TechCrunch
중도 성향
IT/기술
How to apply to Startup Battlefield 2026, what you need ahead of today’s June 8 deadline
Startup Battlefield applications are due tomorrow, so now's the time to put the finishing touches on your submission!
IT/기술 · "APPLICATIONS" · 총 39건
필터 보기현재 지수
50.3
0 = 부정 우세
50 = 중립
100 = 긍정 우세
최근 7일 기준 86,057건을 분석한 결과, 뉴스 심리지수는 50.2(균형)입니다. 긍정 4,435건(5.2%)·중립 79,460건(92.3%)·부정 2,162건(2.5%)이며, 중립 비중이 뚜렷하게 높습니다. 성향 지수는 종합 15.3(중도 균형)입니다.
Startup Battlefield applications are due tomorrow, so now's the time to put the finishing touches on your submission!
ING is deploying artificial intelligence to help assess non-standard mortgage applications, becoming the first major Dutch bank to take this step, according to the
Whitehall says Work Assistant will help jobseekers apply around the clock – provided employers don't mind machine-written applications
Whitehall says Work Assistant will help jobseekers apply around the clock – provided employers don't mind machine-written applications
ING has become the first Dutch bank to develop an AI model to speed up the processing of mortgage applications....
Anthropic, OpenAI, and Nvidia increase H-1B visa applications as other tech giants cut back, highlighting the AI talent demand.
TOKYO -- Rohto Pharmaceutical Co. has abolished document screening for new graduates expected to join the Japanese company in spring 2027 and says the
WASHINGTON: The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organisation in the United States, has filed a federal lawsuit against one of America’s largest public school systems, alleging that four Muslim students were unlawfully disciplined because of their religion and ethnic background. The lawsuit accuses Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), a school district serving nearly 180,000 students in the suburbs of Washington, DC, of discriminating against students at the prestigious Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, one of the nation’s top-ranked public schools. Filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, the suit claims that school officials violated the students’ constitutional rights and federal civil rights laws by suspending them over a social media video while allowing similar conduct by other student groups to go unpunished. The case stems from a video posted in October 2025 by members of the school’s Muslim Student Association (MSA), a student organisation representing Muslim pupils. According to the complaint, the students were participating in a viral social media trend used by clubs and organisations nationwide to promote events and attract members. In the video, students ask classmates whether they intend to attend an MSA meeting. When the answer is “no”, other students jokingly appear and carry them away in what the lawsuit describes as a comedic skit. The plaintiffs argue the video contained no threats, weapons or references to any real-world conflict. CAIR contends that similar videos had been produced by other student groups, including some depicting mock violence and weapons, without disciplinary action. The organisation argues that school officials acted only after outside activists and social media commentators accused the Muslim students of glorifying Hamas and reenacting the Oct 7, 2023 attacks in Israel. According to the complaint, school officials adopted those characterisations, suspended the students, labelled their conduct antisemitic and placed disciplinary records in their files. One plaintiff was also prohibited from wearing a sweatshirt depicting the map of Palestine, the lawsuit alleges. The students are identified in court records by pseudonyms to protect their privacy. “The MSA behaved innocently and no differently than other student groups on campus,” CAIR attorney Catherine Keck said while announcing the lawsuit. “Yet Fairfax County singled them out, robbed them of academic and professional opportunities, and encouraged the community to target and harass them.” The complaint alleges that the suspensions had lasting consequences. The students claim they suffered reputational damage, lost educational opportunities, were subjected to online harassment and threats, and in some cases faced setbacks in college admissions and internship applications. CAIR’s legal team argues that the disciplinary action violated the students’ rights under the First Amendment, which protects free speech, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in federally funded educational institutions. School officials have previously defended their response, saying the videos depicted mock kidnappings and violence that were inappropriate in a school setting. At the time of the controversy, FCPS said such content was especially troubling because it could be perceived as traumatic by members of the Jewish community amid ongoing tensions related to Israel’s war on Gaza. Jewish community organisations also criticised the videos when they surfaced last year, arguing that imagery resembling hostage-taking was particularly insensitive given the continued impact of the October 7 attacks and the hostage crisis that followed. The lawsuit, however, argues that the school’s actions were driven not by concerns about student safety but by stereotypes associating Muslim and Arab students with violence. “The reason FCPS and TJHSST punished these students and not other students in similar videos is because they believe that Muslims and Arabs pose a threat where others do not,” CAIR attorney Ahmad Kaki said. The school district has not yet filed a detailed response to the complaint. The case is likely to turn on whether the plaintiffs can demonstrate that similarly situated non-Muslim student groups engaged in comparable conduct but were treated differently. If the court finds evidence of selective enforcement based on religion or ethnicity, the lawsuit could become one of the most closely watched school civil-rights cases arising from post-October 7 tensions in American public schools. The complaint seeks damages, expungement of the students’ disciplinary records, declaratory relief and court orders preventing similar actions in the future.
Applications for Startup Battlefield 200 officially close on June 8, 11:59 p.m. PT. Now’s not the time to wait any longer. Secure your shot at competing on the Disrupt Stage at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 this October at San Francisco's Moscone West.
Meta's top AI executive, Alexandr Wang, revealed the company's strategy to challenge rivals like OpenAI and Google by focusing on health-related AI capabilities. While acknowledging current models aren't top-tier, Wang highlighted Meta's commitment to advancing AI for health applications, aiming to integrate these features into popular platforms like Facebook and Instagram.
The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) on Wednesday clarified that students applying for verification and re-evaluation of Class XII answer sheets do not need to have accounts with State Bank of India, Canara Bank, Bank of Baroda or Indian Bank to make payments on its online portal, addressing confusion that emerged after the system was launched earlier this week, Times of India reported.The clarification came after several students claimed on social media that the portal appeared to restrict payments to customers of the four public sector banks. In a statement posted on X, CBSE said the portal only uses payment gateways operated by these banks and does not require applicants to hold accounts with them.Also Read: Claude, other AI tools used to breach CBSE portals: IIT Panel“Candidates may use the available online payment options — UPI, net banking, credit card and debit card — through the designated gateways,” the board said.CBSE also said the portal continued to function smoothly despite a major cyberattack attempt on Tuesday, shortly after it went live. According to the board, the platform came under a barrage of denial-of-service attacks within minutes of its launch, receiving nearly 1.5 million hits in two minutes along with more than one lakh attempts at unauthorised file access.The board said its technical teams worked continuously to maintain the stability and security of the platform.“The portal has accepted 4,924 applications for verification and 39,056 applications for re-evaluation (total of 43,980) as of 12 noon today,” CBSE said.The board urged students to rely only on official CBSE communication for updates related to the process.Also Read: CBSE re-evaluation portal keeps lakhs of students guessingThe verification and re-evaluation window opened on June 2 for Class XII students who had earlier obtained scanned copies of their answer books evaluated under the board’s new digital On-Screen Marking (OMS) system.
The move hints at Meta's ambitions to compete with rivals like OpenAI, Anthropic and Alphabet's Google in the market for enterprise applications of its AI tools
Russia has presented a domestically developed neuromorphic processor called “Altai”, a brain-inspired chip designed to perform artificial intelligence tasks with significantly lower power consumption than conventional processors.
As Edge AI applications rapidly transition from proof-of-concept to real-world deployment, the growing demands for ...
HR is drowning in AI-assisted applications. Candidates can't break through.
South Korea should now try to build frontier artificial intelligence models on par with those of the US and China, Deputy Prime Minister and ICT Minister Bae Kyung-hoon said Friday, calling for a broader AI strategy that goes beyond industrial applications. “We have reached a point where Korea, too, should take on the challenge of building frontier AI models at a level comparable to those of the US and China,” Bae said at a press conference in Seoul marking the government’s first year in office.
Comments
Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu echoed Larry Ellison's view that AI is rapidly commoditizing, with value shifting to applications built around it. Ellison argued that similar public data training makes AI models less of a differentiator, emphasizing exclusive datasets as the future competitive edge. Vembu also recently described the AI boom as a significant investment bubble.
Startup Battlefield applications are due tomorrow, so now's the time to put the finishing touches on your submission!
I have been an application-specific IC (ASIC) designer for almost three decades. Over that time, I’ve moved through the full academic trajectory, from graduate student to full professor; later, I transitioned to industry after an unsuccessful stint at entrepreneurship. When I made the switch to the private sector in 2019, I began focusing on a critically important aspect of the electronic industry: silicon intellectual property. As much as 80 percent of the physical area in today’s most advanced chips is occupied by blocks that aren’t made for specific products or even designed by the consumer-facing companies that built them. Instead, chipmakers draw heavily on established silicon IP from companies like Arm, Cadence, Rambus, Synopsys, and the company I work for, Silicon Creations. Throughout my career, I’ve designed chips for very different purposes, including enabling the research program in my academic lab and expanding the IP portfolio of my company. When I joined Silicon Creations, I had no idea how differently the industry approaches IC design and encountered a steep learning curve. Initially, it seemed that much of my two decades of academic research and training did not directly translate to the role. I had to learn new skills and adopt a new mindset. Today, demand for ASICs is rapidly growing, driven by the need for specialized chips in the automotive sector, AI applications, and more. By one market estimate, the ASIC market is expected to grow from US $23.4 billion to $38.8 billion by 2033, and the semiconductor industry as a whole is projected to hit $1 trillion by 2030. The industry needs more chip designers—but if you’re coming from an academic background as I did, there are a few things you’ll need to know. Different goals lead to different strategies The differences between industry and academe begin with a divergence in purpose. In academia, my primary objective was to generate new knowledge: to propose a novel circuit technique, validate an unconventional architecture, or explore the limits of performance in a given domain. A successful chip is one that demonstrates a concept. In industry, it is not nearly enough to prove that something can work. The goal is to ensure that it works reliably, repeatedly, and at scale. Success is measured not by novelty but by whether the silicon meets specifications, yields as expected in production, and supports a competitive product delivered on schedule. This leads to a stark contrast in risk tolerance. Academic designs often deliberately push into unproven territory, where even partial success can yield valuable insight. In industry, however, we systematically minimize risk. The cost of failure makes first-time silicon success a central requirement—especially at advanced technology nodes, where the lithography masks used to transfer circuit designs onto silicon wafers alone can cost tens of millions of dollars. As a result, industry design flows are built around eliminating uncertainty through conservative margins, extensive validation, and careful reuse of proven solutions. “Academia explores the design space, asking what is possible, while industry exploits it, determining what is viable at scale.” This paradigm has existed since the 1970s, when application-specific chip design was established. However, the gulf between academia and industry has expanded since the mid-2010s, when FinFET technology, a 3D architecture using vertical “fins” of silicon, was widely adopted in industry. System designs are also becoming increasingly modular with the advent of chiplets. This fundamentally altered the economics and complexity of ASIC development, with design costs rising by almost an order of magnitude. Initiatives like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.’s University FinFET Program and new government-funded chip-design hubs now let some well-resourced universities design for more advanced architectures, but the technology is still out of reach for many academics. What the industry-academia split means in practice Consider a startup developing an ASIC. Its engineering team may have deep expertise in a particular algorithm, sensor interface, or system architecture, the features that define its competitive advantage. But it is unlikely to possess world-class expertise in every supporting function. Developing each of these blocks internally would require significant time, capital, and specialized talent. Doing so could delay market entry beyond the startup’s viability. Even large semiconductor companies face similar constraints. Advanced-node development demands intense focus. Allocating a team to redesign a standard interface block that has already been implemented elsewhere may be difficult to justify when differentiation lies at the system level, such as an inference chip’s ability to speed up neural network computations. The time it takes to move a new chip from conception to market and risk mitigation, not self-sufficiency, govern most decisions about in-house development versus outsourcing. The economics of advanced IC manufacturing reinforce this reality. When the development cost of a leading-edge chip reaches hundreds of millions of dollars, minimizing risk becomes a central design imperative. In this context, silicon IP emerged as a practical solution. Similar to how software developers rely on preexisting libraries rather than writing every function from scratch, ASIC designers license predesigned, preverified silicon blocks—such as processor cores, memory interfaces, and security engines—from highly specialized IP vendors. These blocks can then be integrated into larger, increasingly complex systems. Design scope, verification, and time horizons With the use of silicon IP, industry is able to widen the scope of its designs. Academic efforts tend to focus on block-level innovation: a new analog-to-digital converter architecture or an ultralow-noise amplifier, for instance. These designs typically abstract away many of the complexities of bringing a chip to market, such as packaging constraints, long-term reliability, and manufacturing yield. In industry, the focus shifts to system-level integration. Modern systems on chips, or SoCs, incorporate dozens or even hundreds of functional blocks. Managing signal integrity, timing, firmware interaction, and system-level validation becomes as critical as the design of any individual block. Verification philosophy also diverges sharply. In academia, the goal of verification is to demonstrate that the concept works under nominal conditions, which may not always reflect how it would perform in real applications. Even if only a fraction of fabricated chips from a multiproject wafer operates correctly, the design may still be considered a success if it validates the underlying idea. At my academic lab for instance, we used to receive 40 chips from a TSMC prototyping service and started testing them in batches of five. If the first five or 10 chips proved functional, we had already collected more than enough data for a publication. If some of them failed, we weren’t required to mention this when publishing the results. In industry, verification is exhaustive, critical, and often dominates the development schedule. Failures are measured in parts per million, and even rare anomalies are carefully analyzed and documented to identify root causes and prevent recurrence. When I started at Silicon Creations, I was surprised by the level of detail and scrutiny designs face. Differences in time horizons and economic constraints reinforce each of these contrasts. Academic projects operate on flexible timelines aligned with research and funding cycles. If I missed a deadline, I just had to wait for the next cycle. Industry projects are driven by fixed product schedules and market windows, frequently targeting costly leading-edge nodes to achieve competitive performance, power, and area efficiency. Missing a deadline can negate the value of an entire design and may have major financial consequences along the entire supply chain. In essence, academia explores the design space, asking what is possible, while industry exploits it, determining what is viable at scale. Both are indispensable, but they operate under fundamentally different definitions of success. As ASIC complexity continues to grow, understanding both perspectives will be essential for the next generation of engineers navigating the evolving semiconductor landscape. This article appears in the June 2026 print issue.