William & Marys Muscarelle Museum of Art presents an illuminating exhibition of the Renaissance masters drawings for the Sistine Chapel ceiling and The Last Judgment.

Oops After a spacecraft was damaged en route to launch, NASA says it wont launch "Following initial evaluation, there also is damage to the cargo module." Eric Berger Mar 26, 2025 5:34 pm | 19 Northrop Grumman's Cygnus spacecraft is pictured at the International Space Station. Credit: NASA Northrop Grumman's Cygnus spacecraft is pictured at the International Space Station. Credit: NASA Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreThree weeks ago, NASA revealed that a shipping container protecting a Cygnus spacecraft sustained "damage" while traveling to the launch site in Florida.Built by Northrop Grumman, Cygnus is one of two Western spacecraft currently capable of delivering food, water, experiments, and other supplies to the International Space Station. This particular Cygnus mission, NG-22, had been scheduled for June. As part of its statement in early March, the space agency said it was evaluating the NG-22 Cygnus cargo supply mission along with Northrop.On Wednesday, after a query from Ars Technica, the space agency acknowledged that the Cygnus spacecraft designated for NG-22 is too damaged to fly, at least in the near term.Loading up Dragon"Following initial evaluation, there also is damage to the cargo module," the agency said in a statement. "The International Space Station Program will continue working with Northrop Grumman to assess whether the Cygnus cargo module is able to safely fly to the space station on a future flight." That future flight, NG-23, will launch no earlier than this fall, likely using a different Cygnus vehicle.As a result, NASA is modifying the cargo on its next cargo flight to the space station, the 32nd SpaceX Cargo Dragon mission, due to launch in April. The agency says it will "add more consumable supplies and food to help ensure sufficient reserves of supplies aboard the station" to the Dragon vehicle.As it mulls stopgap measures, one option available to NASA may be to try to slot in a cargo mission on Boeing's Starliner spacecraft. After the propulsion issues experienced on Starliner's first crew flight to the space station last June, NASA is still evaluating whether the vehicle can be certified for an operational crew mission, or whether it would be better to perform an uncrewed test flight.In such a scenario, Starliner could ferry cargo to the space station. However, Starliner would be competing with SpaceX crew missions for docking ports, and there would be limited time frames when the vehicle could fly.Limited options amid development delaysNASA also has Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser spacecraft on its internal schedule for a May launch this year. This is a new vehicle intended to carry cargo to the space station under the agency's Commercial Cargo program. However, that spacecraft is not yet ready for its debut flight, nor is there a Vulcan rocket available within the next several months to launch it. A Dream Chaser mission later this year remains possible, if unlikely.All of the roads for cargo supply, therefore, lead back to Dragon. As a result of Dream Chaser's delays, Starliner's problems, and the dropped Cygnus, NASA is now almost entirely reliant on SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft to get its astronauts to the space station and to feed them.Crew Dragon remains the only vehicle certified by NASA for human flights to the station. On the cargo side, Northrop Grumman is developing a new rocket with Firefly, but in the meantime, has been using the Falcon 9 to launch Cygnus. With Cygnus now sidelined for at least half a year, every non-Russian vehicle flying to the space station will be built by SpaceX.Eric BergerSenior Space EditorEric BergerSenior Space Editor Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston. 19 Comments

consolation prize for button-lovers Newer Kindles get a work-around for touchscreen page-turning in new software update "Double tap to page turn" works on latest Paperwhite and Kindle Colorsoft. Andrew Cunningham Mar 26, 2025 4:42 pm | 3 New Kindles with the 5.18.1 update installed support double tapping to turn pages or advance the screen. It's not quite a button, but it's a non-touchscreen option for people who want one. Credit: Amazon New Kindles with the 5.18.1 update installed support double tapping to turn pages or advance the screen. It's not quite a button, but it's a non-touchscreen option for people who want one. Credit: Amazon Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreAmazon discontinued 2016's Kindle Oasis in early 2024, and since then, the company hasn't offered a new e-reader with physical page turn buttons or any other alternative to touchscreen input. There still isn't a Kindle with buttons and the feature seems unlikely to return, but buyers of the latest Kindle Paperwhite or the Kindle Colorsoft are getting a possible consolation prize in the new 5.18.1 software update: a "double tap to page turn" feature that will turn the page or move to the next screen when you double-tap on the back or side of the device.The 5.18.1 software update is available on all Kindle readers going back to 2018's "10th generation" models, but the double-tap feature only works on the newest 12th-generation Paperwhite and the Colorsoft, not on any older Kindles or either Kindle Scribe model. We verified this firsthand by installing 5.18.1 on a 10th-generation Paperwhite, but we also checked the release notes for each individual Kindle on Amazon's software update page.All Kindles that get the 5.18.1 update also gain access to new book summaries for "thousands of bestselling English language Kindle books," aiming to make it easier to pick up a new book in an ongoing series.When a recap is available, it will be accessible from your Kindle's home page, or by opening the book and selecting "Recaps In This Series" from the menu. Opening a recap will show you a spoiler warning before you tap through. Based on the handful of recaps I could find and skim, there's a pretty good chance these summaries are mostly AI-generated, but Amazon's release notes and the Kindle interface don't say one way or the other.The 5.18.1 update also includes the typical non-specific "performance improvements, bug fixes, and other general enhancements" for all models.This is the first update to get the Colorsoft and the other Kindles running on the same software versionbefore now, the other Kindles were all on version 5.17, and the Colorsoft ran a version of 5.18 that wasn't available for manual download from Amazon's software update page.Andrew CunninghamSenior Technology ReporterAndrew CunninghamSenior Technology Reporter Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue. 3 Comments

[Virtual Event] Cyber Resilience in 2025: How to Keep Business Moving When Everything Else is Collapsing

Pregnancy has many effects on the bodyAnnaStills/Getty ImagesAs anyone who experiences it knows, pregnancy vastly transforms the body and now we have the most detailed picture of how it affects the blood, organs and immune system on a weekly basis. This could help provide treatments post-pregnancy, as well as reveal the risks of developing certain conditions while pregnant.We got an unprecedented view of the way the mothers body is changing week by week, to compensate for the incredible load on it, and how long it takes to recover after delivery, says Uri Alon at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel. AdvertisementDespite its importance, pregnancy has been understudied, says Alon. For example, previous research has tracked how around 20 blood markers, such as salt and iron levels, change in dozens of women during pregnancy up to roughly 6 weeks after delivery, using samples taken during standard healthcare. These experiments are usually done on a small number of patients, and they sample just once every trimester or one time point after delivery, says Alon.To get a more comprehensive view, Alon and his colleagues analysed blood samples previously collected from more than 160,000 women in Israel, aged between 25 and 31, who collectively had over 300,000 pregnancies. Together, these samples provided a snapshot of the body each week from 20 weeks before conception to 18 months after delivery, with each woman providing data for a few points in time. This approach gives useful insights into how the body generally changes during pregnancy at a population level, though tracking the same women over time would provide a better picture of individual trajectories, says Christoph Lees at Imperial College London.The researchers mapped out changes in 76 blood markers, such as the levels of proteins, fats and salts, that indicate the function of the liver, kidneys, blood, muscles, bones and immune system. They found that each of these markers varied widely from pre-conception levels during pregnancy, before either gradually returning to pre-pregnancy levels or overshooting the other way before settling back to the pre-pregnancy baseline.Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday.Sign up to newsletterNotably, the scientists found that while 36 of the markers, including those related to blood clotting, bounced back within a month after delivery, 31 markers took more than 10 weeks to recover. For instance, some changes to the liver and immune system took around 5 months to return to pre-pregnancy levels, and several kidney markers took roughly half a year. Some bone and muscle markers took even longer. What exactly this means for womens health is unclear, but it should be explored in future work, says Alon.Whats more, a few other markers never returned to baseline levels, even over a year after birth. The slightly old-fashioned view that by six or eight weeks after pregnancy, everyones completely back to normal, is clearly wrong, says Lees.For instance, iron levels remained low long after giving birth. Women are quite likely to be anaemic [have low iron levels] after delivery because of haemorrhaging, and because a developing foetus takes a lot of the iron stores out of their bodies, says Lees. We typically think it takes six to 12 months for iron stores to get back to normal this suggests it might take even longer.Meanwhile, levels of a protein called CRP stayed high. CRP is affected by a number of different processes, certainly inflammation is one of them, but things like hormonal changes can also affect this, says Lees. In another analysis, the team looked at differences in markers between women who had pre-eclampsia a condition during pregnancy where high blood pressure can cause headaches, vision problems and pain below the ribs and those who didnt. This revealed that, before conception, women who developed pre-eclampsia had elevated levels of blood cell fragments called platelets and a protein called ALT.For decades, the idea has been that the placenta doesnt implant properly, and if it doesnt implant properly, the blood supply is disrupted, it releases hormones and substances that lead to the mother getting high blood pressure, says Lees. But some studies suggest that those who develop it have a different cardiovascular function before pregnancy these findings add weight to this theory.If further studies show that these pre-conception markers really do indicate the risk of pre-eclampsia, they could potentially be used to pinpoint women at high risk. Then you could target them with ways of improving health prior to pregnancy either through exercise and lifestyle advice to lower their risk, says Lees.Journal reference:Science Advances DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adr7922Topics:pregnancy and birth

Leader and HealthIn the past year, treatments such as Wegovy, Mounjaro and Zepbound have become household names. But there are many questions left to answer, not least what the future holds for weight-loss medications and society at large 26 March 2025 Ute Grabowsky/imageBROKER/ShutterstockOnly a year ago, as hype was building around the semaglutide drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, conversations revolved around their potential to end obesity by helping people drop large amounts of weight.Then there was talk of how semaglutides appeal for weight loss was causing shortages for people who needed it to treat their diabetes, as well as which celebrities might have been getting their hands on it. Despite the buzz, these treatments were still somewhat exotic.Today, there is no longer talk of shortages. In fact, it is easier than ever to obtain these medications from online pharmacies, provided you have the funds and the right BMI. At lightning speed, the jabs have become household names. You or someone you know may well be taking one.AdvertisementSome data indicates that as many as 1 in 8 people in the US have tried one of the new generation of weight-loss drugs; in Britain, around 1 in 7 people have taken one or have a family member or friend who has done so. It is fair to say we are living in the era of Ozempic, and it is changing much more than our collective waistlines.Many people are experimenting with smaller doses of weight-loss drugs, but is this a good idea?In this special report, we take a clear-eyed look at the new normal and the questions it raises. What do these treatments mean for traditional approaches to weight loss, in particular exercise (see Why exercise is more important than ever when taking weight-loss drugs), and will those on the drugs really need to keep taking them for life (see GLP-1 drugs are only the start the powerful drugs to expect next)? Over the past year, we have seen study after study examine their benefits for other conditions, including Alzheimers disease, depression and addiction. So how do they influence the brain beyond appetite regulation (see What do GLP-1 drugs really tell us about the brains reward system?)?Many people are experimenting with taking them in smaller doses, but is this a good idea (see Microdosing GLP-1 drugs is on the rise but does it work?)? And we also ask what all of this means for society as a whole (see The unexpected impacts of a society transformed by weight-loss drugs) and what comes next (see GLP-1 drugs are only the start the powerful drugs to expect next).Whats clear is that the new boom in weight-loss drugs is just the beginning. In another years time, things are likely to look very different once again.Topics:

US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth Getty Images 2025-03-26T21:50:48Z SaveSaved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now.Have an account? Trump officials mistakenly shared attack plans with a reporter on an unsecured app, breaching rules.Pentagon and military leaders emphasize operational security training to protect troops.OPSEC is the management and control of military information to mitigate an adversary's knowledge.Trump administration officials accidentally shared planning for combat action with a reporter, and it's exactly the type of failure that military leaders have long feared one that comes from sloppy OPSEC and smartphones.Using Signal, a popular secure messaging app that is encrypted though not impenetrable, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, and other top officials discussed key details related to pending US airstrikes against Houthi militants in Yemen, including weather, assets involved, and timing.What the group failed to recognize is that one chat member was actually the top editor of The Atlantic magazine."We are currently clean on OPSEC," Hegseth wrote in the group chat just below an operational timeline that identified the types of planes involved and strike start times.Two OPSEC violations are apparent from the chat.Most obviously, sensitive military topics were openly discussed with an individual without a "need to know" and presumably without an appropriate security clearance. Second, that operational information was transmitted over an unsecured line, vulnerable to enemy hacking.Cellphones with cameras have long been a threat to military operations. Even clumsy use can expose secret military systems or disclose coming military action.What is OPSEC?Operational security, known by most troops and government workers as OPSEC, is the management and control of sensitive information to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. An OPSEC poster from the US Navy. Defense Media Activity graphic by Willie Kendrick Good OPSEC practices can include obvious things, like encrypting HR emails containing troop social security numbers or home addresses, and more advanced practices, such as ensuring only select personnel are "read in" on special intelligence areas, limiting leak potential.Former Trump Secretaries of Defense Jim Mattis and Mark Esper each enacted guidance to clamp down on leaks during their respective tenures, though those faced criticism and concerns about maintaining military transparency. In one training, the press was identified as an adversary.OPSEC is tremendously important to military operations. There have been countless OPSEC campaigns within the military to boost understanding of proper discipline.Service members must complete OPSEC training annually, usually in the form of online courses, to mitigate potentially harmful disclosures, which can result in severe punishments. A US Marine Corps graphic illustrating the importance of OPSEC. US Marine Corps/Cpl. Sean Potter The White House has denied that the messages were "war plans" and that any classified material was shared. President Donald Trump has signaled that his national security advisor, who added The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to the Signal chat according to chat logs, has his confidence and will keep his job."Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he's a good man," the president told an NBC reporter.Last week, the US Marine Corps' top general, Gen. Eric Smith, warned Marines in a video posted to social media that sloppy cellphone OPSEC, such as sending messages across unsecured lines with certain actionable details, might mean death in combat situations, as that information could be monitored by foes."If you can be sensed, you can be targeted,"Smith said in the video. "And if you can be targeted, you can be killed."Days before The Atlantic's story on the Signal chat published, the Pentagon released new guidance warning troops of Signal's vulnerability. The app's popularity amongst high-ranking officers and government officials seems to have marked it as an attractive target for professional hacking groups, the memo said.Deeply concerningWhile Hegseth refuted the idea that the chat thread contained actual OPSEC violations, information such as timelines and weather conditions can also be considered sensitive information and security violations, and they have been identified as such in military classification documents.A Pentagon official told Reuters that the contents of the chat were believed to be classified. A US Navy Security Directorate poster highlights OPSEC awareness. Defense Media Activity/Willie Kendrick The DoD's new "Rapid Response" account on X also refuted claims that the reported Signal chat was a noteworthy OPSEC violation, writing: "No names. No targets. No locations. No classified info. No war plans. Just an update in real time," the account said.Left off that list included things like time on target and strike packages.These unintentional disclosures, which involved more than just combat details, including disparaging European allies, have notably alarmed congressional leaders, including Republicans.Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, wrote on X that Trump administration officials' "disregard for stringent safeguards and secure channels could have compromised a high-stakes operation and put our servicemembers at risk."She said she hopes "this serves as a wake-up call that operational security must be a top priority for everyoneespecially our leaders."Former military leaders have raised concerns as well."Had that been a bunch of Majors & Lieutenant Commanders coordinating an attack, they'd all get fired and probably subject to criminal prosecution," said retired US Army General Barry McCaffrey, referring to the adage within the military that there are "different spanks for different ranks."For many troops, especially junior enlisted, OPSEC violations can result in punitive action and even jail time.Other veterans familiar with OPSEC training and the seriousness of such violations have taken to meme roasts, mocking officials like Hegseth and Vance, both youthful military veterans who presumably had to do the same OPSEC training as everyone else.The Pentagon and the White House directed Business Insider to previous statements when reached for comment, adding they "have nothing further to add."

Robert Downey Jr. is returning as Doctor Doom.Robert Downey Jr. appeared onstage at Marvel's San Diego Comic-Con on to reveal he is playing Doctor Doom. Jesse Grant / Getty Images for Disney Initially, Kang was set to be the next major villain for the Avengers, but Kang actor Jonathan Majors was fired by Marvel in November 2023 after he was convicted of assaulting his ex-girlfriend.That same month, the "Loki" season two finale seemingly diminished Kang's role in the MCU when Tom Hiddleston's titular antihero rewrote the timeline, providing an easy route to eliminate Kang from the story.Then, in July 2024, Marvel announced at the San Diego Comic-Con that Downey Jr., known forplaying the beloved heroIron Manfor over a decade, had been cast as Doctor Doom.While there had been speculation that Downey Jr. might return to the MCU at some point, the announcement was a surprise to many fans, as the actor only left the franchise a few years prior, when Iron Man sacrificed his life at the end of "Avengers: Endgame" to save the universe.The answer to how this is possible lies in the multiverse the various dimensions/timelines that are connected together.Recent Marvel projects have introduced fans to alternate versions of heroes from other universes including Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), and more.So Downey Jr.'s Doom could easily come from another universe to distinguish himself from Iron Man. And the villain wears a metal mask, after all.Doom is the Fantastic Four's main enemy in the comics, and Marvel Studios head honcho,Kevin Feige, already confirmedthat the team's movie, "The Fantastic Four: First Steps" takes place in another universe. Perhaps Tony Stark never got the chance to step up as a hero and chose a darker path in that world.There have also been versions of Iron Man in the comics that have turned into Doom. Most notably, a young Victor Von Doom body-swapped with Stark as a young man in 2010's "What If? Iron Man: Demon in an Armor #1."Doom himself even took up the Iron Man mantle in "The Infamous Iron Man" series in 2016. So, there is some precedent for blending their identities.If the villain does come from another universe, Marvel Studios could still cast another version of Doom for the main MCU on Earth-616 if they wanted someone else to take over the role in the future.The Russo Brothers are returning, too.Anthony and Joe Russo, the directors of the next two "Avengers" films. David Jon / Getty Images for AGBO Marvel Studios announced at the 2024 San Diego Comic-Con that siblings Joe and Anthony Russo will direct"Avengers: Doomsday" and the film that follows it, "Avengers: Secret Wars."Joe and Anthony Russo directed the last two "Avengers" movies, which made over $4 billion in total and are the current second and sixth-highest-grossing movies of all time.Since leaving Marvel, the Russos have attempted to create their own streaming franchises at Amazon Prime Video and Netflix, but they have not released anything as successful as their Marvel films.Fans are split on Downey Jr.'s return, but an analyst says it's a smart move for Marvel.Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man in "Avengers: Endgame." Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/FilmMagic/Marvel Studios The internet was divided about Downey Jr.'s return, with many criticizing Marvel Studios for playing the nostalgia card and being too safe with their casting choice.Some fans also said this move would ruin Downey Jr.'s final performance in "Avengers: Endgame" and the legacy of Doctor Doom, one of the most popular Marvel comic villains.But Rob Mitchell, the director of theatrical insights at Gower Street Analytics, told Business Insider in July 2024 that bringing him and the Russo brothers back is a logical decision."The chances are people are going to go, 'This is interesting. What are they doing? I've got to see this. Even if I just want to be able to have an opinion on why.' I get it from a business perspective, I can't really see the downside," he said."Fans would've expected big things from an 'Avengers' movie anyway," he added. "And of course, this is the 'Avengers' movie prior to 'Secret Wars.'"Mitchell noted that people's curiosity about Downey's role in "Doomsday" and "Secret Wars" will draw them in, especially to see if the actor changes his appearance."Will he look like Tony Stark or will they do something to make him look different? It's Hollywood, there's plenty of makeup. There's lots of Ryan Reynolds in 'Deadpool & Wolverine' but they don't all look the same."Downey Jr.'s casting comes amid conversations about whether audiences are tired of the superhero genre. While it's not a new concern, Mitchell said that MCU fatigue hasn't deterred fans."Can we really have a conversation about MCU fatigue when 'Deadpool' just made $430 million in four days? This is a film that we are anticipating being only the second R rated film to do a billion dollars. And clearly, that's where it's heading. So you can talk MCU fatigue after that," he said.'Avengers: Doomsday' and 'Avengers: Secret Wars' will likely focus on a multiversal war.In "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness," Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) is warned that universes in the multiverse can collide. Marvel Studios Michael Waldron, who wrote "Loki," will be writing the script for the two Avengers movies, which means the film will likely be related to that series."Loki," "What If," "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness," and "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania" warned that multiversal interactions could lead to a war between universes or the universes colliding into each other.Though Kang is no longer Marvel's big-picture villain, a collision between different worlds still seems to be the Avengers-level threat that will be faced in the next two films.Marvel Studios seems to be adapting two major events from its 2015 and 2016 comics, "Time Runs out" and "Secret Wars. In this run of comics, both written by Jonathan Hickman, the multiverse is dying because an alien race called the Beyonders has created living bombs to wipe out everything.Attempts to kill living bombs lead to multiple earths from these universes colliding, wiping out both universes. The Beyonders' plan succeeds, but Doctor Doom, Doctor Strange, and Molecule Man kill the alien race, steal their power, and create a new world with Doom as the world's god.Other heroes also survive the decimation using special life raft machines. When they escape, they defeat Doom and restore the universe.Incursions have already been alluded to in "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness." While they have the same effect as the comic book, the cause is prolonged multiversal traveling.It is likely that something before or during "Avengers: Doomsday" kicks off that incursion in the main MCU universe, leading to a battle between multiple worlds. So fans may see even more cameos in the movie outside Downey Jr.'s Doom from one of the other worlds.The Avengers team will look very different.The cast of "The Fantastic Four: First Steps" Joseph Quinn, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Pedro Pascal, and Vanessa Kirby will appear in "Avengers: Doomsday." Gilbert Flores / Variety via Getty Images Since "Avengers: Endgame," many of the main heroes from previous films have retired or died, and new characters have been introduced to the MCU through various films and Disney+ shows.In March 2025, Marvel confirmed that "Avengers: Doomsday" is now in production. The studio also announced a slew of "Avengers: Doomsday" cast members via an hourslong livestream.In addition to Downey Jr., many other major MCU stars will be back: Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Paul Rudd (Scott Lang/Ant-Man), and Simu Liu (Shaun/Shang-Chi).Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson/Captain America) and Danny Ramirez (Joaquin Torres/Falcon), who most recently reprised their Marvel roles in "Captain America: Brave New World," will return in "Doomsday."Additionally, the movie will include actors who will star in Marvel's next two films set for release this year, "Thunderbolts*" and "The Fantastic Four: First Steps.""Thunderbolts"*," set for release on May 2, centers on a ragtag group of assassins and spies who've already appeared in previous MCU projects and must work together on a mission.Cast members Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes/Winter Soldier), Wyatt Russell (John Walker/US Agent), Florence Pugh (Yelena Belova), David Harbour (Alexei Shostakov/Red Guardian), Hannah John-Kamen (Ava Starr/Ghost), and Lewis Pullman (Bob/Sentry) will return in "Doomsday."After making their MCU debuts this summer in "Fantastic Four," Pedro Pascal (Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic), Vanessa Kirby (Sue Storm/Invisible Woman), Joseph Quinn (Johnny Storm/Human Torch), and Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Ben Grimm/The Thing) will reprise their roles for "Doomsday."The "Avengers" movie will feature "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" stars Letitia Wright (Shuri/Black Panther), Tenoch Huerta Meja (Namor), and Winston Duke (M'Baku)."X-Men" actor Kelsey Grammer will also appear in the film, likely reprising his role as Hank McCoy/Beast after his appearance in the end-credits scene of "The Marvels."He's not the only "X-Men" alum who will be part of "Doomsday." The cast list includes Patrick Stewart (Charles Xavier/Professor X), Ian McKellen (Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto), Alan Cumming (Kurt Wagner/Nightcrawler), Rebecca Romijn (Raven Darkholme/Mystique), and James Marsden (Scott Summers/Cyclops).Fans of Channing Tatum's performance as Gambit in "Deadpool & Wolverine" will also rejoice in the news that he'll appear in "Doomsday."The list of 27 cast members noticeably excludes major MCU stars like Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner/Hulk), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Benedict Cumberbatch (Stephen Strange/Doctor Strange), Tom Holland (Peter Parker/Spider-Man), Brie Larson (Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel), and Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff/Scarlett Witch).It's likely that additional "Doomsday" actors will be announced at a later date.

What does a contrarian, grievance-happy comedian do when contrarianism and grievance become the norm? Bill Burr, long the poster child for a type of angry white male misanthrope, may be the last person youd expect to embrace empathy in response to, well, everything but that seems to be the case.Burr recently told NPRs Terry Gross that theres also a part of me that really hates the fact that I have been so angry. His new Hulu comedy special, Bill Burr: Drop Dead Years, leans all the way into that remorse, with jokes that for the most part sidestep giving into anger and remonstrance in favor of self-reflection. Its a far cry from his old persona, which often reveled in jokes about lesbians, fat people, trans athletes, and other marginalized groups who seemed to draw his ire. Burr discusses things that he previously would likely have been the first to ridicule: his experiences with therapy, learning how to be a kinder partner, and the real effects of toxic masculinity on men. He even opens up briefly about experiencing intense depression and childhood sexual abuse. Its pretty weighty stuff, treated with surprising and studious care.Alongside the special, hes also making headlines for taking aim at billionaires, defending Luigi Mangione, getting into fights with conservative commentators, and roasting Elon Musk for doing a Nazi salute a move that he claims got him flagged by the Musk-owned X. Its leading some conservatives to ask, is Burr actually going woke?Well, no, not exactly. But there is something new to the way Burr is positioning himself as a man in 2025 America. He is giving voice to a feeling that the rules or acceptable strategies for climbing the masculinity ladder feel opaque, contradictory, and changing, Northwestern sociologist Rebecca Ewert told Vox, referring to the status hierarchies men have to navigate in a patriarchal society. There have been rules they have never been consistent. Black men need different strategies than white men. There are different ways of proving dominance in a weightlifting gym than on the floor of Congress. Burr is explaining that they feel more contradictory than ever.As a 56-year-old white guy, Burr embodies the much-discussed masculinity crisis yet while griping about his losses, hes also noticing that even his advantages can be shortcomings in disguise. Hes articulating ways the system doesnt serve him, Ewert said, but hes also so afraid to lose that system hes been seeing his whole life. And were seeing that throughout the culture.You might think that anxiety over his perceived loss of status would produce even angrier comedy. Yet counter to prevailing cultural narratives about angry white men getting older and more cantankerous, Burr seems to feel liberated by aging. Hes happy to be getting along better with his wife, relieved to finally be able to say out loud that hes sad. Men arent allowed to be sad, he says, in a self-deprecating moment describing how he opened up to his wife about experiencing emotion. Were allowed to be one of two things. Were allowed to be mad or fine. Its far from an earth-shattering revelation, but it feels significant when its coming from someone like Burr, who previously seemed defiant and even proud of his limited emotional range. He was far from alone; if anything, he was part of a cultural moment that seems geared toward rewarding emotional repression and regressive forms of masculinity. University of Birmingham sociologist Yuchen Yang points out that Burrs sudden interest in chilling out is self-serving on an existential level. He has for many years served as the poster child for a kind of masculinity that, as Yang put it, is not only harmful to women, queer, and people of color, but also detrimental to [men]s own existence.Dominant cultural beliefs about manhood often lead men into an unhealthy lifestyle, Yang said. Yet at the same time, the stigma around vulnerability also makes it difficult for men to seek help when needed, he explains, pointing to therapy, medical invention, and simple wellness tactics as preferable alternatives to doubling down.The real issue, Yang says, is that men are chasing a cultural ideal that is far from realistic. As he points out, Very few men can actually achieve this ideal, and those who do get close to it can hardly embody it all the time. In other words, even as men want to embody a patriarchal masculinity, theyre just as trapped by its societal expectations as everyone else. Over the last decade, the manosphere internet spaces focused on the lives and status of men, dominated by influencers and podcasters like Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, and a coterie of their peers emerged as both a reaction to and worsening agent for this problem. Yang suggests its existence is an attempt to resolve the inherent contradictions of patriarchy without overthrowing patriarchy. Those in the manosphere want to recover mens natural masculinity, he said, but there is nothing natural about the kind of masculinity they are invested in.While these online spaces give men a sense of community, they also foster growing misogyny, extremism, and disgruntlement. Men now are more isolated than ever, and compared to women, theyre dying younger and are more likely to die by causes including suicide, overdose, or complications from alcohol or drug abuse. Throughout Drop Dead Years, Burr discusses his own struggle with alcohol addiction as well as the broader epidemic of sad men. (The number one place to see sad men? he jokes. Guitar Center.) Yet he seems to have not only recognized all of this, but decided to evolve in response. Burr makes the point that all of that repression of emotion takes a real toll on mens health notable in a special that references his awareness of dying throughout. You start thinking about your life, you know? he confesses. You take stock in it. I start thinking about how fast my lifes going by, how quick my kids are growing up. None of this is quite as simple as man realizes he wants to be a better person as he gets older. What stands out to Ewert is his deep ambivalence about all of this. She notes that Burr often swings from serious discussion about his deepest fears and hopes to jabs about women as if his gut reaction is to punch down in order to remind himself and others that hes not on the bottom.I dont see him making a coherent argument. I see a lot of reactions, she says. Thats relatable I think thats what a lot of men are going through.Theres a sense that Burr has been working out not only how to get in touch with his softer emotions, but how to do softer, less confrontational comedy in a way that still feels nuanced comedy that we might think of as punching sideways instead of either of the expected directions. At one point, he roasts his audience members for laughing at a joke he sets up about Joe Biden and dementia. Not 30 seconds ago, when I said someone in my family got diagnosed [with dementia], you guys were all you could hear a pin drop. And you had empathy, he points out. Second you put a blue or a red tie on it Fuck that old man! Fuck him! Im glad hes gonna die! In recent years, comedy has been treated to a litany of comics, from Dave Chappelle to Louis C.K., who, when called out for various offenses, have doubled down on their commitment to disgruntlement. Burr, too, isnt over the idea; hes still frustrated that the rules about who gets canceled and who doesnt are so inconsistent, still talking about how the social phenomenon has rendered him unable to insult someone who deserves it. Even if he took my last slice of pizza and is denying it with pepperoni on his breath, Burr says, I cant be like, You fat, man-titted c**t. But whatever Bill Burr might say about cancel culture as a corrective, in his case, hes managed to do the one thing that the liberal backlash was seeking all along: listening and trying to be a little better. Its the thing that none of those other comics got around to.I think he has been seeing the real rewards of emotional connection in his life, Ewert said. Yelling on stage is one thing, she notes, but at your house you realize that not yelling makes you feel better. I think theres hope in this message, she continued. If more of us could talk about mens issues, about mens mental health, as the result of a patriarchal system that puts all of us in a hierarchy, then that helps all of us.See More:

An exceedingly rare event occurred on Wednesday the Supreme Court upheld a federal gun regulation, with four of the Courts Republicans in the majority.Justice Neil Gorsuchs opinion in Bondi v. VanDerStok is narrow, but it turns aside a challenge to a federal regulation targeting ghost guns, disassembled firearm kits that can easily be assembled into a fully functional gun. Under federal law, guns sold in the United States must have a serial number that law enforcement can use to identify the weapon. And someone purchasing such a gun ordinarily must submit to a background check before they can complete the sale. The plaintiffs in this case essentially argued that ghost guns are exempt from these requirements because they are not in working order when they are purchased and thus dont count as guns.Though this Court normally takes an expansive view of gun rights, it disagreed with the VanDerStok plaintiffs, meaning ghost guns are still subject to the same laws they were subject to yesterday.As Gorsuch explains, the plaintiffs argument makes a hash of the relevant statute. That law provides that the background check and serial number requirements apply to any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. The plaintiffs primarily argued that a ghost gun does not count as a weapon until it is assembled. But, as Gorsuch notes, people often use a noun like weapon to refer to an item that is not fully constructed. His opinion analogizes ghost guns to a writer who describes their unfinished manuscript as their novel, or to a consumer who refers to the box of disassembled parts they just purchased at IKEA as a table.That said, VanDerStok does not hold that any partially assembled gun is subject to the background check and serial number laws. As Gorsuch explains, the plaintiffs in this case brought a facial challenge to the ghost gun regulation, meaning that they claimed that it must be stuck down in its entirety because there is no set of circumstances where it is valid. While its possible to imagine a set of unfinished gun parts that are so far from completion that they should not be subject to federal regulation, many of the gun kits targeted by the ghost guns regulation are nearly fully complete. As Gorsuch writes, one such kit was so easy to assemble that an individual who had never before encountered the kit was able to produce a gun from it in 21 minutes using only common tools and instructions found in publicly available YouTube videos.So, the fact that at least some ghost gun kits exist that can fairly be described as weapons is enough to defeat a facial challenge. Gorsuchs opinion does, however, leave open the possibility that someone could later bring an as-applied challenge claiming that a particular kit is too far from completion to be subject to the background check and serial number law. (As-applied challenges permit someone to argue that a law or regulation should not apply to them, even if it validly might be applied to others.)VanDerStok, in other words, is a very small victory for the cause of gun control. But it is a victory. And it shows that, at least in a case where the statute is very clear and the pro-gun sides arguments are very weak, this Supreme Court is capable of upholding a gun regulation.See More: