Possible Large Clump of Dark Matter Near Our Galaxy
Credit: Alamy
A significant discovery indicates the presence of a gigantic dark matter cloud adjacent to our solar system. These clouds, previously unidentified in the Milky Way, have been detected thanks to precise cosmic clocks known as pulsars.
Current cosmological models propose that galaxies are enveloped in diffuse clouds of dark matter called halos, with smaller subhaloes scattered throughout. However, the elusive nature of dark matter, which neither emits, absorbs, nor reflects light, complicates the detection of these halos and subhalos.
To quantify this dark matter phenomenon, Sukanya Chakrabarti and her research team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville leveraged pairs of rapidly spinning neutron stars known as pulsars. These cosmic clocks emit beams of light at consistent intervals, allowing researchers to measure variations in their trajectories when influenced by large nearby mass.
Given that dark matter interacts with ordinary matter solely through gravity, an adjacent dark matter subhalo would alter the orbit of neighboring pulsars. This is precisely what Chakrabarti and her collaborators identified approximately 3,000 light years from our solar system. “Our observations detected a pair of pulsars whose motions indicate an unexpected gravitational pull from an unseen object,” comments Philip Chan from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
The research revealed that this gravitational influence originated from an object approximately 60 million times more massive than the Sun and spanning hundreds of light years. After mapping the location against stellar data, no correlations with known celestial bodies were found. If validated, this object could be a unique example of dark matter.
This potential dark matter subhalo could be the only instance of such size in our local galactic vicinity. “There may only be one or two of these large features nearby, depending on dark matter models,” suggests Alice Quillen at the University of Rochester in New York. “Different dark matter theories propose varying distributions of these structures.”
This pursuit is what catalyzed Chakrabarti’s interest in subhalo research. “Our objective is to map as many subhaloes as we can throughout the galaxy, and we’re just beginning to achieve that. Ultimately, we aim to elucidate the nature of dark matter,” she asserts.
However, pulsar binaries are scarce; only 27 instances provide sufficient accuracy for measuring gravitational acceleration. This scarcity explains why this subhalo remained undetected until now. “Given the finite number of pulsars, we are exploring alternative methods to monitor them using a broader array of objects,” states Zhang. If successful, this could be a breakthrough in understanding the true nature of dark matter.
By February 2026, the absence of any active treaty limiting the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia marks a significant turning point. While opinions on the effectiveness of the New START Treaty vary, there is a consensus that a successor treaty appears improbable.
The inception of nuclear weapons limitations began with the 1991 START I treaty, which laid the groundwork for inspections and reductions, leading to the New START agreement in 2011. In 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin extended this treaty for an additional five years. However, discussions for alternatives have stalled since the February 5 deadline.
Tensions between the U.S. and Russia escalated dramatically following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Shortly thereafter, Russia excluded itself from weapons inspections, prompting U.S. retaliation. While both nations contemplate resuming nuclear testing, such discussions appear more performative than productive. The odds of a New START successor seem dimmer than ever.
Mark Bell, a professor at the University of Minnesota, indicates that the prospect of a new treaty that limits U.S. arsenals to match those of Russia is unappealing, given concerns about deterring both Russia and an increasingly assertive China. Although China has approximately 600 nuclear weapons, it is rapidly expanding its capabilities. Conversely, Russia may resist accepting any cap that allows it fewer nuclear arms than the U.S. Additionally, China is likely to oppose any deal that limits its growth toward parity with the U.S. and Russia. Bell describes these negotiations as complicated, making it a challenging starting point.
START I and New START are acknowledged as largely beneficial, providing a stabilizing effect on international relations. However, Bell expresses skepticism regarding their overall impact on global safety. “They may have saved some costs for both superpowers and fostered a collaborative forum, but I doubt they fundamentally altered the risk of war,” he notes.
Irrespective of the treaty status, the risk of nuclear conflict remains high, according to Bell. He argues that the concept of mutually assured destruction serves as a deterrent, emphasizing that it is the dire repercussions of nuclear warfare—rather than treaties—that may prevent hostilities. “This stabilizing effect derives from the inherent dangers and is a characteristic of nuclear deterrence,” he explains.
Yet, some experts voice deep concern over the end of the treaty. Steven Herzog, a scholar from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and former arms control advisor, told New Scientist that the expiration of New START will heighten the risk of nuclear conflict.
“Lack of transparency in nuclear weapons development makes the international landscape less secure, fostering unchecked competition among leaders potentially reliant on nuclear arms,” Herzog cautions. “In an era where both Russia and the U.S. appear increasingly unpredictable, the absence of critical confidence-building measures raises alarming concerns about an arms race.”
Several treaties related to nuclear weapons remain in effect, including the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which seeks to eliminate these armaments but lacks participation from nuclear-armed states. While some nuclear powers have signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it does little to restrict the actual number of weapons available. New START represented the only effective framework addressing nuclear power responsibilities.
Herzog asserts that if both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin desired a similar agreement, a rapid consensus could be achievable. Previously, President Putin made a proposal that President Trump positively received regarding an unofficial extension. However, no formal negotiations are happening at present, and any potential agreement would likely only serve as a temporary fix.
Philip Bleek, a researcher at the Middlebury Institute, notes that persisting in negotiations could be valuable if additional time enables a new treaty’s creation. However, the long-term outlook for arms control appears grim. “A short-term extension could result in Russia feeling its participation isn’t necessary, reducing its willingness for future involvement,” advises Brig.
Negotiating treaties involves complex interactions among political figures, military branches, and intelligence communities, with potential for nabbing minor but critical strategic advantages. Herzog points out that the Trump administration has already diminished the number of essential personnel involved in inspections and negotiations.
“If we aim to pursue a new treaty seriously, our current staffing and resources may not be sufficient,” Herzog concludes.
In the tech sector, there are few instances that can be dubbed “big bang” moments—transformative events that reshape our understanding of technology’s role in the world.
The emergence of the World Wide Web marked a significant “before and after” shift. Similarly, the launch of the iPhone in 2007 initiated a smartphone revolution.
November 2022 saw the release of ChatGPT, another monumental event. Prior to this, artificial intelligence (AI) was largely unfamiliar to most people outside the tech realm.
Nonetheless, large-scale language models (LLMs) rapidly became the fastest-growing application in history, igniting what is now referred to as the “generative AI revolution.”
However, revolutions can struggle to maintain momentum.
Three years post-ChatGPT’s launch, many of us remain employed, despite alarming reports of mass job losses due to AI. Over half of Britons have never interacted with an AI chatbot.
Whether the revolution is sluggish is up for debate, but even the staunchest AI supporters acknowledge that progress may not be as rapid as once anticipated. So, will AI evolve to become even smarter?
What Exactly Is Intelligence?
The professor posits that determining if AI has hit a plateau in intelligence hinges on how one defines “intelligence.” Katherine Frik, Professor of AI Ethics at Staffordshire University, states, “In my view, AI isn’t genuinely intelligent; it simply mimics human responses that seem intelligent.”
For her, the answer to whether AI is as smart as ever is affirmative—because AI has never truly been intelligent, nor will it ever be.
“All that can happen is that we improve our programming skills so that these tools generate even more convincing imitations of intelligence. Yet, the essence of thought, experience, and reflection will always be inaccessible to artificial agents,” she observes.
Disappointment in AI stems partly from advocates who, since its introduction, claimed that AI could outperform human capabilities.
This group included the AI companies themselves and their leaders. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, known for the Claude chatbot, has been one of the most outspoken advocates.
AI chatbots are helpful tools, but they lack true intelligence – Credit: Getty
The CEO recently predicted that AI models could exceed human intelligence within three years, a claim he has previously made but was ultimately incorrect.
Frik acknowledges that “intelligence” takes on various meanings in the realm of AI. If the query is about whether models like ChatGPT or Claude will see improvements, her response may differ.
“[They’ll probably] see further advancements as new methods are developed to better replicate [human-style interaction]. However, they will never transcend from advanced statistical processors to genuine, reflective intelligence,” she adds.
Despite this, there is an ongoing, vibrant debate within the AI sector regarding the diminishing effectiveness of AI model improvements.
OpenAI’s anticipated GPT-5 model was met with disappointment, primarily because the company marketed it as superhuman before its launch.
Hence, when a slightly better version was released, reactions deemed it less remarkable. Detractors interpret this as evidence that AI’s potential has already been capped. Are they right?
Read More:
Double Track System
“The belief that AI advancements have stagnated is largely a misconception, shaped by the fact that most people engage with AI through consumer applications like chatbots,” says Eleanor Watson, an AI ethics engineer at Singularity University, an educational institution and research center.
While chatbots are gradually improving, much of it is incremental, Watson insists. “It’s akin to how your vehicle gets better paint each year or how your GPS keeps evolving,” she explains.
“This perspective overlooks the revolutionary transformations happening beneath the surface. In reality, the foundational technology is being reimagined and advancing exponentially.”
Even if AI chatbots operate similarly as they did three years ago for the average user who doesn’t delve into the details, AI is being successfully applied in various fields, including medicine.
She believes this pace will keep accelerating for multiple reasons. One is the enormous investment fueling the generative AI revolution.
London’s water-cooled servers symbolize the AI boom, with computing power predicted to increase tenfold in two years – Image courtesy of Getty Images
Tech companies are investing heavily in data centers to process AI tasks.
In 2021, prior to ChatGPT’s debut, four leading tech firms — Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta (the owner of Facebook) — collectively spent over $100 billion (£73 billion) on the necessary infrastructure for these data centers.
This expenditure is expected to approach $350 billion (£256 billion) by 2025 and to surpass $500 billion (£366 billion) by 2029.
AI companies are constructing larger data centers equipped with more dependable power resources, and they are also becoming more strategic regarding their operational methodologies.
“The brute-force strategy of merely adding more data and computing power continues to show significant benefits, but the primary concern is efficacy,” Watson states.
“The potency of models has increased tremendously. Tasks that once required extensive and massive systems can now be performed by less voluminous, cheaper, and faster systems. Capacity density is also growing at an incredible rate.”
Techniques such as number rounding or quantizing inputs to the LLM (which involves reducing information precision in less critical areas) can enhance model efficiency.
Hire an Agent
One dimension of “intelligence” where AI continues to evolve is the area of “agentic” AI, particularly if understood as “efficiency.”
This involves modifying AI interactions and behavior, an endeavor still in its infancy. “Agent AI can handle finances, foresee needs, and establish sub-goals toward larger objectives,” explains Watson.
Leading AI firms, including OpenAI, are incorporating agent AI tools into their systems, transforming user engagement from simple chats to collaborative AI partners, enabling users to complete tasks independently while managing other responsibilities.
These AI agents are increasingly capable of functioning autonomously for extended periods, and many assert that this signifies growth in AI intelligence.
However, AI agents pose their own set of challenges.
Research has revealed potential issues with agent AI. Specifically, when an AI agent encounters seemingly harmless instructions on a web page, it might execute harmful commands, leading to what’s termed a “prompt injection” attack.
Consequently, several companies impose strict controls on these AI agents.
Nonetheless, the very prospect of AI carrying out tasks on autopilot hints at untapped growth potential. This, along with ongoing investments in computing capabilities and the continuous introduction of AI solutions, indicates that AI is not stagnant—far from it.
“The smart bet is continued exponential growth,” Watson emphasizes. “[Tech] leaders are correct about this trajectory, but they often underestimate the governance and security challenges that will need to evolve alongside it.”
Disney’s iconic Mickey Mouse character is set to appear in AI-generated videos
Greg Balfour Evans / Alamy
The leading AI firm and the premier entertainment company have made an unexpected agreement, allowing AI-generated versions of beloved characters from movies, TV, and comics. This deal might indicate that major copyright holders realize they’re unable to control the influx of AI tools available today.
The Walt Disney Company has entered into a partnership with OpenAI, permitting the AI company’s Sora video generation and ChatGPT image creation technologies to utilize over 200 of Disney’s most renowned characters. In contrast, Disney is currently in a legal battle with another AI firm, Midjourney, concerning alleged copyright infringement, claiming Midjourney intends to “blatantly incorporate and copy famous characters from Disney and Universal” into its tools. This lawsuit suggested that copyright owners were starting to take steps to protect their rights against what AI companies might misuse, but some analysts now view the agreement as a sign that Disney has opted to collaborate with rather than combat AI firms.
As of now, characters like Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse, Simba and Mufasa from The Lion King, and characters from Moana, as well as notable figures from Marvel and Lucasfilm’s Star Wars, are permissible for OpenAI users. However, while users can create videos featuring these characters, many of the voice rights are held by celebrities, as is the case with Tom Hanks voicing Woody in the Toy Story films, which remains prohibited.
Content creation using these characters will be available from early 2026, under a license agreement lasting three years.
According to statements released by both parties, the agreement was reached after OpenAI pledged to implement age-appropriate policies and “reasonable controls” to prevent underage users from accessing its products, alongside “robust controls to avert the generation of illegal or harmful content and respect for the rights of content owners regarding model output, as well as individuals’ rights to manage the use of their voice and likeness.”
In tandem with this, Disney has committed to a $1 billion equity investment in OpenAI, with an option to purchase additional shares in the rapidly expanding AI firm. Many characters presently available in OpenAI’s tools coincide with those mentioned in Disney’s lawsuit against Midjourney.
“This presents an exciting chance for the company to let audiences engage with our characters through perhaps the most advanced technologies and media platforms available today,” said Disney CEO Bob Iger, as he informed CNBC. “OpenAI values and respects our creativity.” Iger further acknowledged the remarkable growth of AI. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman remarked, “People genuinely want to connect with Disney characters and express their creativity in novel ways.”
Despite the optimistic statements, the agreement took many by surprise. “I was astonished because Disney is recognized for fiercely safeguarding its brand,” noted Katherine Flick from Staffordshire University. The company has historically defended the intellectual property of its characters, including efforts to keep Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain, according to Rebecca Williams of the University of South Wales.
Conversely, some observers were less surprised by the partnership. “It was clear that Disney didn’t want to confront major tech firms like Google, OpenAI, and Meta, as they’ve often perceived generative AI as beneficial,” remarked Andres Guadamuz from the University of Sussex.
Guadamuz hypothesizes that the OpenAI partnership could significantly benefit Disney, suggesting, “I suspect they will utilize their vast catalog to adapt their models,” which might even play a role in the animation process. Reports indicate that Disney is poised to become a “key customer” for OpenAI tools.
Williams expresses concern that this partnership may indicate the broader trajectory of AI and copyright disputes. “This suggests that companies like Disney consider it impossible to halt the AI tide,” she notes. “Their approach appears to involve collaborating with such enterprises to derive profit from the utilization of their intellectual property, rather than allowing it to be misappropriated.”
However, Ty Martin from the licensing company Copyrightish believes that other AI firms will start to negotiate licensing agreements moving forward. “This is the direction we’re heading in 2026,” he asserts. “Licensing is vital for quality. AI platforms equipped with strong, recognizable IP are likely to weather downturns, while unlicensed or generic content risks being overlooked.”
Whether this represents a proactive initiative or a defensive tactic due to animosity, the future of this initial three-year agreement is uncertain, and Frick believes it may soon be reevaluated. “There will be individuals who exploit their brand in ways that Disney may not typically endorse,” she stated.
Frick added, “This will serve as an evaluative case to see how this intellectual property is utilized. Personally, I suspect it will be a test to understand the limits of its usage, as [Disney] endures individuals engaging in potentially uncomfortable applications of your intellectual property.”
Are you prepared to share your earnings with strangers and see it plastered all over the web?
For better or worse, it was just you, your employer, and possibly HM Revenue & Customs who knew your salary.
Now, the question looms: “What do you earn?” Influencers armed with cameras and ring lights often stop you in the street to ask. This seemingly mundane question might lead to a series of lighter inquiries later.
They might also delve into other personal financial matters, such as your rent, savings, or biggest financial blunders.
Surprisingly, many people are willing to engage. In just 40 seconds, one interview revealed that an architectural designer earns £38,000 annually. Respondents are often eager to share their future salary expectations and savings, too.
In another clip, a 60-year-old man discusses his biggest financial regret—passing up on an expensive apartment when he was younger.
These clips, viewed 1.3 million times on Instagram, are part of a fast-growing genre that includes street-style interviews delving into personal finance topics like income, job satisfaction, and more.
Inspired by the US Salary Transparent Street, which aims to de-stigmatize salary discussions, this channel has gained over a million followers in four years.
Microphone-wielding creators argue that interviewing British citizens has enhanced financial literacy and wage transparency. Critics suggest it caters to voyeurism, creating content that could easily go viral.
For content creators, the formula is straightforward: pose personal questions, film responses, and share them with audiences eager to learn about others’ earnings, expenditures, and regrets. After all, financial concerns often weigh more heavily on young individuals than social media or environmental crises.
As Gabriel Nussbaum, known as “that money man,” asserts, “My aim is to foster financial education through dialogue.” He runs Unfiltered Money, focusing on public interviews about personal finance.
What may appear as a solo endeavor is, in fact, a well-coordinated team effort. “We have a crew,” Nussbaum explains. “Our mission is to attract participants from diverse ages, backgrounds, and genders.”
Gabriel Nussbaum emphasizes that the main theme is discussing finances with “regular” people. Photo: Harrison Kelly/Money Unfiltered
Since its inception six months ago, the channel boasts an impressive average of 3 million views each month, with daily postings on Instagram and TikTok.
But is it really as simple as shoving a microphone in someone’s face and hoping for the best?
“It’s all about how you frame the questions and the context you provide,” shares Aydan Al-Saad, an entrepreneur and content creator who also queries people about their pay, sharing the videos online.
“I don’t edit everything, but I usually let people know I’m promoting transparency and ensuring everyone feels fairly compensated,” he adds.
So why does it resonate? Much of it stems from the fact that “we don’t have these conversations elsewhere.” Salary discussions, particularly concerning the actual figures, are one of the UK’s greatest taboos, largely due to a reluctance to engage in dialogue about confidentiality, workplace traditions, and money.
A recent survey indicated that British citizens often shy away from discussing their salaries; 87% feel uneasy when asked about their salary.
Currently, individuals like Nussbaum and Saad strive to bridge the gap. “For me, the goal is transparency,” states Saad. “It’s about giving people insight into different careers and potential earnings.”
There’s also a psychological angle beyond mere information sharing: “It’s akin to reality TV, isn’t it? I can secure views by interviewing a billionaire,” explains Venture Room, which features high-net-worth individuals discussing their finances. “But viewers want to connect with real people and hear genuine stories,” he adds.
It’s all very interesting, but what’s it like for those being interviewed to disclose their salary and see their face all over the internet? “No one truly understands what going viral feels like until it happens,” says Saad.
“We’re not here to put anyone in an awkward position,” he continues, adding that interviewees can request the removal of their content. “If we see it, we’ll take it down, no questions asked.”
Comments on certain channels are screened to create a secure environment for financial discussions. Nevertheless, some video comments can lead to a broad examination of personal circumstances. For instance, a debate sparked about whether an income of £35,000 annually is adequate for living comfortably in London can be found here: Is £35,000 enough?.
How useful are these videos? “On a theoretical level, it’s beneficial because it’s better to know than to remain ignorant,” asserts Kim Stevenson, a psychologist and financial advisor.
However, as tools for comparison, they may not serve their intended purpose, cautions Vicky Reynal, a psychotherapist and author of *Money in Your Mind: The Psychology Behind Your Financial Habits*. “Comparisons can lead to feelings of inadequacy rather than clarity,” she states.
The key issue lies in how each individual uses the information. “Some people may watch for entertainment or reassurance, but others could spiral into frustration and dissatisfaction, feeling they fall short,” she explains.
Vicky Reynal expresses concern that some viewers may use the content to validate feelings of inadequacy. Photo: Rory Mulvey/The Observer
Nussbaum claims his primary objective is that the videos are beneficial, although he recognizes their potential drawbacks. However, feedback has been “overwhelmingly positive” for content that “broadens perceptions of what’s possible,” he notes.
Third echoes this sentiment. “If even one person gains value from the video, it’s worth sharing,” he says, asserting that these videos may empower viewers to seek pay raises or change careers.
“Imagine hearing that someone your age on this platform earns three times more than you,” says Nussbaum. “It might provoke negative feelings, yet it could also encourage someone to think, ‘I’m underpaid for my role and should explore other opportunities.’” The same video can have two contrasting effects.
Theoretically, these videos should resonate more with Gen Z, who are thought to prioritize pay transparency more than older generations. In reality, however, millennials likely make up the bulk of the audience. Over 40% of Saad’s followers are aged 25-34, with more than 33% in the 35-44 age group.
These statistics reflect the pervasive financial insecurity facing millennials; 56% of those under 40 report considering delaying significant life milestones due to financial stress.
So what’s next for Nussbaum’s channel? “I’m eager to involve more prominent individuals and encourage diverse voices to open up about their financial experiences,” he states. “For instance, I spoke recently with an 18-year-old soccer player who mentioned making £100,000 a year and asked, ‘How do you handle that?’”
While that contrasts sharply with an average tenant’s experience, Nussbaum insists that his channel continues to focus on “discussing everyday life and finances.”
Are the Mancunians becoming more open about their earnings? Kimi Chadda ventured out to find out. Photo: Christopher Farlong/Getty Images
‘Not today, thank you.’
It’s a bright day in Manchester. In bustling areas like Castlefield, Northern Quarter, and Spinningfield, office workers inquire with strangers about finances. The crowds are unpredictable. I approach 30 individuals throughout the day. One man shows interest before exhaling deeply and saying, “Not today, thank you.” Maybe another time?
When I mention media or personal finance, others grow defensive. Most walk away before I can explain my purpose.
Only 2 out of the 30 I approach are willing to share details. One responds with empathy following an encounter with a stand-offish peer. The other declines to provide a surname or identification—contradicting the free-spirited essence of TikTok videos. They disclose incomes between £25,000 and £35,000, acknowledging that while salaries should be discussed more, they also “don’t want to get sued.”
From this experience, I gleaned two insights. First, the simplest approach to turn a comfortable individual into a guarded stranger is to approach them directly, microphone or not. Second, people prefer to engage in lighter topics, such as bus schedules, the weather, and the state of the city center.
So, I didn’t uncover any hard figures, but I left with the lingering thought that perhaps I should have focused on discussions around mortgage rates instead.
Just before lunchtime on the third day, the line outside Elon Musk’s newly opened Tesla Diner in Hollywood had swelled to nearly 100 people.
This eatery is described as a “retro-futuristic” drive-in, offering high-end burgers alongside classic films projected on a massive screen while you charge your Tesla.
After much anticipation and debate, the diner suddenly opened on Monday at 4:20 p.m., reminiscent of a humorous quip from a stoner. Hundreds of enthusiasts queued to sample burgers served in cybertruck-shaped boxes and to snap photos of the Optimus robot dishing out popcorn from a sparkling, circular rooftop deck.
However, just two days later, the Tesla Diner experience felt less like a futuristic marvel and more like a lesson in how things can go awry. Various aspects were lacking, and the food was merely average, yet fans continued to form lines and make purchases.
On Wednesday morning, the queue to enter was quite lengthy, partly due to technical difficulties. The app designed for Tesla drivers to order from their vehicles was malfunctioning, leading staff to prioritize Tesla owners who needed to order inside. This caused non-Tesla drivers in the walk-up line to potentially wait 2-3 hours for their meals.
The robot is set to serve popcorn at Tesla Diner in Los Angeles, California, on Tuesday. Photo: Allison Dinner/EPA
We hoped to see some movement in the walk-up line, but only two families of Tesla owners returned to order from their cars. Even with the app’s issues, they would receive their food more quickly. This created a clear hierarchy: while everyone faced difficulties, Tesla owners were buffered from some of them.
For the rest of us, waiting in the hot sun didn’t exactly embody “retrofuturism.” It felt more like a mix of beautiful, Tesla-inspired, modern mid-century architecture combined with slow service. While a Star Trek episode played on a giant screen, the most entertaining sight was the parade of outfitted cybertrucks arriving and leaving. We counted at least six in neon orange with Texas plates riding on grand custom rims. I was documenting my observations on social media, but curiously, I didn’t see any anti-Musk protests planned for later in the week.
‘That’s Reality’
Musk’s special projects often emerge amid some confusion. Most recently, his efforts to disrupt significant portions of the U.S. government resulted in silence alongside the president he supported. He reportedly spent around $300 million on selective initiatives.
While Tesla fans are treated to premium burgers, managing an electric vehicle is considered much simpler than launching a space rocket, creating brain implants, or overseeing a social media platform devoid of hate speech or harassment. Chef Eric Greenspan, who partners with Musk in the diner, has noteworthy culinary credentials, advising businesses like Beast Burger and renowned establishments like Tartine Bakery.
Nevertheless, billionaire CEOs often make grand promises that frequently remain unfulfilled. This seemed to hold true even for the small burger joint.
You don’t need to own a Tesla to enjoy a meal here. Its allure clearly extends beyond Tesla drivers. On Wednesday, many individuals in the walk-up line arrived with young children eager to experience Tesla Diner after seeing it in videos online. While we waited, staff wearing branded shirts served us water and handed out paper menus.
Jake Hook, who operates a “diner theory” social media account focused on Los Angeles, described Tesla Diner’s menu as “eclectic.” It features options that mix “Libs Own the Libs” with “We Are Libs,” offering everything from a “magnificent bacon” dish boasting four types of bacon instead of fries to avocado toast and matcha lattes, even a kale salad served in cardboard cyber trucks. Welcome to Southern California.
Food from Elon Musk’s new Tesla Diner. Photo: Lois Beckett/Guardian
Hook mentioned, “Diners serve as a reflection of the community, and that’s not quite what we’re seeing here. It feels more like a diner-themed restaurant.”
Staff provided an update to diners in the walk-up line, letting them know chicken, waffles, milkshakes, and “recharged soda” with boba and cherries were unavailable.
“It’s getting better and better,” a man behind me sighed.
Josh Bates and his son Phoenix were visiting from Orange County. “We’re major Musk fans,” he stated.
Phoenix, who is 10, was thrilled to visit the diner. “I’ve never seen Elon Musk open a restaurant, so I just wanted to see what the food was like,” he shared.
However, after waiting 20 minutes without moving closer to the counter, Bates chose to look for lunch elsewhere. “It’s an epic opening; things happen,” he remarked. “That’s just how it is. They’re doing their best.”
Bates wasn’t alone in this sentiment. Ivan Daza, 36, a Los Angeles resident, mentioned he had waited two hours the day prior, only to find the Tesla diner kitchen closed. He returned the next day with his 8-year-old daughter, who was particularly eager to see the Optimus robot after watching videos. Unfortunately, it turned out that Optimus was not operational.
Daza expressed surprise at the array of kitchen issues. He expected a “Plan B.” Still, he appreciated the “experience” the diner offered.
The prices, while steep, were reasonable for Los Angeles. A burger, for example, cost $13.50 without fries. He chuckled recounting how long it took him to get his meal: “It was tasty.”
Tesla Diner food is presented in boxes shaped like a cyber truck. Photo: Allison Dinner/EPA
The interior design resembled a blend of Disneyland and fine dining; sparkling chrome, futuristic white chairs, and stunning lighting created an inviting ambiance. A curved staircase leading to a SkyPad showcased robots in a display case, while the actual kitchen appeared surprisingly low-tech behind curved chrome windows.
I stood in line for an entire hour to place my order. Finally reaching the register, I asked the staff what was actually available. She directed me to the screen, stating I would need to check there for options. Contrary to earlier reports, I was indeed able to order both chicken and waffles.
After a prolonged wait outside, my food arrived in about 10 minutes—far shorter than the feared 3-hour wait, yet still unreasonably long for any fast-casual experience. The waffles were disappointingly cold, with a Tesla Lightning Bolt logo, and while the fried chicken had a delicious crust, it too was lukewarm. The kale and tomato salad lacked adequate dressing, tasting oddly of dill. The generic cola tasted cheap and was served with a bamboo straw. That said, the food did come in an elaborate cyber truck box, which was quite fun.
Locals seemed to brush off the initial glitches at the new diner, while some tourists were less forgiving. Rick Ying, 32, visiting Los Angeles from China with his mother, stopped by for a “quick lunch” before heading to the airport, only to find it wasn’t quick at all. Both Yi and Yang expected to see the Optimus robot in action and hoped for a more technologically advanced experience but described it as just a “regular restaurant.”
“It’s okay,” he said while waiting for his meal. Once he finished eating, he stated that he liked the cyber truck box, calling it “the only thing worth it.”
Musk’s “Retrofuturism”
I took my meal to the upper level, Skypad, an outdoor balcony with a view of the recharged Teslas. The Twilight Zone played on two massive screens as I sat near those purchasing Tesla Diner merchandise: a $95 retro diner hoodie, a $65 Tesla salt and pepper shaker, and a $175 “Levitering Cyber Truck” figurine.
A large popcorn machine stood nearby; it seemed like Optimus was serving snacks on opening night. Earlier that morning, I noted Musk’s social media post claiming, “Optimus will deliver food to your car next year,” hinting at the robot potentially donning a “cute” retro outfit.
However, Optimus was nowhere in sight. An employee later informed me, “He’s not here today. Maybe tomorrow.”
A general view of Elon Musk’s new Tesla Diner in Hollywood, California. Photo: Aaronp/Bauer-Griffin/GC Image
“Can I still get popcorn if there’s no robot?” a woman asked.
“It’s probably old popcorn,” the employee regrettably replied.
Another staff member cautioned that I couldn’t take the same staircase I had used to reach Skypad. I will say that it consisted of plain flights of stairs lacking any high-tech embellishments.
Despite the company’s recent revenue and profit declines revealed in Wednesday’s earnings call, Musk touted the diner as a success, calling it “a sparkling beacon of hope amid a gloomy urban landscape.” (It sits near Santa Monica Boulevard, flanked by upscale art galleries.)
While reflecting on the “retrofuturist” experience while standing in line, I contemplated how well it aligned with the conservative political project Musk promotes. This ordinary diner unfolds in a future where electric vehicle delivery expands alongside ongoing public health crises.
To thrive in today’s U.S. landscape, compartmentalization must be exceptionally effective. I lifted the cardboard cyber truck lid, showed my colleagues the Tesla waffles, and continued with my day. There might not be immediate improvements, but hey, at least it was an experience.
One of the disheartening truths of the 21st century is that what we perceive as social media is essentially just mass media, albeit in a fractured state. Fortunately, journalists and creators are gradually transforming outdated media paradigms and forging ahead into innovative territory.
The phrase “mass media” gained traction in the 1920s to characterize popular culture in the industrial age. This involved mass-produced books, films, and radio shows, providing a shared experience for audiences where many could engage with identical media content simultaneously. Prior to the 20th century, most entertainment was experienced live, with performances varying slightly from one event to the next. However, movies and radio broadcasts ensured uniformity, accessible to everyone at any given time. Just like purchasing standardized products for mass consumption, such as shoes and automobiles.
Social media did not significantly alter this model. Platforms like X, Facebook, and TikTok were designed for extensive reach and audience engagement. Every post, video, and live stream aims to captivate the broadest possible audience. While it is possible to tailor media for specific demographics or create filter bubbles, the fixation on follower counts illustrates that we remain entrenched in a mass media mindset, seeking to engage the largest number of viewers. This isn’t genuine “social” interaction; it’s merely mass-produced content under a different guise.
What if we endeavored to foster a truly social media experience devoid of algorithmic noise or political agendas? One alternative could be termed Cozy Media, which encompasses apps and content specifically crafted for nurturing connections among small groups of friends in serene, inviting settings. Envision the media counterpart of a friendly gathering, complete with card crafting or fireside chats.
The hallmark Cozy Media experience intertwines gaming elements with low-stress missions against charming backdrops. Developers are striving to replicate these cozy aesthetics in social applications. From group discussions to online book clubs, the emphasis is on comfort. Yet, it transcends mere aesthetics; Cozy Media platforms intentionally restrict interactions with random strangers, directing users instead toward trustworthy friends.
One app I’ve been utilizing frequently is Retro. Unlike Instagram, where creators often first gained exposure, Retro is primarily designed for engagement among small circles of trusted friends. There’s no algorithm promoting random content from strangers; when I log into Retro, it feels as though I’m engaging with peers rather than filtering through a deluge of nonsensical content and advertisements. My posts there are meant for a select few, allowing for meaningful interactions rather than shouting into the void of giant algorithms.
Cozy media often helps you connect with a small group of friends in a friendly and calm environment.
While Cozy Media may provide solace in chaotic times, the need for news and analytical perspectives remains. Regrettably, numerous reliable news outlets are facing turmoil. For instance, some American journalists, including those from the Washington Post, New York Times, and National Public Radio, cite dwindling resources and editorial independence.
Additionally, there are economists like Paul Krugman and tech researchers like Molly White, who have successfully launched crowdfunded newsletters. Nonetheless, many journalists prefer not to work alone, as quality reporting often necessitates collaboration. As a result, several have banded together in worker-owned cooperatives to establish new publications while benefiting from institutional resources such as legal support, editing, and camaraderie. This model is also advantageous for consumers, sparing them from the need to search for and subscribe to various individual newsletters just to keep abreast of current affairs.
The worker-owned cooperative model has already proven successful for several publications that have emerged in recent years. For example, 404 Media delivers vital news regarding the fields of technology and science. Defector is another worker-owned cooperative focused on sports and politics. Aftermath covers gaming issues, while Listen to Things specializes in music. Flaming Hydra (my contribution) publishes political analyses, interviews, and cultural critiques. Additionally, Coyote Media aims to launch in the San Francisco Bay Area to cover local news, and there are many other worker-owned local media cooperatives emerging.
Just like mass media, social media also contributes to feelings of loneliness and isolation. The essence of Cozy Media and worker-owned publications lies in the restoration of community and trust. We might be witnessing the dawn of a new information ecosystem aimed at helping us comprehend the world once more.
Annaly’s Week
What I’m reading
The Wonderful History of Mesopotamia by Moudhy Al-Rashid, between two rivers.
What I’m seeing
A new media podcast from former CNN reporter Oliver Darcy titled Power Lines.
What I’m working on
Writing an article for publication at once in Flaming Hydra.
Annalee Newitz is a science journalist and author. Their latest book is Automatic Noodles. They are co-hosts of Hugo Award-winning podcasts, and we are right. You can follow them @annaleen, and their website is techsploitation.com.
Concept illustration for the US DARPA Liberty Lifter initiative
Aurora Flight Science
This isn’t a boat or an airplane; it’s an advanced marine cleaning vehicle known as the Ecranoplan.
Echoing Cold War-era Soviet technology, these substantial craft are resurfacing as both China and the US explore modern adaptations amid rising military tensions in the Pacific Ocean.
The large sea skimmer resembles an aircraft, but as Malcolm Davis from the Australian Institute for Strategic Policy explains, “it operates similarly to a fast naval vessel, gliding just above the water’s surface.” These vehicles leverage the “ground effect,” utilizing cushions of air between the low-flying craft and the ocean to enhance lift and decrease drag.
Ocean skimmers typically outpace conventional ships (approaching aircraft speeds) and can potentially evade surface and aerial radar, Davis notes. This capability allows for covert and expeditious transport of goods or troops over substantial oceanic distances typical of the Indo-Pacific area, or for surprising enemy naval forces with missile strikes.
This technology became notorious during the Cold War when the Soviet Union developed the Ecranoplan, notably featuring a prototype dubbed the “Caspian Sea Monster.” However, due to funding issues and limited practical utility, these designs were never fully realized, according to Davis. Renewed interest in sea skimmers aligns with China’s military ambitions to assert its influence over Taiwan and the South China Sea.
Since the early 2000s, China has been working on prototypes of ocean skimmers, states Ben Lewis, an Independent Defense Analyst based in Washington, DC. A recent June 2025 photograph circulating online showcases a large waterborne craft with four jet engines mounted on its wing, as reported by Navy News. China is also seeking expertise from Russian technologists involved in Ecranoplan designs during the Soviet era, as highlighted by the New York Times.
Similarly, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) had been funding the Liberty Lifter project since 2022, aimed at developing analogous seaplanes. However, this program concluded in June 2025 without yielding a successful craft; instead, DARPA intends to leverage lessons from Liberty Lifter to encourage private sector involvement and broaden military applications.
On a different note, US company Regent Craft is currently testing an all-electric sea glider variant of this technology for commercial potential, which has piqued the interest of the US Marines.
As manufacturing and technological advancements continue, these ocean skimmers “may present a cost-effective alternative to more expensive traditional aircraft,” according to Brendan Mulbany from the U.S. Air Force China Aerospace Research Institute in Alabama. However, he cautions that “they won’t be the backbone of any military force and are unlikely to survive in high-intensity engagements.” Conditions in regions like the Taiwan Straits can complicate their operation, notes Lewis.
Nevertheless, these sea skimmers could contribute to a broader Chinese military strategy to counter the US-allied navy projected to support Taiwan, argues Davis. The US is responding by fostering military partnerships with regional allies such as South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines, while also bolstering military presence on Pacific Islands as bases. Lewis points out that the possibility of conflict has escalated the need for innovative capabilities to gain an “additional edge.”
The Oval Office was bustling, and reporters cautioned him to avoid bumping into the significant desk. Beside him, dressed in black, stood Donald Trump’s billionaire associate, leading his administration’s efficiency initiative.
“Elon is from South Africa. I don’t want to draw Elon into this,” the US president said to South African leader Cyril Ramaphosa during a conversation regarding crimes against white farmers. “He actually came here on a different topic: launching rockets to Mars. He’s even more passionate about that.”
Musk’s quiet demeanor throughout the hour-long discussion hinted at the evolving dynamics in Trump’s sphere. He planned to stay close to the president and remain welcome in the West Wing. He also made two visits to the Pentagon this week. However, the relationship, once predicted to result in a clash of egos, appears to be gradually fading instead.
On Monday, Politico published an analysis titled “Why Has Elon Musk Disappeared from the Spotlight?” revealing a notable decline in the frequency of Trump’s posts about Musk on his social media platform, with an average of four mentions weekly in February, dropping to none from early April to March.
In February, Trump’s fundraising team reported he mentioned Musk almost daily in emails for fundraising. However, those references abruptly ceased in early March, save for one email in May promoting the “American Bay” hat Musk wore.
Furthermore, White House staffers no longer filled their social media feeds with Musk-related content. Reporters seldom inquire about him during White House press briefings. Council members are steering clear of his name.
Musk appears to have noted the shift. Recently, Tesla’s CEO confirmed he has scaled back his involvement in the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) to merely two days a week. Reducing his political expenditures serves as his latest indication that he is redirecting his focus to his business empire, amidst rising concerns from investors.
This represents a stark contrast to the opening week of Trump’s second term, during which Musk attended the inauguration, was a constant figure at Mar-a-Lago, regularly appeared in the Oval Office with Trump, and exchanged mutual accolades during a Fox News interview. DOGE dominated headlines as he aimed to streamline the federal bureaucracy.
Trump seemed captivated by the wealthiest individuals intent on launching rockets into space, contributing at least $250 million to last year’s election campaign. In March, the president converted the South Lawn of the White House into a temporary Tesla showroom, showcasing five electric vehicles and promising to buy one for himself.
Elon Musk and his son x† depart the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC on Wednesday. Photo: Oliver/EPA
However, the polls painted a different story. Last month, a national survey by Marquette University Law School revealed only a 41% approval rating for Musk’s management of DOGE, while 58% disapproved. Around 60% of respondents held unfavorable views of Musk, compared to just 38% who viewed him positively.
Congressman Khanna, a Democrat familiar with Musk for over a decade, remarked, “As his approval ratings decline, so do Trump’s fortunes. When Trump’s ratings drop, he tends to distance himself from people in a similar situation. It’s indicative of his fleeting charm and the feeling of abandonment.”
Khanna, representing a district in Silicon Valley, predicted Musk would not last beyond four or five months in this role.
At that time, Khanna wished for DOGE to focus on reducing the Pentagon’s budget. Instead, they downplayed the importance of reforming entities such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, and other targets.
“I noted he wouldn’t enact a $2 trillion cut anywhere. He didn’t even reach a trillion. It’s closer to around $81 billion. He learned the lessons many very successful business leaders do,” Khanna stated.
Certainly, Musk continues to face significant challenges. On Wednesday, the American Institute of Peace was revising its governance after a federal judge ruled it illegal to dismiss the board and employees by DOGE. On Thursday, a federal judge in San Francisco stated Trump could not restructure and downsize the U.S. government without Congressional approval, likely extending a decision that would inhibit federal agencies from executing large-scale layoffs.
Nevertheless, DOGE has already initiated deep cuts in the workforce and expenditures, attempting to shutter entire agencies, resulting in severe disruptions to government operations.
For instance, internal agency reviews reveal that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is “not prepared” for the onset of hurricane season next month, as CNN reports. The disaster relief agency, employing over 20,000 personnel, faced approximately a 30% staff reduction due to layoffs and DOGE acquisitions.
Khanna warned: “[The National Institutes of Health] have been harmed, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has been compromised, and the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] stands diminished, significantly impacting the State Department, all of which will require a generation to rebuild.”
“I hope the damage halts. We need to observe what unfolds, but ideally, these institutions will regain their strength.”
Even conservatives advocating for a smaller government have expressed concerns. Rick Tyler, a political strategist with experience in Republican campaigns, stated, “What they’re attempting to do is shrink the government. This isn’t reform; it’s merely dismantling and destruction.”
Tesla, a significant source of Musk’s wealth, has incurred considerable brand damage and lost sales, particularly due to political engagements with Trump. He has also shown support for the far-right anti-immigrant AFD party in Germany. Tesla dealerships have become sites of protests and vandalism in the U.S. and beyond.
Perhaps Musk encountered his political downfall in Wisconsin. His investment of over $3 million made the Supreme Court race there the most expensive in U.S. history. He appeared in Green Bay wearing a cheesehead hat, popular among NFL Green Bay Packers fans, personally handing out a million-dollar check to supporters.
Musk will address City Hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on March 30th. He spent $3 million on a candidate who lost by 10 points in the judicial election. Photo: Jeffrey Phelps/AP
However, the candidate he backed lost ground, dropping 10 percentage points. Democrats successfully mobilized voters to counter his influence in the elections dubbed “People vs Musk.”
This week, Musk stated at Bloomberg’s Qatar Economic Forum in Doha that the biggest funder in Republican politics might just “take his toys and go home,” as reported by the Associated Press.
Clearly, Musk and his disruptive approach are politically impactful for Republicans seeking re-election next year. Democrats across the nation are expected to leverage Musk as a political boogeyman in attack ads against their opponents.
Tyler remarked: “I believe he has instigated enough conflicts, and his relationships have diminished Trump’s standing, which poses a threat to his party and agenda.”
Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, noted: “There is a trial balloon regarding how they would reduce federal employment. If it worked and people approved, they could have continuously used him as a scapegoat and as a tool for reform.”
“Donald Trump believes he is the sole generator of his appeal, so it’s hard to believe he sees Musk as pivotal to his popularity and stature, and I doubt he is mistaken about that.”
You can enjoy a healthy and sustainable diet without completely eliminating meat. Recent research.
Scientists at the Denmark Institute of Technology have analyzed 2,500 foods and concluded that consuming less than 255g of pork or chicken weekly is beneficial for both the environment and your health.
“We understand that the planet faces significant environmental challenges, while millions are dealing with hunger and malnutrition,” stated Dr. Caroline Helev Guevara from the University of Technology, Denmark, who led the research. BBC Science Focus.
“While there’s a strong emphasis on increasing plant-based food consumption, it’s still uncertain how much of it is necessary and whether these changes can truly have a positive impact.”
Agriculture utilizes 70% of the world’s freshwater – Credit: Getty Images/Pete Starman
The team led by Guevara examined 11 different diets, including options with red or white meat, pescetarian, vegetarian, vegan, and various flexible diets, to determine if they were “sufficient.”
They formulated thousands of food combinations within these dietary patterns, evaluating both their nutritional value and environmental impact.
Environmental effects were assessed in five key areas: carbon dioxide emissions, land use, water consumption, biodiversity loss, and fertilizer-contaminated water.
The findings revealed that it is possible to nourish the global population healthily without excessively harming the planet, with a variety of dietary choices available.
“We possess enough resources to provide healthy, nutritious foods to the global populace without surpassing environmental limits,” said Guevara. “This is promising news.”
The research identified around 100,000 healthy and sustainable food combinations. While vegan and vegetarian diets showed the greatest benefits, those including less than 255g of pork and chicken were also feasible—equivalent to two chicken breasts or one large pork chop.
The only option that was entirely off the table was lean meat, as it was deemed less viable due to its higher environmental impact relative to the nutrition it delivers.
“Producing lean meat generates more greenhouse gas emissions (mainly methane) than poultry and pork, mainly due to how ruminants digest their food.”
However, although such diets are feasible, their practical implementation may pose challenges.
“A significant shift in our food consumption habits is essential right now,” Guevara noted. “Our research focuses on what can physically be done, not what is socially or economically accessible. Structural changes are necessary to turn these sustainable diets into reality.”
About our experts
Caroline Helev Guevara is a postdoctoral researcher at the Faculty of Environmental Resources Engineering, University of Technology, Denmark. She investigates the impact of human activities and industries on the environment.
Even so, I developed a new affection for her, likely influenced by the looming possibility of Jesse’s departure. Jesse doesn’t pretend to be the quintessential woman. She shares little in common with the almost-perfect Alexa, aside from the deep, resonant voice of authority that Laurie Anderson masterfully crafted in her 1980s music and speeches. (Anderson channels an enigmatic papal craftsman, perhaps a retired geology professor. “There are a few things that can be examined easily, such as the expanse of Greenland, the famous dates of the 19th century rubber conflict, Persian adjectives, snow composition, and more. I could hear Jesse mimicking some stereotypes of women, oscillating between technology and deliberate artifice.)
In fact, let’s explore many other female voices produced by modern media. One commonly heard female voice in Japanese anime unsettles me physically. Even more astonishing is the voice of the much-admired Internet Trad Wife, soft, gentle, and calm; she sifts through the wheat and chaff concerning her children. Do they play with obedience against the backdrop of death? – Quietly handling the sticks behind the lens. Former Christian fundamentalist wife and mother, Tia Levings, has garnered a substantial following on TikTok. Notably, her prior “Fund Voice” — breathtaking and high-pitched — draws inspiration from a 1963 book titled “Attractive Woman.” Meanwhile, a new generation of women learns to cultivate the same voice, accentuated by videos that feature soft lighting.
As many sociologists caution, when pornography in the digital era becomes distorted, young men’s perceptions of what an ideal sex life resembles may skew the notion of how a woman’s voice should sound. AI potentially creates a dizzying feedback loop of these authentic female voices, perhaps even those with the most substantial followings, from which it likely learns, rather than roaring.
As the mother of two teenage boys, I’ve grown accustomed to various noises from their basement escapades. However, when silence was abruptly disrupted by my son yelling loudly during a Fortnite battle, I was surprised. It fascinates me that my son, like many dedicated Fortnite players, opted for what he refers to as a female skin for his avatar. This choice reflects that from around the age of 11, he immersed himself in closely identifying with powerful female characters who facilitate shooting, evading, and outsmarting his opponents. Perhaps he chose female avatars at a younger age, emulating older players he admired; or perhaps they select female skins for their faceless nature, as the game requires hours of staring at the back of that avatar (which is notably rounded and toned for some female skins). Nonetheless, I was equally intrigued by another aspect of his Fortnite avatar—its relation to her and her friends.
These avatars are like remote cousins to the female TikTok influencers who mirror Jesse. I can argue that the influencers who narrate Jesse in their videos use technology to quiet their true selves. The essential elements of their humanity are entirely absent, revealing only their youthful façades to thousands of followers.
However, I reconsider my perspective and arrive at a different conclusion. Perhaps in selecting Jesse, they discover means to shield themselves and assert subtle claims of power. Their voices remain private, allowing the world to perceive only that. Jesse might be irritating, but she seems unfazed. This could explain why many women embrace her in her endless “get ready with me” videos. Jesse is loud and unapologetic. She is a pill, yet wholly artificial, far exceeding any male validation.
IImagine a new racing video game. Whatever you imagined, What the Car? is not. While the world of racing games prides itself on cutting edge game engines and perfectly simulated motor engines that make the speedometer feel real and the driving experience more and more detailed and realistic, this is the opposite: this car literally drives around on foot.
Described as “a silly adventure full of races, laughs, and surprises,” What the Car? puts you in the shoes of a car with legs, sprinting and climbing one ridiculous obstacle after another to reach the finish line. “No one on the team owns or even likes cars,” says Tim Garbos, the game's creative director at Copenhagen studio Triband.
“That may seem wrong when you're making a car game, but it allowed us to naively misunderstand a lot of things about cars.”
Not only can this car walk around on two legs, it can also play foosball. It can even chop vegetables. Though it's technically a racing game, it's best thought of as a collection of mindless mini-games. Each of the hundreds of levels has a different challenge to reach the goal, whether that be a paraglider, a football or becoming an accordion to cross a crevasse.
Madcap…what car? Photo: Triband
Naturally, this not-so-racing game isn’t inspired by Forza, Gran Turismo, or even Mario Kart. Instead, the Triband team cites the adventures of The Legend of Zelda and Super Mario 64, with flashes of Katamari Damacy amid the chaos (cars have extra legs and roll around the track like balls). “The ever-changing format of the game is great when it takes inspiration from anything,” Garbos adds.
A version of the game was first released on Apple Arcade last year, where it won a Dice award for best mobile game. The PC version has been enhanced and will continue to receive monthly updates. Another addition is a full level creator, allowing users to build and share their own bizarre worlds. Garbos hopes that the levels will be approached in an appropriately nonsensical style: “People will create totally awful levels and force their friends to play them.”
The studio has previous experience pumping up humor with baseball bat-wielding cult hits “What the Golf?” and “What the Bat?” “As a studio, we’re big on the comedy game, and when we create a joke, we start by setting expectations by giving you a mundane backdrop, and then we subvert those expectations by doing something different,” Garbos explains.
As other successful parody games like Goat Simulator have shown, there’s an art to making something beautiful and silly. So how exactly does Triband strike that balance? “We focus on realism, car fans, and completely ignoring real vehicles while still providing a great overall experience. Sometimes you just need to give your car bigger legs, or make it fly or swim, and we make that happen…” [but] It has to be silly and funny, but it also has to work as a game. It has to be something you want to play for hours. It takes time and commitment.
“The comedy genre is under-represented in video games” … What the Car? Photo: Triband
Games are good at comedy, especially physical comedy. Think Octodad, Gang Beasts, Untitled Goose Game, and any game where characters comically glitch into the scenery. What the Car? joins the recently released Thank Goodness You’re Here! and the upcoming Baby Steps as games actively trying to make us laugh this year.
“I think the genre of comedy is underrated in video games compared to, say, television,” says Gerbos. “We take comedy pretty seriously. If you want to make someone laugh, it has to start with you. If it feels funny or silly, then you’re on the right track… Personally, I love showing this game to people and seeing their eyes light up at the jokes and trying to hide their little laughs. That’s why I make video games.”
We can’t help but wonder what kind of absurdist tri-band treatment we’ll get into next. “We’re just getting started,” Garbos teases. “We’re thinking about making parody games of common, well-known things, like newspapers.”
pictureRon Musk isn’t stopping tweeting. In just seven days last week, he made nearly 650 posts on the social network he bought in November 2022 and reluctantly rebranded as X. He also spent nearly three hours wrestling with technical issues in what he would later conclude was the result of an unproven hacking attack while trying to host a “conversation” with Donald Trump, and livestreamed himself playing Blizzard’s sword-and-sorcery game Diablo IV for several hours.
The volume of his content alone is impressive enough, but even for someone who was so into posting that he spent more money on a site than the Manhattan Project budget, Musk’s consistency is astonishing.
In the week of tweets analysed by The Guardian, there was a 90-minute period when he posted nothing, between 3am and 4:29am local time, but he tweeted at least once every other half hour throughout the day and night: at 4:41am on Saturday morning, 2:30pm on Wednesday night, and at 11pm on six of the seven days.
The longest Musk went without tweeting that week was seven and a half hours, when he slept until 8:10 a.m. after a late-night posting session. On Saturday night, Musk logged out after retweeting a meme likening the Metropolitan police to the SS, then returned online four and a half hours later to retweet a tweet from a cryptocurrency influencer complaining about the prison sentences of British protesters.
Awesome, awakened, cool
Not all of Musk’s posts on X are loaded with meaning. Most are simple one- or two-word replies to fans, followers and allies. Two minutes after he replies “Cool” to a construction influencer’s AI-generated photo of himself, he replies “Cool” to a montage of photos of the Tesla Cybertruck driving through North America, and a minute later an AI-generated cartoon of himself points to a sign that reads “Criticism is welcome on this platform” and replies “💯.”
One-word replies can sometimes be a good thing and a bad thing. Musk, who has never been one to follow traditional “online etiquette,” occasionally replies to messages with a “😂” emoji and then copies the exact same thing to his own feed without credit. It’s unclear why some posts get Musk’s treasured retweets while others get stolen and reposted.
Musk is sometimes careful with his praise, especially when it comes from users he’s not comfortable being too vocal about. An End Wokeness post about a California early release bill, a Malaysian far-right influencer’s post about Haitian criminals, and a Libs of TikTok post about another California bill have all been marked with a simple “!!” by Musk, while a post by Dom Lucre, a far-right influencer who was banned from the site for posting child abuse imagery, doesn’t even get that mark. Personally covered In 2023, I received just one “!” from a billionaire.
Riot and Grok
Musk’s outrage over the UK riots seems to be deepening his ties to the far-right: Over the past week, he has begun a conversation with Canadian influencer Lauren Southern, one of three anti-Muslim activists named in the UK riots. Banned from entering the UK It was launched by Theresa May’s government in 2018. Though the pair share a distrust of the media, Musk is now a paying subscriber to her feed, supporting her – along with more than 160 other users – for £4.92 a month.
But Musk’s crazy behavior makes sense. A showman, the memes and chatter he retweets and reposts are full of promotions he wants to make that day. Sometimes, it’s professional. On Wednesday and Thursday, when his AI company xAI released the latest version of its large-scale language model, Grok, a significant percentage of his posts were sharing quotes and images generated by it.
In the UK in 2030, you could be executed for posting a meme…
And then there are the riots. During the week, Musk’s attention was diverted from tensions in the UK, but the spate of rulings handed down over the weekend meant he was primed for a bit of mayhem.
He latched onto right-wing memes about Keir Starmer promoting a “two-tier” policing system and downplayed their contribution to the violence while constantly drawing attention to the punitive sentences given to rioters. Early on Friday morning, he expanded on his criticism of the SNP's Humza Yousaf, calling the former Scottish First Minister a “super super racist” and challenging him to take legal action in response.
Trump and Tesla
On Monday and Tuesday, Musk drew attention to his conversation with Donald Trump, sharing posts before the livestream in which fans excitedly wondered how many people would tune in and what the two smartest people in the world would discuss, then reposting posts after the livestream in which fans were upset that biased media wouldn’t write more positive headlines and asking fans to shorten the conversation into a more manageable hour-long highlights reel.
Despite this friction, another side of Musk shows up when he talks about his two biggest companies, Tesla and SpaceX. With Tesla being a public company, Musk has to be careful with what he says. He has a fiduciary duty to shareholders and legal obligations on how to disclose material information. Those obligations came to a head when the SEC sued him over his infamous tweets in which he falsely claimed he had “secured funding” to take Tesla private. In a subsequent settlement with regulators, Musk agreed to have his lawyers review all of his tweets about Tesla, a deal he has since regretted.
But after an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, the deal remains valid, meaning Musk’s final chance to escape the “Twitter guards” may be… It was scrapped in April this year.His posts about Tesla have been surprisingly muted. Shortly after his conversation with Trump, he posted a lengthy, mostly standard, statement retracting some of his comments about climate change: “To be clear, I believe global warming is real.” He startedWhat he meant was that even without global warming, high levels of CO2 It was dangerous.
“Guardians are trash…”
Musk also used the opportunity to take aim at another favorite target, The Guardian. After the paper quoted experts in what he called “the dumbest climate change debate in history,” Musk slammed others he follows who shared the article, telling author Stephen King that “The Guardian cannot be considered objective” and entrepreneur Vinod Khosla that “The Guardian is rubbish.”
It’s been a tough week for the Grand St. Seven, a group of technology stocks that have played a leading role in the U.S. stock market, buoyed by investor excitement about breakthroughs in artificial intelligence.
Last year, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, chipmaker Nvidia, Google parent Alphabet, Facebook owner Meta and Elon Musk’s Tesla accounted for half of the S&P 500’s gains. But doubts about returns on AI investments, mixed quarterly earnings, investor attention shifting elsewhere and weak U.S. economic data have hurt the group over the past month.
Things came to a head this week when the shares of the seven companies entered a correction, with their combined share prices now down more than 10% from their peak on July 10.
Here we answer some questions about Seven and the AI boom.
Why did AI stocks fall?
First, there are concerns that the huge investments being made by Microsoft, Google and others in AI will pay off. These have been growing in recent months. Goldman Sachs analysts The memo was published In June, the Wall Street bank released a report titled “Gen AI: Too Much Spending, Too Little Reward?” which asked whether $1 trillion in investment in AI over the next few years “will ever pay off,” while an analysis by Sequoia Capital, an early investor in ChatGPT developer OpenAI, estimated that tech companies would need $600 billion in rewards to recoup their AI investments.
Gino said “The Magnificent Seven” is also hit by these concerns.
“There are clearly concerns about the return on the AI investments that they’re making,” he said, adding that big tech companies have “done a good job explaining” their AI strategies, at least in their most recent financial results.
Another factor at play is investor hope that the Federal Reserve, the U.S. central bank, may cut interest rates as soon as next month. The prospect of lower borrowing costs has boosted investors’ support for companies that could benefit, such as small businesses, banks and real estate companies. This is an example of “sector rotation,” in which investors move money between different parts of the stock market.
Concerns about the Big 7 are affecting the S&P 500, given that a small number of tech stocks make up much of the index’s value.
“Given the growing concentration of this group within U.S. stocks, this will have broader implications,” said Henry Allen, macro strategist at Deutsche Bank AG.Concerns about a weakening U.S. economy also hit global stock markets on Friday.
What happened to tech stocks this week?
As of Friday morning, the seven stocks were down 11.8% from last month’s record highs, but had been dipping in and out of correction territory — a drop of 10% or more from a recent high — in recent weeks amid growing doubts.
Quarterly earnings this week were mixed. Microsoft’s cloud-computing division, which plays a key role in helping companies train and run AI models, reported weaker-than-expected growth. Amazon, the other cloud-computing giant, also disappointed, as growth in its cloud business was offset by increased spending on AI-related infrastructure like data centers and chips.
But shares of Meta, the owner of advertising-dependent Facebook and Instagram, rose on Thursday as the company’s strong revenue growth offset promises of heavy investment in AI. Apple’s sales also beat expectations on Thursday.
“Expectations for the so-called ‘great seven’ group have perhaps become too high,” Dan Coatsworth, an analyst at investment platform AJ Bell, said in a note this week. “These companies’ success puts them out of reach in the eyes of investors, and any shortfall in greatness leaves them open to harsh criticism.”
A general perception that tech stocks may be overvalued is also playing a role: “Valuations have reached 20-year highs and they needed to come down and take a pause to digest some of the gains of the past 18 months,” says Angelo Gino, a technology analyst at CFRA Research.
The Financial Times reported on Friday that hedge fund Elliott Management said in a note to investors that AI is “overvalued” and that Nvidia, which has been a big beneficiary of the AI boom, is in a “bubble.”
Can we expect to see further advances in AI over the next 12 months?
Further breakthroughs are almost certain, which may reassure investors. The biggest players in the field have a clear roadmap, with the next generation of frontier models already underway to train, and new records are being set almost every month. Last week, Alphabet Inc.’s Google DeepMind announced that its system had set a new record at the International Mathematical Olympiad, a high school-level math competition. The announcement has observers wondering whether the company will be able to tackle long-unsolved problems in the near future.
The question for labs is whether these breakthroughs will generate enough revenue to cover the rapidly growing costs of achieving them: The cost of training cutting-edge AI has increased tenfold every year since the AI boom really began, raising questions about how even well-funded companies such as OpenAI, the Microsoft-backed startup behind ChatGPT, will cover those costs in the long run.
Is generative AI already benefiting the companies that use it?
In many companies, the most successful uses of generative AI (the term for AI tools that can create plausible text, voice, and images from simple prompts) have come from the bottom up: people who have effectively used tools like Microsoft’s Copilot or Anthropic’s Claude to figure out how to work more efficiently, or even eliminate time-consuming tasks from their day entirely. But at the enterprise level, clear success stories are few and far between. Whereas Nvidia got rich selling shovels in the gold rush, the best story from an AI user is Klarna, the buy now, pay later company, which announced in February that its OpenAI-powered assistant can: Resolved two-thirds of customer service requests In the first month.
Dario Maisto, a senior analyst at Forrester, said a lack of economically beneficial uses for generative AI is hindering investment.
“The challenge remains to translate this technology into real, tangible economic benefits,” he said.
When discussing diet and nutrition, opinions can often be divisive and passionate. Recently, I found myself in the middle of a debate surrounding supermarket bread that sparked unexpected backlash.
The controversy began after I wrote an article on “ultra-processed foods” (UPF). These foods are products of industrial processes that are difficult to replicate at home, including sweetened drinks, prepackaged foods, and most supermarket breads. In the UK, around 50% of our daily calories come from UPF (source).
UPF has garnered a negative reputation for several reasons. Firstly, these foods tend to be low in protein and fiber, making them easily digestible and calorically dense. Secondly, the processing of UPF often strips away natural flavors, leading to high amounts of added sugar, salt, and fat to enhance taste. Lastly, there are concerns that excessive consumption of UPF may lead to various health issues (British Medical Journal).
While the negative effects of UPF are well-documented, the term itself is vague, encompassing a wide range of foods from heavily processed items to minimally altered products like mass-produced supermarket bread.
In a response to my article, it was argued that real sourdough bread made through lactobacterial fermentation may offer health benefits that are lacking in supermarket bread. It was also noted that supermarket bread tends to be higher in salt and sugar, leading to potential weight gain.
While artisanal sourdough may provide some advantages over supermarket bread, it’s essential to consider the accessibility of such premium products to a broader demographic.
A balanced discussion on the prevalence of UPF in our food supply is necessary, but the demonization of supermarket bread, a staple for many households, may be unwarranted without substantial evidence of harm.
WWhen Apple introduced its gaming subscription service, Arcade, in September 2019, it garnered significant attention, as is typical for the company. The offering of 100 premium mobile games (without ads) for a monthly fee of £4.99/$4.99 (now £6.99) aimed to replicate the Netflix subscription model in the gaming industry.
Arcade was positioned as an alternative to the predominant free-to-play and ad-supported mobile games market. The presence of popular games like Genshin Impact, Clash of Clans, and Candy Crush had made it challenging for paid premium games to gain traction. However, Arcade changed the game by providing a diverse selection of titles playable on various Apple devices without ads or in-app purchases. Moreover, the games could be enjoyed offline, eliminating interruptions during gameplay.
Five years later, the landscape has evolved significantly with the emergence of new subscription services for TV, movies, and games, competing with Apple Arcade. This raises questions about Arcade’s continued relevance and priority for Apple.
Alex Rofman, a senior director at Arcade with a long history in mobile gaming, reflects on the successes of 2023, highlighting the launch of Hello Kitty Island Adventure and What the Car winning Mobile Game of the Year at the Dice Awards.
“Very silly and original”… What a car trailer.
Apple Arcade has positioned itself as a platform for delivering premium, engaging, and ad-free gaming experiences to a wide audience. The focus on innovative and family-friendly titles like Assemble With Care, Card of Darkness, and Hello Kitty caters to tech-savvy parents seeking safe gaming options for their children.
Bright spot…Neo Cab. Photo courtesy of Chance Agency
Despite the shift towards family-friendly games, Apple remains committed to supporting indie developers and fostering unique and creative ideas within the gaming industry. The success of titles like What the Car and Sneaky Sasquatch exemplifies Apple Arcade’s role as a platform for showcasing innovative indie games.
While facing criticism regarding canceled projects and declining royalty payments, Apple defends its commitment to supporting developers and reinforcing the importance of gaming within its ecosystem. The future of Apple Arcade includes games designed for Vision Pro, Apple’s spatial computing device, offering new gaming experiences and innovation in gameplay.
“Vision Pro opens up a whole new world of possibilities.” Photo: Angela Weiss/AFP/Getty Images
Despite challenges and competition, Apple Arcade continues to play a crucial role in the mobile gaming industry, offering curated gaming experiences for families and indie game enthusiasts. With a focus on innovation and inclusivity, Apple Arcade aims to solidify its position in the gaming sector as it navigates the evolving landscape in the coming years.
Twenty years ago, deep underground in the Kalahari Desert in Botswana, thomas garnon Before I knew it, I was walking through a hellish place. The sound of explosions echoed off the walls and the temperature rose. “It was like a baptism of fire,” he says. It was his first trip to Kimberlite and his diamond mines.
The scene was full of cameras, and Garnon, now a student at the University of Southampton in the UK, was warned that if any jewelery was found on her, accidentally or not, she would be in trouble. But he didn't come here to find his fortune. He was seeking answers to one of Earth's greatest mysteries.
Diamonds are precious to many, but they hold a special place in the hearts of geologists. They were forged long ago in the fiery depths of Earth's inaccessible mantle and rose to the surface riding supersonic jets of magma from strange volcanoes called kimberlites.
Although we don't know exactly how diamonds are formed, we do know that diamonds are like time capsules that reveal secrets of Earth's distant past. And perhaps the biggest question is why the kimberlites that pushed them to the surface appear to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
Now, nearly 20 years after that first visit to the diamond mine, Gernon and his fellow kimberlite detectives finally have a comprehensive model of how volcanoes work, and with it You may gain a deeper understanding of volcanic treasures. Additionally, the study revealed the intriguing prospect that kimberlites may not be extinct after all.
Vesuvius Challenge Grand Prize winner used technology to decipher corrupted papyrus scrolls
vesuvius challenge
Artificial intelligence helped decipher ancient papyrus scrolls that were turned into blackened blocks of carbon by volcanic ash from Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. The first passage of this easy-to-read text reveals the Greek philosopher's never-before-seen musings.
This discovery won a grand prize of $700,000. vesuvius challengeThey then used a combination of 3D mapping and AI techniques to detect ink and decipher the shapes of the letters in digitally scanned segments of a scroll known as the Herculaneum Papyrus. Winning team members Yusef Nader, Luke Fariter and Julian Siliger help pave the way for further discoveries from additional papyrus scrolls once housed in the library of the ancient Roman town of Herculaneum. there is a possibility.
“I think this is a huge boon to our knowledge of ancient philosophy. It's just a huge amount of new text,” he says. michael mc oscar A professor at the University of London, he was not involved in the discovery.
The winning entry met the Vesuvius Challenge criteria of deciphering at least 85 percent of the letters in four sentences of 140 characters each. Plus, as a bonus, we included 11 more columns of text totaling over 2000 characters.
These rediscovered Greek letters reveal the thoughts of Philodemus, who is believed to have been the resident philosopher of the library containing the Herculaneum Papyrus. The deciphered texts focus on how the scarcity or abundance of food and other goods affects the pleasure they bring. This fits with Philodemus' philosophy of the Epicurean school, which prioritized pleasure as the main goal of life. His 2,000-year-old writings even seem to delve into the philosophy of Stoicism, which “says nothing about pleasure.”
And the Vesuvius challenge is not over yet. Goals for 2024 include finding ways to scale up his 3D scanning and digital analysis technology without becoming too expensive. Current technology costs $100 per square centimeter. That means it could cost anywhere from $1 million to $5 million to effectively unravel the entire scroll, and there are 800 scrolls waiting to be deciphered.
“Realistically, the majority of the known libraries already in the public domain are Epicurean philosophy, and that's what we should expect, but there are also important Stoic texts, perhaps some history and Latin literature. Yes. Full text of early Roman writers such as Ennius and Livius Andronicus. [whose works] “Even if we don't survive, that would be great,” McCosker said. “Epicurus' SymposiumThe book he wrote about the biology of wine consumption would be a lot of fun. ”
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
