Amsterdam, Rome, Paris, 23 October 2025 – Airbus (stock exchange symbol: AIR), Leonardo (Borsa Italiana: LDO) and Thales (Euronext Paris: HO) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) aimed at combining their respective space activities into a new company.
By joining forces, Airbus, Leonardo and Thales aim to strengthen Europe’s strategic autonomy in space, a major sector that underpins critical infrastructure and services related to telecommunications, global navigation, earth observation, science, exploration and national security. This new company also intends to serve as the trusted partner for developing and implementing national sovereign space programmes.
This new company will pool, build and develop a comprehensive portfolio of complementary technologies and end-to-end solutions, from space infrastructure to services (excluding space launchers). It will accelerate innovation in this strategic market, in order to create a unified, integrated and resilient European space player, with the critical mass to compete globally and grow on the export markets.
[…]
Airbus will contribute with its Space Systems and Space Digital businesses, coming from Airbus Defence and Space.
Leonardo will contribute with its Space Division, including its shares in Telespazio and Thales Alenia Space.
Thales will mainly contribute with its shares in Thales Alenia Space, Telespazio, and Thales SESO.
The combined entity will employ around 25,000 people across Europe. With an annual turnover of about 6.5bn€ (end of 2024, pro-forma) and an order backlog representing more than three years of projected sales, this new company will form a robust, innovative and competitive entity worldwide.
Ownership of the new company will be shared among the parent companies, with Airbus, Leonardo and Thales owning respectively 35%, 32.5% and 32.5% stakes. It will operate under joint control, with a balanced governance structure among shareholders.
Apple could face claims estimated at around £1.5 billion after it lost a collective case in the UK arguing that its closed systems for apps resulted in overcharging businesses and consumers.
The ruling from a Competition Appeal Tribunal responded to the case brought on behalf of 36 million UK iPhone and iPad users, both consumers and enterprise customers.
Apple said it disagreed with the ruling [PDF] and planned to appeal.
The court found Apple had imposed charges for its iOS app distribution services and its in-app payment service charged developers a headline commission rate of 30 percent.
In a unanimous judgment, the court found Apple overcharged developers as a result of its behavior in the iOS app distribution services market and the iOS in-app payment services market. There was also an overcharge resulting from the extent to which developers passed on the costs to iPhone and iPad users.
The court found those represented in the case, led by academic Dr Rachael Kent, could be eligible for 8 percent interest on damages awarded.
Speaking to the BBC, Kent said the decision was a “landmark victory, not only for App Store users, but for anyone who has ever felt powerless against a global tech giant.”
In a statement, Apple said the ruling’s view of its software marketplace was mistaken. It argued the App Store was good for UK businesses and consumers because it offered a space for developers to sell their work and somewhere users could choose from millions of software products.
“This ruling overlooks how the App Store helps developers succeed and gives consumers a safe, trusted place to discover apps and securely make payments. The App Store faces vigorous competition from many other platforms – often with far fewer privacy and security protections,” the tech giant said.
Which is quite funny for Apple to say, because it fights tooth and nail to ensure that there is no competition for the App Store. Even when the EU tells Apple it must enable alternate app stores or payment providers, it rolls around the floor like a child in a tantrum hoping to avoid the inevitable:
The feds on Thursday charged alleged mafia associates and current and former National Basketball Association players and coaches with running rigged poker games and illegal sports betting.
Starting around 2019, a group of alleged mafia associates began operating a high-stakes poker con at several locations around Manhattan, according to an indictment filed by the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. The card cheating scheme relied on X-ray tables, rigged card shufflers, and glasses capable of reading hidden card markings.
Authorities say they arrested 31 individuals across 11 states, including members and associates of the Bonanno, Gambino, and Genovese organized crime families of La Cosa Nostra.
Chauncey Billups, the head coach of the Portland Trail Blazers, and former Cleveland Cavaliers player and assistant coach Damon Jones were also arrested.
Billups’ attorney Chris Heywood told ESPN in a statement that his client did not do what the government claims and that Billups intends to fight the charges.
For years, these individuals allegedly hosted illegal poker games where they used sophisticated technology and enlisted current and former NBA players to cheat people out of millions of dollars
“For years, these individuals allegedly hosted illegal poker games where they used sophisticated technology and enlisted current and former NBA players to cheat people out of millions of dollars,” said NYPD Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch in a statement.
“This complex scheme was so far reaching that it included members from four of the organized crime families, and when people refused to pay because they were cheated, these defendants did what organized crime has always done: they used threats, intimidation, and violence.”
As described in the indictment, the victimized card players believed they were participating in fair but illegal poker games against other players. However, the games were rigged, resulting in a loss of at least $7 million since the scheme’s inception. The NBA celebrities supposedly served as “Face Cards” to attract players.
“The defendants and their co-conspirators, who constituted the remaining participants purportedly playing in the poker games, worked together on cheating teams … that used advanced wireless technologies to read the cards dealt in each poker hand and relay that information to the defendants and co-conspirators participating in the illegal poker games,” the indictment claims.
The cheating scheme allegedly employed compromised shuffling machines that could read the cards in the deck and transmit this information to an off-site relayer who messaged the details back to a player at the table, referred to as the “Quarterback” or “Driver.” This individual then used prearranged signals to communicate with co-conspirators at the table, all to win poker games against unsuspecting victims.
The defendants also allegedly employed “a chip tray analyzer (essentially, a poker chip tray that also secretly read all cards using hidden cameras), an X-ray table that could read cards face down on the table, and special contact lenses or eyeglasses that could read pre-marked cards.”
[…]
Online poker games have long presented a risk of cheating and player collusion, but this incident reaffirms that in-person games, where collusion has always been a possibility, can also be subverted through technology.
“I think the sophistication in the cheating technologies is far greater than the sophistication in detection, and it’s not very common for people to even have expensive detection technology,” said Rubin. “You’re not, as a player, equipped to compete in a way with the people that have the resources to cheat like that.”
Major Las Vegas casinos like the MGM Grand or Caesars Palace, Rubin said, put a lot of money and effort into protecting games at their facilities and have an interest in preventing cheating scandals from tarnishing their brands. “You’re probably safe playing in big, brand name casinos,” he said. “But at the end of the day, you know, it’s poker and if somebody wants to try hard enough and spends money to do it, they may find a way to cheat.
[…]
The second of the two indictments alleged that six defendants, including Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier and former NBA assistant coach and player Damon Jones (named in the first indictment), colluded to share inside information and to alter in-game behavior to influence the outcome of bets on NBA games.
New NATO member Sweden is boosting support to Ukraine, with a letter of intent signed this week on the sale of up to 150 Gripen fighter jets. Shortly after joining NATO in March 2024 and bringing an end to two centuries of military non-alignment, Sweden approved a €989 million military support package that included Archer self-propelled artillery systems and long-range drones.
Its latest contribution to the war effort is Glimt, an innovative project launched by the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI) earlier this year. Glimt is an open platform that relies on the theory of “crowd forecasting”: a method of making predictions based on surveying a large and diverse group of people and taking an average. “Glimt” is a Swedish word for “a glimpse” or “a sudden insight”. The theory posits that the average of all collected predictions produces correct results with “uncanny accuracy”, according to the Glimt website. Such “collective intelligence” is used today for everything from election results to extreme weather events, Glimt said.
[…]
Group forecasting allows for a broad collection of information while avoiding the cognitive bias that often characterises intelligence services. Each forecaster collects and analyses the available information differently to reach the most probable scenario and can add a short comment to explain their reasoning. The platform also encourages discussion between members so they can compare arguments and alter their positions.
Available in Swedish, French and English, the platform currently has 20,000 registered users; each question attracts an average of 500 forecasters. Their predictions are later sent to statistical algorithms that cross-reference data, particularly the relevance of the answers they provided. The most reliable users will have a stronger influence on the results; this reinforces the reliability of collective intelligence.
When the microcomputer first landed in homes some forty years ago, it came with a simple freedom—you could run whatever software you could get your hands on. Floppy disk from a friend? Pop it in. Shareware demo downloaded from a BBS? Go ahead! Dodgy code you wrote yourself at 2 AM? Absolutely. The computer you bought was yours. It would run whatever you told it to run, and ask no questions.
Today, that freedom is dying. What’s worse, is it’s happening so gradually that most people haven’t noticed we’re already halfway into the coffin.
News? Pegged.
There are always security risks when running code from untrusted sources. The stakes are higher these days when our computers are the gateways to our personal and financial lives.
The latest broadside fired in the war against platform freedom has been fired. Google recently announced new upcoming restrictions on APK installations. Starting in 2026, Google will tightening the screws on sideloading, making it increasingly difficult to install applications that haven’t been blessed by the Play Store’s approval process. It’s being sold as a security measure, but it will make it far more difficult for users to run apps outside the official ecosystem. There is a security argument to be made, of course, because suspect code can cause all kinds of havoc on a device loaded with a user’s personal data. At the same time, security concerns have a funny way of aligning perfectly with ulterior corporate motives.
It’s a change in tack for Google, which has always had the more permissive approach to its smartphone platform. Contrast it to Apple, which has sold the iPhone as a fully locked-down device since day one. The former company said that if you own your phone, you could do what you want with it. Now, it seems Google is changing its mind ever so slightly about that. There will still be workarounds, like signing up as an Android developer and giving all your personal ID to Google, but it’s a loss to freedom whichever way you look at it.
Beginnings
Sony put a great deal of engineering into the PlayStation to ensure it would only read Sony-approved discs. Modchips sprung up as a way to get around that problem, albeit primarily so owners could play cheaper pirated games. Credit: Libreleah, CC BY-SA 4.0,
The walled garden concept didn’t start with smartphones. Indeed, video game consoles were a bit of a trailblazer in this space, with manufacturers taking this approach decades ago. The moment gaming became genuinely profitable, console manufacturers realized they could control their entire ecosystem. Proprietary formats, region systems, and lockout chips were all valid ways to ensure companies could levy hefty licensing fees from developers. They locked down their hardware tighter than a bank vault, and they did it for one simple reason—money. As long as the manufacturer could ensure the console wouldn’t run unapproved games, developers would have to give them a kickback for every unit sold.
By and large, the market accepted this. Consoles were single-purpose entertainment machines. Nobody expected to run their own software on a Nintendo, after all. The deal was simple—you bought a console from whichever company, and it would only play whatever they said was okay. The vast majority of consumers didn’t care about the specifics. As long as the console in question had a decent library, few would complain.
Nintendo created the 10NES copy protection system to ensure its systems would only play games approved by the company itself, in an attempt to exert quality control after the 1983 North American video game crash. Credit: Evan-Amos, public domain
There was always an underground—adapters to work around region locks, and bootleg games that relied on various hacks—with varying popularity over the years. Often, it was high prices that drove this innovation—think of the many PlayStation mod chips sold to play games off burnt CDs to avoid paying retail.
At the time, this approach largely stayed within the console gaming world. It didn’t spread to actual computers because computers were tools. You didn’t buy a PC to consume content someone else curated for you. You bought it to do whatever you wanted—write a novel, make a spreadsheet, play games, create music, or waste time on weird hobby projects. The openness wasn’t a bug, or even something anybody really thought about. It was just how computers were. It wasn’t just a PC thing, either—every computer on the market let you run what you wanted! It wasn’t just desktops and laptops, either; the nascent tablets and PDAs of the 1990s operated in just the same way.
Then came the iPhone, and with it, the App Store. Apple took the locked-down model and applied it to a computer you carry in your pocket. The promise was that you’d only get apps that were approved by Apple, with the implicit guarantee of a certain level of quality and functionality.
Apple is credited with pioneering the modern smartphone, and in turn, the walled garden that is the App Store. Credit: Apple
It was a bold move, and one that raised eyebrows among developers and technology commentators. But it worked. Consumers loved having access to a library of clean and functional apps, built right into the device. Meanwhile, they didn’t really care that they couldn’t run whatever kooky app some random on the Internet had dreamed up.
Apple sold the walled garden as a feature. It wasn’t ashamed or hiding the fact—it was proud of it. It promised apps with no viruses and no risks; a place where everything was curated and safe. The iPhone’s locked-down nature wasn’t a restriction; it was a selling point.
But it also meant Apple controlled everything. Every app paid Apple’s tax, and every update needed Apple’s permission. You couldn’t run software Apple didn’t approve, full stop. You might have paid for the device in your pocket, but you had no right to run what you wanted on it. Someone in Cupertino had the final say over that, not you.
When Android arrived on the scene, it offered the complete opposite concept to Apple’s control. It was open source, and based on Linux. You could load your own apps, install your own ROMs and even get root access to your device if you wanted. For a certain kind of user, that was appealing. Android would still offer an application catalogue of its own, curated by Google, but there was nothing stopping you just downloading other apps off the web, or running your own code.
Sadly, over the years, Android has been steadily walking back that openness. The justifications are always reasonable on their face. Security updates need to be mandatory because users are terrible at remembering to update. Sideloading apps need to come with warnings because users will absolutely install malware if you let them just click a button. Root access is too dangerous because it puts the security of the whole system and other apps at risk. But inch by inch, it gets harder to run what you want on the device you paid for.
Windows Watches and Waits
The walled garden has since become a contagion, with platforms outside the smartphone space considering the tantalizing possibilities of locking down. Microsoft has been testing the waters with the Microsoft Store for years now, with mixed results. Windows 10 tried to push it, and Windows 11 is trying harder. The store apps are supposedly more secure, sandboxed, easier to manage, and straightforward to install with the click of a button.
Microsoft has tried multiple times to sell versions of Windows that are locked to exclusively run apps from the Microsoft Store. Thus far, these attempts have been commercial failures.
Microsoft hasn’t pulled the trigger on fully locking down Windows. It’s flirted with the idea, but has seen little success. Windows RT and Windows 10 S were both locked to only run software signed by Microsoft—each found few takers. Desktop Windows remains stubbornly open, capable of running whatever executable you throw at it, even if it throws up a few more dialog boxes and question marks with every installer you run these days.
How long can this last? One hopes a great while yet. A great deal of users still expect a computer—a proper one, like a laptop or desktop—to run whatever mad thing they tell it to. However, there is an increasing userbase whose first experience of computing was in these locked-down tablet and smartphone environments. They aren’t so demanding about little things like proper filesystem access or the ability to run unsigned code. They might not blink if that goes away.
For now, desktop computing has the benefit of decades of tradition built in to it. Professional software, development tools, and specialized applications all depend on the ability to install whatever you need. Locking that down would break too many workflows for too many important customers. Masses of scientific users would flee to Linux the moment their obscure datalogger software couldn’t afford an official license to run on Windows;. Industrial users would baulk at having to rely on a clumsy Microsoft application store when bringing up new production lines.
Apple had the benefit that it was launching a new platform with the iPhone; one for which there were minimal expectations. In comparison, Microsoft would be climbing an almighty mountain to make the same move on the PC, where the culture is already so established. Apple could theoretically make moves in that direction with OS X and people would be perhaps less surprised, but it would still be company making a major shift when it comes to customer expectations of the product.
Here’s what bothers me most: we’re losing the idea that you can just try things with computers. That you can experiment. That you can learn by doing. That you can take a risk on some weird little program someone made in their spare time. All that goes away with the walled garden. Your neighbour can’t just whip up some fun gadget and share it with you without signing up for an SDK and paying developer fees. Your obscure game community can’t just write mods and share content because everything’s locked down. So much creativity gets squashed before it even hits the drawing board because it’s just not feasible to do it.
It’s hard to know how to fight this battle. So much ground has been lost already, and big companies are reluctant to listen to the esoteric wishers of the hackers and makers that actually care about the freedom to squirt whatever through their own CPUs. Ultimately, though, you can still vote with your wallet. Don’t let Personal Computing become Consumer Computing, where you’re only allowed to run code that paid the corporate toll. Make sure the computers you’re paying for are doing what you want, not just what the executives approved of for their own gain. It’s your computer, it should run what you want it to!
[…] “Dietary modifications could be a new, natural and cost-effective approach to achieve better sleep,[ …]
Previous studies have shown that getting too little sleep can drive people toward unhealthier eating patterns, often higher in fat and sugar. Yet, despite how sleep influences well-being and productivity, scientists have known far less about the reverse — how diet affects sleep itself.
While earlier research linked greater fruit and vegetable intake with people reporting better sleep, this study was the first to show a same-day relationship between diet and objectively measured sleep quality.
[…]
The scientists analyzed a measure called “sleep fragmentation,” which captures how often a person wakes up or shifts between lighter and deeper stages of sleep during the night.
What the Researchers Found
The results showed that daily eating habits were strongly connected to how well participants slept that night. Those who ate more fruits and vegetables — and consumed more complex carbohydrates such as whole grains — experienced longer periods of deep, undisturbed sleep.
According to the team’s analysis, people who met the CDC recommendation of five cups of fruits and vegetables per day could see an average 16 percent improvement in sleep quality compared with those who ate none.
“16 percent is a highly significant difference,” Tasali said. “It’s remarkable that such a meaningful change could be observed within less than 24 hours.”
[…]
Story Source:
Materials provided by University of Chicago Medical Center. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
Hedda L. Boege, Katherine D. Wilson, Jennifer M. Kilkus, Waveley Qiu, Bin Cheng, Kristen E. Wroblewski, Becky Tucker, Esra Tasali, Marie-Pierre St-Onge. Higher daytime intake of fruits and vegetables predicts less disrupted nighttime sleep in younger adults. Sleep Health, 2025; 11 (5): 590 DOI: 10.1016/j.sleh.2025.05.003
Researchers at Trinity College Dublin have uncovered what they call a “universal thermal performance curve” (UTPC), a pattern that appears to apply to every living species on Earth. This curve describes how organisms respond to changes in temperature, and it seems to hold true across the entire spectrum of life. According to the scientists, the UTPC effectively “shackles evolution” because no species appears capable of escaping its influence on how temperature affects biological performance.
[…]
Rising Heat and Falling Performance
The study revealed a consistent trend in how organisms respond to warmth:
Performance increases gradually as temperature rises until reaching a peak (the optimum point).
Beyond this optimum, performance drops sharply.
When temperatures climb too high, overheating can cause physiological breakdown or death.
These findings, published in the journal PNAS, suggest that species may face greater limits than previously thought when adapting to global climate change. As most regions continue to warm, the window of viable performance for many species could shrink.
One Curve, Many Temperatures
Andrew Jackson, Professor in Zoology in Trinity’s School of Natural Sciences, and co-author,said: “Across thousands of species and almost all groups of life including bacteria, plants, reptiles, fish and insects, the shape of the curve that describes how performance changes with temperature is very similar. However, different species have very different optimal temperatures, ranging from 5oC to 100oC, and their performance can vary a lot depending on the measure of performance being observed and the species in question.”
“That has led to countless variations on models being proposed to explain these differences. What we have shown here is that all the different curves are in fact the same exact curve, just stretched and shifted over different temperatures. And what’s more, we have shown that the optimal temperature and the critical maximum temperature at which death occurs are inextricably linked.”
“Whatever the species, it simply must have a smaller temperature range at which life is viable once temperatures shift above the optimum.”
[…]
Searching for the Exceptions
“The next step is to use this model as something of a benchmark to see if there are any species or systems we can find that may, subtly, break away from this pattern. If we find any, we will be excited to ask why and how they do it — especially given forecasts of how our climate is likely to keep warming in the next decades.”
Story Source:
Materials provided by Trinity College Dublin. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
Jean-François Arnoldi, Andrew L. Jackson, Ignacio Peralta-Maraver, Nicholas L. Payne. A universal thermal performance curve arises in biology and ecology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2025; 122 (43) DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2513099122
Networking researcher Christoff Visser has found that Apple devices cause Wi-Fi networks to “jitter” due to traffic generated by the Apple Wireless Direct Link (AWDL) tech that powers the peer-to-peer AirDrop filesharing tool.
Visser presented his findings on Tuesday at the RIPE 91 conference, the biannual internetworking event organized by RIPE NCC, the regional internet registry for Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia. In his talk, titled “Apple Wireless Direct Link: Apple’s Network Magic or Misery,” Visser explained that while using a new iPad he often encountered what he described as “very strange rhythmic stuttering” as he streamed audio to the device.
He used the Moonlight streaming test tool to investigate and found 20 millisecond latency, but with a 25 millisecond variance he felt was oddly high for the uncontested environment that is a local network. He next used Steam’s network testing tool, and found latency regularly bounced between three and 90 milliseconds. PING commands produced similar results, as did tests on different devices.
At this point, Visser felt confident his hardware and applications were not the reason for his streams stuttering.
Visser, who works at Japan’s IIJ Research Lab, dug into the situation and found AWDL constantly listens for requests to use AirDrop, and prefers to use certain “social” Wi-Fi channels – channel 6 for 2.4 GHz networks channels 44 and 149 for 5 GHz Wi-Fi.
As a networking engineer, Visser chose to use empty channels.
“It’s a big mistake,” he told the conference. “What ends up happening is that if you are not in one of these social channels, you get this periodic Wi-Fi channel swapping where it goes to the social channel, listens in [if] anybody wants to talk to it and swaps back to create very rhythmic stuttering.”
Visser suggested one way to avoid the issue is not to use AWDL but acknowledged that doing so means users of Apple devices will have to do without AirDrop and other Cupertino tricks like using an iPad as an external monitor for a Mac or mirroring an iPhone screen.
He doesn’t think cutting users off from those services is practical.
“There’s approximately over 1.5 billion other iPhone users in the world and are you really going to tell your users in your network ‘Don’t use the features on these Apple devices’. It’s not really a solution.
“The other option is to do the Apple way of networking, so for the best experience you use the same Wi-Fi channels as everybody else, or you will suffer from jitter at some point.”
He ended his talk by expressing his concerns about Apple’s ecosystem.
“There’s a lot of convenience, as I described,” he said. “The question is really: Is this convenience worth disruption?”
His answer was “For most things sure, it doesn’t matter too much.”
But he feels it will matter to more people in future.
“Cloud gaming and remote gaming is growing bigger and bigger and they are trying to push high fidelity, bigger bit rate, if you are trying to do 4k HDR at 120 FPS, yes you are going to start to feel these delays and packet loss more and more.”
“It makes me uncomfortable because it really promotes bad network practices like not using the best channels to actually improve your end user experience,” he added.
He therefore grudgingly recommended using the Wi-Fi channels Apple uses, and expressed his hope that any folks from ISPs in the audience can learn from his experience so that if their customers experience network jitters they now have an explanation.
Data-center developers are running into a severe power bottleneck as they rush to build bigger facilities to capitalize on generative AI’s potential. Normally, they would power these centers by connecting to the grid or building a power plant onsite. However, they face major delays in either securing gas turbines or in obtaining energy from the grid.
At the Data Center World Power show in San Antonio in October, natural-gas power provider ProEnergy revealed an alternative—repurposed aviation engines. According to Landon Tessmer, vice president of commercial operations at ProEnergy, some data centers are using his company’s PE6000 gas turbines to provide the power needed during the data center’s construction and during its first few years of operation. When grid power is available, these machines either revert to a backup role, supplement the grid, or are sold to the local utility.
“We have sold 21 gas turbines for two data-center projects amounting to more than 1 gigawatt,” says Tessmer. “Both projects are expected to provide bridging power for five to seven years, which is when they expect to have grid interconnection and no longer need permanent behind-the-meter generation.”
[…]
It is a common and long-established practice for gas-turbine original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) like GE Vernova and Siemens Energy to convert a successful aircraft engine for stationary electric-power generation applications. Known as aeroderivative gas turbines[…] “It takes a lot to industrialize an aviation engine and make it generate power,” […] To make it suitable for power generation, it needed an expanded turbine section to convert engine thrust into shaft power, a series of struts and supports to mount it on a concrete deck or steel frame, and new controls. Further modifications typically include the development of fuel nozzles that let the machine run on natural gas rather than aviation fuel, and a combustor that minimizes the emission of nitrogen oxides, a major pollutant.
[…]
ProEnergy buys and overhauls used CF6-80C2 engine cores—the central part of the engine where combustion occurs—and matches them with newly manufactured aeroderivative parts made either by ProEnergy or its partners. After assembly and testing, these refurbished engines are ready for a second life in electric-power generation, where they provide 48 megawatts, enough to power a small-to-medium data center (or a town of perhaps 20,000 to 40,000 households). According to Tessmer, approximately 1,000 of these aircraft engines are expected to be retired over the next decade, so there’s no shortage of them. A large data center may have demand that exceeds 100 MW, and some of the latest data centers being designed for AI are more than 1 GW.
[…]
ProEnergy sells two-turbine blocks with the standard configuration. It consists of gas turbines, generators, and a host of other gear, such as systems to cool the air entering the turbine during hot days as a way to boost performance, selective catalytic reduction systems to reduce emissions, and various electrical systems.
