Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has turned up the dial to 11 on his anti-Apple rhetoric, calling the iPhone maker a gangster-style business which has concluded that crime pays.He said that both Apple and Google are guilty of the same practices, including using scare tactics to make iPhone and Android users afraid to install the Epic Games Store Sweeney not an Apple fanIt would be fair to say that Sweeney isnt Apples biggest fan. Back in 2021, Epic mostly lost a lawsuit against Apple. It scored one victory, the judge ruling that developers are allowed to direct users to alternative ways to pay for in-app purchases that would avoid the App Stores 30% cut, but lost on all other issues.To cite just a handful of examples, he has previously accused Apple of buying off politicians by making political donations; described its App Store policies as illegal; and said the company acts in bad faith and lies.Apple and Google gangster companiesIn remarks reported by TechCrunch, Sweeney has gone even further while speaking at a tech conference.The sad truth is that Apple and Google are no longer good-faith, law-abiding companies, Sweeney said. Theyre run, in many ways, as gangster-style businesses that will do anything they think they can get away with. If they think that the fine is going to be cheaper than the lost revenue from an illegal practice, they always continue the illegal practice and pay the fine []Crime pays for big tech companies, he said. Obviously, we shouldnt expect that to change until enforcement becomes much, much more vigorous, he told the audience.He accused both Apple and Google of using scare tactics to dissuade smartphone owners from installing the Epic Games App Store, which would allow the company to sell apps and in-app content without the 30% cut taking by the two tech giants.In Europe, the Epic Games Store is allowed thanks to new regulations, but Apple displays a warning to users who try to install it [and] this leads to drop-off rates of 50-60%, Sweeney said.9to5Macs TakeApplying heat rather than light to a dispute rarely helps.Leaving aside the inflammatory language, however, it does appear likely that Apple will be found guilty of bad-faith compliance with the judges ruling in the case by effectively continuing to charge the same commission even for sales not made though its own store. Both judges involved in the case have strongly implied that Apple lied about how and why it reached this decision.As Ive argued previously, Apple is making exactly the same mistake Epic did when it baited Apple.What Epic Games did was dumb. It baited Apple, Apple responded, and Epic Games got hurt. FAFO. But Apple is making the exact same mistake here. Its baiting lawmakers, lawmakers will respond, and Apple will get hurt.Highlighted accessoriesImage: Epic GamesAdd 9to5Mac to your Google News feed. FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.Youre reading 9to5Mac experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Dont know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

The rules have changed. Again. Artificial intelligence is bringing powerful new tools to businesses. But it's also giving cybercriminals smarter ways to attack. They're moving quicker, targeting more precisely, and slipping past old defenses without being noticed.And here's the harsh truth: If your security strategy hasn't evolved with AI in mind, you're already behind.But you're not aloneand you're not powerless.Cybercriminals are now using AI not just to automate attacks but to customize themtailoring phishing emails, cloning voices, manipulating data models, and probing systems for subtle weaknesses at a scale we've never seen before.These aren't future threatsthey're happening now. So the real question is: Are you ready to defend against them?In our upcoming webinar, "AI Uncovered: Re-Shaping Security Strategies for Resilience in the Era of AI," you'll hear from Diana Shtil, Senior Product Marketing Manager at Zscaler. She'll break down what's changing in cybersecurityand what you can do to protect your organization right now.What You'll Learn:How attackers are using AIand how you can think like themThe latest threat trends you might not know about yetEasy-to-follow strategies for securing AI use in your companyWhy Zero Trust is key to staying safeA practical approach to building long-term cyber resilienceCyber threats won't wait. And learning after an attack is too late.This webinar gives you clear, practical steps to prepare, adapt, and lead in the AI agewhether you're a security pro or a business decision-maker.Watch this Expert WebinarRegister now for "AI Uncovered: Re-Shaping Security Strategies for Resilience in the Era of AI" broadcasting next week.Found this article interesting? This article is a contributed piece from one of our valued partners. Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post.

AI holds the promise to revolutionize all sectors of enterprisefrom fraud detection and content personalization to customer service and security operations. Yet, despite its potential, implementation often stalls behind a wall of security, legal, and compliance hurdles.Imagine this all-too-familiar scenario: A CISO wants to deploy an AI-driven SOC to handle the overwhelming volume of security alerts and potential attacks. Before the project can begin, it must pass through layers of GRC (governance, risk, and compliance) approval, legal reviews, and funding hurdles. This gridlock delays innovation, leaving organizations without the benefits of an AI-powered SOC while cybercriminals keep advancing.Let's break down why AI adoption faces such resistance, distinguish genuine risks from bureaucratic obstacles, and explore practical collaboration strategies between vendors, C-suite, and GRC teams. We'll also provide tips from CISOs who have dealt with these issues extensively as well as a cheat sheet of questions AI vendors must answer to satisfy enterprise gatekeepers.Compliance as the primary barrier to AI adoptionSecurity and compliance concerns consistently top the list of reasons why enterprises hesitate to invest in AI. Industry leaders like Cloudera and AWS have documented this trend across sectors, revealing a pattern of innovation paralysis driven by regulatory uncertainty.When you dig deeper into why AI compliance creates such roadblocks, three interconnected challenges emerge. First, regulatory uncertainty keeps shifting the goalposts for your compliance teams. Consider how your European operations might have just adapted to GDPR requirements, only to face entirely new AI Act provisions with different risk categories and compliance benchmarks. If your organization is international, this puzzle of regional AI legislation and policies only becomes more complex. In addition, framework inconsistencies compound these difficulties. Your team might spend weeks preparing extensive documentation on data provenance, model architecture, and testing parameters for one jurisdiction, only to discover that this documentation is not portable across regions or is not up-to-date anymore. Lastly, the expertise gap may be the biggest hurdle. When a CISO asks who understands both regulatory frameworks and technical implementation, typically the silence is telling. Without professionals who bridge both worlds, translating compliance requirements into practical controls becomes a costly guessing game.These challenges affect your entire organization: developers face extended approval cycles, security teams struggle with AI-specific vulnerabilities like prompt injection, and GRC teams who have the difficult task of safeguarding their organization take increasingly conservative positions without established benchmarks. Meanwhile, cybercriminals face no such constraints, rapidly adopting AI to enhance attacks while your defensive capabilities remain locked behind compliance reviews.AI Governance challenges: Separating myth from realityWith so much uncertainty surrounding AI regulations, how do you distinguish real risks from unnecessary fears? Let's cut through the noise and examine what you should be worrying aboutand what you can let be. Here are some examples:FALSE: "AI governance requires a whole new framework."Organizations often create entirely new security frameworks for AI systems, unnecessarily duplicating controls. In most cases, existing security controls apply to AI systemswith only incremental adjustments needed for data protection and AI-specific concerns.TRUE: "AI-related compliance needs frequent updates." As the AI ecosystem and underlying regulations keep shifting, so does AI governance. While compliance is dynamic, organizations can still handle updates without overhauling their entire strategy.FALSE: "We need absolute regulatory certainty before using AI."Waiting for complete regulatory clarity delays innovation. Iterative development is key, as AI policy will continue evolving, and waiting means falling behind.TRUE: "AI systems need continuous monitoring and security testing."Traditional security tests don't capture AI-specific risks like adversarial examples and prompt injection. Ongoing evaluationincluding red teamingis critical to identify bias and reliability issues.FALSE: "We need a 100-point checklist before approving an AI vendor." Demanding a 100-point checklist for vendor approval creates bottlenecks. Standardized evaluation frameworks like NIST's AI Risk Management Framework can streamline assessments.TRUE: "Liability in high-risk AI applications is a big risk."Determining accountability when AI errors occur is complex, as errors can stem from training data, model design, or deployment practices. When it's unclear who is responsibleyour vendor, your organization, or the end-usercareful risk management is necessary.Effective AI governance should prioritize technical controls that address genuine risksnot create unnecessary roadblocks that keep you stuck while others move forward.The way forward: Driving AI innovation with GovernanceOrganizations that adopt AI governance early gain significant competitive advantages in efficiency, risk management, and customer experience over those that treat compliance as a separate, final step. Take JPMorgan Chase's AI Center of Excellence (CoE) as an example. By leveraging risk-based assessments and standardized frameworks through a centralized AI governance approach, they've streamlined the AI adoption process with expedited approvals and minimal compliance review times.Meanwhile, for organizations that delay implementing effective AI governance, the cost of inaction grows daily:Increased security risks: Without AI-powered security solutions, your organization becomes increasingly vulnerable to sophisticated, AI-driven cyber attacks that traditional tools cannot detect or mitigate effectively.Lost opportunities: Failing to innovate with AI results in lost opportunities for cost savings, process optimization, and market leadership as competitors leverage AI for competitive advantage.Regulatory debt: Future tightening of regulations will increase compliance burdens, forcing rushed implementations under less favorable conditions and potentially higher costs.Inefficient late adoption: Retroactive compliance often comes with less favorable terms, requiring substantial rework of systems already in production.Balancing governance with innovation is critical: as competitors standardize AI-powered solutions, you can ensure your market share through more secure, efficient operations and enhanced customer experiences powered by AI and future-proofed through AI governance.How can vendors, executives and GRC teams work together to unlock AI adoption?AI adoption works best when your security, compliance, and technical teams collaborate from day one. Based on conversations we've had with CISOs, we'll break down the top three key governance challenges and offer practical solutions.Who should be responsible for AI Governance in your organization?Answer: Create shared accountability through cross-functional teams: CIOs, CISOs, and GRC can work together within an AI Center of Excellence (CoE).As one CISO candidly told us: "GRC teams get nervous when they hear 'AI' and use boilerplate question lists that slow everything down. They're just following their checklist without any nuance, creating a real bottleneck."What organizations can do in practice:Form an AI governance committee with people from security, legal, and business.Create shared metrics and language that everyone understands to track AI risk and value.Set up joint security and compliance reviews so teams align from day one.How can vendors make data processing more transparent?Answer: Build privacy and security into your design from the ground up so that common GRC requirements are already addressed from day 1.Another CISO was crystal clear about their concerns: "Vendors need to explain how they'll protect my data and whether it will be used by their LLM models. Is it opt-in or opt-out? And if there's an accidentif sensitive data is accidentally included in the traininghow will they notify me?"What organizations acquiring AI solutions can do in practice:Use your existing data governance policies instead of creating brand-new structures (see next question).Build and maintain a simple registry of your AI assets and use cases.Make sure your data handling procedures are transparent and well-documented.Develop clear incident response plans for AI-related breaches or misuse.Are existing exemptions to privacy laws also applicable to AI tools?Answer: Consult with your legal counsel or privacy officer.That said, an experienced CISO in the financial industry explained, "There is a carve out within the law for processing private data when it's being done for the benefit of the customer or out of contractual necessity. As I have a legitimate business interest in servicing and protecting our clients, I may use their private data for that express purpose and I already do so with other tools such as Splunk." He added, "This is why it's so frustrating that additional roadblocks are thrown up for AI tools. Our data privacy policy should be the same across the board."How can you ensure compliance without killing innovation?Answer: Implement structured but agile governance with periodic risk assessments.One CISO offered this practical suggestion: "AI vendors can help by proactively providing answers to common questions and explanations for why certain concerns aren't valid. This lets buyers provide answers to their compliance team quickly without long back-and-forths with vendors."What AI vendors can do in practice:Focus on the "common ground" requirements that appear in most AI policies.Regularly review your compliance procedures to cut out redundant or outdated steps.Start small with pilot projects that prove both security compliance and business value.7 questions AI vendors need to answer to get past enterprise GRC teamsAt Radiant Security, we understand that evaluating AI vendors can be complex. Over numerous conversations with CISOs, we've gathered a core set of questions that have proven invaluable in clarifying vendor practices and ensuring robust AI governance across enterprises.1. How do you ensure our data won't be used to train your AI models?"By default, your data is never used for training our models. We maintain strict data segregation with technical controls that prevent accidental inclusion. If any incident occurs, our data lineage tracking will trigger immediate notification to your security team within 24 hours, followed by a detailed incident report."2. What specific security measures protect data processed by your AI system?"Our AI platform uses end-to-end encryption both in transit and at rest. We implement strict access controls and regular security testing, including red team exercises; we also maintain SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and FedRAMP certifications. All customer data is logically isolated with strong tenant separation."3. How do you prevent and detect AI hallucinations or false positives?"We implement multiple safeguards: retrieval augmented generation (RAG) with authoritative knowledge bases, confidence scoring for all outputs, human verification workflows for high-risk decisions, and continuous monitoring that flags anomalous outputs for review. We also conduct regular red team exercises to test the system under adversarial conditions."4. Can you demonstrate compliance with regulations relevant to our industry?"Our solution is designed to support compliance with GDPR, CCPA, NYDFS, and SEC requirements. We maintain a compliance matrix mapping our controls to specific regulatory requirements and undergo regular third-party assessments. Our legal team tracks regulatory developments and provides quarterly updates on compliance enhancements."5. What happens if there's an AI-related security breach?"We have a dedicated AI incident response team with 24/7 coverage. Our process includes immediate containment, root cause analysis, customer notification within contractually agreed timeframes (typically 24-48 hours), and remediation. We also conduct tabletop exercises quarterly to test our response capabilities."6. How do you ensure fairness and prevent bias in your AI systems?"We implement a comprehensive bias prevention framework that includes diverse training data, explicit fairness metrics, regular bias audits by third parties, and fairness-aware algorithm design. Our documentation includes detailed model cards that highlight limitations and potential risks."7. Will your solution play nicely with our existing security tools?"Our platform offers native integrations with major SIEM platforms, identity providers, and security tools through standard APIs and pre-built connectors. We provide comprehensive integration documentation and dedicated implementation support to ensure seamless deployment."Bridging the gap: AI innovation meets GovernanceAI adoption isn't stalled by technical limitations anymoreit's delayed by compliance and legal uncertainties. But AI innovation and governance aren't enemies. They can actually strengthen each other when you approach them right.Organizations that build practical, risk-informed AI governance aren't just checking compliance boxes but securing a real competitive edge by deploying AI solutions faster, more securely, and with greater business impact. For your security operations, AI may be the single most important differentiator in future-proofing your security posture. While cybercriminals are already using AI to enhance their attacks' sophistication and speed, can you afford to fall behind? Making this work requires real collaboration: Vendors must address compliance concerns proactively, C-suite executives should champion responsible innovation, and GRC teams need to transition from gatekeepers to enablers. This partnership unlocks AI's transformative potential while maintaining the trust and security that customers demand.About Radiant SecurityRadiant Security provides an AI-powered SOC platform designed for SMB and enterprise security teams looking to fully handle 100% of the alerts they receive from multiple tools and sensors. Ingesting, understanding, and triaging alerts from any security vendor or data source, Radiant ensures no real threats are missed, cuts response times from days to minutes, and enables analysts to focus on true positive incidents and proactive security. Unlike other AI solutions which are constrained to predefined security use cases, Radiant dynamically addresses all security alerts, eliminating analyst burnout and the inefficiency of switching between multiple tools. Additionally, Radiant delivers affordable, high-performance log management directly from customers' existing storage, dramatically reducing costs and eliminating vendor lock-in associated with traditional SIEM solutions.Learn more about the leading AI SOC platform.About Author: Shahar Ben Hador spent nearly a decade at Imperva, becoming their first CISO. He went on to be CIO and then VP Product at Exabeam. Seeing how security teams were drowning in alerts while real threats slipped through, drove him to build Radiant Security as co-founder and CEO.Found this article interesting? This article is a contributed piece from one of our valued partners. Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post.

Max Vetter, VP of Cyber, Immersive April 3, 20254 Min ReadZdenek Sasek via Alamy StockJust a few months into the year, organizations have already been rocked by massive breaches, high-stakes settlements, and disruptive LLMs. The pace of these events isnt just alarming -- its a warning sign. If these early shockwaves are any indication, cyber professionals are in for a year of unprecedented challenges and shifts in the threat landscape.Cyberattacks arent just likely anymore -- theyre practically inevitable. With the rise of GenAI, ever-expanding threats, and hostile nation-state actors, the game has changed. Yet, most organizations continue to play defense the same way: relying on outdated training, investing in cyber insurance policies, and adopting the latest tech tools, believing the tick boxes required by compliance actually help them be secure.But are they actually ready? Organizations must go beyond simply claiming readiness to prove it.This will be imperative for overall business operations and their bottom lines, as the global average cost of a breach was $4.88 million, with the vast majority (68%) of breaches involving the human element. Organizations must start from within to ensure theyre doing all they can to protect themselves from threat actors.Security leaders can strengthen their readiness by focusing on these key actions:Related:1. Out with the old, in with the newIts past time to ditch painful traditional training (like anti-phishing videos) and other outdated methods that dont measure what people will do in the event of a threat, which can lead to a false sense of security. It's time to shift focus to the continuous development of your team's skills through hands-on crisis exercising. And this doesnt mean one-and-done training will cut it. Regularly pressure test your people to ensure they can adapt and communicate effectively. Regular cyber drills will ensure your people are ready.2. Focus on your people over tech stacksJust recently, MGM agreed to pay $45 million following breaches in 2019 and 2023. They were impacted by malicious actors taking advantage of the human element of their security posture. This example underscores the bottom-line need to uplevel the knowledge, skills, and judgment of their entire workforce to ensure no one is taken advantage of as a weak or missing link and instead empower everyone to be an asset for the security and bottom line of the organization.That said, it would be naive to overlook technologys role as the bridge between malicious actors and their victims. To stay ahead, organizations should consider using newer tools, like GenAI, to strengthen their defenses. Integrating these tools into hands-on exercises allows your team to concentrate on remediation and enhancing defenses. Humans should also always be kept in the loop because its critical to remember GenAI can be a double-edged sword: while DevSecOps teams can use it to automate and accelerate vulnerability detection, bad actors will exploit these same tools to generate malicious code and enhance phishing or fraud tactics, increasing overall risk.Related:3. Involve your execs, not just techsInvolving all executives in a company's cybersecurity strategy is crucial for creating a holistic and effective approach to security. Cyber threats are not limited to IT; they can affect every aspect of a business, from financial systems and customer data to supply chain operations. Keeping these conversations siloed is a missed opportunity. Instead, leaders like the CEO, CFO, and legal team should be involved to ensure security strategies align with the companys broader business objectives. The industry agrees, as 96% of cyber leaders believe communicating cyber-readiness to senior leadership and boards will be crucial this year.This cross-departmental involvement helps create a unified approach where security is seen as a technical challenge but also as a core part of the company's overall strategy, influencing decision-making at all levels. A modern, comprehensive cybersecurity strategy requires leadership engagement across departments to ensure resilience, compliance, and long-term business success.Related:4. Treat cyber risk like any other business riskApproaching cyber risk like any other business risk is essential for a companys long-term stability and success. Like how businesses monitor financial performance, competitive threats, and legal liabilities, cyber risk should be tracked with the same level of attention. An organization must continually assess its cybersecurity posture, identify vulnerabilities and evaluate potential threats.This means not only implementing technical defenses, but also establishing policies, processes, and training programs that foster a culture of security awareness. By treating cyber risk as an ongoing priority, companies can address weaknesses before they become breaches, ensuring their cybersecurity efforts are integrated into the broader risk management framework.As we navigate the tumultuous technological landscape, its clear that a reactive approach is no longer enough. Organizations must evolve beyond checking off boxes for compliance or relying on outdated solutions that offer limited protection. The best way to stay ahead of malicious actors is to encourage a culture of proactive, holistic cybersecurity -- where technology, human capabilities, and leadership all play integral roles.Cybersecurity should not be an afterthought or siloed responsibility. Instead, it should be embedded in an organization's strategy at every level. By focusing on the right people, technology, and approach to risk management, businesses can better position themselves to be ready for whats to come.About the AuthorMax VetterVP of Cyber, Immersive Max Vetter leads a team of cyber experts at Immersive Labs, helping customers stay ahead of threats and be resilient against cyber-attacks. Max spent seven years with Londons Metropolitan Police Service as a police officer, intelligence analyst, and covert internet investigator, including working in the money laundering unit in Scotland Yard. He also worked as Assistant Director of the ICC Commercial Crime Services investigating commercial crime, fraud, and serious organized crime groups. Before joining Immersive Labs Max spent three years training the private sector and government agencies including the UKs GCHQ and its cyber summer school in ethical hacking and open-source intelligence and was the subject matter expert in darknets and cryptocurrencies.See more from Max VetterWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

This is today's edition ofThe Download,our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what's going on in the world of technology. Rivals are rising to challenge the dominance of SpaceX SpaceX is a space launch juggernaut. In just two decades, the company has managed to edge out former aerospace heavyweights Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop Grumman to gain near-monopoly status over rocket launches in the US. It is now also the go-to launch provider for commercial customers, having lofted numerous satellites and five private crewed spaceflights, with more to come. Other space companies have been scrambling to compete for years, but developing a reliable rocket takes slow, steady work and big budgets. Now at least some of them are catching up. Read the full story.Ramin Skibba We should talk more about air-conditioning Casey Crownhart Things are starting to warm up here in the New York City area, and its got me thinking once again about something that people arent talking about enough: energy demand for air conditioners. I get it: Data centers are the shiny new thing to worry about. And Im not saying we shouldnt be thinking about the strain that gigawatt-scale computing installations put on the grid. But a little bit of perspective is important here. I just finished up a new story about a novel way to make heat exchangers, a crucial component in air conditioners and a whole host of other technologies that cool our buildings, food, and electronics. Lets dig into why Im writing about the guts of cooling technologies, and why this sector really needs innovation. Read the full story. This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Reviews weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. The must-reads Ive combed the internet to find you todays most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 Donald Trump has announced sweeping new tariffsExperts fear the measures will spark a global trade war. (FT $) + The new tariffs are significantly higher than Americas targeted trade partners. (Vox)+ US tech companies are reliant on global supply chains. What happens next? (Wired $)+ Tech stocks dropped sharply following the announcement. (CNBC)2 Elon Musk tried to control the Wisconsin Supreme Court raceand lostThe billionaire was mocked on his own platform, X, after the state rejected the Republican candidate he spent millions bankrolling. (The Guardian)+ It was the most expensive judicial election in American history. (Economist $)+ It appears as though Musks political influence is waning. (The Atlantic $)3 Amazon made a bid to keep TikTok operational in the USAs has mobile tech company AppLovin. (WSJ $) + The founder of OnlyFans partnered with a crypto foundation in another bid. (Reuters)4 Parents are worried about their teenagers smartphone use But drawing firm conclusions about phones and social medias effects on their mental health is far from easy. (Nature)5 How China gets around Americas chip restrictions Smuggling and subsidiaries are just some of the ways it skirts the bans. (Rest of World)+ This super-thin semiconductor is just one molecule thick. (Ars Technica)+ Whats next in chips. (MIT Technology Review) 6 Neuralink is looking for new patients across the worldThe company has implanted devices in three peoples brains to date. (Bloomberg $) + Brain-computer interfaces face a critical test. (MIT Technology Review)7 Italian police are investigating a major fire at a Tesla dealershipThe blaze destroyed 17 cars in Rome. (The Guardian) 8 Publishers are experimenting with AI translations for booksNot everyone agrees that the technology is ready. (The Markup) 9 Vibe coding needs a reality check A new AI app created using the loose process generated a recipe for deadly cyanide ice cream. (404 Media)10 You may be unwittingly following JD Vances wife on Instagram If you were following Kamala Harriss husband on the platform, you're now following Usha Vance. (TechCrunch)Quote of the day Elon Musks money might buy some ads, but it repels voters. Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Ben Wikler reflects on how his partys candidate Susan Crawford won the states Supreme Court election, despite Musk spending $25 million supporting her Trump-endorsed rival, The Hill reports. The big story The lucky break behind the first CRISPR treatment December 2023 The worlds first commercial gene-editing treatment is set to start changing the lives of people with sickle-cell disease. Its called Casgevy, and it was approved in November 2022 in the UK.The treatment, which will be sold in the US by Vertex Pharmaceuticals, employs CRISPR, which can be easily programmed by scientists to cut DNA at precise locations they choose.But where do you aim CRISPR, and how did the researchers know what DNA to change? Thats the lesser-known story of the sickle-cell breakthrough. Read more about it.Antonio Regalado We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet 'em at me.) + If youre stuck for what to read next, this list of the 21st centurys best books is a great source of inspiration.+ Controversial ranking timedo you agree that Abbey Road is the Beatles best album?+ Inside the tricky technicalities of time travel.+ Uhoh: magnolia paint is making a comeback.

Application submitted for 180-bed conversion of grade I-listed site two years after rejection of previous schemeCustom House, bottom right in the pictureOrms and Richard Griffiths Architects have replaced Squire & Partners on a plan to transform the City of Londons grade I-listed Custom House into a 180-bed hotel.The two practices have submitted a fresh planning application for new client Jastar Capital two years after Squire & Partners 200-room scheme was rejected at appeal by a planning inspector due to heritage concerns.Jastar Capital purchased the site through its subsidiary Custom House City Limited from the buildings previous owner Cannon Capital Developments and Global Grange Hotels in 2023.The early 19th century building, located on a prominent riverside site at the historic Pool of London, is considered one of the Citys finest examples of neoclassical architecture.A version of customs house, used to collect customs duties, has been on the site for more than six centuries and the latest building had been at the home of Londons customs and trade for over 200 years before HMRC moved out in 2021.Squire & Partners had lodged plans for a hotel conversion the previous year but took the application to appeal in 2022 on the grounds that City planners were taking too long to decide the proposals.The scheme, which would have included new roof terraces and the partial rebuilding of the buildings eastern block behind retained facades, was thrown out after a 13-day hearing amid criticism from campaign groups including Save Britains Heritage and the Georgian Society.Squire & Partners proposals for Custom House in the City of LondonWhile the planning inspector had praised Squire & Partners most creditable response to the site, he concluded the scheme contained many harmful heritage impacts which were not outweighed by the schemes heritage benefits.Jastar Capital said Orms and Richard Griffiths Architects new plans had been carefully tailored to preserve the sites main building and its grade II*-listed river wall, stairs and cranes along Custom House Quay.The Kings Warehouse would be turned into a food and beverage space with a new public route running through the site alongside historic displays, gallery space and a curated historical library in the former Tide Waiters Room.The buildings Long Room would be transformed into one of the best new event spaces in the City, while a newly landscaped quayside would aim to provide an inclusive, south-facing public space for the City.CGI of Orms and Richard Griffiths Architects' new proposals for Customs House1/2show captionTwo new terraces would also be built on the central wings southern elevation containing an outdoor cafe and restaurant area, connected to the quayside by ramps and steps, while the interior of the building would contain new spa and health facilities.The projects planning consultant Montagu Evans said the plans would bring an important London heritage asset back into viable use as a landmark hotel, restoring its former grandeur and opening it up to guests and the public alike.Orms associate director and historic buildings specialist Elyse Howell-Price added: Custom House is a hugely sensitive heritage asset in one of the most significant riverside sites in The City of London.Orms approach to this project has been to undertake a deep investigation of the history and construction of this remarkable building while at the same time envisioning the potential that the revitalisation of the site could achieve by improving the experience of the riverside for all Londoners.Orms is lead architect with Richard Griffiths acting as conservation architect. The project team also includes Publica on cultural and landscape strategy, Elliott Wood as structural engineer and Caneparo Associates on transport.Squire & Partners has been contacted for comment.

The scheme's tallest block has been designed by Allies & MorrisonThe block designed by DSDHA, which is also the scheme's landscape architectPlot 3, the shortest block in the scheme, has been designed by Allies & Morrison1/9show captionAllies & Morrison and DSDHA have submitted plans for a 350m life sciences complex next to the Shard for a trio of developers including the Guys & St Thomas Foundation.The Snowsfield Quarter will consist of three blocks up to 16 storeys in height in an expanding cluster of tall buildings around London Bridge station.Designed the Snowsfield Quarter Partnership, which also includes developers Oxford Properties and Reef Group, the scheme would provide a total of 360,000sq ft of floorspace and 245,000sq ft of specialist laboratory facilities.Located next to Guys Hospital and close to Kings College Londons Guys Campus, it would contribute to one of Londons largest academic and clinical research clusters.The team said its vision is to create a place in Southwark that tackles global health issues locally, building on hundreds of years of medical innovation and the incredible work already being done by existing medical and academic experts in the area.The block designed by DSDHA, which is also the schemes landscape architectExisting buildings on the three sites, which include a multi-storey car park, four retail units, a pub and a 1990s hotel, would all be demolished to make way for the new buildings, two of which have been designed by Allies & Morrison and one by DSHDA, which is also landscape architect across the development.The project team also includes structural engineer AKT II, planning consultant DP9, transport consultant Velocity and environmental consultant Hoare Lea.A full planning application was validated by Southwark council on Monday, with the development team targeting a planning committee date this summer.On this timeline, demolition of the sites existing buildings would start in late 2026 with construction getting underway in summer 2027 and the scheme completing by 2030.Other development sites in the area include a 20-storey life sciences tower at Vinegar Yard designed by KPF for Guys and St Thomas Foundation, Kings Health Partners, Lambeth council and Southwark council.

It's the PGA Tour's final event before next week's US Masters.

Plus free satellite text messaging is added as a perk for all plans.

April 3, 20253 min readNew Plan for Particle Physics Megaproject Leaves out Funding DetailsA long-awaiting report from CERN explores the feasibility of building a supersized successor to the Large Hadron ColliderBy Davide Castelvecchi & Nature magazine The Future Circular Collider (artists impression) would initially smash together electrons and their antiparticles, positrons. Polar Media via CERNCERNs ambition to build an accelerator three times as large as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) took a significant step forward on 31 March with the release of a massive feasibility study for the project. But possible scenarios for how to fund the new machine will be presented at a later date.The European particle physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, has not yet officially decided whether to endorse the 91-kilometre Future Circular Collider (FCC) project or other options for new colliders, but the study will feed into a review of CERNs long-term strategy that is due to conclude next year.This study is the result of an immense amount of work carried out by the international FCC collaboration, said Fabiola Gianotti, CERNs director general, in a presentation to reporters. If approved and implemented, the FCC could become the most extraordinary instrument ever built by humanity to study the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Grand designsThe three-volume feasibility study, to which around 1,500 physicists and engineers have contributed, estimates that it would cost 15.32 billion Swiss francs (US$17.4 billion) to dig a 91-kilometre-long circular tunnel and build a machine to smash together electrons and their antiparticles, positrons, by the mid-2040s. This would enable high-precision studies of the Higgs boson and other known particles.A second stage for the projectwhich would reuse the tunnel and collide two beams of protons, like the LHCwould would not come online until 2072 at the earliest, and would cost 18.8 billion Swiss francs to build. That estimate is based on the assumption that the proton collider will operate at 85 Tera-electronvolts (TeV)an energy six times higher than the LHC, but lower than the 100 TeV that was proposed initially. Gianotti told reporters that this was a conservative assumption based on using the high-field superconducting magnetsneeded to steer protons around the ringthat are available today. Ongoing research on advanced superconducting materials could put higher energies within reach for the 91 km tunnel, perhaps even 120 TeV.CERN Council president Konstantinos Fountas told reporters that the study will provide very solid ground to enable the Council to come to a well-informed decision on whether to go ahead with the project. Antonio Zoccoli, president of Italys National Institute of Nuclear Physics and one of countrys delegates to the CERN Council, agrees, saying that the group has done very solid work on the technical design and cost estimates.Vladimir Shiltsev, an accelerator physicist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, says the cost estimates are broadly in line with those he and his collaborators made in a 2023 study that compared various collider proposals. He says the authors of the feasibility study wrote a very nice, solid, comprehensive document, although a few technical questions remain unanswered.A CERN map shows where a 91-km circular tunnel might be dug; the smaller LHC is to its left.CERNGianotti said that CERN could cover 65% of the construction cost for the first stage of the project from its existing budget. That would still leave a shortfall of more than 5 billion Swiss francs, which would need to be covered with additional contributions. The feasibility study had been asked to provide funding scenarios for the project, but this information will now be provided at a later date, she said.CERN initially budgeted CHF100 million for the feasibility study itself, and a CERN spokesperson told Nature that the final cost was CHF113 million (US$128 million).The FCC plan has its critics. Some physicists believe that the scientific goals of the first stage could be achieved with a smaller, cheaper linear collider, and many are put off by the timeline for the second-stage proton collider. Both the member states and the science community will feel that they are being locked into something like a 70-year mortgage, if they agree to go ahead, says John Womersley, a special advisor to the University of Edinburgh, UK, who is a former UK delegate to the CERN Council. Almost no one that I have spoken to thinks this is a good idea.This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on April 1, 2025.