Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with Amazon. When you click a link and make a purchase, we may receive a small payment, which helps us keep the site running.
While watching a YouTube video I saw an advert for the Plaud AI Note Taker [1]. The Plaud device looks pretty good for what it does, taking notes and managing them, using some sort of LLM function to manage the notes. The devices all cost about $300 which is an amount that doesn’t seem unreasonable for someone who’s in a lot of meetings. One of the models is the “NotePin” that seems comparable to the Humane AI Pin I previously blogged about [2].
The business model for Plaud is based on only allowing 5 hours per month of free transcriptions, then charging $16.25/month for 20 hours per month and $33.33/month for unlimited use. That’s quite expensive for any serious use.
The number of people in the market for an audio recording system that automatically transcribes things may be greater than the number of people in the market for all the stuff that the Humane AI Pin did, but it still may not be enough to run a profitable business when competing with apps on mobile phones.
While the product does look decent it seems that they are making the same mistakes as the original Humane developers did, of wanting to lock it down as a subscription based service which reduces the usability of the device. If they had sold an Android hand-held computer with their own app pre-loaded and allowed the user to install a different app then it would have been much more usable. If they had sold Android devices designed for the note taking market and allowed people to choose their own apps to install then their products would have a much longer life expectancy.
The majority of Android devices in use are probably out of support but still working while the Humane AI pin can’t be used any more and at some time in the not too distant future the Plaud devices will also become unusable. People who buy devices like the Plaud seem to be unaware of the history of such things and the expected future for them. But possibly some people just consider $300 for a year of use to be an acceptable price. If someone wanted to purchase a new high end phone every year and sell their previous one they would probably have a net cost of about $500/year.
Maybe I should look for work with a company with an implausible AI based business plan. It would be fun developing such a device if you weren’t emotionally invested in the project. Just develop new technology, earn a heap of money, play with fun computers, and move on to the next thing when it collapses. Just like all the Internet companies about 25 years ago.
Related posts:
After getting a HP Z4 G4 tower server/workstation to house my Intel Battlemage GPU [1] I’ve been playing around with some GPU stuff. For years I’ve been just buying GPUs based on the resolution and price and not bothering about anything else due to lack of ability to measure what cards are doing. The nvidia-smi program is really good for NVidia/CUDA setups but I hadn’t been aware of anything similar for AMD cards. As I prefer AMD cards for my workstations due to driver issues with NVidia that was a problem for me.
I’ve recently discovered that the program nvtop (Debian package nvtop) shows the GPU use of multiple GPU types, for me it’s worked on AMD and Intel discrete GPUs and shows some information on Intel integrated GPUs, I don’t have others convenient for testing at the moment. Currently BOINC has the Einstein@Home [2] project running on the HP Z4 G4 and it’s using between 66% and 100% of GPU compute power and 1.6G of GPU RAM. Using 100% GPU compute power allegedly takes 62W of power out of the 190W quoted TDP. I presume that the power use reported by nvtop is very inaccurate.
A friend installed a LLM on that system and the libraries used for the LLM were sufficient that BOINC just started using the GPU.
On my workstation running an AMD “[Radeon RX 460/560D / Pro 450/455/460/555/555X/560/560X]” (actually R560) with 4G of GPU RAM I have mpv taking 1G of GPU RAM to play a FullHD video expanded to a full screen window on my 5120*2160 display. I also have about 2G used by the kwin_wayland process (the Wayland server for KDE). That doesn’t leave enough GPU RAM to allow Einstein@Home to use the GPU. When playing the FullHD video in question (which is 1.2G for 42 minutes – about 500KB/s) at 1.5* speed (a common playback speed I use) that takes about 30% of the compute power on my GPU.
I had installed the rocm-opencl-icd package on my workstation (with a 5120*2160 monitor) and restarted boinc-client.service which is all that’s needed to allow BOINC to use an AMD GPU. Then the screen started flickering as the Einstein process repeatedly core dumped which I initially assumed to be it’s reaction to not having enough GPU RAM available. On every core dump the screen flickered so it went through a process of dozens of screen flickers until it had caused a sufficient number of core dumps and BOINC gave up running that job.
Another annoyance is that the boincmgr program (the graphical program for managing BOINC systems) launches two webkit processes that each use about 400M of GPU RAM, so even if other things weren’t using all my GPU RAM the boincmgr process would stop the BOINC jobs from using the GPU. I shut down some of the programs that were using GPU RAM until there was 2G free and the BOINC process kept crashing so it seems that there is some other issue.
On another system with a 4K monitor there were Chrome and Chromium GPU process taking 1.1G and 500M of GPU RAM respectively and the KWin Wayland process was taking 1G of GPU RAM. So that’s well over half the GPU RAM for just browsers and Wayland. With programs like Kitty (terminal emulator) and Nheko (Matrix client) taking over 100M of GPU RAM it seems that 4G is the bare minimum for GPU RAM with modern software and a 4K or similar display.
I also noticed the kscreenlocker_greet process taking 440M of GPU RAM. I wonder if a hostile web server could make a web browser take more GPU RAM and starve the screenlocker of GPU RAM, could that allow forcing a screen lock operation to fail?
It seems that 4G is the minimum for modern systems, which isn’t necessarily a problem as GPUs that are capable of driving 4K displays tend to have no less than 4G. My local computer store has new GPUs with 4G starting at $120 but 12G seems to be the next option up which starts at about $400.
Ebay currently has a selection of AMD GPUs with 8G of RAM under $200. I’ve had some problems with the GPU in my workstation crashing as described in my previous post where I thought it was driver issues [3]. I now believe that there are hardware issues and will look into buying one of the cards with 8G.
I need to determine which of the AMD GPUs that are currently going cheap on ebay are best. While my current PC has support for 150W PCIe power I’d rather something less power hungry than that. I have occasional issues of mpv reporting that my system is too slow for a video so slightly more compute power on the GPU would be good, but I think that every available option has significantly more compute power.
I need to find out what the relationship is between screen resolution and GPU memory. If I get an 8K display or an array of 4*4K displays (which is quite plausible as 27″ 4K displays go for $230 each) will I find 16G of GPU RAM as limiting as I find 4G now?
The nvtop program tracks PCIe data transfers for AMD GPUs, I haven’t yet seen more than 25MB/s and I need to do more tests to see what the maximum is. Running on an Intel Battlemage card nvtop doesn’t report PCIe data transfer speed which is a missing feature in either the driver or the program. I need to find out where the problem is and report a bug if someone hasn’t already done so.
The GPU RAM use of some applications seems excessive. 440M for a lockscreen? 100M+ for a terminal emulator? 320M for Thunderbird?
Related posts:
I previously wrote about the upcoming UEFI CA rollover. Well, it's happened now - the old Microsoft UEFI CA from 2011 expired yesterday:
Third Party Marketplace Root (used for signing option ROMs and other software)
Log in
Subject: C=US, ST=Washington, L=Redmond, O=Microsoft Corporation, CN=Microsoft Corporation UEFI CA 2011
Validity
Not Before: Jun 27 21:22:45 2011 GMT
Not After : Jun 27 21:32:45 2026 GMT
It's dead - it's not coming back...
The world doesn't seem to have ended yesterday, so I guess we did ok? :-)
After a lot of prodding behind the scenes, Debian and many other distributions managed to get new shim binaries dual-signed with both the old and new CAs. The members of the shim-review team did a sterling job with reviews in the last few weeks. Since I started pushing people in May, we've had 21 reviews accepted successfully - see here for the list. Great stuff! Microsoft have also been working quickly - many of those shim submissions were accepted and signed by Microsoft very quickly too, with a turnaround time of less than 1 day in some cases.
Not all of those signed shims have been published and used by the distros involved yet, but expect to see them in the wild in the coming weeks and months.
These binaries should be good for people to use for the foreseeable future, until either we need to do another CA rollover or (sadly, more likely) we find an issue in shim that necessitates a new release.
We already have one of our new dual-signed shim
binaries in place in Debian, in unstable and testing (Forky) right
now. In a couple of weeks from now, we'll be rolling out very similar
new dual-signed shim binaries in the next point releases for Debian 12
(bookworm) and Debian 13 (trixie). We'll also be
upgrading fwupd in both those point releases, to make DB
and KEK updates work better.
For more information about these updates, see https://wiki.debian.org/SecureBoot/CAChanges. For your own safety, validate that your systems are updated when possible. If you don't, they may fail to boot in future.
I had intended that the next release of onak, my OpenPGP keyserver, would be 0.7.0, and include OpenPGP v6 support (RFC9580). However events conspired to make a 0.6.5 release a really good idea.
Firstly, I threw an LLM at the code base and asked it to review it. This isn’t intended to be a post about LLMs, but there’s a considerable amount of pressure at work to be “AI native”. I’m very much an “AI” sceptic, so I figured throwing it at a code base I know well might be an interesting exercise. It did find a bunch of embarrassing mistakes, but I don’t think there was anything earth shattering that a human reviewer wouldn’t have pulled me on. The problem is with a hobby project with a single user there’s no actual review of my work.
I also enabled GitHub’s security scanning. It mostly complained about format strings, and those were easy enough to fix up.
Next I threw AFLplusplus at the code. I’d previously tried American Fuzzy Lop, but not in some time. AFL++ found a whole bunch of places I should really have checked available buffer lengths and wasn’t doing so. It really is an incredibly easy tool to get up and running.
valgrind is also a tool I’ve used before, and rate highly. Thankfully it didn’t find anything in my testing this time.
Finally I threw a few more automated tests into the mix and discovered something has changed around dynamic linking such that the libonak symbols in the dynamic key database backends were using private copies, rather than the main binary. This caused problems with seeing the correct configuration settings in some instances.
All in all this release is not my proudest moment; a bunch of the issues fixed should never have made it to a release.
(Also, just to explicitly state it, all the actual code in this release was artisanly crafted by me, in vim. The only involvement of an LLM was for a review pass.)
Available locally or via GitHub.
0.6.5 - 27th June 2026
- Lots of fixes/improvements around length checking
- Added extra basic tests for maxpaths/sixdegrees/CGI
- Correctly end transactions in the stacked backend
- Ensure the file backend avoids stale key data on updates
- Fix decoding of v2/3 signature creation times
- Fix EdDSA signature parsing when r < 249 bits long
- Fix migration of bools from old to new config style
- Fix parsing of new config details for DB parameters
- Fix problems with linking + dynamic backends
- Fix RSA-SHA2-384 signature checking
- Fix sixdegrees parsing of keyids with high bit set
- Handle failures in maxpath more gracefully
- Make new style config path match old path
Review: The Folded Sky, by Elizabeth Bear
| Series: | White Space #3 |
| Publisher: | Saga Press |
| Copyright: | June 2025 |
| ISBN: | 1-6680-7812-0 |
| Format: | Kindle |
| Pages: | 483 |
The Folded Sky is a far-future space opera and a fairly direct sequel to Ancestral Night, but with a different protagonist. You do not need to have a vivid memory of the previous book to read this one. It is somewhere around Elizabeth Bear's 31st (!) novel, depending on how one counts and what one includes.
Sunyata Song is an archinformist, which is sort of an archaeologist, sort of a librarian, and sort of a historian. She recovers, decodes, and organizes information so that it can be preserved and made usefully available. As the book opens, she is, after an exceedingly long white space journey in an actively hostile ship with a (to Sunya at least) an atavistically off-putting crew, reaching her goal: a vast artifact that I won't describe further to avoid any spoilers for Ancestral Night. She is eager to get to work, an eagerness that is both heightened and made more anxious by the discovery that her academic rival and abusive ex has arrived before her. The pirate attack doesn't help, nor (at least at first) does the surprise appearance of her wife and kids.
The opening of this book is a lot of infodumping mixed with nearly stream-of-consciousness emotional dumping. The style shift in this series continues to surprise me; previously, Elizabeth Bear books avoided reader hand-holding to the point of bafflement if you weren't paying close attention. Not here. The Folded Sky takes the shift perhaps too far, and I almost stalled out at the start of this book when Sunya's near-constant self-conscious litany and analysis of fears and concerns started feeling like whining.
The book picks up considerably after the attempted murder.
About a third of the way through, The Folded Sky feels like it's settling into a recognizable subgenre of murder mystery except set in the far future with fascinating technology and aliens. There has been an attempted murder on a closed station besieged by pirates. There is a law enforcement officer present, but they don't have a lot of investigative experience. For various reasons, Sunya decides to start poking around while being conscious she has no idea what she's doing. The bumbling detective is a common trope, so I thought that was where the story was headed.
It is, sort of. There is a mystery and Sunya is involved in solving it. But that's only a small fraction of what's going on, and by the end of the book the plot has shifted firmly back to the genre of space opera, with a side note of family... drama is the wrong word. Whatever one would call a story about raising a rebellious teenager while trying very hard to not turn conflicts into actual drama.
I am fascinated by the characterization of this book. Sunya is something of an emotional mess, but Bear doesn't use that fact in the ways that I would normally expect. Similar to Ancestral Night, I finished this book thinking that The Folded Sky is primarily an examination of rightminding, but a more subtle one than the previous novel.
Rightminding is a central technology of the White Space series, and I suspect its intended thematic core. Humans in this civilization are equipped with near-universal implants that allow conscious manipulation of one's neurotransmitters and thus emotional state, either by the wearer or by a helpful nearby AI. The fox, the implant used to accomplish this, comes with some other features such as sensory recordings and the ability to load ayatanas (James White–style personality recordings to provide some bit of necessary expertise), but rightminding is its primary and most frequently-used function. It is the critical technology that allowed humans to break out of cycles of endless war and join the other peaceful inhabitants of the galaxy in a shared civilization.
The name is (intentionally, I assume) Orwellian because Bear knows that many readers, particularly those from the US who have been steeped in simplistic libertarian ideas, will find the idea profoundly creepy. (This was a major plot point in Grail.) This book is not the argument for the technology, though; Bear dealt with that in Ancestral Night. This book is a look at its practical messiness for a person who needs a lot of psychological support.
Sunya is anxious, prone to catastrophizing, hates surprises, has some PTSD-style symptoms around space habitats due to earlier trauma, and is also dealing with the unwelcome reappearance of her ex-girlfriend who stole her work. Her first-person narration tends towards insecurity and anxiety spirals, and in another book this might signal an unreliable narrator. In this book, though, there are no dramatic emotional revelations or backstory twists the way there were in Ancestral Night, and the resolution of her troubled relationship with her daughter only partly hinges on plot developments. Instead, Sunya muddles through, with a lot of self-analysis, help from her fox, and a great deal of support from her wife.
This makes it sounds like the emotional mess at the start of the book is left unresolved at the end, but that's not true at all. The muddling through works! Sunya keeps doing things that I thought were foreshadowing some catastrophe, but she knows herself better than the reader does. Bear largely avoids the sudden ruptures that are normally used to resolve emotional problems in fiction. Instead, Sunya spends a lot of time and energy working on her thinking and her relationships while trying to be ethical and useful, and those efforts slowly bear fruit.
I'm worried this makes the book sound boring; rest assured that it isn't. This emotional subplot is only an undercurrent in the novel, and the main plot has enough weird science, alien aliens, and space opera drama to satisfy my page-turning desires.
I'm focusing on the emotional arc in this review because I find it so unusual and so oddly compelling, particularly in retrospect. This is not how one normally does emotional development in a novel. Sunya's fox and rightminding aren't even the focus except when the pirates express their typical libertarian disgust for the idea. Rightminding is an entirely normal part of Sunya's life that she relies on. It doesn't solve all of her problems, but it gives her a foundation from which to tackle them in the slow and frustrating and inconsistent way that is required outside of novels, via a long series of small decisions to be the person she wants to be.
I think The Folded Sky will be more hit and miss for readers than the other books of this series. Sunya was, for me at least, a much harder character to like early in the book, and it takes quite a while for the plot to get going. But this is one of those books that I've not stopped thinking about since I finished it. I think it makes a fascinating pair with Ancestral Night. The first book makes the philosophical argument for rightminding, and this book shows the practical reality with all of its messiness. The Synarche has some significant flaws (including the status of AIs, which is another interesting subplot), but it's a workable system.
It feels rare to read a science fiction novel that shows this level of messiness without pairing it with an argument for radical change, and as frustrating as it was to read in places, I am intrigued by the overall effect. Sometimes acknowledging problems and working on them within an existing framework works.
Followed by a book tentatively titled Shipwreck Star that does not yet have a release date.
Rating: 7 out of 10
Please consider supporting my work in Debian and elsewhere through Liberapay.
Some months ago I started working on a small experiment: a specialised LLM assistant for Debian maintainers preparing proposed updates for stable and oldstable.
The aim is not to replace review by the Stable Release Managers, nor to automate away maintainer judgement. It is meant to be a pre-advice tool: something maintainers can use while they are still preparing a proposed update, before sending it to other people to review.
If you’ve uploaded to stable before you may have some experience with our acceptance criteria. Does the version sort correctly? Is the changelog clear enough? Is the delta focused? Are the patches documented? Are the right bugs or CVEs mentioned? Are they of sufficient severity? What is the risk to users of stable? Is there an ABI change hiding in the diff?
These are the sort of checks where a structured first pass can be useful, provided it is treated as advice rather than authority.
To explain what the tool does, what could be more appropriate in an AI age than to ask it?
Describe yourself and your abilities and limitations for a blog post.
It answers:
I’m Debian Stable Update Adviser, a specialised ChatGPT assistant for Debian maintainers preparing proposed updates for Debian stable and oldstable.
My main job is to review a single
.debdiffand give practical, policy-aware feedback before a maintainer submits or uploads a proposed update. I focus on whether the update appears suitable for Debian stable or oldstable, especially under the Stable Release Managers’ expectations for minimal, targeted, low-risk changes.I can inspect a debdiff for Debian changelog quality, including suite, version, bug references, CVE mentions, and rationale. I can check version correctness using Debian
dpkgversion semantics. I can review packaging changes underdebian/, such as patches, maintscripts, symbols files, conffiles, Build-Depends, autopkgtests, and control metadata. I can also group upstream source changes into behavioural and non-behavioural categories, and flag areas that may carry regression risk.My reports are intended to be concise and useful to maintainers. A typical review includes a quick summary, behavioural and non-behavioural change breakdown, mechanical policy checks, risk assessment, stable-policy checklist, acceptance likelihood, rationale, maintainer advice, and a clear conclusion.
My limitations are important. I cannot prove that a package builds, that tests pass, that the bug is fully fixed, or that the Stable Release Managers will accept the upload. I also do not replace maintainer judgment, archive review, autopkgtest results, reproducibility checks, or real-world upgrade testing. I can only review the provided debdiff and point out likely issues, risks, and improvements.
I also do not proceed without a valid debdiff. The whole point of my review is to assess the actual proposed delta, not to speculate from package names or bug descriptions alone.
In short, I act as a focused pre-review assistant for Debian stable and oldstable proposed updates: useful for catching policy, versioning, changelog, packaging, and regression-risk issues early, but not a substitute for the Debian review process itself.
That last point is an important one. This is not an oracle, and it is not part of the Debian archive machinery. It is a checklist with some language-model assistance, aimed at reading a debdiff and pointing out things that might be worth another look.
I know that commercial AI and LLM tools are not universally welcome in Debian. That is understandable. Debian depends on transparency, human responsibility, licensing clarity, and technical correctness. LLMs have obvious problems in all of those areas. They can be wrong, and worse, they can be wrong in a fluent and plausible way. They are impossible to reproduce and their training is opaque.
But I see this as a useful first pass for a maintainer who is unused to working in stable, and would benefit from a virtual mentor giving their proposal a quick check and reassurance. Perhaps they don’t have a more experienced co-maintainer to ask. Perhaps they are conscious that stable reviews are presently a two-man effort and want to avoid adding round trips to that load. Perhaps they just need some reassurance.
So despite my reservations I am today opening the adviser up for general use, and I’m interested in feedback about how it responds to real world proposals in various states. Most of the examples I have tested with already had a green light, so the value added by the adviser is limited. I would especially be interested in seeing a transcript alongside the submitted debdiff.
I would dearly love to build this in a more Debian-ish environment, but for now I’m limited in resources and skill to do that (help is welcome). Until that’s a reality, you can try out the ChatGPT implementation: Debian Stable Update Adviser
In our forecast, we had assumed a price hike of $100 to Pro and Pro Max models, and $50 hike to base models–-however, seeing the price hikes today to iPad and Macs going as high as $300 for some models, my personal instinct says the hike to iPhones may be even higher than what we assumed–-perhaps even $200 to the Pro/Pro Max models. I think the days of $50 price increases are over.
We don't believe this kind of government access process should become the long-term default. It keeps the best tools from users, developers, enterprises, cyber defenders, and global partners who need them. We are taking this short-term step because we believe it is the strongest path to broader availability in the coming weeks, while we work with the Administration to develop the cyber Executive Order framework and a repeatable process for future model releases.
Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with Amazon. When you click a link and make a purchase, we may receive a small payment, which helps us keep the site running.
Screenshot showing ability to change Taskbar size[/caption]
Thanks,
Stephen and the Windows Insider Program team
We told a couple of the customers who were being very aggressive with pricing at that time that this is not constructive. A lot of the industry investments got shut down in 2023 because of really poor pricing and really poor margins.
Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with Amazon. When you click a link and make a purchase, we may receive a small payment, which helps us keep the site running.
The diffoscope maintainers are pleased to announce the release of diffoscope
version 322. This version includes the following changes:
[ Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ]
* Add a local version of the (deprecated) os.path.commonprefix method.
You find out more by visiting the project homepage.
In a social media post today, Apple CEO Tim Cook said Apple will be donating to relief efforts on the ground in Venezuela after the country was hit by two catastrophic earthquakes this week.
iRing thing under development. What a surprise.
— Kosutami (@Kosutami_Ito) June 24, 2026
Review: Platform Decay, by Martha Wells
| Series: | Murderbot Diaries #8 |
| Publisher: | Tor |
| Copyright: | 2026 |
| ISBN: | 1-250-82701-9 |
| Format: | Kindle |
| Pages: | 245 |
Platform Decay is the eighth book in the Murderbot science fiction series. You absolutely should not start here, but you also don't need to remember the specifics of the previous books.
As the story opens, Murderbot and a friend (the identity of whom is a spoiler for previous books) are infiltrating a Corporation Rim torus, a massive space station that encircles a mined-out planet. (Like most science fiction megastructures, this is more space than the plot really requires.) Murderbot's mission is to exfiltrate some of Dr. Mensah's family members who have become entangled in corporate shenanigans. The corporates are eager to get revenge for the events of System Collapse, not to mention the other times Preservation Station has upended corporate plans. Murderbot's job is to stop them.
The group, in addition to one of Dr. Mensah's partners, includes an older woman and a young child. Murderbot is analytical and of course not at all emotional about children, which is reliably a good time. Also, the older woman is gruff, stubborn, and thoroughly enjoyable.
There are, of course, complications that lead to picking up more children and going through rather more of the torus than Murderbot wanted to explore. Each section of the torus is run by a different corporation and has a different constructed environment and visual aesthetic, so there are a lot of opportunities for fights, daring escapes, and incidental trouble.
Also, well:
So I had installed a mental health module. I know, I was surprised I did it too.
After the events of System Collapse, University Medical decided that Murderbot needed a bit more metal health support.
The only reason I agreed to it was that the mental health module didn't actually try to adjust my processing or core programming or anything; it just monitored my organic neural tissue. When my neural tissue started to generate weird chemicals and whatever, it would ping me to "check in with my emotional state." Seriously, I could have coded that myself.
(I told Dr. Bharadwaj that, and she said, "Would you have ever coded that yourself?" which was totally unfair and also correct. I would never have done that.)
Speaking as someone whose neural tissue sometimes generates weird chemicals and whatever, I sympathize.
The specific form this module takes is periodic "emotion check" parentheticals throughout the narration, which I found utterly delightful.
I ran that through risk assessment and it produced the equivalent of a shrug.
(Emotion check: Shrug sigil right back at you, you piece of shit.)
This is otherwise an extended action movie sort of a book, much like several of the early novellas. There are no major political or interpersonal developments here and the usual cast (apart from Murderbot) is mostly absent. Instead, we get an extended, dangerous journey through a corporation-controlled habitat, mixed with Murderbot trying to interact with humans in a way that minimizes its annoyance while being hopefully reassuring. It's competence porn with awkward but surprisingly heartfelt emotional bonding, not that Murderbot in any way wants to bond or would appreciate that description.
I doubt this will be anyone's favorite entry into the series since there are none of the big reveals or major leaps of character development there have been in the past few books. But, like all Murderbot books, the narrative tone is wonderful and all of the small asides and little moments of character interaction are an utter delight. If you've gotten this far in the series, you know what I mean and you'll be as happy to read more of it as I was. There is a part of me that is hoping for some major plot development, and I always want to see more of ART (who has no significant role in this book), but Wells has the narrative style down so perfectly that I would read and enjoy a book about Murderbot doing just about anything.
If you're this far in the series, you probably don't need a review, and since this is an action-heavy adventure rather than a character growth novel, I don't have a lot more to add. There's a new short Murderbot novel out and you want to read it. Recommended to everyone who enjoys the series.
Rating: 8 out of 10
