Enthusiasts have been pushing the limits of silicon for as long as microprocessors have existed. Early overclocking endeavors involved soldering and replacing crystal clock oscillators, but that practice quickly evolved into adjusting system bus speeds using motherboard DIP switches and jumpers. Internal clock multipliers were eventually introduced, but it didn't take long for those to be locked down, as unscrupulous sellers began removing official frequency ratings and rebranding chips with their own faster markings. System buses and dividers became the primary tuning tools for most users, while ultra-enthusiasts went further – physically altering electrical specifications through hard modding. Eventually, unlocked multipliers made a comeback, ushering in an era defined by BIOS-level overclocking and increasingly sophisticated software tuning tools. Over the past decade, however, traditional overclocking has become more constrained. Improved factory binning, aggressive turbo boost algorithms, and thermal ceilings mean that modern CPUs often operate near their peak potential right out of the box. With system bus speeds now tightly controlled to maintain platform stability, most modern overclocking is done through BIOS menus or manufacturer-provided utilities. The challenge has shifted from hardware hacking to managing thermals, navigating firmware quirks, and winning the silicon lottery – but the spirit of overclocking remains alive, driven by those still chasing free performance at the edge of what's possible. Here's a representative sample of the landmark processors revered for their overclocking prowess. Read on! Note: This TechSpot feature was originally published in December 2014. We continue to update and resurface it periodically because CPU overclocking remains almost as cool today as it was back in the 486DX days. Intel Pentium MMX 166 Release date: January 1997 Stock clock speed: 166MHz Overclocked: 207 - 266MHz (~54%) The Pentium MMX arrived amid the height of retailer shadiness and x86 processor vendors responded by locking upper limits for multipliers. As such, many MMXs relied on bus frequency increases for overclocking. Unlocked MMX processors offered more options for overclockers and the unlocked MXX 233 reigned supreme, though its $594 price was prohibitive for many. At $407, the MMX 166 was a better value, and when paired with a solid 430TX-based motherboard that had a bus speed of 75MHz out of the box, 225 or 266MHz (3 or 3.5 multi) was within reach. To crack 200MHz, MMX 166s with a locked multiplier would need to use the 83MHz jumper setting if available (2.5 * 83 for 207MHz), although stability and heat build-up at this bus speed were far more problematic, as was the sourcing of quality EDO/SDRAM RAM required to run at this frequency. Intel 486DX2-40 Release date: March 1992 Stock clock speed: 40MHz and 50MHz Overclocked: 66MHz (~65%) The P24 DX2 486 processors introduced the CPU clock multiplier, doubling the system bus speed, while the system bus frequency itself was configurable via motherboard jumpers or DIP switches. Initially including 20, 25 and 33MHz options (later augmented by 40 and 50MHz models), users had a path to overclocking that didn't require soldering and replacing the clock crystal oscillator. Alternatively, you could get the performance of a $799 DX2-66 by purchasing the more modestly priced 486DX2-40 for $400 and raising its default bus speed from 20MHz to 33MHz. Stability and VLB slot issues at bus speeds over 33MHz meant that overclocking headroom decreased as the base clock rose – to the extent that many Intel DX2-66s wouldn't overclock at all and the few that did were often limited to 80MHz (2 x 40MHz). Image source: x86-guide AMD K6-2 300 / 350 Release date: May 1998 (300) / August 1998 (350) Stock clock speed: 300MHz / 350MHz Overclocked: 400 - 450MHz (~15 – 30%) Though the K6-2 struggled against Intel's Pentium II and III in raw performance, it was extremely popular among enthusiasts looking to build affordable PCs. The addition of 3DNow! instructions gave it a slight edge in multimedia and gaming workloads that could leverage SIMD. Enthusiasts with Super Socket 7 motherboards often pushed the 300 and 350MHz models to 400MHz and beyond. While not revolutionary in terms of clock headroom, the K6-2's wide availability, low cost, and tweakability made it a memorable part of the overclocking culture of the late 1990s. Intel Celeron 300A Release date: August 1998 Stock clock speed: 300MHz Overclocked: 375 - 504MHz (~55%) Think legendary. The Celeron 300A was largely responsible for reigniting mainstream processor overclocking in the late 90's through the ease that it could be accomplished. A 50% overclock to 450MHz was as simple as changing the bus speed from its nominal 66MHz to 100MHz. Although some boards topped out at 83.3MHz limiting the OC to 375MHz, motherboards that supported 103MHz FSB could yield 464MHz. A better chip with a voltage bump could run at the 112MHz FSB setting to produce 504MHz. Remarkably, the 300A could generally reach 450MHz without any additional voltage requirement over the nominal 2.0 volts. The chip's performance was also aided by having an on-die L2 cache and with a price of $149 it was particularly accessible to system builders. Also worth mentioning, Intel's Celeron 366 (Mendocino) famously hit 550MHz with a good cooler and a 100MHz FSB. Right after the 300A, it was part of the golden age of overclocking on the cheap. AMD Athlon 700 (Thunderbird) / Duron 600 (Spitfire) Release date: July 2000 (Athlon 700) / June 2000 (Duron 600) Stock clock speed: 700MHz / 600MHz Overclocked: 770 - 900MHz (~12%) / 800 - 1000MHz (~59%) AMD's Thunderbird pencil mod was an overclocker's dream. AMD locked the voltage and multipliers of its K7 line in an effort to curtail the fraudulent remarking of processors to higher specifications. Overclockers quickly realized that the circuit bridges built into the silicon package held the key to unlocking performance. Initially, a combination of connecting bridges in the L3, L4, and L6 blocks gave way to the bridging of L1 connections to unlock the multiplier. Bridging L7 connections to alter core voltage was also an option and the process could be as easy as using a soft lead pencil or conductive silver pen. With AMD's EV6 system bus being sensitive to overclocking, multiplier overclocking provided results with the Duron leading the way thanks to its lower base core voltage (1.5v versus 1.7 /1.75v), which enabled higher relative overhead to the maximum 1.85v allowed. For $112 and a little time, the Duron 600 easily approximated the performance of a processor many times its price. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Release date: January 2007 (B0 rev) / July 2007 (G0 rev) Stock clock speed: 2.4GHz Overclocked: 3.4 - 3.6GHz (~46%) The Core 2 Quad Q6600 achieved an enviable record of longevity and performance value, becoming the de-facto choice for overclockers who wanted a budget quad-core CPU. Once the processor dropped in price from the initial $851 in January 2007, it quickly fell to $530 in May and further pricing realignment in July coincided with the arrival of the G0 revision. At $266, the 2.4GHz quad-core chip was priced identically to the new dual-core 3GHz E6850, a frequency that the earlier B3 revision Q6600 could comfortably eclipse. The new G0 stepping offered slightly lower power consumption, which translated into the same improvement in overclocking ability, resulting in many users being able to sustain 3.4 to 3.6GHz fairly readily. The introduction of the affordable Intel P35 platform and further Q6600 price cutting through 2008 to $224 (April) and down to $183 (October) provided the opportunity for solid overclocking in the 50% range (9x multiplier x 400MHz FSB for 3.6GHz) on a moderate budget that remained very competitive long after many of its contemporaries had faded. Intel Pentium III 500E Release date: October 1999 Stock clock speed: 500MHz Overclocked: 667 - 775MHz (~50%) The Coppermine Pentium III 500E and 550E's overclockability lie in conservative binning, a low 100MHz Front Side Bus and the processor's integrated L2 cache. Budget pricing ($239) and the possibility of using older Slot 1 motherboards via Socket 370 to Slot 1 adapters enabled premium performance for a modest outlay. The 500E could easily be run at 667MHz by selecting the motherboard's 133MHz FSB BIOS option or by using tape or lacquer to isolate the Slocket's A14 pin, while 750MHz (150 FSB) and higher were possible on better boards, producing performance equivalent to the $850 Pentium III 800. However, there were some caveats to overclocking, including that motherboards needed to support AGP and PCI clock dividers (1:2 and 1:4 respectively) to maintain stability for attached components and fast PC133 RAM. AMD Athlon XP-M 2500+ (Barton Mainstream 45W TDP) Release date: March 2003 Stock clock speed: 1.87GHz Overclocked: 2.4 - 2.7GHz (~32%) In early 2004 it came to the attention of the overclocking community that the mobile Barton processors featured an unlocked clock multiplier in addition to being binned for low-voltage operation (1.45v compared with the desktop 1.65v). These factors often produced phenomenal overclocking headroom – something lacking in the desktop models. When the chip's overclocking potential was publicized, such was the stampede that its price escalated over 30% from the $75 MSRP in a matter of weeks. With a solid nForce2 motherboard, decent cooling and a willingness to push the voltage to 1.8v and higher, a 30 to 40% overclock was often attainable. While the impressive speed bump couldn't bridge the performance gap to the new Athlon 64s, the Athlon XP-M 2500+ didn't cost $200 to $400 either. AMD Opteron 144 / 146 (K8 Venus) Release date: August 2005 Stock clock speed: 1.8GHz / 2.0GHz Overclocked: 2.5 - 3.0GHz (~63%) Featuring the same silicon as AMD's San Diego-based Athlon 64 processors, the $125 and $183 Socket 939 Opterons enjoyed a significant pricing advantage over the similarly featured Athlon 64 3700+ at $329 and stacked up even better against the $1,000 FX-57. Like all upwardly locked multiplier processors, the Opteron's ability was tied directly to the strength of the motherboard being used. Conservative binning of the Opteron server chips allied with a solid overclocking board such as those sporting the nForce4 chipset with HyperTransport frequencies approaching (and exceeding) 300MT/sec would lead to overclocks seldom seen with enterprise-class processors. With all the Opteron models having roughly the same overclock ceiling, the lowest priced 144 sold out quickly in many markets. Intel Core i7 2600K / Core i5 2500K Release date: January 2011 Stock clock speed: 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) / 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Turbo) Overclocked: 4.6 - 5.0GHz (~49%) When Intel announced an upper clock multiplier limit and almost non-existent system bus overclocking for its upcoming Sandy Bridge compatible Cougar Point chipsets, it was widely touted as the end of overclocking on Intel platforms. The truth turned out to be that the 2500K and 2600K were premier overclockers requiring minimal effort in time and cooling for stable overclocks in the 30 to 50% range. Such was the popularity of the 2600K that submissions from this processor accounted for around 28% of all CPU results to HWBot in 2011 and would exceed those of its successor, the 3770K, in 2012. A low cost of $216 plus solid cooling results when paired with either air or water made Intel's 2500K the de facto standard by which all other consumer CPUs were judged. Intel Core i7 920 Release date: November 2008 Stock clock speed: 2.67GHz (2.93GHz Turbo) Overclocked: 3.5 - 4.0GHz C0 rev, 3.8 - 4.2GHz D0 rev (~58%) The new Nehalem architecture and X58 platform offered enough promise to coax many users from long-lived Core 2 LGA 775 systems. While the flagship i7 965 EE at $1,000 was cheaper than the Core 2 QX9770 by a third, it still represented little in the way of value compared to the i7 920. Initial C0 revision Bloomfield CPUs earned a reputation for high voltage requirements past 3.6GHz, the following D0 often had the ability to maintain the nominal 1.26v up to 4GHz and an absolute overclock ceiling approaching 4.5GHz for those tempted to turn the voltage closer to 1.5v. Such was (and is) the 920's popularity that it represents over a third of HWBot's overclocking submissions for 64 LGA 1366 processors. Intel Pentium 4 1.6A / Celeron 2.0 (Northwood) Release date: January 2002 (Pentium 4) / September 2002 (Celeron 2.0) Stock clock speed: 1.6GHz / 2.0GHz Overclocked: 2.4 - 2.8GHz (~48%) / 2.66 - 3GHz (~46%) The arrival of the Northwood core was a welcomed sight after the disappointing Williamette, whose voltage and resulting heat stifled serious overclocking for the mainstream. While the higher-clocked P4s offered little if any value against the Athlon XP, the 1.6A at $125 turned a performance deficit into a win with its low base FSB of 100MHz which could easily be increased to 150 for a 2.4GHz clock speed. The Celeron's overclock was higher still thanks to a 20x multiplier, although performance was heavily constrained by the meager 128KB L2 cache. Those seeking higher overclocks would need to push the core voltage past 1.6v either through BIOS settings or the wire mod (connecting CPU pins to raise Vcore limits), the latter being largely responsible for the phenomena of S.N.D.S. (Sudden Northwood Death Syndrome), more commonly known as electromigration. This factor and the 1.6A cannibalizing Intel's own higher priced models are seen as the motivation for the company to cease sales of the 1.6A barely six months after its introduction in January 2002. Image source: CPU-World AMD FX-8350 (Vishera) Release date: October 2012 Stock clock speed: 4.0GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) Overclocked: 4.8 - 5.2GHz (~20 – 30%) The FX-8350 was a polarizing chip. Based on AMD's Piledriver architecture, it was marketed as an 8-core processor, though in reality it had four integer modules with dual-core capabilities. While its single-threaded performance lagged behind Intel's offerings, the FX-8350 became an overclocking favorite due to its unlocked multiplier and incredible thermal headroom. Many users pushed it past 5GHz with good aftermarket cooling, and it became a cult classic in the enthusiast scene, especially in budget gaming rigs and benchmark competitions. Intel Xeon LV 1.6 D1 (Prestonia) Release date: September 2003 Stock clock speed: 1.6GHz Overclocked: 2.6 - 3.2GHz (~63%) Overclocking is most often associated with gaming systems, but dual-processor overclocking has maintained a solid following for over a decade. Long before the QX9775 and Intel's Skulltrail board became the watchwords for performance excess, many enthusiasts sought the budget Xeon LV 1.6. The Prestonia core was basically the Pentium 4 Northwood with SMP (symmetric multiprocessing) and HyperThreading added as standard features. With the sub-$200 1.6GHz Xeon drawing a frugal 1.274v, overclockers generally couldn't take advantage of voltage headroom as most boards were voltage-locked. However, simply raising the FSB would net 2.6GHz. For the more adventurous, three hard mods could yield a 100% overclock (or more!): the U-Wire mod which involved bridging two (1.5v) or three (1.6v) sets of socket pins, the BSEL mod to isolate or break CPU pins and raise the FSB limit to 200MHz, and the vDIMM mod to raise RAM voltage. Those willing to push the limits of the technology could be rewarded with a 3.2GHz dual processor performance king for around $700 (CPUs, coolers, board, and RAM). AMD Athlon XP 1700+ (Thoroughbred-B) Release date: June 2002 Stock clock speed: 1.46GHz Overclocked: 2.2 - 2.5GHz (~44%) The initial Thoroughbred-A was little more than a die shrink of the previous Palomino and was somewhat disappointing as a final product. The June 2002 introduction of AMD's Thoroughbred-B was more tuned for the 130nm process and resulted in higher core frequencies along with being more efficient as the 'B' revision demonstrated a remarkable overclock ability with minimal if any voltage increases. Allied with a strong nForce2 chipset motherboard, the $60 XP 1700+ was fully capable of near 2GHz core speed at its default voltage. With an nF2 board capable of pushing the system bus past 200MHz, it was possible to sustain a 40% overclock with a modest 1.7v, eclipsing the performance of AMD's $397 Athlon XP 2800+ flagship and putting Intel's Pentium 4 on notice. Image source: Sysprofile.de Intel Pentium D 820 / D 805 Release date: May 2005 (D 820) / December 2005 (D 805) Stock clock speed: 2.8GHz / 2.66GHz Overclocked: 3.5 - 4.2GHz (~26%) The Pentium D 820 was something of an anomaly with two single cores on an MCM package for much cheaper than the cheapest dual-core AMD Athlon 64 X2 at $241 and even undercut the single core Athlon 64 3500+ by $30. The Pentium D 820 offered modest performance in no way challenging the Athlon dual, but some considerable overclocking headroom with judicious voltage and a good air or water-cooling system. The arrival of Intel's $129 D 805 further endeared the hot Netburst processor to the budget overclocker. A reduction in nominal system bus speed from 200MHz to 133 was offset by the D 805's 20x clock multiplier, resulting in no reduction in overclocking fun. For those of modest means, a D 805 paired with a solid 945P board and value-orientated RAM held the promise of performance that was the province of a $500 processor-dictated build. Image source: municion.org Intel Pentium Dual Core E2140 / E2160 Release date: June 2007 Stock clock speed: 1.6GHz (E2140) / 1.8GHz (E2160) Overclocked: 2.7 - 3.2GHz (~89%) / 2.9 - 3.5GHz (~92%) Intel's E2000 series effectively signaled the end of both the last surviving NetBurst Pentium D and AMD's dominance in the budget market. Intel would halve the L2 cache of the E4000 series and further hobble performance with a 200MHz (800 FSB) system bus. What Intel didn't do was remove the Conroe processor's ability to overclock. You could hit a 50% overclock with default voltages and the stock cooler by simply raising the bus speed to 300MHz on either an affordable Intel-based P965/P35 board or one with an Nvidia 650i SLI chipset which allowed greater options with cheaper RAM thanks to its non-reliance on memory dividers. An aftermarket air cooler, voltage adjustment and some luck in the silicon lottery could see the processors at or near a 100% overclock, delivering performance around the level of the E6700 for a fraction of the cost. Intel Core i5 750 (Lynnfield) Release date: September 2009 Stock clock speed: 2.66GHz Overclocked: 3.8 - 4.0GHz (~50%) The Core i5 750 was Intel's first mainstream quad-core processor without Hyper-Threading, based on the Nehalem-derived Lynnfield architecture. It featured an integrated memory controller and a DMI link for PCIe directly from the CPU, improving latency and efficiency. Though it lacked an unlocked multiplier, its base clock (BCLK) was highly tweakable, allowing enthusiasts to reach nearly 4GHz with good cooling. As the first true successor to Core 2 Quad on the LGA1156 platform, it became a gateway chip into the Nehalem era and remained viable for years with overclocking. AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition (Callisto) / X4 955 Black Edition (Deneb) Release date: June 2009 (X2 550 BE) / April 2009 (X4 955 BE) Stock clock speed: 3.1GHz / 3.2GHz Overclocked: 3.7 - 3.9GHz (~22%) The release of AMD's revised K10.5 architecture during the early months of 2009 marked a resurgence of the company's strong value proposition. The emergence of the Black Edition processors also added the welcome addition of the unlocked multiplier to facilitate overclocking. While the eventual clock speed increases weren't excessive by historical standards, they did go hand in hand with actual performance gains which comfortably lifted them out of the Core 2 Quad shadow. At $100, the 550 Black Edition represented a superlative value if the two disabled cores could be unlocked (the unlocking of the fourth core would be a major selling point for the X3 720 BE), while the outright performance of the $245 955 BE ensured that only Intel's more expensive X58 platform exceeded its potential. Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (Conroe) Release date: July 2006 Stock core clock: 2.4GHz Overclocked: 3.0 - 4.0GHz (~45%) When Intel's Conroe architecture arrived in July 2006, most of the attention was focused on the unlocked multiplier X6800, but it was the cheapest fully enabled (4MB L2 cache) chip that stole the show. For $316, the chip cost a full $200 less than the next step up in performance (the E6700) and already provided results that rivaled AMD's top Athlon 64s. With stock cooling and default voltages, you could generally rely on the E6600 to hit 2.7 to 3GHz. If you had an aftermarket cooler, motherboard stability was often the limiting factor as system bus speeds flew past 400MHz and edged towards 450. Such was the overclocking potential that the $999 X6800 and $799 Athlon 64 FX-62 looked positively ludicrous when comparing price and performance with the E6600. Image source: CPU-World Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 E0 (Wolfdale-6M) Release date : January 2008 (C0 rev) / July 2008 (E0 rev) Stock clock speed: 3.0GHz Overclocked: 4.0 - 4.5GHz (~41%) The initial January 2008 C0 revision Wolfdale-based E8400 had immediately ensconced itself as an affordable performance overclocking processor. Five months later, the E0 revision brought a much refined voltage requirement. While some C0-step E8400s were capable performers at the 4GHz level, more often than not, the same frequency could be achieved with stock voltage, settings, and cooler with the new revision. By the time the E0 arrived, pricing had fallen to $149 for the OEM package with a range of very capable P45 and X48 boards able to maintain bus speeds in the vicinity of 500MHz (2000MHz FSB). The continued stability of these 4+GHz systems many years later is a testament to the quality of both the architecture and the chipsets. Intel Core i7 3930K (Sandy Bridge-E) Release date: November 2011 Stock clock speed: 3.2GHz Overclocked: 4.5GHz+ (~40%) The Core i7 3930K was Intel's answer to high-end enthusiasts and prosumers in the early 2010s. Featuring 6 cores and 12 threads on the Sandy Bridge-E platform, the chip ran on the LGA 2011 socket and required the X79 chipset. Thanks to its unlocked multiplier and improved thermals over earlier hex-core offerings, the 3930K routinely achieved overclocks above 4.5GHz with adequate cooling. Paired with quad-channel memory and strong motherboard VRMs, it became a go-to chip for power users, gamers, and video editors, maintaining relevance well into the Skylake era. Image source: PCPer Intel Core i7 4790K (Devil's Canyon) Release date: June 2014 Stock clock speed: 4.0GHz (4.4GHz Turbo) Overclocked: 4.7 - 5.0GHz (~20 – 25%) Devil's Canyon was Intel's response to criticisms of Haswell's poor thermals. With improved thermal interface material (TIM) and refined power delivery, the 4790K was the highest-clocked stock CPU Intel had ever released at the time. Overclockers consistently reached between 4.7GHz and 5.0GHz on air or AIO water cooling setups. Its exceptional single-threaded performance and consistent stability made it a mainstay in gaming builds for years, with many systems built on Z97 platforms continuing to deliver long after newer generations had arrived. AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AF Release date: Late 2019 (stealth refresh) Stock clock speed: 3.2GHz (3.6GHz Turbo) Overclocked: 3.9 - 4.2GHz (~20 – 30%) Initially thought to be a re-release of the original Ryzen 5 1600, the 1600 AF turned out to be a hidden gem. Manufactured on the newer 12nm Zen+ process rather than the original 14nm, the chip effectively performed like a Ryzen 5 2600 while retaining the original name and lower price tag. Thanks to improved thermal efficiency and better memory support, overclockers routinely pushed it to nearly 4.2GHz. The 1600 AF became an unbeatable value proposition in 2020, offering six cores and twelve threads at around $85 and dominating the budget enthusiast scene. More tech enthusiast content at TechSpot: Read about the history of the microprocessor, the rise, fall and revival of AMD, or the best CPUs you can buy right now. For lighter reading... check out our top 10 tech pranks and computer tips & tricks you should know about.

Waymo’s autonomous cars are about to appear on streets outside of the U.S. for the first time. The company on Wednesday announced on social media that its autonomous cars will be driving onto the streets of Tokyo, Japan, “soon,” with some reports suggesting the rollout will begin as early as next week. Recommended Videos Waymo is already testing paid robotaxi services in a bunch of U.S. cities, including  San Francisco, Phoenix, Austin, and Los Angeles. If everything goes smoothly in Japan, there’s a chance its robotaxi service could launch there, too, though such a service is likely to be a ways off. Related Alphabet-owned Waymo said that at first, its Tokyo cars will be driven manually by humans while the vehicles map key areas of the Japanese capital, including Minato, Shinjuku, Shibuya, Chiyoda, Chūō, Shinagawa, and Kōtō. The experience will also enable Waymo’s autonomous software to learn and adapt to left-hand traffic, as well as a range of new driving nuances present in one of the world’s most densely populated urban environments. When the American company first announced its Japan plan last December, it said it’ll be outsourcing servicing and management of its autonomous cars to local firm Nihon Kotsu, Tokyo’s largest taxi operator, while also partnering with GO, Japan’s popular taxi-hailing app.  “Our upcoming road trip to Tokyo gives us the chance to work alongside local partners, government officials, and community groups to understand the new landscape,” Waymo said when it announced its international expansion. “We’ll learn how Waymo can serve Tokyo’s residents and become a beneficial part of the city’s transportation ecosystem. And every step of the way, we’ll take a rigorous approach to validating our technology’s safety and performance.” It added that it’s also working with local policymakers, regulators, and safety officials “to ensure a responsible and seamless implementation of Waymo’s technology to Tokyo’s streets.” Japan is currently experiencing a shortage of taxi drivers, so Waymo could be eyeing the market and playing the long game, hoping that in the years ahead it may be able to gain permission to launch a fully fledged robotaxi service in a potentially lucrative sector. But there is much work to be done before then.  Editors’ Recommendations

Ask Jared NASA nominee asks why lunar return has taken so long, and why it costs so much “My loyalty is to this nation, the space agency, and its world-changing mission." Eric Berger – Apr 9, 2025 4:22 pm | 62 Jared Isaacman, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the next administrator of NASA, appears before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Wednesday, April 9, 2025. Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls Jared Isaacman, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the next administrator of NASA, appears before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Wednesday, April 9, 2025. Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more WASHINGTON, DC—Over the course of a nearly three-hour committee hearing Wednesday, the nominee to lead NASA for the Trump administration faced difficult questions from US senators who sought commitments to specific projects. However, maneuvering like a pilot with more than 7,000 hours in jets and ex-military aircraft, entrepreneur and private astronaut Jared Isaacman dodged most of their questions and would not be pinned down. His basic message to members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation was that NASA is an exceptional agency that does the impossible, but that it also faces some challenges. NASA, he said, receives an “extraordinary” budget, and he vowed to put taxpayer dollars to efficient use in exploring the universe and retaining the nation’s lead on geopolitical competitors in space. “I have lived the American dream, and I owe this nation a great debt,” said Isaacman, who founded his first business at 16 in his parents' basement and would go on to found an online payments company, Shift4, that would make him a billionaire. Isaacman is also an avid pilot who self-funded and led two private missions to orbit on Crew Dragon. Leading NASA would be “the privilege of a lifetime,” he said. The hearing took place in the Russell Senate Office building next to the US Capitol on Wednesday morning, in an expansive room with marbled columns and three large chandeliers. There was plenty of spaceflight royalty on hand, including the four astronauts who will fly on the Artemis II mission, as well as the six private citizens who flew with Isaacman on his two Dragon missions.  “This may be the most badass assemblage we’ve had at a Senate hearing,” said US Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, chair of the committee, commenting on the astronauts in the room. Committed to staying at the Moon? However, when the meeting got down to brass tacks, there were sharp questions for Isaacman. Cruz opened the hearing by stating his priorities for NASA clearly and explicitly: He is most focused on ensuring the United States does not cede any of its preeminence to China in space, and this starts with low-Earth orbit and the Moon. “Make no mistake, the Chinese Communist Party has been explicit in its desire to dominate space, putting a fully functional space station in low-Earth orbit and robotic rovers on the far side of the Moon,” he said. “We are not headed for the next space race; it is already here.” Cruz wanted Isaacman to commit to not just flying human missions to the Moon, but also to a sustained presence on the surface or in cislunar space. In response, Isaacman said he would see that NASA returns humans to the Moon as quickly as possible, beating China in the process. This includes flying Artemis II around the Moon in 2026, and then landing the Artemis III mission later this decade.  The disagreement came over what to do after this. Isaacman, echoing the Trump administration, said the agency should also press onward, sending humans to Mars as soon as possible. Cruz, however, wanted Isaacman to say NASA would establish a sustained presence at the Moon. The committee has written authorizing legislation to mandate this, Cruz reminded Isaacman. “If that’s the law, then I am committed to it,” Isaacman said. NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, left, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut Jeremy Hansen watch as Jared Isaacman testifies on Wednesday. Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, left, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut Jeremy Hansen watch as Jared Isaacman testifies on Wednesday. Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls Cruz also sought Isaacman’s commitment to flying the International Space Station through at least 2030, which is the space agency’s current date for retiring the orbital laboratory. Isaacman said that seemed reasonable and added that NASA should squeeze every possible bit of research out of it until then. However, when Cruz pressed Isaacman about the Lunar Gateway, a space station NASA is developing to fly in an elliptical orbit around the Moon, Isaacman would not be drawn in. He replied that he would work with Congress and space agency officials to determine which programs are working and which ones are not. The Gateway is a program championed by Cruz since it is managed by Johnson Space Center in Texas. Parochial interests aside, a lot of space community stakeholders question the value of the Gateway to NASA’s exploration plans. Ten centers and the future of SLS One of the most tense interactions came between Isaacman and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who wanted commitments from Isaacman that he would not close any of NASA’s 10 field centers, and also that the space agency would fly the Artemis II and Artemis III missions on the Space Launch System rocket.  Regarding field centers, there has been discussion about making the space agency more efficient by closing some of them. This is a politically sensitive topic, and naturally, politicians from states where those centers are located are protective of them. At the same time, there is a general recognition that it would be more cost-effective for NASA to consolidate its operations as part of modernization. Isaacman did not answer Cantwell's question about field centers directly. Rather, he said he had not been fully briefed on the administration’s plans for NASA’s structure. “Senator, there’s only so much I can be briefed on in advance of a hearing,” he said. In response to further prodding, Isaacman said, “I fully expect to roll up my sleeves” when it came to ideas to restructure NASA. Cantwell and other Senators pressed Isaacman on plans to use NASA’s Space Launch System rocket as part of the overall plan to get astronauts to the lunar surface. Isaacman sounded as if he were on board with flying the Artemis II as envisioned—no surprise, then, that this crew was in the audience—and said he wanted to get a crew of Artemis III to the lunar surface as quickly as possible. But he questioned why it has taken NASA so long, and at such great expense, to get its deep space human exploration plans moving. He noted, correctly, that presidential administrations dating back to 1989 have been releasing plans for sending humans to the Moon or Mars, and that significantly more than $100 billion has been spent on various projects over nearly four decades. For all of that, Isaacman and his private Polaris Dawn crewmates remain the humans to have flown the farthest from Earth since the Apollo Program. They did so last year. “Why is it taking us so long, and why is it costing us so much to go to the Moon?” he asked. In one notable exchange, Isaacman said NASA’s current architecture for the Artemis lunar plans, based on the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, is probably not the ideal “long-term” solution to NASA’s deep space transportation plans. The smart reading of this is that Isaacman may be willing to fly the Artemis II and Artemis III missions as conceived, given that much of the hardware is already built. But everything that comes after this, including SLS rocket upgrades and the Lunar Gateway, could be on the chopping block. Ars wrote more about why this is a reasonable path forward last September. Untangling a relationship with SpaceX Some of the most intelligent questions came from US Sen. Andy Kim, D-New Jersey. During his time allotment, Kim also pressed Isaacman on the question of a sustained presence on the Moon. Isaacman responded that it was critical for NASA to get astronauts on the Moon, along with robotic missions, to determine the “economic, scientific, and national security value” of the Moon. With this information, he said, NASA will be better positioned to determine whether and why it should have an enduring presence on the Moon. If this were so, Kim subsequently asked what the economic, scientific, and national security value of sending humans to Mars was. Not responding directly to this question, Isaacman reiterated that NASA should do both Moon and Mars exploration in parallel. NASA will need to become much more efficient to afford that, and some of the US Senators appeared skeptical. But Isaacman seems to truly believe this and wants to take a stab at making NASA more cost-effective and "mission focused." Throughout the hearing, Isaacman appeared to win the approval of various senators with his repeated remarks that he was committed to NASA’s science programs and that he was eager to help NASA uphold its reputation for making the impossible possible. He also said it is a "fundamental" obligation of the space agency to inspire the next generation of scientists. A challenging moment came during questioning from Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who expressed his concern about Isaacman’s relationship to SpaceX founder Elon Musk. Isaacman was previously an investor in SpaceX and has paid for two Dragon missions. In a letter written in March, Isaacman explained how he would disentangle his "actual and apparent" conflicts of interest with SpaceX. However, Markey wanted to know if Isaacman would be pulling levers at NASA for Musk, and for the financial benefit of SpaceX. Markey pressed multiple times on whether Musk was in the room at Mar-A-Lago late last year when Trump offered Isaacman the position of NASA administrator. Isaacman declined to say, reiterating multiple times that his meeting was with Trump, not anyone else. Asked if he had discussed his plans for NASA with Musk, Isaacman said, “I have not.” Earlier in the hearing, Isaacman sought to make clear that he was not beholden to Musk in any way. “My loyalty is to this nation, the space agency, and its world-changing mission,” Isaacman said. Yes, he acknowledged he would talk to contractors for the space agency. It is important to draw on a broad range of perspectives, Isaacman said. But he wanted to make this clear: NASA works for the nation, and the contractors, he added, “work for us.” A full committee vote on Isaacman is expected later this month after April 15, and if successful, the nomination would pass to the full Senate. Isaacman could be confirmed late this month or in May. Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger Senior 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. 62 Comments

A model of a quantum computerdpa picture alliance/Alamy In 2019, Google claimed that its quantum computer, Sycamore, could complete calculations that would take 10,000 years to run on the world’s leading supercomputer – a feat of “quantum supremacy”. Last year, however, other researchers refuted Google’s claim by completing one of the calculations on a conventional computer in just 14.22 seconds. Undaunted, Google made a second claim for quantum supremacy a few months ago, with a new quantum computer called Willow. The firm estimated that a leading supercomputer would require 10 septillion years to match…

Kris Jenner says she pulled off one of her earliest successful negotiations as a flight attendant. JC Olivera/WireImage 2025-04-10T05:24:45Z Save Saved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? Kris Jenner says she pulled off one of her earliest negotiations in the 1970s when she was a flight attendant. She wasn't assigned a flight route she wanted but found a way to achieve her goal. She is now a businesswoman and the matriarch of a family of reality stars and entrepreneurs. Decades before Kris Jenner became the "momager" of the Kardashian-Jenner clan, she taught herself an early lesson in business negotiation while working as a flight attendant.During an appearance on the April 9 episode of "The Burnouts" podcast — hosted by Bill Gates's daughter, Phoebe Gates, and her business partner, Sophia Kianni — Jenner reflected on her brief stint working for American Airlines in the 70s."Every single lesson that I learned that I really appreciate, I think I learned from that year and a half or two years of being a flight attendant," Jenner told Gates and Kianni.It all started when Jenner, then a fresh flight attendant, was not assigned the flight route she wanted."I was really hoping for Los Angeles," Jenner said. "And they kind of looked at me like, 'You're never going to Los Angeles. That would take you years to be able to build up that kind of seniority where you can go to Los Angeles.'"But instead of accepting rejection, Jenner took matters into her own hands."I thought, 'OK, there's another way to get around this,'" Jenner said.She started talking to different people in the company to find out how she could land a spot on the flight routes she wanted."So I just randomly walked into the scheduling office — that nobody probably dares to do back in the 70s — and I said, 'Listen, I've got a problem. This is what I need, and this is what I know you have the power to do. How can we meet in the middle? What can I do to accomplish this?'" Jenner said, recalling the incident.Showing up at the office worked: Management offered her a spot on the substitute list instead. If anyone called in sick, she would be the one to replace them on those flights, Jenner said."And I figured out how to make the system work for me in the best of ways because then I had, maybe once or twice, walked into the scheduling room with brownies," she said.Jenner said the experience taught her to pivot and not accept the first answer somebody gave her."It was one of the first things that I actually negotiated for myself," she said.Since then, Jenner has become a businesswoman and a reality TV star.She catapulted her family into superstardom by launching her family's reality series, "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" in 2007. The show concluded in 2021 after 20 seasons.A year later, the family announced their return to reality TV for the Hulu series "The Kardashians." The show is now in its sixth season.Reality TV aside, Jenner also manages the careers of her famous daughters — Kourtney Kardashian, Kim Kardashian, Khloe Kardashian, Kendall Jenner, and Kylie Jenner.In 2022, Jenner told Forbes she takes a 10% cut from everything her kids earn through television and other business ventures.Representatives for Jenner and American Airlines did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent by Business Insider. Recommended video

Loiske Wellness Center / Studio Puisto ArchitectsSave this picture!© Riikka Kantinkoski•Ähtäri, Finland Architects: Studio Puisto Architects Area Area of this architecture project Area:  1650 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project Year:  2024 Photographs Photographs:Riikka Kantinkoski, Marc Goodwin Lead Architects: Sami Logren, Mikko Jakonen, Emma Johansson, Willem van Bolderen, Heikki Riitahuhta, Sampsa Palva More SpecsLess Specs Save this picture! Text description provided by the architects. The development of the Loiske Spa & Wellness Center was guided by key concepts centered on sustainability, experiential design, and architectural harmony with its surroundings. The project was part of a broader master plan to enhance tourism in Ähtäri, Finland, with a focus on sustainable development. The architects sought to maintain material and design consistency with the adjacent Hotel Mesikämmen, a 1976 structure by Timo and Tuomo Suomalainen, known for its nature-oriented expressionist modernism. This approach emphasized the use of tactile materials such as wood, concrete, and textured tiles to create an atmospheric and distinctive wellness experience.Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!Several setbacks were encountered during the planning phase, particularly in selecting the optimal location for the center. Multiple sites were considered before settling on one adjacent to the hotel, ensuring a seamless connection via a covered walkway. The challenges of integrating the new structure within the existing landscape and architectural context were also addressed through careful spatial planning and material choices.Save this picture!Save this picture!The construction of Loiske employed robust techniques and high-quality materials to ensure durability and timeless appeal. The use of cast-in-place concrete with wooden board imprints created a rich texture that resonated with the hotel's design language. Wooden elements, tiles with varied textures, and extensive glazing were incorporated to balance durability with aesthetic appeal. The sloping roof structure not only contributed to the building's seamless integration into the environment but also helped manage natural lighting and heat regulation in the pool areas. Long eaves were specifically designed to provide shade and prevent overheating in these spaces.Save this picture!Spatial configuration was meticulously planned to enhance user experience and functionality. The center's layout allows for a clear and intuitive flow from changing areas to the pools. The main pool area, acting as the architectural focal point, is divided into an exercise pool section and a wellness zone, featuring hot and cold pools leading to a more secluded therapy pool. The interplay of spatial openness and intimacy is accentuated by the slanted roof and a board-formed concrete wall that rises high above the central area. Natural light reflections on the surfaces enhance the overall ambiance, and strategically positioned windows offer serene views of Lake Hankavesi through the pine trees.Save this picture!The material palette and design ethos prioritize tranquility and longevity. Natural wood, stone, and concrete surfaces create a harmonious and calming environment, while the subtle blues and turquoise of the water add to the overall sensory experience. The center's design not only provides a high-quality wellness experience but also ensures that the structure remains aesthetically and functionally relevant for years to come.Save this picture! Project gallerySee allShow less Project locationAddress:Location to be used only as a reference. It could indicate city/country but not exact address.About this office Published on April 10, 2025Cite: "Loiske Wellness Center / Studio Puisto Architects" 10 Apr 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1028766/loiske-wellness-center-studio-puisto-architects&gt ISSN 0719-8884Save世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?是否 You've started following your first account!Did you know?You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream

This will be the only Unreal Engine course you’ll ever need. We’ve been working really, really hard on it over the past few months, and this is the first behind-the-scenes vlog showing what’s been happening as we build this course. Sign up to get notified and unlock presale pricing! https://www.baddecisions.studio/course Join our discord server: https://discord.gg/zwycgqezfD If you wanna see our daily life: Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/badxstudio/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/badxstudio TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@badxstudio LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/badxstudio Bad Decisions Audio Podcast 🎙️: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/badxstudio Our personal handles: (if you wanna stalk us) https://www.instagram.com/farhad_baddecisions/ https://www.instagram.com/faraz_baddecisions/ https://twitter.com/Farhads__ https://twitter.com/farazshababi https://www.linkedin.com/in/farhadshababi/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/farazshababi/

Nature, Published online: 09 April 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-01052-9A body fossil of a thorny-headed worm (Acanthocephala) has been dated to the Jurassic period, about 165 million years ago. It has characteristics of both Acanthocephala and tiny animals called Rotifera, thus casting light on the origin of the acanthocephalans and bridging the evolutionary gap between jawed rotifers and parasitic, jawless acanthocephalans.

I saw a lot of 'How can i make it more realistic?' posts recently. So I thought I try it myself. This is the acutal default cube and not the normal process cube. The normal Process normally goes like this: Start Blender What should i do? Delete default Cube I need something to start with Lets create a cube .... Do you also have some idiotic workflow like me? Let me know! submitted by /u/schu-r [link] [comments]

Principal Concept Artist Edouard Noisette discussed the process of building an imaginary yet period-accurate Gothic cathedral and port city in Blender, sharing his paintover techniques and valuable resources.Read: https://80.lv/articles/designing-french-gothic-cathedral-with-bloodborne-vibes-in-blender-photoshop/