Hit by tariffs? OnePlus releases Watch 3 with inflated $500 price tag, won’t say why The new OnePlus smartwatch has debuted at $500 instead of the promised $330. Ryan Whitwam – Apr 10, 2025 4:08 pm | 12 Credit: OnePlus Credit: OnePlus Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more After modest success with its first two smartwatches, OnePlus was poised to release a third-generation smartwatch early this year. Unfortunately, the company had to delay the Watch 3 from February to April, and now the previously announced $330 price tag is nowhere to be seen. Instead, the OnePlus Watch 3 has launched at an eye-watering $500, and you can probably guess why. The OnePlus Watch 3 was all set for release a few months ago, but early reviewers spotted an embarrassing typo on the device. Like most smartwatches, OnePlus printed the watch's key specs on the bottom of the housing. Part of that text was supposed to read "Made in China," but instead, it said "Meda in China." Oops. OnePlus delayed the launch so it could correct the mistake on retail units. However, the US-China trade relationship has deteriorated dramatically in the intervening weeks. Since the watch is meda made in China, it is subject to tariffs—the amount of Trump's China tariffs is changing on an almost daily basis, but it's currently 145 percent. Provided you don't mind a big watch, the OnePlus Watch 3 was shaping up to be a good value at $330. However, the new price on the OnePlus store is about 50 percent higher, putting OnePlus on the wrong side of devices like the Pixel Watch and Apple Watch. OnePlus has refused to comment on the reason for the price increase, but the sudden, extreme tariffs are the only explanation that makes sense. The tariff fees are typically paid on a product's declared value rather than the retail cost. So a $170 price bump could be close to what the company's US arm will pay to import the Watch 3 in the midst of a trade war. Many technology firms have attempted to stockpile products in the US ahead of tariffs, but it's possible OnePlus simply couldn't do that because it had to fix its typo. Losing its greatest advantage? Like past OnePlus wearables, the Watch 3 is a chunky, high-power device with a stainless steel case. It sports a massive 1.5-inch OLED screen, the latest Snapdragon W5 wearable processor, 32GB of storage, and 2GB of RAM. It runs Google's Wear OS for smart features, but it also has a dialed-back power-saving mode that runs separate RTOS software. This robust hardware adds to the manufacturing cost, which also means higher tariffs now. As it currently stands, the Watch 3 is just too expensive given the competition. OnePlus has managed to piece together a growing ecosystem of devices, including phones, tablets, earbuds, and, yes, smartwatches. With a combination of competitive prices and high-end specs, it successfully established a foothold in the US market, something few Chinese OEMs have accomplished. The implications go beyond wearables. OnePlus also swings for the fences with its phone hardware, using the best Arm chips and expensive, high-end OLED panels. OnePlus tends to price its phones lower than similar Samsung and Google hardware, so it doesn't make as much on each phone. If the tariffs stick, that strategy could be unviable. Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam is a senior technology reporter at Ars Technica, covering the ways Google, AI, and mobile technology continue to change the world. Over his 20-year career, he's written for Android Police, ExtremeTech, Wirecutter, NY Times, and more. He has reviewed more phones than most people will ever own. You can follow him on Bluesky, where you will see photos of his dozens of mechanical keyboards. 12 Comments

Pelvis width may influence the risk of birth complications and back painCavan Images/Getty Images The width of a person’s hips seems to be a result of complex trade-offs between the evolution of larger brains and upright walking, according to the largest study of its kind to date. “If your brain is getting larger and larger over the same evolutionary time as your pelvis is getting narrower, this, of course, results in conflict,” says Vagheesh Narasimhan at the University of Texas at Austin. Advertisement This idea, first proposed in the 1960s, is known as the obstetrical dilemma. More recently, it has been suggested that the risk of pelvic floor conditions also factors in. The pelvic floor is a layer of muscles that keeps our organs in place. If it weakens or tears, it can lead to incontinence and problems during childbirth. “The obstetrical dilemma has been debated very hotly,” says Narasimhan. There have been many previous studies trying to relate the structure of the pelvis to walking speed and efficiency, for instance, but these studies have usually involved small numbers of people and produced conflicting results, he says. Now, Narasimhan and his colleagues have used data from the UK Biobank to look at 31,000 men and women. The team measured various aspects of the pelvis based on a type of scan called dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and looked for correlations with genetic variations and aspects of people’s health, such as requiring emergency caesarians. Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday. Sign up to newsletter The results indicate that having a wider pelvis reduces the risk of complications during birth, but results in slower walking and a higher risk of pelvic floor-related conditions and osteoarthritis of the hip. Meanwhile, a narrower pelvis may speed up walking but increases the risk of birth complications, back pain and knee osteoarthritis. It has previously been suggested that there is a link between having narrower hips and earlier births, to reduce the risk of birth complications, but the team found no association between pelvis width and the length of pregnancies. “This is in line with other studies showing that human children are not born [relatively] sooner than in the other great apes,” says Narasimhan. The team did observe an association between pelvic width and the head size of babies at birth. “Individuals who might give birth to children with a wider head often have wider pelvises,” says Narasimhan. “That happens because of natural selection, where we’re continually selecting for individuals which have this correlation.” This selection may now have come to an end because of C-sections, a 2016 study claimed. Another finding is that most people have slightly asymmetrical pelvises that correlate with their handedness. Being left or right-handed usually determines which leg is dominant, which affects walking and the development of the pelvis, and this may lead to a slight asymmetry as we grow up, says Narasimhan. “This is an extraordinary contribution to a fundamental aspect of human evolutionary biology,” says Scott Simpson at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. “By integrating anatomic, genetic, clinical and behavioural data, the authors have provided significant insights into this uniquely human adaptation.” “It is nice to be able to exploit large datasets,” says Nicole Webb at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, who has shown that the birth canals of chimpanzees aren’t much wider than those of people. Webb points out that all the people in the dataset were aged over 40 and from the UK. “If this work were carried out on younger, more diverse populations, the results could be even more striking,” she says. Journal reference:Science DOI: 10.1126/science.adq1521 Topics:

Amazon warehouse. Shannon Stapleton/Reuters 2025-04-10T20:37:03Z Save Saved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? Amazon will pay higher prices to some vendors to offset tariff impacts. The move aims to prevent losing vendors due to tariffs on imports from China. Amazon usually requires margin guarantees from vendors, potentially raising product prices. Amazon is stepping in to help weather the tariff storm — only for some vendors.Amazon will pay higher prices to its vendors on a "case-by-case basis" to "share the tariff impact," according to an internal document obtained by Business Insider.That means Amazon will pay some of its wholesale vendors more than the previously agreed-upon prices for their products. By doing so, vendors can offset the increased cost of sourcing their products from countries hit by tariffs.The change reflects the urgency Amazon is applying to deal with the onslaught of tariffs. The vast majority of vendors import their products from China, and President Donald Trump had said tariffs on goods from China would increase to 125%. The vendors said Amazon likely doesn't want to risk losing the products they sell.These vendors wholesale their products to Amazon, which then resells them on its online marketplace. Vendors account for roughly 40% of the products sold on Amazon, while the other 60% come from third-party merchants."Amazon is not willing to suffer a mass exodus of vendors all at once," Matt Daubenspeck, director of Apothecary Products, told BI. "If customers cannot find what they want on Amazon, they may shop elsewhere."Such price concessions are rarely available outside the normal price negotiation cycles and are only offered during extenuating circumstances, like the recent pandemic or a supply chain crisis, several vendors told BI.The offer isn't available to every vendor, and in most cases, Amazon requires margin guarantees, they said.Amazon's spokesperson declined to comment.Guaranteed marginsThe internal document didn't specify which vendors are subject to the new offering. It said Amazon is bulk-buying products at discounted prices and ordering some of the best-selling products from China ahead of time. Several vendors said Amazon usually offers price concessions only if the vendor agrees to guaranteed margins. That means vendors have to pay Amazon an additional amount if their products fail to reach a fixed profit margin.Corey Thomas, CEO of e-commerce agency AMZ Atlas, told BI that a number of his clients are already in talks with Amazon about the margin agreements. He cautioned against the vendors taking the margin agreements because it could backfire if Amazon decides to sell their products at a lower price and margin, which would put the vendor on the hook to make up for lost profits."Negotiate VERY carefully," Thomas wrote in a separate LinkedIn post.Vendors expect the tariffs to raise product prices on Amazon across the board. If Amazon pays more to its vendors, that cost will likely increase the final sales price. Several third-party sellers previously told BI that they plan to raise prices on their products due to the tariffs.Not for everyoneAmazon isn't extending the pricing increase to every vendor. Several vendors told BI their requests for a price change have been rejected recently.In one email seen by BI, an Amazon employee told a vendor the company was "unable to accept" the price increase proposal and suggested exploring other cost-saving options. The email said the general manufacturing capacity in China is "currently underutilized," a factor that could lead to "potential cost reductions for suppliers." It also said alternative cost-cutting measures and Chinese government subsidies are available."Before passing increased costs to retail partners, we expect our vendors to thoroughly explore and implement all possible operational efficiencies and cost-reduction strategies," the email said.Several vendors told BI that it's unclear what criteria Amazon follows before accepting price increase requests. It appears Amazon wants to keep the process opaque for now."Do not cite out internal policies" when rejecting a vendor's request, the internal document said.Truist Securities managing director Youssef Squali wrote in a note on Thursday that he is lowering Amazon's growth estimates in part due to tariff-driven price hikes."While there are several currents and countercurrents hurting and benefiting Amazon at the same time, we believe the net net of this is an increase in prices virtually across the board and a likely slowdown in consumer spending, which will weigh on the company's growth for the rest of FY25 and FY26 and on margins," Squali wrote.Do you work at Amazon? Got a tip? Contact this reporter via email at or Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 650-942-3061. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; . Recommended video

Let’s start with what should be obvious: The wolf pups are not dire wolves, and they haven’t been “de-extincted.”The fluffy white canines — Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi — unveiled this week by Colossal Biosciences are closer to something like designer dogs. More precisely, they are genetically modified, hybridized modern wolves, gestated in the womb of a domestic dog. But that wouldn’t sound as impressive on a magazine cover. Thousands of years before we had the slightest idea of how genetics worked, humans were altering the genes of wolves and their dog descendants through breeding and domestication, making them particularly fitting candidates for Colossal’s bid for scientific spectacle. By editing the DNA of existing gray wolf cells to include some traits from long-extinct dire wolves (like their white hair and large size) and using them to create viable embryos with cloning technology, Colossal claims it has created “the world’s first successfully de-extincted animal,” one “made famous from the HBO hit series Game of Thrones.” The fantasy TV reference is a bit too on the nose. Whatever species they are, what is true is that Colossal has created novel animals for whom humans are now morally accountable — a responsibility that the nascent field of de-extinction, which insists it is an ally of conservation, has not shown itself prepared to fulfill.While many people might imagine that de-extincting animals risks a Jurassic Park-style meltdown that puts humans in danger, the real threat is the other way around: It’s the harm that we do to the animals. As writer Dayton Martindale put it in a 2023 Vox piece that’s worth reading in full, de-extinction’s “technical challenges are enormous, [and] the ethical ones are even more so…both the surrogate parents and newborn clones face a risk of suffering and trauma, used as mere instruments in a research project of unclear benefit.”What even is de-extinction, and what is the point of it?Colossal, the leading company in the de-extinction industry, seeks to bring back long-gone species, such as woolly mammoths, dodos, and Tasmanian tigers. To do that, it pieces together the genomes of these animals — an especially arduous task for ancient species like the mammoth and the dire wolf, whose DNA has become fragmented in their remains over many years — and compares them to the genomes of closely related species, such as modern elephants and modern wolves. Researchers then identify genes that are unique to the extinct species, edit some of them into cells taken from one of those closely related living species, and use the edited cell to create embryos that will, if all goes well, grow into de-extincted hybrid creatures. In the case of Colossal’s “dire wolves,” cells were extracted from the blood of living gray wolves, and their DNA was modified with 20 edits that the company says are responsible for the dire wolf’s most distinctive physical traits. The embryos that would become the animals Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi were then implanted to grow inside large dogs and delivered by cesarean section.The first clue that what Colossal did is less than full de-extinction is that those 20 edits are far fewer than the actual number of genetic differences between gray wolves and dire wolves. “The grey wolf genome is 2,447,000,000 individual bases (DNA letters) long. Colossal has said that the grey wolf and dire wolf genomes are 99.5% identical, but that is still 12,235,000 individual differences,” Nic Rawlence, a paleontologist at the University of Otago in New Zealand, told me in an email. “So a grey wolf with 20 edits to 14 genes, even if these are key differences, is still very much a grey wolf.” In other words, Colossal has modified a small number of genes corresponding to traits that are visible and thrilling to 21st-century human eyes, which was enough to convince the public — and many science journalists — that the company has breathed new life into a dead species. Why do all this? It depends on who you ask. The most generous answer is that well-resourced startups, such as Colossal, can harness this effort to advance tools like gene editing and advanced cloning, which could be used to help conserve currently endangered species by, for example, inserting genetic diversity or disease resistance into shrinking, struggling populations.“Extinction is a colossal problem facing the world. And Colossal is the company that’s going to fix it,” the company states on its website, which features a characteristic aesthetic that lies somewhere between Jurassic World and a spy museum. Concurrent with the dire wolf announcement, Colossal revealed that it used similar techniques to clone critically endangered red wolves, resulting in the births of four red wolf pups, which could eventually prove useful in reviving a species that currently has fewer than 20 members in the wild. But it’s not as though working on red wolf genetics requires the company to try to resurrect dire wolves, which went extinct not because of human action, like the red wolf is in danger of doing, but because of competition with other species and climate change. So why not work directly on conservation? One answer might be that, because long-extinct species pose the hardest biological challenges, working on de-extinction in these animals pushes scientists to develop cutting-edge genetic technologies, kind of like how the moon landing accelerated the development of computers and satellite-based navigation. Perhaps it could even help bring about reproductive technologies for humans, such as artificial wombs. Colossal also says that it’s “proud to return the dire wolf to its rightful place in the ecosystem,” suggesting an ecological imperative not just to conserve existing species but also to revive ancient ones. (It’s made similar arguments about woolly mammoths.) But this makes little sense because dire wolves, like woolly mammoths, have been extinct for thousands of years and lived in an ice age ecosystem that no longer exists. And again, these are not dire wolves.De-extinction critics have pointed out that the technology creates a moral hazard: It could simply be used as an excuse to allow vulnerable animals to go extinct and assume we can just bring them back later. And they have a point. Soon after Colossal’s news about their wolves this week, the Trump administration embraced the technology and suggested removing legal protections for endangered species.“If we’re going to be in anguish about losing a species, now we have an opportunity to bring them back,” US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told his staff on a livestream, according to a Washington Post report. “Pick your favorite species and call up Colossal.” Burgum has met with Colossal, the Post reported, and discussed using its cloned red wolves.It’s worth understanding here that although endangered species have been cloned before in an effort to preserve their genes, releasing them into the wild is another matter entirely. Re-introducing captive-bred species is incredibly hard because these animals have not grown up learning how to survive in wild ecosystems — and the challenge is even greater for animals produced through cloning, who often suffer from health problems. These captive creatures are more likely to suffer in zoos than to live freely in their natural habitats.Whether or not de-extinction could theoretically offer future benefits for species on the brink may be the wrong question. It would be better to ask: Will humans change their own behavior enough to make the sacrifice of animals used in this research worthwhile, by making it possible for revived endangered animals to survive in the wild? In other words, is “de-extinction” worth the ethical costs?The case for simply notBeneath the idealized explanations for de-extinction, there’s the sheer allure of playing God, the thrill of creating life, and the fundamental reality that de-extincted animals are under the control of private companies. They are technologies, created as a means to an end of developing better genetic engineering. They are the product of animal experimentation, and there are essentially no legal limits on the type of experiments that animals can be used for under the Animal Welfare Act, the federal law that governs animal research. Critics point out that de-extinction not only requires keeping surrogate mothers from a closely related species in captivity and often confinement but also performing embryo transfer, an invasive procedure. Cloning has become safer since its early days, but it still carries a high risk of failure and miscarriage. Newly cloned animals, too, can be prone to serious health issues. Remember that Colossal’s wolves bear only a few similarities to dire wolves: That Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi have now survived for some months is a promising sign, but there could certainly be unforeseen health complications in a gray wolf whose phenotype has been altered to resemble a different species, even as most of its genes remain the same. Whatever suffering they experience will be the responsibility of the company that created them.For Colossal, there are also commercial opportunities that could flow from controlling access to brand-new, charismatic animals. Perhaps most troubling, de-extinction could simply represent a path toward familiar, profit-driven models of animal exploitation, such as exhibiting animals in zoos. Harvard geneticist George Church, who co-founded Colossal Biosciences, has said that de-extincted woolly mammoths could be used for “tourism, meat, hair (following a sheep model of seasonal removal), and maybe legal ivory.” Even a skeptic can acknowledge that Colossal’s new wolves are a technological marvel, and only a heartless cynic wouldn’t see that they’re incredibly adorable. A video released by the company captures tiny Romulus and Remus letting out high-pitched baby howls, a moment that is wondrous and breathtaking — yet utterly tragic. Wolves are extremely social animals that howl to communicate and bond with their packs, but these wolves are alone in the world. They have no older relatives that can teach them how to be a wolf, nor can they live in the wild.Colossal’s plans to “revive” woolly mammoths — which really means creating elephants with some mammoth genes — pose concerns that are just as urgent for those intelligent, sensitive, and social creatures.The company’s chief science officer, Beth Shapiro, has called the wolves “the luckiest animals ever.” They live on a 2,000-acre nature preserve, far more space than zoo animals get, they’re fed, and they get constant veterinary care. But in the wild, gray wolves’ “hunting territory can range anywhere from 50 to 1,000 sq. mi.,” Time points out in its cover story on the wolves. “Against that, Colossal’s three dire wolves spending their entire lives in a 2,000-acre preserve could be awfully lonely and claustrophobic — not at all the way wild dire wolves would live their lives.”This isn’t de-extinction or conservation, but invention. Modern humans are as gods, with the power to conjure new creatures into being — and if we’re being honest, we do it not for their sake but for ours. Our record of treating non-human animals as our playthings offers little reason to believe we will wield that power with restraint, humility, or care. Update, April 10, 2:05 pm ET: This story was originally published on April 9 and has been updated with details of US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s embrace of de-extinction technology. You’ve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you — join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

Not many games last a decade, but Zenimax Online Studios is nowhere near done yet — here's what the company is promising for Elder Scrolls Online next, and when you can play itTech20:30, 10 Apr 2025ESO is still growing, even after a decade(Image: Bethesda Softworks/ZeniMax Media )The start of the PS4 and Xbox One generation saw a gold rush of games-as-a-service and console MMOs, but few stand as tall a decade later as The Elder Scrolls Online.The game has seen dozens of huge updates, adding whole landmasses, locations from other Elder Scrolls titles, and more loot than you can shake a Daedric Prince at.‌Article continues belowWe've hunted vampires, slain dragons, battled through dungeons and much, much more, and Zenimax Online Studios isn't done yet. Today, the studio revealed the latest updates coming to Elder Scrolls Online and no, there's no Oblivion remaster in sight.Solstice is the new location this year(Image: Bethesda Softworks/ZeniMax Media )Throughout much of ESO's lifespan, the team at Zenimax Online Studios has introduced regular expansions, but the team is shifting things a little.‌2025 will kick off the Seasons of the Worm Cult, which takes place on new location the island of Solstice. Rather than offering a sort of fresh start, however, it's a direct sequel to the base game's story from all those years ago.Solstice is divided by the mysterious Writhing Wall, which will lend itself to the game's first-ever server-wide event later this year as players work to unlock the second half of the Seasons of the Worm Cult story by breaking through to the other side.More dungeons are coming(Image: Bethesda Softworks/ZeniMax Media )‌It's an ambitious plan, but the studio is quick to confirm you don't have to complete the base game's story to jump in with this one. Both parts of the Seasons of the Worm Cult storyline are included in the 2025 content pass, with the first half available in June.The 2025 Content Pass and 2025 Premium Edition also includes a pair of Dungeon Packs. Fallen Banners is available now, while Feast of Shadows is slated for Fall of this year. Both include two PvE four-player dungeons.Expect big bosses to tackle(Image: Bethesda Softworks/ZeniMax Media )‌If you're a lapsed player, there's plenty arriving for free to tease you back into Elder Scrolls Online.Alongside the new paid content in June, Update 46 will introduce major changes for all players for free. Hero's Return is a new system that's aiming to make the process of getting back into ESO more streamlined, easing players back into systems they haven't touched in a while, or tutorialising new ones that have been added since.The devs have teased returning characters(Image: Bethesda Softworks/ZeniMax Media )‌It's the kind of thing we wish more long-running games would do, in truth, but that's not all.A new Subclassing system will let players replace up to two of their character's Skill Lines with options from other classes, letting them create a hybrid class that's all their own. These skills will cost more than those native to a character to help balance things out, but it could blow buildcrafting wide open once the community gets their hands on it.With something new for old and fresh players alike, Elder Scrolls Online is showing no signs of slowing down in its 'old' age — and long may it continue.Article continues belowFor the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.‌‌‌

By Margherita Bassi Published April 10, 2025 | Comments (0) | Baffin Island. © Darien Graham-Smith, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons Last month, British traveler Camilla Hempleman-Adams trekked and skied across Canada’s Nunavut territory. After completing a 150-mile-long (241-kilometer-long) journey from the communities of Qikiqtarjuaq to Pangnirtung, she claimed to be the first solo woman to have traversed Baffin Island, Canada’s largest island. That declaration has now received serious backlash from Nunavut’s indigenous community. As reported by the BBC, members of the local Inuit population refuted her claim, saying that it erased indigenous history and was fueled by a “dangerous colonial attitude.” Hempleman-Adams has since apologized for the offense she caused. Before starting her expedition, Hempleman-Adams wrote that “Parks Canada has confirmed that there are no historical records of a female solo attempt from Qikiqtarjuaq to Pangnirtung” on her expedition website, as cited by the BBC. Once she’d completed her expedition on March 27, various outlets shared her apparent record-breaking success. “Last week news came out of a British ‘explorer’ who became the first woman to solo traverse Baffin Island… Set aside that it was a 241km ski across Cumberland Peninsula, and not in fact Baffin Island (1500km). If you look deeper you’ll see a larger problem: erasure of Inuit on our own lands,” Gayle Uyagaqi Kabloona—a member of the local Inuit community—wrote in a social media post. “In news coverage, Baffin Island is said to be uninhabited, with not much life. There is no way in hell a British colonizer is coming to Inuit Nunaat in 2025 and claiming any firsts.” Nunaat translates to “homeland.” Wrapping up her post, Kabloona appealed for help to “call out this ignorant and racist behaviour.” She asked Hempleman-Adams to apologize and the BBC to retract its coverage. Though Kabloona may not have said it explicitly, the sentiment is clear: a solo indigenous woman most likely crossed Baffin Island before Hempleman-Adams, even though neither Inuit Heritage Trust nor Parks Canada maintain such records. Kabloona told the BBC that those records don’t exist because such journeys were “a normal way of life” for indigenous people. Her grandmother, for example, walked hundreds of kilometers every year, often pregnant, “to Spring fishing and Winter caribou hunting grounds because that was life. Every inch of this continent has indigenous history and stories like this,” she explained in the same social media post. In a written statement to CBC News, Hempleman-Adams reiterated the fact that she’d verified her potentially future claim with Parks Canada and wilderness experts in Qikiqtarjuaq and Pangnirtung before the expedition. “However, if this information is incorrect, I apologize unreservedly for making an incorrect claim and for causing offence,” she wrote, as cited by CBC News. “I have deep respect for the land, its people, and their history. I have traveled in this region multiple times and hold immense admiration for its nature, culture and traditions … and I remain committed to learning from this experience and engaging with the community with the utmost respect.” Hempleman-Adams has deactivated her Instagram and deleted her expedition blog. Daily Newsletter You May Also Like By Margherita Bassi Published April 4, 2025 By Matt Novak Published April 2, 2025 By Matt Novak Published March 19, 2025 By Matthew Gault Published March 17, 2025 By Matthew Gault Published March 11, 2025 By Matt Novak Published March 10, 2025

Hotel Florita 39 / ÁpironSave this picture!© Jonatan Smith - A Minimal MomentHotels•Isla Mujeres, Mexico Architects: Ápiron Area Area of this architecture project Area:  435 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project Year:  2024 Photographs Photographs:Jonatan Smith - A Minimal Moment Lead Architects: Antonio Irigoyen, Adda Elena Barahona, Esther Molina More SpecsLess Specs Save this picture!Save this picture! Text description provided by the architects. Florita 39 is a project located in Isla Mujeres, in the Mexican Caribbean, an island that merges the vibrant color palette of Mexico with the intense blue tones of the Caribbean Sea. The project is situated on the iconic Miguel Hidalgo street, a pedestrian corridor full of life and activity, where a constant flow of people is experienced daily.Save this picture!The project program is divided into two parts that aim to complement each other. On the ground floor, there is a commercial space designed for a restaurant, which maximizes the interior-exterior connection possibilities with the avenue. Additionally, a small hotel with five independent residential units is planned, divided across the three levels of the building.Save this picture!The façade of the volume features a series of window modules that allow for fluid integration with the surroundings. On the ground floor, the three modules correspond to the commercial space, and adjacent to these, there is a more private and recessed access where the door connects with the vertical and horizontal circulation of the building, linking the different residential units. The circulation of the project opens up to an interior courtyard where a large tree, known in the area as "Álamo" (Ficus Cotinifolia Kunth), has been preserved.Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!On the top level, the building features a rooftop that offers views of Miguel Hidalgo street and the blue of the Caribbean Sea blending with the sky on the horizon. This space allows enjoyment of the constant movement of people on the street, while elements such as a swimming pool, a barbecue area, a lounge chair zone, and common restrooms enhance the use of this amenity. Behind the rooftop is an area designated for a laundry center, where the linens of the hotel are managed.Save this picture!The rooms were designed to create independent spaces that meet the various needs of users within a compact area. Each unit includes a bedroom, a small kitchenette, a dining area, and a bathroom, all carefully optimized to ensure functionality and comfort. This way, small apartments are offered to guests that cater to daily needs without sacrificing comfort.Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!The façade stands out for its green tone, achieved through a plaster that coats its structure, creating a harmonious contrast with the vibrant colors of the area. This color envelops a rigid structure of frames, with sloped details that allow for dynamic interaction between the openings and voids, which traverse both the commercial space and the rooms that open onto the pedestrian avenue. The façade integrates the colors of the windows and wrought iron railings, both in a coffee tone, which adds warmth to the project.Save this picture!Save this picture!Inside the project, we find softer and warmer tones, where the beige of the travertine marble floor stands out, integrating with the oak wood and the white concrete countertops found in the kitchenettes and bathrooms.Save this picture! Project gallerySee allShow less About this officeÁpironOffice••• Published on April 10, 2025Cite: "Hotel Florita 39 / Ápiron" [Hotel Florita 39 / Ápiron] 10 Apr 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1028946/hotel-florita-39-apiron&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

If you’ve ever skimmed the ingredient list of your favorite snacks or drinks, you’ve probably stumbled across a string of unfamiliar words — potassium polyphosphate, acesulfame-K, sulphite ammonia caramel, and more — that offer little insight into what you’re actually eating.These food additives are used by manufacturers to boost flavor, texture, appearance, and shelf life. While many are naturally derived and individually tested for safety, recent research suggests that mixing multiple additives — as often happens in the preparation of processed foods — could lead to health risks that aren’t visible when looking at each ingredient by itself.A new study led by scientists from institutions such as Sorbonne Paris Nord University and Paris Cité University set out to investigate just that: how mixtures of food additives commonly found in everyday products may contribute to type 2 diabetes, a ever-growing metabolic disease tied to Western diets.Why Food Additives Are Raising Red FlagsIn the U.S., nearly 60 percent of daily dietary intake comes from ultra-processed foods. These foods are increasingly being linked to negative health outcomes, especially metabolic diseases like type 2 diabetes.To uncover what makes such processed foods so harmful, researchers are turning their attention to the additives tucked into long ingredient lists.Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tests the safety of each additive individually, newer experimental studies suggest that combinations of additives may impact health differently — potentially contributing to metabolic disorders, inflammation, and disruptions in gut microbiota. These “cocktail effects” can easily go unnoticed in single-substance safety tests.Using human cell models, French researchers demonstrated that mixtures of food additives can behave in unexpected and more toxic ways than individual substances alone. But to translate those findings into practical dietary advice, studies involving real people are needed.How Additives May Contribute to DiabetesTo explore potential links between additive combinations and type 2 diabetes, researchers analyzed data from nearly 100,000 adults in France who recorded their food intake and brand choices over several years. After seven years of follow-up, the team identified the most frequently consumed additive combinations and tracked who developed type 2 diabetes.Two of the five most common additive mixtures stood out. One included mostly emulsifiers, preservatives, and a dye (ingredients typically found in sauces and dairy-based desserts). The second included acidifiers, acid regulators, dyes, sweeteners, and more emulsifiers, often present in artificially sweetened beverages. Both mixtures were associated with a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.Further analysis revealed complex interactions among these additives. Some appeared to be synergistic (amplifying each other’s effects), while others seemed to be antagonistic (counteracting one another), suggesting that their health impact changes significantly when they’re consumed together.Implications for Public HealthThis study was the first of its kind to assess long-term exposure to real-world combinations of food additives in a large population, and to link these mixtures with the risk of type 2 diabetes. The findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that the health effects of ultra-processed foods may be driven not just by individual ingredients, but by how those ingredients interact.While further studies are needed to fully understand these interactions and explore links with other health issues, the message is clear: Food additives don’t exist in a vacuum, and their combined effects may be greater than the sum of their parts.“This observational study alone is not sufficient to establish a causal link. However, our findings are in line with recent in vitro experimental work suggesting possible cocktail effects. They indicate that the evaluation of additives should take into account their interactions and support public health recommendations that advise limiting non-essential food additives,” explained study co-author Mathilde Touvier in a press release.As our diets have become increasingly reliant on processed foods, understanding the hidden effects of additive mixtures may be key to tackling the rise of diet-related diseases like type 2 diabetes.This article is not offering medical advice and should be used for informational purposes only.Read More: What are Ultra Processed Foods? Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Food and Chemical Toxicity: Evaluation of the toxic effects of food additives, alone or in mixture, in four human cell modelsHaving worked as a biomedical research assistant in labs across three countries, Jenny excels at translating complex scientific concepts – ranging from medical breakthroughs and pharmacological discoveries to the latest in nutrition – into engaging, accessible content. Her interests extend to topics such as human evolution, psychology, and quirky animal stories. When she’s not immersed in a popular science book, you’ll find her catching waves or cruising around Vancouver Island on her longboard.

The Oklahoma City Bombing memorial includes a field of empty chair sculptures made from bronze and glass to commemorate the 168 killed on April 19, 1995. Brian Scantlebury Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Psychological trauma can unfortunately linger for years. However, according to recent research, it may even remain in the bodies of medically healthy people. The study, believed to be the first of its kind, was published in Prehospital and Disaster Medicine by a team at Oklahoma State University (OSU). Previous examinations of terrorism survivors have focused on stress and psychological effects, but a team at OSU recently set out to analyze a set of different biological factors. What’s more, they did so by enlisting 60 medically healthy survivors from the same event—in this case, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Even after 30 years, the Oklahoma City bombing remains the deadliest domestic terror attack in US history. Largely planned and carried out by antigovernment conspiracy theorist and white supremacist Timothy McVeigh, the bombing involved detonating over 4,440 pounds of homemade explosives inside a Ryder truck parked near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. The resultant blast leveled over one-third of the building, killing 167 people and wounding another 684 victims. Although many others survived were physically unscathed, they still possibly face long-term tolls from the experience. The study focused on three bodily systems. The first is cortisol, a hormone which helps control stress. They also looked at blood pressure and heart rate, and inflammatory substances known as interleukins that function a person’s immune system. The team soon saw striking differences between the survivors’ results with those of a control group of local residents unaffected by the bombing. Contrary to expectations, many survivors’ cortisol levels were lower. They also exhibited higher blood pressure, but lower heart rates in response to trauma cues. This suggests that their physiological responses to trauma dulled over time. Meanwhile, their interleukin 1B levels–those linked to inflammation–were higher. Interleukin 2R levels–responsible for immuno-protection–were lower. “The main takeaway from the study is that the mind may be resilient and be able to put things behind it, but the body doesn’t forget. It may remain on alert, waiting for the next thing to happen,” Phebe Tucker, study lead author and OSU professor emeritus of psychiatry, said in a statement. Tucker added that although they thought their analysis would show a correlation between the biomarkers and their psychological symptoms, the survivors’ PTSD and depression scores weren’t elevated and didn’t align with their hypothesis. “That tells us there is a stress response in the body that is not present in the emotions they express,” Tucker explained. “In addition, the elevated interleukin 1B is typically seen in people with illnesses and inflammation, but this group was pretty healthy. However, it raises concerns about potential long-term health problems.” Based on the study’s results, Tucker’s team believes that survivors of severe trauma may see noticeable changes in their biological systems’ baseline levels. Rachel Zettl, a study co-author and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, argued that these intense tragedies don’t only affect the brain, but the body itself. “It’s not just our minds that remember trauma; our biological processes do, too,” she said. “It changes your actual physical being.”

Animals The story of dire wolves goes beyond de-extinction Genetic tools used to create the fluffy, white pups could be used to help at-risk animals Scientists at Colossal Biosciences announced the de-extinction of dire wolves, animals that lived during the Pleistocene. Colossal Biosciences By Meghan Rosen 4 seconds ago Their names are Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi, and they’re the first dire wolves to walk the Earth in over 10,000 years — or so one biotech company and a flurry of recent headlines say. On April 7, Colossal Biosciences announced what they called the “world’s first de-extinction,” the births of three dire wolves, extinct animals that lived during the ice ages of the Pleistocene. The pups were instant icons. With snowy-white coats and muscular bodies, they looked like they could have walked straight out of the fantasy TV series Game of Thrones. Sign up for our newsletter We summarize the week's science breakthroughs every Thursday.