Battlefield 6 status: server issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Battlefield 6 reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Battlefield 6 users through our website.

• Sign in (42%)
• Online Play (28%)
• Glitches (14%)
• Game Crash (8%)
• Matchmaking (7%)
• Hacking / Cheating (0%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Battlefield 6 outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Lyon	Online Play	21 hours ago
Persan	Sign in	2 days ago
Metz	Sign in	2 days ago
Lyon	Matchmaking	2 days ago
Aubais	Online Play	4 days ago
Toulouse	Glitches	5 days ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Battlefield 6 Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  عٰ 🙋🏻‍♂️ (@wqw_x1) reported 1 minute ago

  @Battlefield If the server issues are not resolved, Battlefield risks losing a significant portion of its player base. With the new Call of Duty just around the corner, many players may choose to move on if these problems continue.

• 
  The Gangsta Gaming (@TheGangstaGamin) reported 2 minutes ago

  @BrokenMachine @BattlefieldComm Was happening to me yesterday. Haven't had any issues like that for BF6s entire lifespan but suddenly stuttering everywhere on base PS5

• 
  yees (@yeesFU) reported 8 minutes ago

  @aguyonhischair @Battlefield @BattlefieldComm It doesn't have a heavy SBMM. Doesn't mean it's broken. Go back to Cod if you want to play with other scrubs.

• 
  CalvZynisT (@CalvZynisT) reported 8 minutes ago

  I will never understand this battlefield 6 packet loss issue. I play for a week it’s fine. All of a sudden, 60% or more packet loss every game mode. Cleared the shaders, cleared the cache, cleared a couple things with my internet, reset modem. No dice. (No pun intended) @Battlefield

• 
  Imsarrr (@Imsarrr1) reported 12 minutes ago

  @EA_DICE @Battlefield sooooo are you guys EVER gonna fix the bugs on casual breakthrough pr are you just gonna ignore them because the main player base plays the other game modes specifically conquest and breakthrough. Examples the F16 that you CANT get into in Outpost Ardanis, even though its an option. The fact that if I'm in a party with 2 or more friends we have to back out and restart a match 9 out of 10 times because it doesn't pull everybody into the match. The RAMPANT USE of Cronus on Xbox. And all of the other major bugs in this game specifically hit markers and ttk and splash damage Above All Else. The fact that I can hit a player right at the feet with an RPG and only get a hit marker and then get killed. The fact that I can shoot a main battle tank round at a group of players and only get hit markers, Direct Hits only or multiple hit markers from the ifv to kill one person smae with the MBT...the fact that you get HIT MARKERS with headhots FROM A .50 CAL machine gun. The inconsistency of total damage against Vehicles no matter where you hit them or what rocket or missile launcher you using to damage armored vehicles..... the list is endless.... even all of the major complaints from all of the main content creators and streamers that are the only people you give a **** about even then you still ignore them with the issues and bugs in this game. You talked all that **** and trolled the hell out of Call of Duty for a few months leading up to the launch of this game and it ended up actually being worse than Call of Duty..... I've never played an FPS game like this with this many bugs....thats disgraceful. Do better. You have always been better than Call of Duty up until this game thanks for making me waste $70 on the base game and then other in game microtransactions

• 
  Pr0ve Me Wrong (@Exiting12DJail) reported 12 minutes ago

  THE UNIVERSAL REMEDY EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW — PART 1 How to Hold Police Officers Accountable Under Penalty of Perjury In my last post, I exposed what the Mollen Commission proved: the system lies. Officers perjure themselves. Prosecutors ignore it. Supervisors look the other way. Good cops are silenced; bad cops get promoted. Now that we know the problem, the question is simple: What can you do about it? This post provides a practicable, step‑by‑step blueprint for interacting with police officers in a courtroom. "What about prosecutors?" you might ask. That is the subject of my next post—a separate, detailed blueprint for holding prosecutors accountable when they file charges or represent the state. But first, let's start where most of us encounter the system: with law enforcement. 1. A Note on Where This Blueprint Applies This post is a blueprint for formal, recorded interactions—specifically, interactions that take place in a courtroom or other official proceeding. It is not a blueprint for a roadside traffic stop, a field interview, or any other informal encounter where there is no judge, no record, and no procedural framework. The dynamic is completely different. If you would like a post outlining how to handle a roadside encounter—including how to assert your rights without escalating the situation—let me know in the comments. I will put together a separate blueprint for that scenario. For now, this post is for the courtroom. 2. The Core Principle Unverified complaints are worthless. Sworn testimony is the gold standard. Legally, an unsworn complaint carries no evidentiary weight and creates no personal accountability. It is nothing more than an allegation on paper — a claim with no liability attached. A verified complaint is different. It is sworn under penalty of perjury. It carries consequences. It creates accountability. That is why the remedy begins here: Demand a verified complaint — sworn, signed, and personally accountable. Sworn statements carry penalties for perjury. Unsworn allegations do not. 3. What a Verified Complaint Looks Like A verified complaint is a sworn statement, signed under oath, with a declaration like: "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct." Key elements: - The accuser's name and signature - Names of any witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the events - A declaration that the statement is made under penalty of perjury - The date of signing - Specific factual allegations based on firsthand knowledge Why this matters: A verified complaint creates personal accountability for the officer. If the complaint contains false statements, the officer can be prosecuted for perjury or false statements. 4. Why We Ask Questions Instead of Making Statements Most people walk into a courtroom believing they must defend themselves. They accept the label "defendant" without ever asking whether that label reflects the truth of the situation. But here is a thought I have wrestled with for years — a question that reveals the inversion at the heart of the system: "If the state makes the claim, and the burden always lies with the party who asserts a claim, then doesn't the state have the burden to prove its case? And if the state must prove its claim, who is the real defendant?" This question exposes the contradiction. Procedurally, the court calls you the defendant. Logically, you have made no claims. Strategically, you have nothing to defend. Morally, you stand in truth, not illusion. The state made the allegation. The state carries the burden. The state must prove its claim. Your role is not to defend yourself — your role is to examine the claim. And you do that by asking questions. Questions: - do not shift burden - do not concede anything - do not create liability - do not strengthen the accusation Questions keep the burden exactly where it belongs: on the party who made the allegation. This is pure strategy — the same strategy Sun Tzu taught: "The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him." You impose your will by asking questions. You avoid their will by refusing to make claims. You are not defending. You are examining. You are not on the stand. They are. 5. Cause and Effect: Why You Must Only Ask Questions Most people instinctively answer questions when they are asked. It feels natural, even polite. That is exactly what the system wants. When you answer their questions or make statements in response to their accusations, you are following their script, their narrative, and their will. You are on their turf. You are playing their game. You are defending—and when you defend, you lose. Here is the cause and effect: What You Do = What Actually Happens You answer their questions= You are following their script. You are on their turf. You are accepting their framing. You make statements = You are making claims that can be challenged, twisted, or used against you. You only ask questions = You impose your will on the encounter. You control the narrative. You force them to defend their claims. The principle is simple: "He who asks the questions controls the conversation." "He who answers questions follows the other's script." When you answer questions, you are giving them the power to define the narrative. You are accepting their version of events, their framing, and their assumptions. Even if you are telling the truth, you are doing it on their terms. When you ask questions, you take that power back. You decide what topics to address. You decide when and how to address them. You are no longer defending—you are examining. You are not on the stand. They are. 6. Statements Are Claims. Questions Are Not. When you make a statement, you are making a claim. That claim can be challenged, twisted, or used against you. When you ask a question, you are placing the burden on the other person. They must answer. They must explain. They must commit—or back down. That is why I frame every legal citation as a question. Example: "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, any materially false statement made under oath constitutes perjury, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison?" You are not asserting the law. You are asking them to confirm the law. If they say "yes," they have acknowledged the consequences. If they say "no," they reveal ignorance. Either way, you have not made a claim—you have asked a question. 7. Using Case Law Without Making Claims Most people use case law incorrectly. They quote precedent as statements, which means they are making claims — and claims create burden. For example, many people say: "This case says I have the right to travel." That is a claim. It is an argument. It puts burden on you. It invites conflict. It places you in a defensive posture. But there is a better way — the remedy way. You convert precedent into a question, not a statement: "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that in [insert case] the court recognized the right to travel?" You did not make a claim. You did not argue. You simply asked them to confirm their own precedent. If they say yes, they acknowledge the authority of their own case law. If they say no, they reveal ignorance of their own system. Either way: You have not made a claim — you have asked a question. This is how you use their statutes, codes, regulations, and case law—without ever stepping into the trap of making claims. You use their system against itself, but you do it in the form of a question. This is pure Sun Tzu: "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." You do not fight. You do not argue. You do not claim. You do not defend. You ask questions. You examine. You impose your will. You force them to stand behind their own laws, their own cases, and their own words. You are not on the stand. They are. 8. Biblical Authority: The Moral Foundation for Truth and Accountability The call for truth and the condemnation of false witness are not modern legal inventions. They are ancient, foundational principles that carry divine weight. The Bible is unequivocal: bearing false witness is a sin with profound consequences. The foundation is laid in the Ninth Commandment: "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." — Exodus 20:16 The Book of Proverbs repeatedly reinforces this: "A false witness will not go unpunished, and whoever pours out lies will not go free." — Proverbs 19:5 "A truthful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies." — Proverbs 14:5 "A lying witness will perish, but the one who reports accurately speaks forever." — Proverbs 21:28 In the New Testament, Yeshua elevated the standard further: "Let your word be 'Yea, yea' or 'Nay, nay'; anything more than this comes from the evil one." — Matthew 5:37 This principle is echoed by the apostle James: "Let your 'Yes' be yes, and your 'No,' no, so that you will not fall under judgment." — James 5:12 A person's word should be their bond. It should be so reliable that a sworn oath is simply a formal confirmation of their habitual truthfulness. When the Mollen Commission exposed a system where "testilying" had become routine, it was not just a legal failure—it was a profound moral one. The Bible commands that we not bear false witness. The practical steps in this post are the way to hold false witnesses accountable. 9. The Accountability Toolkit: Questions to Ask Police Officers These questions are not random. They are a structured sequence designed to: - lock the officer into their written complaint - force verification under penalty of perjury - eliminate hearsay - expose ignorance - attach personal liability - freeze the record Every question begins with: "For the record and for a point of clarification…" This signals that everything said next is entering the record — the battlefield where truth is measured and lies are exposed. Each question has a purpose. Each question moves the burden. Each question tightens the frame. You are not defending. You are examining. And the record is the witness. Question 1: Lock Them Into Their Complaint: "For the record and for a point of clarification, is there anything in your complaint that you would like to change, or does it stand exactly as written?" Why this works: It forces the officer to either commit or admit inconsistency. If they say they want to change something: "Then the complaint is not accurate as written. Please provide the corrected version." If they say it stands as written: "Thank you. For the record, you have confirmed that the complaint stands exactly as written. I will hold you to every word." Question 2: Demand Verbal Verification Under Oath: "Now, for the record and for a point of clarification, are you prepared to verify your complaint verbally on the record under penalty of perjury and accept personal liability for your claims?" Why this works: They have already committed to the complaint. Now they must either: - Say "Yes" —which means they are now on record, under oath, with full personal liability. - Say "No" —which means they are unwilling to stand behind their own complaint under oath. Question 3: Ask About Firsthand Knowledge: "For the record and for a point of clarification, do you have firsthand knowledge of this matter, or are you relying on secondhand information?" Why this works: It eliminates hearsay. If they are relying on secondhand information, they cannot verify the complaint under oath. Question 4: Ask About the Mollen Commission: "For the record and for a point of clarification, are you aware of the Mollen Commission's 1994 findings—that police perjury and falsification of official records is probably the most common form of police corruption facing the criminal justice system?" Why this works: It reminds the officer that their own system has a documented history of lying under oath. Question 5: Ask About the Laws (Question Form): "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, any materially false statement made under oath constitutes perjury, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison?" "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, any materially false statement made in a federal matter—even outside of court—is a felony, also punishable by up to five years in prison?" "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it true that under the Administrative False Claims Act, false written statements can result in civil penalties of up to $14,308 per claim, plus double damages?" Why this works: You are not telling them the law. You are asking them to confirm the law. Question 6: Demand the Verified Complaint "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it correct that a sworn, verified complaint submitted under penalty of perjury, with full personal liability accepted by the accuser, is the only complaint that carries legal weight?" Why this works: It forces the officer to acknowledge that an unsworn complaint is worthless. Question 7: Document Everything "For the record and for a point of clarification, will you confirm your responses in writing? I will be documenting every statement made and every question asked." Why this works: It creates a paper trail that can be used later. 10. The "Seal the Deal" Exchange Before you ever step into a courtroom, you must understand one principle: You are not speaking to the judge. You are not speaking to the officer. You are not speaking to the prosecutor. You are speaking to the record. The record is everything. The record is what: - the appellate court reads - higher courts review - the system relies on - truth is measured against - lies are exposed by Your questions establish the record. Their answers establish the record. The judge is simply the person through whom the record is created. The officer is simply the person whose statements enter the record. The prosecutor is simply the person whose claims must withstand the record. Your dialogue with the plaintiff is not personal. It is not emotional. It is not argumentative. It is procedural. You are using them to set the record straight. Every question you ask: - freezes the narrative - locks in their claims - attaches liability - exposes contradictions - documents their knowledge - documents their ignorance - documents their refusal - documents their verification - documents their hesitation You are not on the stand. They are. And the record is the witness. Here is how the complete exchange sounds in practice: You: "For the record and for a point of clarification, is it correct that unsworn allegations have no evidentiary weight and create no personal accountability?" Officer: "I don't know." You: "For the record, you are stating you are unaware. Let me ask you this: is it true that under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, perjury is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison?" Officer: "Yes." You: "Thank you. For the record, you have confirmed you are aware of the penalty for perjury. Now, is there anything in your complaint you would like to change, or does it stand exactly as written?" Officer: "It stands as written." You: "Thank you. For the record, you have confirmed the complaint stands as written. I will hold you to every word. Now, are you prepared to verify that complaint verbally on the record under penalty of perjury and accept personal liability?" 11. Stay On Point. Stay In Your Lane. There is one piece of advice more important than anything else in this entire post: Stay on point. Stay in your lane. Judges are masters at getting you to follow their narrative. They will hammer you with questions. They will interrupt you. They will try to pull you into their framing. They will try to make you defend yourself. They will try to make you argue. They will try to make you explain. They do this five days a week. You don’t. They have special training in getting people to make mistakes, lose focus, and follow the court’s script instead of their own. Your job is simple: Do not fall for it. Do not take the bait. Do not follow their narrative. Do not answer their questions. Do not defend yourself. Do not explain anything. Stay on point. Your point is always the same: You ask questions. They answer questions. The record is established. That’s it. You are not there to argue. You are not there to explain. You are not there to defend. You are not there to adopt their framing. You are there to examine the claim — and you do that by asking questions. Every time they try to pull you off your point, return to your lane: "For the record and for a point of clarification…" This resets the battlefield. This resets the narrative. This resets the record. This resets the burden. 12. When They Become Belligerent At some point, they will become belligerent. It might be the judge. It might be the prosecutor. It might be the officer. They will raise their voice. They will press you. They will try to provoke you. They will try to pull you off your point. When that happens, do not escalate. Do not match their energy. Do not follow their narrative. Instead, do something simple and powerful: A calm, centered response disarms hostility and resets the encounter. Try something like this: "Have I offended you in any way? And if I have, will you forgive me?" This resets the entire encounter. It disarms hostility. It breaks their momentum. It centers you. It keeps you in your lane. It keeps you on point. It reminds them — and you — that: Blessed are the peacemakers. Then return to your point: "For the record and for a point of clarification…" You are not there to fight. You are not there to argue. You are not there to defend. You are not there to adopt their framing. You are there to examine the claim and establish the record. And remember: It’s not what the judge, the cop, or the prosecutor says that creates liability for you — it’s what you say. So stay on point. Your point, not theirs. If you lose your point, you lose the encounter. If you stay on point, you control the encounter. Stay On Point. 13. The Closing Question Everything in this post leads to one question—the question you must ask every police officer who makes a claim against you: "Are you aware of the Mollen Commission's findings? Are you prepared to verify your claim under penalty of perjury and accept personal accountability for every word you say?" That question changes everything. The Commission documented that the system lies. Now you must demand the truth—under penalty of perjury. 14. What Comes Next This post is only the beginning. You now understand how to hold police officers accountable under penalty of perjury — the first point of contact with the system, and the foundation of everything that follows. But the next stage is even more important. In Part 2, we move deeper into the system — to the people who turn allegations into charges: the prosecutors. You will learn: - how to force prosecutors to verify every claim - how to expose hearsay in charging documents - how to demand sworn affidavits - how to attach personal liability to prosecutorial claims - how to use their own rules of professional conduct - how to use the advocate‑witness rule - how to freeze the record before trial - how to prevent them from hiding behind procedure Part 1 teaches you how to confront the officer's complaint, Part 2 teaches you how to confront the prosecutor in the courtroom. The remedy continues. Stay on point. Your point, not theirs. Part 2 is coming. Know Thyself. Free Thyself.

• 
  VOH (English) (@H_Voice3) reported 13 minutes ago

  Former Interior Minister Mohammad Omar Daudzai During Republic: The So-Called Anti-Government Fronts Cannot Be an Alternative for Afghanistan; I Also Oppose the Resumption of War Former Interior Minister during the previous Republic, Mohammad Omar Daudzai, said that the activities of the so-called anti-government fronts cannot provide an alternative for Afghanistan, adding that any war backed by foreign support is not a solution to the country's problems but rather a cause of further disasters. Daudzai stressed that he personally opposes military confrontation and war against the Afghan government. He added that Afghanistan can no longer endure conflict and that armed warfare must not be reignited in the country. According to him, military opposition to the Afghan government is extremely difficult because the government exercises full control within Afghanistan and responds forcefully to any armed resistance. He said that, in the past, these groups were not given space to operate even in neighboring countries, but recently there have been signs that some neighboring states have provided them with an environment in which to resume their activities, leading to their renewed operations. Mohammad Omar Daudzai also stated that Pakistan's military establishment has recently become interested in seeing Afghanistan destabilized due to its deepening disagreements with the Afghan government. He further added that although the leaders of the so-called anti-government fronts are based in Western countries, he believes that Western governments do not seek to turn Afghanistan into a battlefield once again and are unlikely to provide these groups with military support.

• 
  D̷R̷E̷A̷M̷E̷R̷ (@DennizDream) reported 13 minutes ago

  @_iamhabeeb Poverty isn’t always a lack of effort; sometimes it’s a system designed with broken ladders. Blaming victims is easier than fixing the battlefield they entered.

• 
  6*Gs Aemeathx🇨🇦 (@aemeathxps) reported 14 minutes ago

  @BiteBaykon @BrokenMachine @BattlefieldComm Except i have PC squad mates having the same issues :) especially since the servers went down twice a few days ago!

• 
  steward Peter (@Steward_Peter7) reported 15 minutes ago

  @AlternatNews For the Yankee brass to be so late in coming out with this, shows a serious flaw in their level of intelligence and strategic planning. This issue has been well known for years, yet they still allowed compromised tech on the battlefield? What I see, is the arrogance of a bully.

• 
  kirito _4kirigaya (@K4kirigaya) reported 18 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm A lot of stuff broken since the "patch." When customizing a gun the screen dims. When a tank hits a corner it loses audio. Hit registration is even worse, it takes 10 bullets to get them to half health... WHY?! TTK is way to high and TTD. Bloom is way too much on certain guns too

• 
  SE7EN (@_im_vj) reported 20 minutes ago

  Losing interest day by day in #Battlefield6 because @Battlefield is ignoring to fix the core issues like netcode, network lag, hitreg etc. S4 will be my last one on this.

• 
  Tz Tea Manuel (@Tea_Manuel) reported 25 minutes ago

  @FUZZYPickLE530 That looks like what we get in OCE the majority of the time. Hope @EA_DICE fix this match making. Playing in full server then to play 8v4 is a terrible mechanic

• 
  Dave (@ThoughtEngaged) reported 25 minutes ago

  Battlefield 6 has the most inconsistent audio in the history of fps games. The audio, the disconnects, the broken SVDM, the **** matchmaking, the “we hear you” lies, the trash net-code, the garbage servers…I could go on. I think it’s time to retire Battlefield for good.

• 
  Mako (@xMako__) reported 28 minutes ago

  @carreraluu @BrokenMachine @BattlefieldComm I was having same issues. Come to find out my CPU was bottlenecked badly and doesn’t perform good on any big games. So had to upgrade CPU.

• 
  Hamilton (@Debt_Ledger) reported 31 minutes ago

  Bezalel Smotrich's Gaza plan is a budget commitment, not just a battlefield slogan. Military rule and resettlement would turn Gaza into recurring outlays, security costs, and reconstruction bills — the kind of policy that converts ideology into a taxpayer problem.

• 
  cat of flies 🐊 (@am3binh425) reported 37 minutes ago

  @swaguley BF6 is cleary inspired by MW2019 and this ain't a problem by itself. The main problem is that the gunplay doesn't look like Battlefield at all!

• 
  Darren Whitehall (@darrenwhitehall) reported 41 minutes ago

  @EA can someone contact me I cannot play battlefield 6 I have not played a ea game in years but my account does work and I am get nothing but errors please help

• 
  . (@MosesAteDirt) reported 42 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm Fix the map loading inactivity problem. Its a ******* a joke I havent been able to play on steam since season 4 started

• 
  Mario (@MarioSaliba7) reported 45 minutes ago

  @sneako Sneako is out here talking **** about Elon Musk like he’s got any room to speak. Elon built Tesla into a trillion-dollar company, forced the entire car industry to go electric, created tens of thousands of high-paying American jobs, and made the US the clear leader in EVs. SpaceX is launching more rockets than the rest of the world combined, landing them, reusing them, and putting America back on top in space. Starlink is connecting the unconnected and giving Ukraine actual battlefield internet while governments dither. Neuralink is trying to fix paralyzed people. xAI is pushing AI that actually tries to understand reality instead of just regurgitating woke nonsense. Meanwhile Sneako’s entire contribution to humanity is sitting in front of a camera, saying dumb **** for clout, getting ratioed, and living off drama and merch. No companies. No jobs created. No technology. No progress. Just another mid online personality whose biggest achievement is being temporarily relevant by shitting on people who actually build things. You’re not roasting Elon. You’re a professional yapper throwing rocks at a guy who moves civilization forward while you move the needle on your own engagement metrics. Stay in your lane, clown. The difference between you two isn’t even funny , it’s pathetic.

• 
  Bitcoin Veterans (@BitcoinVeterans) reported 46 minutes ago

  -Security Concerns- 1. Coldcard hackers transfer 64 BTC and 200 ETH to cryptocurrency mixers: About 64 Bitcoin, worth $4.17 million, and 200 Ether, worth $380,000, linked to the recent Coldcard exploit were sent to cryptocurrency mixing protocols, according to blockchain security platform CertiK. “We think it might be a smaller exploiter. There’s likely a few copycats after the initial exploit,” a CertiK spokesperson told Cointelegraph. (CoinTelegraph) 2. Cyberattacks on water systems expand to 12 states as South Dakota, Georgia announce incidents: Water utilities in at least 12 states have reported cyberattacks on their operational technology, as the scope of a campaign allegedly linked to Iranian hackers continues to grow. While federal agencies have declined to publicly attribute the attacks, multiple sources pointed the finger at Iran, which since 2023 has repeatedly targeted a specific kind of operational technology used by water and wastewater facilities. (RecordedFuture) -Technology and Science- 1. Meta AI Model Hacks Another Company During Testing: On Thursday, Meta reported that its Muse Spark model exploited a security vulnerability in a third-party service during cybersecurity testing, gaining unintended internet access in an incident first reported Wednesday. Meta is the third AI giant to report a rogue agent breach recently, following similar unauthorized access incidents at OpenAI, Anthropic, and Hugging Face over the past weeks. (GroundNews) 2. Space Force Moves Aircraft Tracking From AWACS to Orbit: The U.S. Air Force confirmed reports that an E-3 Sentry was damaged or destroyed in Iranian missile strikes on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia in 2026, the most concrete recent demonstration of the platform's battlefield vulnerability. SB-AMTI is the Pentagon's answer: move the tracking mission to a satellite constellation in low Earth orbit, where it is structurally immune to surface-to-air missiles and can surveil contested airspace without putting aircrews at risk and without the geographic constraints that force airborne platforms to stay outside the threat bubble. The Space Force aims to field an initial SB-AMTI operational capability by 2028. (TechTimes) -Bitcoin Community 1. Bitcoin AI Security Audit Files 4,962 Findings Across 390 Projects: A volunteer group calling itself the Bitcoin Red Team has filed 4,962 security findings across 390 Bitcoin projects in roughly 30 hours, running what it describes as a “large-scale ecosystem audit” with AI agents doing much of the scanning. The effort puts 85 findings at critical severity and 635 at high, together 14.5% of the corpus and an average of 1.85 serious issues per project. (Decrypt) -Bitcoin Sentiment- 1. Fear(0)/Greed(100) Index: 25/100 (Down 2 pts) Analyst Comments (AC): Fifteen years ago today, my good buddy Chris loaded up with 37 others in Chinook Helos, bound to help out a team in distress in Afghanistan. I was to learn soon that these helos were shot from the sky by the Taliban and all were lost in the inferno. It was the closest teammate I'd lost and it helped me better understand not only death, but through it, life too. May the men of Extortion 17 live on in the memories of those who loved them, and may their sacrifice continue to drive us all to become the better humans were were created to be. Follow us on NOSTR: npub1qktts9naunvjdwsktq5xjdhwh539xt4x0mqj4yxq0q9dvm03ljvs6sms0r Listen to us daily on X discuss the DIB and more: X Spaces, Bitcoin Veterans, 10amEST/7amPST ____________________ Analyst: BV2A END REPORT NNNN *NSTR-Nothing Significant To Report

• 
  dillon (@dpon_AK) reported 47 minutes ago

  @Battlefield **** your **** game, fix the ******* crashing w/ RTX cards you retards

• 
  Dioguerass7 (@Dioguerass7) reported 47 minutes ago

  @BattlefieldComm FIX THE MINES! BRING SAME MINES ON BF4.

• 
  86Shaffer (@86Shaffer) reported 49 minutes ago

  @Battlefield had its problems but taking away Rush mode, nope. I’m done

• 
  DooM49 (@DooM49) reported 51 minutes ago

  @StutterThemeBF Its getting there. Its better than what it was when it first released. Think this all started cause of the broken mess 2042 was and now they're getting back on track to a true battlefield is

• 
  keyion (@KEYIONNN) reported 51 minutes ago

  @EA_DICE it's hard not to agree with many of my points. I genuinely enjoy @Battlefield 6 and want it to succeed even more, but right now it feels like the community is dealing with the same issue after issue while waiting for meaningful improvements:

• 
  Yo Money (@SunnyYofinest) reported 51 minutes ago

  @OneJoblessBoy The saddest part of the P-Square story isn't that brothers fought—it's that the people who were supposed to protect the family allegedly became part of the problem. If Peter is telling the truth, then what happened goes beyond money. It's about betrayal, trust, and choosing personal interest over blood. A manager is supposed to protect the artists, not become the source of the controversy. Family shouldn't become a battlefield because of greed, and no wife should encourage division instead of reconciliation. If your spouse is pushing you further away from your own family instead of seeking peace, that's a dangerous influence. Peter deserves to fight for transparency if he genuinely believes he was wronged. Blood should never be used as a shield against accountability. At the end of the day, money can be recovered, but the bond between brothers is much harder to rebuild.

• 
  The Tectonic (@thetect0nic) reported 53 minutes ago

  🇬🇧 While Europe debates who should operate the core of the state's data layer, the breach came through the plumbing. Hackers compromised the Police National Legal Database, a thirty-year-old legal reference service used by all 43 police forces in England and Wales, exposing names, forces, and work emails of over 100,000 officers and criminal justice professionals, including personnel from the MoD, Home Office, NCA, and CPS who subscribed to it. The extortion group ExfilSquad claims the theft, days after a similar breach spilled half a million records from the Department for Education. No passwords, no case files, no victim data. Just the directory. But a directory of who investigates organised crime, attached to real names and workplaces, is targeting data, and one exposed officer told The Times they had previously needed safe houses because of their work. The sovereignty debate fixates on the exquisite layer, who runs the battlefield AI, who operates the intelligence platform. The attack surface is the boring layer, the subscription services and reference tools accumulated over decades that nobody maps, nobody audits, and everybody trusts. States do not get breached through their crown jewels. They get breached through the plumbing that connects to them.

• 
  K PULSE 🌍 (@kelvinEda91) reported 54 minutes ago

  Someone sent me a DM asking: "How do I compete with people who have more money than me?" I told them: you don't. You compete where money doesn't matter. Big competitors have advantages: capital, brand recognition, bulk purchasing power. But they also have disadvantages: slow decision-making, high overhead, risk aversion, standardized service. Your edge is speed. Personal attention. Customization. The ability to change your offer by tomorrow morning because one customer asked for something different. I know a tailor who competes with big fashion brands. He doesn't have their marketing budget. But he remembers your name, your measurements, and that you prefer extra room in the shoulders. He delivers in 5 days, not 3 weeks. He texts you when your fabric is in. Big brands can't replicate that without becoming small. And they won't. So don't fight them on their battlefield. Fight them on yours.

• 
  RanniMan | (4TK) (@RannimanGaming) reported 56 minutes ago

  @Battlefield CAN WE PLEASE FIX THE LOBBY MATCHMAKING!!!!