinitely, and when it is disbursed, you can't publicly track where it goes.

Brin also spends his money on a variety of thrill-seeking hobbies

Brin has been reportedly building an entire flying airship at a NASA research center near Mountain View, California, not far from Google's headquarters.

The project has been estimated to cost between $100 and $150 million — and is funded entirely by Brin. Brin's airship received FAA clearance last year.

Sources say Brin pictures the airship delivering goods and food on humanitarian missions, as well as being an "air yacht" for the billionaire's friends and family.

Brin is a lover of roller hockey, ultimate Frisbee, gymnastics, and high-flying trapeze. He has been spotted at advanced trapeze classes at the Circus Warehouse in New York City, which costs $1,760 per month.

Page has been known to kite board — sometimes with Richard Branson.

Brin reportedly paid the salaries of 47 people who work for him and his family, including ex-bankers who manage his philanthropy and finances, a fitness coordinator, a yacht captain, an archivist, and a photographer.

For those two centibillionaires, their combined net worth is now around a quarter of a trillion — yes, with a "t" — dollars.

That's a far cry from Google's humble beginnings in a garage in Menlo Park.

Rachel Premack and Taylor Nicole Rogers contributed to a previous version of this story.

• The US paused a shipment of bombs to Israel last week amid rising concerns over a Rafah assault.
• On Wednesday, President Joe Biden warned that Washington may block additional weaponry.
• It's a politically significant move that could have military implications as well.

After seven months of war in the Gaza Strip, US military support for Israel has arrived at a pivotal moment in recent days: it no longer appears to be unconditional.

Last week, the US paused a shipment of bombs to Israel — marking the first time since the war began last fall that Washington has done so — amid rising concerns that the country was gearing up for a major military operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah.

Then, on Wednesday, President Joe Biden warned he would withhold additional weaponry, including artillery, if Israel pressed forward with a widespread ground assault on the city, where more than 1 million Palestinian civilians have sought refuge.

The Biden administration's decision is a politically significant move that appears designed to apply pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government to do more to protect civilians in Gaza. Experts say that there could also be military implications as Israel continues to wage war.

Biden is controlling 'one variable'

The weapons shipment that the US put on hold last week was supposed to include 1,800 2,000-pound bombs and 1,700 500-pound bombs, according to multiple US officials. A final determination on what to do with this shipment has yet to be made.

Israel has relied heavily on its inventory of the larger, 2,000-pound bombs throughout the war to go after Hamas' vast underground tunnel network. These air-dropped munitions can be outfitted with precision-guidance kits, but even then, they are still capable of causing lots of collateral damage. The State Department is also mulling whether to deliver more of these kits, known as Joint Direct Attack Munitions.

For now, these holds are primarily symbolic, Daniel Byman, a senior fellow with the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, told Business Insider. But that could change over time.

The depth of Israel's stockpile is unclear, but it is believed to have a sufficient supply of munitions to continue fighting in Gaza without this particular shipment of US weaponry, said Byman, a former Middle East analyst for the US intelligence community. But "the campaign may take a while, and as we know, munitions can be used up very, very rapidly in these circumstances," he added.

Hamas isn't Israel's only enemy though, and it wants to have a sizable stockpile of munitions to be ready for the possibility of a full-scale conflict with Lebanon's Hezbollah — another Iranian proxy group like Hamas. That would be a more difficult fight for the Israeli military, Byman said. Whether the US would actually withhold weaponry in that case is unknown.

During a Wednesday interview with CNN's Erin Burnett, Biden acknowledged that civilians in Gaza have been killed by US-provided 2,000-pound bombs. He then said that he would withhold additional weaponry beyond the one shipment last week if the Israeli military proceeds with a major ground invasion in Rafah.

"If they go into Rafah, I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities, to deal with that problem," Biden said. "We're not going to supply the weapons and the artillery shells have been used."

Earlier this week, Israel ordered civilians to evacuate eastern Rafah before announcing a "precise counter-terrorism operation" in the area, during which Israeli military seized control of the Palestinian side of a key crossing with Egypt that it said was being used for "terrorist purposes."

The IDF said as part of its new activity, ground troops and fighter jets were striking Hamas targets in the Rafah area. The White House later described the operation as "limited," and Biden on Wednesday said Israel's actions so far haven't crossed his red line.

Raphael Cohen, the director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program at the RAND Corporation think tank's Project AIR FORCE, explained to BI that by withholding 2,000-pound and 500-pound bombs, the US could force Israel to conduct more ground maneuver in Rafah, rather than an intense air campaign like what was seen earlier in the conflict.

It's unclear if that would "necessarily save — minimize — Palestinian civilian casualties, but it does change the nature of combat," said Cohen, a former lieutenant colonel in the US Army Reserve. Putting a hold on artillery could also force Israel to carry out more high-precision raids, instead of clearing the entire city, he added. There is uncertainty there as well though.

"The problem is that the Biden administration is controlling one variable, which is munitions," Cohen said.

"It's all well and good to try to go after Hamas via commando raids," he added, but he cautioned that "the targets have to lend themselves to that kind of operation. It's not clear, to me at least, that that's necessarily the operational reality on the ground."

The military utility of Biden's move ultimately has to be weighed against how important Israel views Rafah toward achieving its security objectives, Cohen said. "Countries are willing to go to great lengths if they feel their vital national interest is threatened, and fight even in suboptimal ways."

Israel vows to 'stand alone'

The decision to withhold weapons and Biden's latest warning that he would potentially put a pause on other support follows repeated efforts by the US to press Israel to present a credible plan that would limit civilian casualties ahead of any large-scale Rafah operation.

It is not necessarily an unprecedented move, as past US administrations have also threatened to withhold military support from Israel. But this decision does represent a notable shift in Biden's approach to the war. Since Hamas' Oct. 7 terror attacks, the US has been unwavering in sending Israel a massive amount of weaponry, despite growing international concerns about the rising death toll in Gaza.

John Kirby, the spokesperson for the White House National Security Council, told reporters on Thursday that despite the single shipment of bombs being held up, the Biden administration is still sending weapons to Israel, which is getting the "vast, vast majority of everything that they need to defend themselves."

For now, it remains to be seen how Israel proceeds with its military action in Rafah, but officials have been defiant in saying that they will continue to hunt down Hamas, regardless of how much international support the country retains.

"If we need to stand alone, we will stand alone," Netanyahu asserted on Thursday, per a translation. "I have said that if necessary, we will fight with our fingernails."

• A stunning aurora may be visible farther south than usual this Friday, lighting up the northern US.
• That's thanks to an overactive, giant spot seven times the size of Earth that's erupting on the sun.
• Northern border states from Washington to Michigan are most likely to see the aurora Friday night.

The Northern Lights are forecast to reach farther south than usual this Friday, dazzling the northern US.

Typically, the best time to see aurora is between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. local time, because this is when it will be the most active, according to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration.

We mainly owe this spectacle to a giant, hyperactive sunspot called AR3664 that's seven times the size of Earth and has been producing powerful eruptions, called coronal mass ejections, for the last several days.

Powerful eruptions like these can hurl high-energy solar particles toward Earth that interact with our atmosphere to create aurora borealis, a dazzling display of colorful lights.

Typically aurora are contained in the uppermost region of the northern hemisphere. But when Earth receives a more powerful blow of these high-energy particles, it can cause aurora over a larger portion of the planet.

Over the last several days, AR3664 has grown in size, becoming one of the biggest and most active sunspots for this solar cycle (which began in 2019), Space.com reported.

And in the last 24 hours, AR3664 spit out four coronal mass ejections that are now hurtling toward Earth at roughly 560 miles per second, Matt Owens, a professor of space physics at the University of Reading, told Business Insider.

Due to the relatively strong magnetic field of these oncoming coronal mass ejections, Friday's aurora is forecast to make a rare appearance, stretching all the way down to Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Even states including Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania, could catch a glimpse of the aurora low on the horizon, Andrew Gerrard, director of the Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, told BI.

"That's the most extreme estimate," Gerrard said. The reality is that we just won't know how bright, active, and wide-reaching the aurora will be until the coronal mass ejections reach Earth's atmosphere. Even experts' estimates of when they'll arrive offers only a rough ballpark.

"Our timing estimates may be way off," Owens said.

While the aurora are beautiful, coronal mass ejections bring some risks with them, too. When they interact with Earth's magnetic field, they can cause radio blackouts and power grid outages. But both Owens and Gerrard expect these approaching ejections won't cause any trouble on Friday.

"With the eruptions from this group, I think we're going to see some really good aurora. I wouldn't expect too many really bad effects," Owens said.

To watch the aurora on Friday, head to the NOAA's space weather website for the latest forecast to see if they'll be visible where you are.

Then, just step outside once it's totally dark and look up. If you're lucky, you may get to see this spectacular sight.

• Russia's electronic warfare has repeatedly foiled American precision weapons in Ukraine. 
• These developments highlight the need for the US to develop solutions before any potential great-power conflict.
• Those could include different weapons, specific countermeasures, and the targeting of enemy jamming systems.

Russian electronic warfare has created problems for American-made precision weaponry in Ukraine, but Moscow is also showing its hand and telling the US what it needs solutions for to be ready for potential future fights.

Ukraine has employed US precision weapons, like the HIMARS-fired Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems and air-launched Joint Direct Attack Munitions, throughout the war, but widespread Russian electronic warfare is regularly diminishing the effectiveness of these weapons.

Lt. Gen. Antonio Aguto, who is serving as the commander of Security Assistance Group-Ukraine, addressed the problem in December 2023, noting that electronic warfare directed at some of the US' "most precise capabilities is a challenge." Other US officials have identified these issues as well, adding that the US and Ukraine were working on solutions.

Any fixes developed to effectively counter the challenge posed by electronic warfare won't just benefit Ukraine. They'll also help the US solve problems it has long been concerned about as it prepares for the possibility of great-power conflict.

Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explained to Business Insider that "the widespread GPS spoofing we see in Ukraine adds urgency to solving a problem DoD has long recognized: that wartime spoofing will reduce the effectiveness of its weapons."

Electronic warfare can be executed using cheap but effective technology, and both sides of the war are using it extensively. And these tactics are not used solely to foil precision-guided munitions. They can also be used to scramble the connection between an operator and a reconnaissance or strike drone.

Electronic warfare is a broad term that includes a variety of inexpensive options. Jamming is relatively straight-forward, Thomas Withington, an expert in electronic warfare and air defense and an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said, explaining to BI that it involves "blasting a GNSS receiver with noise to cause it to lose the position, navigation, and timing signal that it received from the satellite."

Spoofing, on the other hand, involves sending false GNSS information to the weapon's navigation system, sending it off course or trajectory. Jamming is easier and can be done with cheaper equipment and engineers, while spoofing is likely to be used in more specific instances, such as hiding locations from the enemy.

Both serve different purposes, but in either case, the effects can be deeply problematic for precision weaponry.

Ukraine has managed to adapt to the challenge, in some cases, by engaging in jamming of its own or locating Russian electronic warfare sites and destroying them. Relying on alternative systems that don't depend on GPS or utilize other guidance systems, such as an inertial guidance system, helps bypass the problem. That's not always an option though.

Within the Russian military, there has likely been increased interest in employing electronic warfare in battle, especially over the past year or so, because it's so effective at countering US-provided precision weapons.

Precision systems — like Excalibur and GMLRS, which can be fired from US-provided M777 howitzers and HIMARS, respectively — are seeing shockingly decreased accuracy due to jamming.

"The philosophy behind weapons like Excalibur and JDAMs was that their reliance on GNSS, to an extent, was supposed to provide a level of precision," Withington told BI.

The capability and accuracy of those much-vaunted weapons are now in question, he said, noting that "not only has tactical and operational ramifications for the Ukrainians," but it also potentially raises questions about "the wider confidence others have in those systems."

Daniel Patt, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, told Congress back in March the 155mm GPS-guided Excalibur artillery shell "had a 70% efficiency rate hitting targets when first used in Ukraine" but "after six weeks, efficiency declined to only 6% as the Russians adapted their electronic-warfare systems to counter it."

Patt added that "the peak efficiency of a new weapon system is only about two weeks before countermeasures emerge." That is valuable information for the US as it prepares for potential future fights.

The war in Ukraine has, as a defense expert previously told BI, been an "intelligence bonanza" and is giving the US an opportunity to learn how its precision weapons perform under modern threats like electronic warfare. It's not theoretical. Instead, the US is watching a rival power engage its weapons in a real war.

Intelligence from the war builds on and likely advances years of research and discussion among US defense officials and experts about how electronic warfare will impact America's arsenal in a great power conflict and how the US will need to adapt.

Cancian said DoD has been working on overcoming these threats by focusing on options like using narrower signal bands or the generation of stronger signals that are able to burn through jamming attempts.

The threats, nevertheless, "remind us to be careful about expecting 'game changers,' though," he said. "The other side always develops countermeasures that reduce effectiveness."

Despite the challenges, the US shouldn't completely write off its precision weapons should it one day find itself in a war with another great power, be it Russia or China, which would almost certainly employ electronic warfare as well.

Withington said that "even if that jamming has been quite successful, the tactical imperative behind this is to work out a way to outflank the effectiveness of that electronic attack," noting that while a strong Russian jamming signal may be effective, it's also easier to detect and destroy.

At a media event earlier this month, Doug Bush, the Army's acquisition chief, said it wasn't surprising Russia was able to jam US weapons. He said it was part of a "constant cycle" of innovation on both sides, adding that the US was learning that "with any precision weapon, you want multiple ways to guide it to its target."

For some weapons, that's already in the works. Earlier this week, the US Air Force announced a contract for add-on seekers for its extended-range JDAMs, the goal being to improve the JDAM to resist electronic jamming and instead lock onto the source of the jamming, targeting it.

Bush said the Army had created a team focused on adapting its weapons to electronic warfare issues long before the war in Ukraine, signaling the Pentagon's clear understanding of the problem these capabilities pose.

Bush previously said in August 2023 that the Army was "fundamentally reinvesting in rebuilding our tactical electronic-warfare capability after that largely left the force over the last 20 years" and that the war in Ukraine had added "urgency" to those efforts.

Efforts to adapt precision weapons to the threat is just one facet of a multi-layered solution, Withington said. Other solutions to the problem involve using other weapons and prioritizing targeting the point of origin for electronic warfare signals early in a conflict.

"It is imperative that forces like the US and its allies see future battle in a case that they have to first establish electromagnetic superiority," he said, explaining that denying enemies from using the electromagnetic spectrum in any way would "massively degrade at the very least, if not prevent altogether" an enemy from interfering with its weapons.

Ultimately, though, as the US and Ukraine adjust to Russia's jamming and learn from the war, the "constant cycle" of innovation, as Bush said, will continue.

"The measure, counter-measure, counter-countermeasure that we're seeing in Ukraine is typical in war," Cancian said, adding that there is "no technology provides the ultimate advantage."

When you buy through our links, Business Insider may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

The S95 series is Samsung's flagship OLED TV lineup. It offers high-end picture quality and is geared toward buyers willing to pay a premium for the brand's best performance. Right now, shoppers can choose between two S95 models: the 2023 S95C and 2024 S95D.

The S95D is meant to replace the S95C, but the latter will remain available until existing stock sells out. Both TVs have similar capabilities, but the S95D can get a bit brighter, and it has a new matte screen that significantly reduces glare and reflections. However, the older S95C costs much less, and its glossy screen has some unique perks that videophiles might prefer.  

To help you decide which high-end Samsung TV is best for your needs, I put both models head-to-head. I've been reviewing home entertainment products for over a decade, and my findings are based on hands-on testing time with each TV. Here's why I think the S95C remains a better buy for most people searching for a premium OLED. 

Samsung S95D vs. S95C: Picture performance

The S95D and S95C both use QD-OLED (OLED with quantum dots) panels, which enables them to produce pixel-level contrast control and a wide range of bright colors. They also offer excellent viewing angles so you can sit off to the side of the screen without noticing any drop in image quality. 

When watching actual movies and TV shows, both displays provide impressive high-dynamic-range (HDR) performance. But while both TVs are neck and neck in most picture quality aspects, there is one area where the S95D has a more notable edge over the S95C: peak brightness. In fact, the S95D is the brightest OLED TV I've ever measured. 

On a 10% HDR test pattern (a white box that takes up 10% of the screen), I measured a peak of around 1,360 nits on the S95C. On that same test pattern, I measured a peak of around 1,700 nits on the S95D. That's an increase of 340 nits or about 25%, which is a solid jump. 

That said, the S95D can only hit 1,700 nits briefly before dimming significantly. But since most highlights that need to get that bright (like an explosion in a movie) only appear on screen for quick flashes, this limitation isn't that big of a deal. 

Ultimately, the S95D's increased brightness gives it a slight advantage over the S95C for two reasons. One, it gives you more headroom to adjust the S95D's settings and pump up the screen's brightness to help combat issues with glare in rooms that let in a lot of light. And two, it enables the S95D to more accurately cover the full range of brightness that filmmakers intend when mastering HDR content that exceeds 1,000 nits. This means that extreme highlights can come through with a bit more detail and visual intensity on the S95D than they would on the S95C. 

But while the S95D's brightness performance is the kind of thing that home theater nerds like me geek out over, it's important to note that the real-world benefits of this extra luminance can be subtle. If you watch both TVs next to each other while set in their brightest modes or playing HDR movies with especially bright highlights and colors, you'll certainly see a difference. But for average TV viewing, the S95C's brightness remains sufficient.  

So, while the S95D does technically deliver superior image quality, I don't think its performance benefits are big enough to justify its more expensive price tag. The S95D will eventually come down in price, and the S95C will sell out, so this will become a moot point. But for now, it's hard to justify spending so much when you can still snag the S95C for around $1,000 less. 

Samsung S95D vs. S95C: Glare and reflections

Even more so than their brightness capabilities, the biggest difference between the S95D and S95C is how each TV handles reflections. The S95C uses a glossy screen, while the S95D uses a matte screen. Both have their pros and cons, but the S95D's matte coating offers a big improvement in reducing glare and reflections. 

Glossy screens, which are used in nearly every TV sold, can cause noticeable reflections in certain rooms. To combat this, manufacturers use different kinds of anti-reflective filters. The S95C's anti-reflective filter does a solid job for a screen of its type, but depending on where your windows and indoor lights are positioned, you could still run into issues with glare.

On the other hand, the S95D's matte screen virtually eliminates reflections and glare entirely. If you struggle with reflections in your room, the S95D is a game changer. The only other 4K sets with similar matte-screen coatings are Samsung's own Frame TV and Hisense's upcoming Canvas TV, but those models can't match the pixel-level contrast that the S95D's OLED panel produces.

Unfortunately, the S95D's matte screen has one notable side effect: it hurts black-level performance in a bright room. Though reflections and glare are dramatically reduced, black levels lose a bit of that deep, inky quality that OLEDs are known for and instead look slightly gray and hazy. 

This is especially true when displaying darker scenes, like the opening action sequence of "The Matrix." This scene starts in a dimly lit room and then moves outside at night. The darkest elements of the scene are meant to be pure black, but because of the S95D's glare-free coating, they take on a more cloudy look that flattens the distinction between shades of black and gray. This makes it harder to discern details in shadows. 

The S95C's anti-reflective filter isn't immune to this kind of side effect either, as it can cause a slight elevation of black levels and a faint pinkish hue in extremely bright rooms. But I never found those effects on the S95C noticeable during day-to-day viewing. In contrast, the elevated black levels caused by the S95D's matte screen are more pronounced and easier to notice.

So, when it comes to bright room viewing, there are clear tradeoffs with each TV. The S95D's matte screen can handle glare and reflections better than any other TV on the market, but the downside is that you get elevated black levels that can give some dark scenes a flat look. Conversely, while the S95C's glossy screen preserves deep black levels better in bright rooms, it's much more prone to showing reflections when hit with light from certain angles.  

As a big home theater enthusiast, I prefer the S95C's glossy screen since black-level performance is one of the most important aspects of preserving an accurate image. The matte screen is definitely helpful for certain use cases and could be ideal for specific setups, but I wish Samsung had implemented it on a step-down model rather than its 2024 flagship. Or better yet, offered it as an optional alternative.

Samsung S95D vs. S95C: Design and interface

Outside their screen coatings, the S95D and S95C have nearly identical physical designs. Both TVs have a thin profile that measures around 0.4 inches thick and use a separate One Connect Box to house all of their video and audio inputs instead of having those ports built into the panel.

The One Connect gives you more flexibility for cable management, and both models have four HDMI 2.1 ports and one ATSC antenna port. However, the S95C has an ATSC 3.0 port, while the S95D has been downgraded to an ATSC 1.0 port. ATSC 1.0 supports receiving HD broadcasts, while ATSC 3.0 can also support 4K broadcasts.

The switch to ATSC 1.0 is disappointing, but it's not as big a deal as it might sound. Actual 4K broadcasts are rare, and most people buying a high-end set like this rely on cable boxes or streaming services for live TV rather than digital antennas. Likewise, you can purchase a separate ATSC 3.0 tuner if needed. 

The One Connect Box can be slotted right onto the back of the TV stand to hide it from view. The metal stand itself is also very similar for both TVs, with a sturdy pedestal design.

Samsung's smart TV interface, which uses the Tizen operating system, has been slightly updated for the S95D versus the S95C. The S95D's layout has been tweaked and streamlined, and there's a new loading graphic when you open an app, but general functionality and features remain the same.

Samsung S95D vs. S95C: Price and availability

The 2024 S95D is meant to replace the 2023 S95C, but the S95C will remain available to purchase for as long as the existing inventory lasts. Though exact street prices fluctuate, the S95C is often on sale for as much as $1,100 less than the S95D. Both models are available in 55-, 65-, and 77-inch screen sizes, and here's how pricing compares for each option at the time of writing:

	Current S95C price	Current S95D price
55 inches	$1,900	$2,600
65 inches	$2,500	$3,400
77 inches	$3,700	$4,600

The S95D's price should gradually fall as the year goes on, and I expect to see big discounts during events like Amazon Prime Day and Black Friday. By the time the holiday shopping season rolls around, prices for current- and previous-year TV models usually even out. It's important to remember that the S95C will get harder to find in the fall and winter as stock depletes.

The bottom line

The S95D and S95C are both impressive OLEDs, but the cheaper S95C remains a better value for most buyers in the market for a flagship Samsung TV. 

The pricier S95D technically offers better image quality with brighter HDR performance. But for typical use cases, I don't think it's worth the premium, while you can still find the S95C for less money. 

However, buyers specifically looking for a glare-free TV should consider paying extra for the S95D. It's the only high-end TV that can combat reflections this well. I generally prefer the superior black-level performance you get with the S95C's glossy screen, but the S95D's matte screen is uniquely suited for rooms where glare is a persistent issue. 

For more details on each TV, check out our full Samsung S95C review and our full Samsung S95D review. 

And for more TV recommendations, visit our guides to the best 4K TVs, best OLED TVs, and best Samsung TVs.