Category: 3. Business

The Post Office has avoided a fine over a data breach that resulted in the mistaken online publication of the names and addresses of more than 500 post office operators it had been pursuing during the Horizon IT scandal.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has reprimanded the Post Office over the breach which saw the company’s press office accidentally publish an unredacted version of a legal settlement document with the operators on its website.

The ICO said the data breach in June last year involving the release of names, home addresses and operator status of 502 out of the 555 people involved in the successful litigation action against the Post Office led by Sir Alan Bates had been “entirely preventable”.

“The people affected by this breach had already endured significant hardship and distress as a result of the IT scandal,” said Sally Anne Poole, the head of investigations at the ICO.

“They deserved much better than this. The postmasters have once again been let down by the Post Office. This data breach was entirely preventable and stemmed from a mistake that could have been avoided had the correct procedures been in place.”

The ICO said its investigation had found that the Post Office failed to implement appropriate “technical and organisational measures” to protect people’s information.

The data watchdog highlighted a lack of documented policies or quality assurance for publishing documents online, as well as “insufficient” staff training with “no specific guidance on information sensitivity or publishing practices”.

The ICO said it had initially considered imposing a fine of up to £1.09m but decided that the data breach did not reach the threshold of “egregious” under its approach to fining public-sector companies.

The Open Rights Group (ORG), a campaigning organisation, said the ICO’s determination that the data breach was not egregious was “ludicrous”.

“This reprimand is a go-ahead for public organisations in the UK to keep inflicting harm, knowing that the ICO will let them off the hook,” said Mariano delli Santi, a legal and policy officer at the ORG. “As reprimands lack the force of law, the Post Office can rest assured that they will not face consequences if they fail to address their shortcomings.”

Last June, the Post Office apologised for the data breach with Nick Read, then the chief executive, saying the leak was “a truly terrible error”.

The former post office operator Christopher Head tweeted the text of a letter he had written to Read and Nigel Railton, the chair of the Post Office, in which he said that many of his colleagues “hadn’t shared details with their own families” at the time.

The Post Office settled the civil claim brought by 555 claimants for £57.75m over the wrongful prosecutions on faulty Horizon evidence – amounting to £12m after legal costs – without admitting liability, in December 2019.

Last May, hundreds of post office operators convicted on charges including false accounting, theft and fraud were exonerated by an unprecedented act of parliament.

Quantitative estimates of metabolic costs in this study are based on the ATP that is required to fuel the Na⁺/K⁺ pump. This includes the cost of the restoration of sodium and potassium ions that flow to support action potentials, resting potentials, and postsynaptic potentials.

The co-expression of pumps and sodium leak channels (see Figure 1) and even an ideal voltage dependence of the pump (see Figure 6) have a direct impact on the metabolic cost related to this ATP-fueled Na⁺/K⁺ pump. By integrating the net pump current over time and dividing by one elemental charge, we find the rate of ATP that is consumed for either compensatory mechanism. When compensating a relatively `constant’ Na⁺/K⁺-pump current with sodium leak channels, the amount of ATP spent on pumping sodium is 33% higher than it would be for a voltage-dependent pump (see Equation 22, Methods).

The impact that either of these compensatory mechanisms has on the whole cell, however, also depends on other costs, such as those related to cellular maintenance. A voltage-dependent pump would save costs related to Na⁺/K⁺ pumping, which, based on energy budgets formerly estimated for AP-firing neurons in the brain (Howarth et al., 2012), is likely to be one of the main contributors to the total metabolic cost (in cerebellar cortex, for example, amounting to >50% of the total metabolic cost). Because the peak load of a voltage-dependent pump, however, is four times higher than a relatively constant pump, four times more Na⁺/K⁺ pumps would need to be expressed on the cell membrane. To be more exact, if a single pump translocates around 450 sodium ions per second (Gennis, 2013), 8×10¹⁰ pumps are required to support constant pumping, and 32×10¹⁰ pumps are needed to support voltage-dependent pumping. If one assumes the electrocyte is a perfect cylinder, and its membrane surface were smooth (an approximation not too realistic), the total available membrane space would be 3.4 mm² (Ban et al., 2015). If the Na⁺/K⁺ATPase expression density would be as high as in the outer medulla of rabbit kidney (Deguchi et al., 1977), where ATPases are densely packed, a smooth electrocyte membrane would `fit’ 4.2×10<sup>10</sup> pumps, which is two times less than necessary for constant pumping, and eight times less than required for voltage-dependent pumps. According to our model, therefore, the invaginations on the posterior side of the membrane (Ban et al., 2015) are necessary to drastically increase membrane area in order to support the large number of pumps required for ion restoration. This, in turn, would increase the `housekeeping’ costs of the cell related to turnover of macromolecules, axoplasmic transport, and mitochondrial proton leak, which in different brain areas are estimated to occupy 25–50% of the total energy budget (Kety, 1957; Attwell and Laughlin, 2001). As there is insufficient data on the ratio between costs related to Na⁺/K⁺ pumping and `housekeeping costs’, and the fraction of housekeeping costs related to Na⁺/K⁺-pump maintenance, a quantitative comparison of the metabolic cost of the two compensatory mechanisms remains challenging. Future experiments that would aid in answering this question could involve blockage of electrocyte Na⁺/K⁺ pumps and comparing oxygen consumption to a control where electrocyte Na⁺/K⁺ pumps are functional.

Another compensatory mechanism that was discussed in this article is extracellular potassium buffering (see Figure 4), which in electrocytes likely occurs via its extensive capillary beds (Ban et al., 2015) that transport excess extracellular potassium to the kidney. Assuming that an equal amount of ATP is needed in total to fuel Na⁺/K⁺ pumps, either all in the electrocyte, or partly at the electrocyte and partly in the kidney, the additional costs incurred by the extracellular potassium buffer would be dominated by the structural and maintenance costs of the capillaries. We are, however, not aware of an accurate estimate of these costs, especially since the capillaries also have additional functions such as providing other resources and transporting other waste products.

Lastly, a strong synapse was said in the article to support cell entrainment under fluctuating pump currents (see Figure 5), but also to incur additional metabolic costs. In the example shown in the main text, however, baseline Na⁺/K⁺ costs are smaller for a stronger synapse; see Figure 5B (weak synapse) vs. Figure 5E (strong synapse). This is the case because, similarly as shown in Figure 7B in Joos et al., 2018, a weak synapse elicits smaller postsynaptic potentials, which lowers the AP peak with respect to a stronger synapse. To make a fair comparison on the metabolic costs between a weak and a strong synapse, voltage-gated sodium conductances were scaled to maintain a peak amplitude of 13 mV (see Table 2, Methods). For weak synaptic stimulation, a higher voltage-gated sodium conductance was needed to reach this peak amplitude, which, due to the excess inflow of sodium through these voltage-gated channels, resulted in an increase of 10% in ATP consumption by Na⁺/K⁺ pumps with respect to strong synaptic stimulation.

There are, however, additional costs that scale with synapse strength, such as the restoration of presynaptic calcium, the restoration of (presumably small amounts of) postsynaptic calcium, and neurotransmitter packaging and recycling. In the brain, these costs are estimated to be 0.18–1 times the cost of fueling the Na⁺/K⁺ pumps that restore the sodium ions that traverse neurotransmitter receptor channels (Howarth et al., 2012; Liotta et al., 2012). In our model, merely 11% of sodium ions enter the electrocyte via neurotransmitter receptor channels in the strong-synapse case. Assuming that the above-mentioned additional costs are equal to those related to Na⁺/K⁺ pumping of neurotransmitter-related currents (according to the upper bound estimate by Liotta et al., 2012), a weak synapse (half the size of the strong synapse) would incur a cost increase of 5.5% and a strong synapse would incur an increase of 11%. This would, however, still result in a 4% higher cost efficiency of a strong synapse compared to a weak synapse.

There is reason to believe that the fraction of the energy budget related to the restoration of presynaptic calcium, the restoration of (presumably small amounts of) postsynaptic calcium, and neurotransmitter packaging and recycling in the electrocyte could differ significantly from those estimated by Howarth et al., 2012; Liotta et al., 2012. First, to the best of our knowledge, such energy budget estimations have only been done for neurons active at significantly lower firing rates than electrocytes (by a factor of approximately 100), and, second, operate mostly under the glutamate neurotransmitter, while electrocyte receptor channels are activated by acetylcholine. An accurate estimate of the impact of synapse strength on the electrocyte energy budget, therefore, requires quantitative data on the rapid dynamics of acetylcholine production in the presynaptic neuron and recycling in the synaptic cleft, which, currently, is also hard to estimate.

Supported by the above-mentioned considerations, we argue that the impact of mechanisms that compensate for Na⁺/K⁺-pump currents on an electrocyte’s metabolic cost could be significant. Due to the absence of more detailed experimental quantification, a plausible quantitative cost estimate remains beyond the scope of this article. We note, however, that although the metabolic costs of potassium buffering and synaptic strength are likely to differ between cell types, the energetic estimate of the respective ATP requirements by Na⁺/K⁺ pumps for constant vs. voltage-dependent pumping generalizes and extends to all excitable cell types (as is discussed in the Discussion in the main text, see ‘Generalization to other cell types’).

Collinear AI, Robin AI, and Vody are just a few of the customers that have started simplifying model customization with SageMaker AI’s new capabilities. For example, Collinear AI, an AI improvement platform built for enterprise genAI, saved weeks using SageMaker AI. Soumyadeep Bakshi, co-founder, Collinear AI, said, “Fine-tuning AI models is critical to creating high-fidelity simulations, and it used to require stitching together different systems for training, evaluation, and deployment. Now with Amazon SageMaker AI’s new serverless model customization capability, we have a unified way that empowers us to cut our experimentation cycles from weeks to days. This end-to-end serverless tooling helps us focus on what matters: building better training data and simulations for our customers, not maintaining infrastructure or juggling disparate platforms.”

A Memorandum of Understanding between AI4LAM and the Europeana Foundation was signed in London during the Fantastic Futures conference on 3 December 2025 by our General Director, Harry Verwayen, who also proudly sits on the AI4LAM Board of Directors.

By pooling efforts and offering a platform for sharing knowledge and good practice, AI4LAM envisions a future where the collective strength of libraries, archives and museums drives innovation in responsible AI, supporting cultural development and societal growth.

AI4LAM brings together leading organisations in AI research, implementation, education and innovation, as well as those shaping technology strategies and policies. Members include long-standing Europeana partners and data providers such as the National Library of Norway, the Rijksmuseum, the British Library, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the National Library of the Netherlands, Music Archive Finland, the Time Machine Organisation, the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision and Stanford University. We also look forward to establishing new connections with international institutions, including the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, leveraging AI4LAM’s global reach.

This milestone builds on successful past cooperation, including the Alignment Assembly on Culture for AI, a collective intelligence and consultation process taking place within the common European data space for cultural heritage since last May. Through this Alignment Assembly, we have collectively identified points of consensus and agreement on the use, adoption and development of AI in our sector – but also important dilemmas, uncertainties and shared challenges. Addressing these effectively requires close collaboration across the entire ecosystem, and joining AI4LAM will mutually strengthen our collective capacity.

“Just as the Europeana community served as a blueprint for data sharing infrastructures in Europe, the data space for cultural heritage can serve as an example and a leading voice shaping critical adoption and engagement with AI. This is the vision we are working toward — but we cannot achieve it alone. We need to join forces with like-minded organisations and networks, both at European level and globally. AI4LAM will play an essential role in strengthening our collective intelligence and capacity to drive positive change. Together, we commit to accelerate and advocate for responsible AI in cultural heritage” said Harry Verwayen, General Director of the Europeana Foundation.

To mark this occasion, we are releasing an Impulse Paper: Publishing cultural heritage data in the Age of AI, commissioned by the Europeana Foundation to the Open Future Foundation to spark discussion on a key topic that emerged from our Alignment Assembly: generative AI and its implications for data sharing in the cultural heritage sector. The paper outlines the relevant technological and legal context, and proposes a differentiated access model for cultural heritage data. It was presented at the Fantastic Futures conference by our General Director, Harry Verwayen, who invited participants to reflect on the ideas put forward in this Impulse Paper, as we will be gathering feedback and insights in the coming months.

The Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research (FFAR) today announced the launch of the Resilient Agriculture Finance and Insurance Research Collaborative, a research initiative to advance finance and insurance solutions that benefit U.S. farmers and ranchers. The Research Collaborative will solicit initial research proposals in January 2026. Interested applicants are strongly encouraged to register for an interactive webinar on December 11, 2025 at 2 pm EST that will provide an opportunity for researchers to build new relationships with industry partners.  

“U.S. farmers are facing increasingly challenging weather and economic conditions, making it more difficult to consistently and profitably grow the crops that sustain both their livelihoods and our food system,” said Vincent Gauthier, Senior Manager for Climate-Smart Agriculture at EDF. “This critical research collaborative will help shape financing and insurance solutions that enable farmers to invest in practices that boost their resilience and access the coverage they need to support this transition.”  

The Resilient Agriculture Finance and Insurance Research Collaborative will support finance and insurance innovations that provide producers and agribusinesses with science-based strategies that strengthen soil health, improve water use efficiency, and build farmer resiliency to extreme weather events.  

“Collaboration between researchers and industry partners is a cornerstone of this initiative,” said FFAR Scientific Program Director Allison Thomson. “We are looking for collaborative, interdisciplinary approaches to develop actionable science-backed financial solutions that work for U.S. farmers and ranchers.”  

Key priorities for the Resilient Agriculture Finance and Insurance Research Collaborative include:  

• Financing the Transition to Resilient Practices: Evaluating returns on investment and risks of adopting resilient practices to inform agricultural lending solutions for these practices.
• Aligning Resilient Practices with Risk and Insurance Outcomes: Assessing how resilient practices impact yield stability, production risk, and insurance outcomes to guide insurance solutions.
• Valuing Resilience in Farmland and Mortgage Markets: Analyzing how resilient practices affect land value, collateral, and loan repayment capacity to inform appraisal and underwriting models. 

The Resilient Agriculture Finance and Insurance Research Collaborative will launch its request for proposals on January 15, 2026. More funding opportunity details will be available on the Cornell Atkinson website.  

“This effort is about doing research differently. We’re bringing researchers and industry leaders together. At Cornell Atkinson we see this as essential to moving research to impact,” said Alan Martinez, Climate and Nature Finance Strategic Partnerships Lead at Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability.   

Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research 

The  Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research  (FFAR) builds public-private partnerships to fund bold research addressing big food and agriculture challenges. FFAR was established in the 2014 Farm Bill to increase public agriculture research investments, fill knowledge gaps and complement the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s research agenda. FFAR’s model matches federal funding from Congress with private funding, delivering a powerful return on taxpayer investment. Through collaboration and partnerships, FFAR advances actionable science benefiting farmers, consumers and the environment.  

Connect:  @FoundationFAR 

Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability 

The Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability is the hub for sustainability research at Cornell University. By connecting Cornell research with government agencies, nonprofits, and industry partners, the center accelerates work to reduce climate risks, advance energy transitions, strengthen food security, and support One Health. Grounded in a research-to-impact mission, Cornell Atkinson maximizes the university’s influence on public opinion, corporate practices, product innovation, and government policies related to sustainability.  

Connect: Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, @AtkinsonCenter 

Environmental Defense Fund 

With more than 3 million members, Environmental Defense Fund creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. To do so, EDF links science, economics, law, and innovative private-sector partnerships to turn solutions into action. 

Connect: https://www.edf.org/ 

Viasat (VSAT) is back in focus after a one two punch of product momentum and new client wins, from upgraded NexusWave maritime connectivity to a fresh in flight Wi Fi deal with Azerbaijan Airlines.

See our latest analysis for Viasat.

Those connectivity wins come after a volatile stretch for the stock, with a roughly 252 percent year to date share price return and a 263 percent one year total shareholder return, suggesting momentum is very much rebuilding around the Viasat story.

If you like how Viasat is repositioning around connectivity demand, it could be worth scanning high growth tech and AI stocks for other tech names riding similar structural growth trends.

With the shares up more than 250 percent this year but still trading at a steep intrinsic discount and only a modest gap to Wall Street targets, is Viasat a mispriced turnaround, or is the market already banking on years of growth?

With Viasat closing at $33.57 against a narrative fair value of $36.25, the implied upside leans modestly positive, hinging on improving profitability and capital discipline.

The focus on operational efficiency, portfolio review, and progressing integration with Inmarsat, in addition to CapEx peaking with the ViaSat-3 program, sets up Viasat for positive free cash flow inflection, deleveraging, and earnings improvement as major investment cycles wind down. Rising government and commercial interest in bridging the digital divide, especially in underserved and remote areas, provides a multi-year tailwind through subsidy programs and public/private contracts, supporting stable, recurring revenue streams and margin visibility.

Read the complete narrative.

Want to see the math behind that upside call? The narrative leans on slower but steady revenue gains, sharply better margins, and a future earnings multiple that might surprise you.

Result: Fair Value of $36.25 (UNDERVALUED)

Have a read of the narrative in full and understand what’s behind the forecasts.

However, execution risk around ViaSat-3 spending and intensifying competition from Starlink and Project Kuiper could quickly undermine the turnaround narrative that investors are embracing.

Find out about the key risks to this Viasat narrative.

If this take does not quite match your view, or you would rather dig into the numbers yourself, you can build a custom storyline in just a few minutes, starting with Do it your way.

A great starting point for your Viasat research is our analysis highlighting 2 key rewards and 2 important warning signs that could impact your investment decision.

Before you move on, consider scanning a few targeted opportunities our community keeps returning to for growth, income, and innovation.

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Companies discussed in this article include VSAT.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com