Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Zencoder announced today the acquisition of Machinet, a developer of context-aware AI coding assistants with more than 100,000 downloads in the JetBrains ecosystem. The acquisition strengthens Zencoder’s position in the competitive AI coding assistant landscape and expands its reach among Java developers and other users of JetBrains’ popular development environments. The deal represents a strategic expansion for Zencoder, which emerged from stealth mode just six months ago but has quickly established itself as a serious competitor to GitHub Copilot and other AI coding tools. “At this point, there are three strong coordination products in the market that are production grade: it’s us, Cursor, and Windsurf. For smaller companies, it’s becoming harder and harder to compete,” said Andrew Filev, CEO and founder of Zencoder, in an exclusive interview with VentureBeat about the acquisition. “Our technical staff includes more than 50 engineers. For some startups, it’s very hard to keep that pace.” The great AI coding assistant shakeout: Why small players can’t compete This acquisition comes at a pivotal moment in the AI coding assistant market. Just last week, reports emerged that OpenAI is in discussions to acquire Windsurf, another AI coding assistant, for approximately $3 billion. While Filev maintains the timing is coincidental, he acknowledges that it reflects broader market dynamics. “I think there’s going to be more to it, and I’m looking forward to it,” Filev said. “It’s a huge product surface. You have to support multiple IDEs, you have to integrate with multiple DevOps tools, you have to support different parts of software life cycle. There are 70-plus, 100-plus programming languages… There’s so much work there that it’s very, very hard for the smaller companies that only have like sub-10 engineers to compete in the long term.” How Zencoder’s JetBrains strategy outflanks Microsoft-dependent rivals One of the key strategic values of acquiring Machinet is its strong presence in the JetBrains ecosystem, which is particularly popular among Java developers and enterprise backend teams. “JetBrains audiences are millions of engineers. They’re one of the leading providers for certain programming languages and technologies. They’re particularly well known in the Java world, which is a big chunk of enterprise backend,” Filev explained. This gives Zencoder an advantage over competitors like Cursor and Windsurf, which are built as forks of Visual Studio Code and may face increasing constraints due to Microsoft’s tightening of licensing restrictions. “Both Cursor and Windsurf are what’s called forks of Visual Studio, and Microsoft recently started tightening their licensing restrictions,” Filev noted. “The support that VS Code has for certain languages is better than the support that Cursor and Windsurf can offer, specifically for C Sharp, C++.” By contrast, Zencoder works with Microsoft’s native platforms on VS Code and also integrates directly with JetBrains IDEs, giving it more flexibility across development environments. Beyond hype: How Zencoder’s benchmark victories translate to real developer value Zencoder differentiates itself from competitors through what it calls “Repo Grokking” technology, which analyzes entire code repositories to provide AI models with better context, and an error-corrected inference pipeline that aims to reduce code errors. The company claims impressive performance on industry benchmarks, with Filev highlighting results from March that showed Zencoder outperforming competitors: “On SWE-Bench Multimodal, the best result was around 13%, and we have been able to easily do 27% which we submitted, so we doubled the next best result. We later resubmitted even higher results of 31%,” Filev said. He also noted performance on OpenAI’s benchmark: “On the SWE-Lancer ‘diamond’ subset, OpenAI’s best result that they published was in the high 20s. Our result was in the low 30s, so we beat OpenAI on that benchmark by 20%.” These benchmarks matter because they measure an AI’s ability to solve real-world coding problems, not just generate syntactically correct but functionally flawed code. Multi-agent architecture: Zencoder’s answer to code quality and security concerns A significant concern among developers regarding AI coding tools is whether they produce secure, high-quality code. Zencoder’s approach, according to Filev, is to build on established software engineering best practices rather than reinventing them. “I think when we design AI systems, we definitely should borrow from the wisdom of human systems. The software engineering industry was rapidly developing for the last 40 years,” Filev explained. “Sometimes you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Sometimes the best approach is to take whatever best practices and tools are in the market and leverage them.” This philosophy manifests in Zencoder’s agentic approach, where AI acts as an orchestrator that uses various tools, similar to how human developers use multiple tools in their workflows. “We enable AI to use all of those tools,” said Filev. “We’re building a truly multi-agentic platform. In our previous release, we not only shipped coding agents, like some of our competitors, but we also shipped unit testing agents, and you’re going to see more agents from us in that multi-agent interaction platform.” Coffee mode and the future: When AI does the work while developers take a break One of Zencoder’s most talked-about features is its recently launched “Coffee Mode,” which allows developers to set the AI to work on tasks like writing unit tests while they take a break. “You can literally hit that button and go grab a coffee, and the agent will do that work by itself,” Filev told VentureBeat in a previous interview. “As we like to say in the company, you can watch forever the waterfall, the fire burning, and the agent working in coffee mode.” This approach reflects Zencoder’s vision of AI as a developer’s companion rather than a replacement. “We’re not trying to substitute humans,” Filev emphasized. “We’re trying to progressively and rapidly make them 10x more productive. The more powerful the AI technology is, the more powerful is the human that uses it.” As part of the acquisition, Machinet will transfer its domain and marketplace presence to Zencoder. Current Machinet customers will receive guidance on transitioning to Zencoder’s platform, which offers enhanced capabilities through its proprietary Repo Grokking technology and AI agents. The new developer landscape: A rapidly evolving ecosystem The acquisition of Machinet by Zencoder signals a turning point in the AI coding assistant market, as larger players absorb innovative smaller companies with specialized expertise. For enterprise decision-makers evaluating AI coding tools, the landscape is shifting from a question of whether to adopt these technologies to which platform will provide the most strategic advantage. “Jokingly, I think like half of the Y Combinator batch is AI startups, and it’s just impossible to compete in this space with two engineers at this point,” Filev noted. “You’ve got to have some real resources, technical resources and market resources in order to succeed here.” As industry titans like Microsoft and OpenAI deepen their investments in this space, companies like Zencoder are carving out distinctive positions based on integration flexibility, benchmark performance, and engineering philosophies that align with enterprise needs. For developers watching this market consolidation unfold, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: the future won’t be about whether AI writes your code, but rather which AI becomes your preferred pair programmer when you return from that coffee break. Daily insights on business use cases with VB Daily If you want to impress your boss, VB Daily has you covered. We give you the inside scoop on what companies are doing with generative AI, from regulatory shifts to practical deployments, so you can share insights for maximum ROI. Read our Privacy Policy Thanks for subscribing. Check out more VB newsletters here. An error occured.

Report: Wicked's Jon M. Chu attached to direct Split Fiction adaptation Euphoria's Sydney Sweeney is reportedly set to star and executive produce Image credit: Hazelight Studios News by Sophie McEvoy Staff Writer Published on April 25, 2025 Hazelight Studios' smash hit Split Fiction is reportedly getting a film adaptation starring Euphoria's Sydney Sweeney with Wicked director Jon M. Chu at the helm. That's according to Variety, which reports that the film is being written by Deadpool & Wolverine screenwriters Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. It suggests that the film will be produced by Mike Goldberg and Dmitri M. Johnson's Story Kitchen, and Chu's Electronic Somewhere. Sources told the publication it's unclear whether Sweeney will portray Zoe Foster or Mio Hudson in the film. Sweeney is also reportedly attached as an executive producer. Variety previously reported that a bidding war was underway for a Split Fiction adaptation last month. Split Fiction launched on March 6, 2025, to immediate success. The co-op multiplayer follows Zoe and Mio, two writers trapped within a simulation of the worlds they've created. The game topped one million units in 48 hours followed by two million sales in one week. It proceeded to break three Guinness World Records, becoming the most played local co-op game on Steam, most sold local co-op game within 48 hours, and most sold local co-op game within one week of release.

Microsoft has revealed that it’s created a minute-long advert for its Surface Pro and Surface Laptop hardware using generative AI. But there’s a twist: it released the ad almost three months ago, and no-one seemed to notice the AI elements.The ad, which went live on YouTube on January 30th, isn’t entirely made up of generated content. In a Microsoft Design blog post published Wednesday, senior design communications manager Jay Tan admits that “the occasional AI hallucination would rear its head,” meaning the creators had to correct some of the AI output and integrate it with real footage.“When deciding on which shots within the ad were to be AI generated, the team determined that any intricate movement such as closeups of hands typing on keyboards had to be shot live,” Tan says. “Shots that were quick cuts or with limited motion, however, were prime for co-creation with generative AI tools.”Microsoft hasn’t specified exactly which shots were generated using AI, though Tan did detail the process. AI tools were first used to generate “a compelling script, storyboards and a pitch deck.” Microsoft’s team then used a combination of written prompts and sample images to get a chatbot to generate text prompts that could be fed into image generators. Those images were iterated on further, edited to correct hallucinations and other errors, and then fed into video generators like Hailuo or Kling. Those are the only specific AI tools named by Tan, with the chatbots and image generators unspecified.“We probably went through thousands of different prompts, chiseling away at the output little by little until we got what we wanted. There’s never really a one-and-done prompt,” says creative director Cisco McCarthy. “It comes from being relentless.” That makes the process sound like more work than it might have been otherwise, but visual designer Brian Townsend estimates that the team “probably saved 90% of the time and cost it would typically take.”The process echoes recent comments from Microsoft’s design chief Jon Friedman to my colleague Tom Warren, that AI is going to become one more tool in creatives’ arsenals, rather than replacing them outright. As Friedman puts it, “suddenly the design job is how do you edit?”Despite the fact that the video has been online for almost three months, there’s little sign that anyone noticed the AI output until now. The ad has a little over 40,000 views on YouTube at the time of writing, and none of the top comments speculate that the video was produced using AI. Knowing that AI was involved, it’s easy enough to guess where — shots of meeting notes that clearly weren’t hand-written, a Mason jar that’s suspiciously large, the telling AI sheen to it all — but without knowing to look for it, it’s clear that plenty of viewers couldn’t spot the difference. The ad’s quick cuts help hide the AI output’s flaws, but suggest that in the right hands, AI tools are now powerful enough to go unnoticed.See More:

Breath of Fire IV is back from the dead on PC, 25 years after its original launch.Capcom’s much-loved role-playing game first launched on the PlayStation in Japan and North America in 2000, then in Europe a year later. The PC port came out in Europe and Japan in 2003.It revolves around a man called Ryu (not that other Capcom Ryu) who can turn into a dragon. He teams up with other warriors to prevent an emperor from destroying the world.As part of its ongoing Preservation Program, GOG has fully updated Breath of Fire IV for modern PCs and released it DRM-free on its platform.Breath of Fire IV ScreenshotsThe enhanced version is fully optimized for modern systems, with Windows 10 and 11 compatibility. There’s both English and Japanese localizations, along with improved graphics powered by an upgraded DirectX renderer, new display options like Windowed Mode, V-Sync, Anti-Aliasing, and refined gamma correction for better visuals. The audio engine has also been upgraded, restoring missing environmental sounds and adding new configuration options.Breath of Fire IV isn’t the only classic game revived on GOG today. The list below includes Ultima Underworld 1+2, as well as Ultima 9. This means the entire Ultima series is now preserved and available within GOG’s Preservation Program.Here’s the full list:● Ultima Underworld 1+2● Ultima 9: Ascension● Worlds of Ultima : The Savage Empire● Ultima Worlds of Adventure 2: Martian Dreams● Worms: Armageddon● Robin Hood: The Legend of Sherwood● Realms of the Haunting● Tex Murphy: Under a Killing Moon● StonekeepWesley is the UK News Editor for IGN. Find him on Twitter at @wyp100. You can reach Wesley at wesley_yinpoole@ign.com or confidentially at wyp100@proton.me.

Stabbings. Bludgeonings. Splitting men from groin to throat. Slipping on entrails. Killing a warhorse with a single punch. And corpses so mangled after battle that they’re only identifiable by their shoe size. Such are the rumoured feats of the Westerosi war knights recently announced by Variety as having been cast in House of the Dragon season three. In short: expect violence. It’s about time. It’s overdue in fact. House of the Dragon spent season two taking a great big run up at some of the Seven Kingdoms’ most famed battles and then… ended. The Game of Thrones prequel left fans with an action IOU in place of the climactic clashes we’d hoped to see. Now, the HBO show is set to correct that, as its most recent casting news suggests. Tom Cullen, Joplin Sibtain and Barry Sloane have joined season three as knights Ser Luthor Largent, Ser “Bold” Jon Roxton and Ser Adrian Redfort. Where there are knights, there are swords, and where there are swords, there are squelchy deaths and streets running with blood. Ser Luthor Largent is preceded by his reputation as a horse-punching giant and captain of the King’s Landing City Watch under Prince Aegon Targaryen. He’ll be played by Welsh actor Tom Cullen, who’s no stranger to Medieval swords and armour after playing the lead role of Landry du Lauzon in the History Channel’s Knightfall. Cullen is also known for roles in BBC true crime series The Gold, as Thomas Seymour in historical drama Becoming Elizabeth, and will soon be seen opposite Gillian Anderson in Northern Ireland political drama Trespasses. Ser “Bold” Jon Roxton is a Greens-allied knight famed for carrying Valyrian steel longsword Orphan-Maker. He’ll be played by Joplin Sibtain, who can currently be seen as Cassian’s mate Brasso in Disney+ Star Wars series Andor. Sibtain’s a British stage and screen actor with past roles in Doctor Who, Avenue 5, and a host of video game and audio drama voice roles. They’re joined by Queensguard member Ser Adrian Redfort, played by Barry Sloane, an English actor known for roles in ITV crime drama The Bay, The History Channel’s Six, and voicing Captain John Price in the Call of Duty video game series. Previously announced as having joined season three are Happy Valley and former Grantchester lead James Norton as Ormund Hightower, the nephew of Rhys Ifans’ Ser Otto Hightower, and a campaign leader for the Greens. Fantastic Beasts and Broadway actor Dan Fogler will play Ser Torrhen Manderly, and Sons of Anarchy’s Chibs aka Tommy Flanagan, will play Lord Roderick Dustin. Read more about them all here.   Filming on the third season began at the end of March 2025, and the new episodes are expected to air in 2026, with the return of core cast Emma D’Arcy, Matt Smith, Olivia Cooke, Rhys Ifans, Ewan Mitchell, Tom Glynn-Carney and more. We’ll keep you posted as further production news arrives.

In the wake of the recent tariffs debacle, both Bloomberg and The Financial Times are reporting that Apple aims to manufacture import almost all of its iPhones sold in the United States from India, rather than China, by the end of next year. This means Apple would need India to make more than 60 million phones a year, in order to satisfy its domestic sales. Overall India iPhone assembly would have to approximately double to meet this target, to about 80 million per year. While Apple was in the process of diversifying iPhone production before the Trump administration took office, it seems the ensuing tariff wars have given motivation to accelerate the plans. Since February, when Trump’s plans for reciprocal tariffs were first announced, Apple’s India production has surged. For a short while, Apple faced eye-watering 145% tariffs on its Chinese imports. As of right now, with the smartphone tariff exemption in place, iPhones imported from India would see no tariffs applied to them. Tariffs from iPhones imported from factories in China are currently slapped with 20% levies. Of course, the US tariff policy changes by the week and the situation may be different by the end of next year. Still, Apple benefits from diversifying its supply chain operations. Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed.  FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Apr 25, 2025Ravie LakshmananVulnerability / Data Breach Cybersecurity researchers have disclosed three security flaws in the Rack Ruby web server interface that, if successfully exploited, could enable attackers to gain unauthorized access to files, inject malicious data, and tamper with logs under certain conditions. The vulnerabilities, flagged by cybersecurity vendor OPSWAT, are listed below - CVE-2025-27610 (CVSS score: 7.5) - A path traversal vulnerability that could be used to gain access to all files under the specified root: directory, assuming an attacker can determine the paths to those files CVE-2025-27111 (CVSS score: 6.9) - An improper neutralization of carriage return line feeds (CRLF) sequences and improper output neutralization for logs vulnerability that could be used to manipulate log entries and distort log files CVE-2025-25184 (CVSS score: 5.7) - An improper neutralization of carriage return line feeds (CRLF) sequences and improper output neutralization for logs vulnerability that could be used to manipulate log entries and inject malicious data Successful exploitation of the flaws could permit an attacker to obscure attack traces, read arbitrary files, and inject malicious code. "Among these vulnerabilities, CVE-2025-27610 is particularly severe, as it could enable unauthenticated attackers to retrieve sensitive information, including configuration files, credentials, and confidential data, thereby leading to data breaches," OPSWAT said in a report shared with The Hacker News. The shortcoming stems from the fact that Rack::Static, a middleware that's used to serve static content like JavaScript, stylesheets, and images, does not sanitize user-supplied paths before serving files, leading to a scenario where an attacker can provide a specially crafted path to access files outside of the static file directory. "Specifically, when the :root parameter is not explicitly defined, Rack defaults this value to the current working directory by assigning it the value of Dir.pwd, implicitly designating it as the web root directory for the Rack application," OPSWAT said. As a result, if the :root option is either undefined or misconfigured relative to the :urls option, an unauthenticated attacker could weaponize CVE-2025-27610 through path traversal techniques to access sensitive files outside the intended web directory. To mitigate the risk posed by the flaw, it's advised to update to the latest version. If immediate patching is not an option, it's recommended to remove usage of Rack::Static, or ensure that root: points at a directory path that only contains files that should be accessed publicly. Critical Flaw in Infodraw Media Relay Service The disclosure comes as a critical security defect has been unearthed in the Infodraw Media Relay Service (MRS) that allows reading or deletion of arbitrary files via a path traversal vulnerability (CVE-2025-43928, CVSS score: 9.8) in the username parameter in the login page of the system. Infodraw is an Israeli maker of mobile video surveillance solutions that are used to transmit audio, video, and GPS data over telecommunications networks. According to the company's website, its devices are used by law enforcement, private investigations, fleet management, and public transport in many countries. "A trivial Path Traversal vulnerability allows it to read out any file from systems for unauthenticated attackers," security researcher Tim Philipp Schäfers said in a statement shared with The Hacker News. "Furthermore an 'Arbitrary File Deletion Vulnerability' exists that allows attackers to delete any file from the system." The flaw, which enables login with a username like "../../../../," affects both Windows and Linux versions of MRS. That said, the flaw continues to remain unpatched. Vulnerable systems in Belgium and Luxembourg have been taken offline following responsible disclosure. "Affected organizations are primarily advised to take the application offline immediately (since, despite early warnings, no manufacturer patch is available, and it is considered possible that the vulnerability will be exploited by malicious actors in the near future)," Philipp Schäfers said. "If this is not possible, systems should be further protected with additional measures (such as using a VPN or specific IP unlocking)." Found this article interesting? Follow us on Twitter  and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post. SHARE    

About PerspectiveOur mission is to enable passionate people to grow the businesses they love. We are doing this by helping 6.000+ entrepreneurs with the fastest and easiest growth marketing platform. So you work work directly impact thousands of entrepreneurs & their customers.We're 100% bootstrapped & profitable. With less than 40 people we were able to scale our company to over €10M ARR. Now we are on our journey towards 100M ARR – and we believe by staying a small team with highly talented people we will get there fastest. 🌟We're in an exciting phase, expanding internationally and maturing our product and culture at the same time. We prioritize great execution and high impact - we strive for highest quality in what we do, as we believe the world doesn’t need more mediocrity.We foster a culture of ownership and freedom in a fully remote environment across Europe, enabling us to build the lives we want while making maximal impact. Come join our team of extraordinary people! 🚀About the roleAs our Talent Acquisition Specialist at Perspective, you will take our business growth and success to the next level by finding the best A-players for our teams. You will be part of a data driven team that values ownership & performance. We stand for modern recruiting approaches and are at the forefront of hiring strategies and processes – while still caring deeply about our culture and the humans we bring onboard. We will help you grow in your role and you will love our culture.What you will be doingEnd-to-end ownership of recruiting processes from kickoff to signingBuild and manage your pipeline – incl. sourcing, outreach & job postingsHost screening calls with our candidates and guide them through the processKeep track & analyze your KPIs to evaluate and improve our processesRepresent our brand authentically and attract top talent with your winning mannerStay closely aligned with specialists & hiring managers throughout the processWho you areYou have 2+ years of recruiting experience in SaaS companiesYou excel in active sourcing and are able to close 2–3 roles monthly, while taking less than 60 days from kickoff to signing per roleYou’re a proactive, charismatic communicator with strong ownership and a hands-on mindsetYou learn fast, work independently and consistently deliver across recruiting challengesYou’re empathetic, people-savvy and naturally build strong candidate relationshipsYou’re fluent in English (German is a plus)What you can expect at PerspectiveRemote & Freedom | We strongly believe that every work environment needs to be ideal and fitted to the person. For this very reason, all our team members work remotely – in their own much needed way. That's how we can ensure that all our talents have much freedom to create the best results possible.Responsibility, Ownership & Impact | At Perspective, all our team members have a voice. We value every opinion and encourage all to speak their mind. Only with team effort, we can create something great. We believe in our team and therefore, give them much responsibility. Even if we fail, we learn from it, get back up and continue to succeed. It is part of the game and we know it.Personal & Professional Growth | Your development is our priority. With our intensive onboarding, feedback talks and trainings, we foster your personal and professional development. One of our core value is "Keep Growing" which we portray in everything we do.Best Equipment & Remote Budget | Our company is build on the USP of quality and we want to keep it that way. To keep up the quality, we only provide the best equipment to our team: For example, every new team member receives an Apple MacBook for their work and a monthly remote working budget.Team Events | We know working solely remotely can make it difficult to build a strong team spirit. However, at Perspective we focus deeply on team building by hosting various team events throughout the year. We understand the need of interaction face-to-face and strongly encourage it.Cordial & passionate team | Last, but not least, we are the most cordial team you can imagine. We love working together, respect each other and always value each others opinions. We care deeply about our team members and are always down for a good virtual after work hangout.

Despite the geopolitical chaos and market collapses triggered by President Trump’s announcement of broad tariffs on international goods, some supporters still hope the strategy will produce a “golden age” of American industry. Trump himself insists, “Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country.” While it’s possible that very targeted tariffs could help protect some nascent sectors of domestic manufacturing, the belief in the power of blunt tariffs flies in the face of manufacturing reality. And it’s not just the idea of a speedy return to economic prowess thanks to smoke-belching factories and the sudden ability to cheaply assembled armies of iPhones that strains credulity. The sweeping tariffs ignore the complexities of today’s supply chains and the way technology advances are shifting how and where goods are made. In fact, the high and crudely designed tariffs set out by the administration could damage a recent rebound in US manufacturing. Building factories and the supply chains they run on takes years—even decades—of steady investment. Meanwhile, tariffs have the immediate impact of boosting costs for critical supplies, many of which come from overseas—helping to raise prices and, in turn, slowing demand. None of that is good for those planning to invest in US manufacturing. “Tariffs, in general, as a tool for encouraging the type of manufacturing we want in the US are a terrible instrument,” says Elisabeth Reynolds, a professor of the practice at MIT. Reynolds, who was an advisor to President Biden on manufacturing and economic development, says the Trump tariffs will raise the costs of US manufacturing without providing incentives for “strategic investments in the technologies we care about for national and economic security.” Willy Shih, a professor at Harvard Business School, says the tariffs feel like “random acts of violence” in how they hurt manufacturing and supply chains. Because the tariffs proposed so far “are so scattershot and change so often,” he says, “it’s basically freezing up investments. Who is going to make any kind of investment commitment when things are changing so fast?” There are already indications that the prospect of widespread tariffs could be harming the US manufacturing boom. One closely scrutinized survey called the Purchasing Managers’ Index, or PMI, showed troublingearly signs of rising costs for manufacturers due to the tariffs. Other indicators watched carefully by policy wonks, including surveys of manufacturers by theNew York Federal Reserve Bank, the Richmond Fed, and thePhiladelphia Fed, also show a loss of confidence among US producers and drops in new orders and hiring. The longer-terms effects of the tariffs are, of course, unknown. For one thing, the specifics—how large, how long, and on what countries—seem to be constantly shifting. And that’s a big part of the problem: For manufacturers and investors, uncertainty is the killer of plans for expansion, new factories, and even the R&D that feeds into new products. It’s that uncertainty, above all else, that could derail a reindustrialization still in the early stages for much of the country. In fact, US manufacturing in the years following the covid pandemic has been booming—or at least the groundwork for such a boom is getting built. Until the most recent few months, spending on the construction of factorieshad been soaring. New facilities to build batteries, solar cells, semiconductors, electric motors, and other new technologies are springing up all around the country—or wereuntil very recently. “We never had more construction starts in the United States than we’ve had in the past four years,” says Milo Werner, a partner at the venture capital firm DCVC. “We’re at this amazing moment where we could actually rebuild Main Street America and bring back the industrial base.” The move to bolster US manufacturing was fueled by a sense during the beginning of the pandemic that the country must regain the ability to make critical products and technologies. Thedecline of US manufacturing had become obvious. Federal support torebuild the industrial base came in a series of bills passed during the Biden administration, including the CHIPS and Science Act and the climate bill. At the same time, opportunities offered by artificial intelligence and automation breakthroughs have spurred an appetite for new investments among many manufacturers. Many of those technologies are just starting to be deployed, but they promise a way for US producers to finally become more competitive with those in low-wage economies. If the Trump tariffs slow or even reverse such progress, the impact on the country’s economic and technological future could be devastating. There are a lot of reasons to want a stronger US industrial base. But it’s not mainly about whether we have countless well-paying jobs for those with only a high school diploma and little technical training, despite what you will hear from many politicians. Those days are mostly long gone. Manufacturing jobs account fora little under 10% of total jobs in the US. That percentage hasn’t changed much over the last few decades—nor is it likely to grow much in coming years even if manufacturing output increases, because automation and other advanced digital tools will likely cut into the demand for human workers. Still, manufacturing is critical to the future of the US economy in other ways. The invention of new stuff and production processes greatly benefits from an intimate connection to manufacturing capabilities and expertise. In short, your chances of successfully creating a new type of battery or AI chip are much greater if you’re familiar with the intricacies of manufacturing such products. It’s a lesson that was often forgotten in the 2000s as companies, led by such Silicon Valley giants as Apple, focused on design and marketing, leaving the production work to China and other countries. The strategy created huge profits but severely crimped the United States’ ability to move ahead with a next generation of technology. In 2010, Intel cofounder Andy Grove famouslywarned, “Abandoning today’s ‘commodity’ manufacturing can lock you out of tomorrow’s emerging industry.” Prompted by such concerns, in 2011 I visited manufacturers across the country, from industrial giants like GE and Dow Chemical to startups with exciting new technologies, and wrote “Can We Build Tomorrow’s Breakthroughs?” Over the next few years, the answer to the headline’s question proved to be no. GE and Dow gave up on their most innovative manufacturing ventures in batteries and solar, while nearly none of the startups survived. The US was great at inventing new stuff, it turns out, but lousy at making it. The hope is that this situation is changing as the country builds up its manufacturing muscles. The stakes are particularly high. The value of producing strategic goods and their supply chains domestically—biomedicine, critical minerals, advanced semiconductors—is becoming obvious to both politicians and economists. If we want to turn today’s scientific breakthroughs in energy, chips, drugs, and key military technologies such as drones into actual products, the US will need to once again be a manufacturing powerhouse. Limited tariffs could help. That’s especially true, says DCVC’s Werner, in some strategically important areas marked by a history of unfair trade practices. Rare-earth magnets, which are found in everything from electric motors to drones to robots, are one example. “Decades ago, China flooded the US economy with low-cost magnets,” she says. “All our domestic magnet manufacturers went out of business.” Now, she suggests, tariffs could provide short-term protection to US companies developing advanced manufacturing techniques to make those products, helping them compete with low-cost versions made in China. “You’re not going to be able to rely on tariffs forever, but it’s an example of the important role that tariffs could play,” she says. Even Harvard’s Shih, who considers the sweeping Trump tariffs “crazy,” says that far more limited versions could be a useful tool in some circumstance to give temporary market protection to domestic manufacturers developing critical early-stage technologies. But, he adds, such tariffs need to be “very targeted” and quickly phased out. For the successful use of tariffs, “you really have to understand how global trade and supply chains work,” Shih says. “And trust me, there is no evidence that these guys actually understand how it works.” What’s really at stake when we talk about the country’s reindustrialization is our future pipeline of new technologies. The portfolio of technologies emerging from universities and startups in energy production and storage, materials, computing, and biomedicine has arguably never been richer. Meanwhile, AI and advanced robotics could soon transform our ability to manufacture these technologies and products. The danger is that backward-looking policy choices geared toward a bygone era of manufacturing could destroy that promising progress.

More on this topicNet zero carbon buildings standard to launch by end of 2025  The NZCBS or ‘the standard’, was issued in draft as a ‘pilot’ version last September. The standard is voluntary and is designed to guide the UK’s built environment towards net zero carbon buildings by 2050 through a series of energy and carbon emissions targets or ‘limits’ for construction projects. These limits reduce year-on-year as we approach 2050. The standard has the potential to transform carbon reduction across the built environment industry by giving a framework for emissions reduction. But it is currently held back by several serious flaws. These are possible to fix, and I believe that these improvements will help make the standard more accessible, more usable and more consistent with the UK’s 2050 trajectory to net zero carbon.   The first three letters ‘NZC’ or ‘net zero carbon’ suggests a focus on carbon. However, the standard’s focus is on energy use, plus construction or ‘upfront’ emissions. It is proposed that this will change in the future to ‘lifecycle embodied’ emissions, but at no stage will there be limits for ‘whole life carbon’ (WLC) – in other words, for the total greenhouse gas emissions associated with a building throughout its entire life cycle, encompassing both embodied and operational emissions.Advertisement The standard appears to deliver on whole life carbon – but actually doesn’t This is both illogical, because the standard asks for the information necessary for WLC to be reported, and confusing. It puts the standard at odds with the intent of the RICS whole life carbon professional standard (RICSPS), and the way carbon reporting is evolving across the built environment industry. The standard has numerous references to the RICSPS and in fact specifically states ‘The standard covers the whole life cycle of a building…’ but then fails to pull this together. This is inherently conflicted. The standard appears to deliver on WLC – but actually doesn’t.  The solution is for the standard to focus on two limits for every project; energy use, measured in kWh, and WLC, measured in kgCO2e. This would ensure that minimising energy use and carbon reduction are on an equal footing for every project. There would also be continuity between design stage assessments, which are WLC-focused, and post-completion assessments. Such reform would also ensure that the limits in the standard for the built environment align with both the UK’s net zero carbon trajectory, and national energy efficiency requirements. Crucially these two limits would be simple, clear and comprehensive.  WLC reporting has the benefit of being a clear concept that answers the simple question ‘What is the carbon cost of my building?’ Strangely, the standard asks for all the elements of WLC reporting but does not then require them to be aggregated, nor does it provide limits. The current ‘upfront embodied only’ limits distort the design process, as they embed short-term thinking. Advertisement Further, the separate limits for energy use and embodied carbon promote siloed thinking. These two strands must be brought together to optimise carbon reduction and resource efficiency over the entire life cycle of a building. WLC assessment and reporting specifically promote this holistic approach.   Another key improvement would be to have a single combined limit for both new build and retrofit for every use type. In the pilot version, the standard has separate limits for retrofit and new build. This unintentionally encourages demolition. The emissions costs per square metre of comprehensive retrofits can be very similar to new build. However, in the standard the retrofit square metre limits are up to 30 per cent lower than new build, making them more difficult to achieve. Therefore, where there is a choice between an extensive retrofit, or a new build, it is easier to get compliance by choosing the new build route. In this scenario, a new build will comply whereas a retrofit will fail Separate limits prop up business-as-usual and present an opportunity for those who wish to demolish because it allows them to game the system. They would achieve this by showing that a maxed-out retrofit scheme will not meet the standard’s retrofit limits, whereas a new build will meet the (easier) new build limits. In this scenario, a new build will comply whereas a retrofit will fail. In reality, retrofit is almost always the lower carbon route and should be encouraged. A single WLC limit would make retrofit the easier route to compliance and would also have the virtue of simplicity and clarity. The pilot version of the standard has a complex series of adjustments for different retrofit scopes which would all become unnecessary. It may superficially seem sensible to have separate limits, but this is not born out by practical experience.  Another issue that is not addressed at all by standard is the comparative total carbon costs of a retrofit vs new build on a given site. The standard focuses on square metre rates (kgCO2e/m²). What this ignores is that it is the total carbon emissions of a development that really matter. Invariably, the reason for demolition is to develop a new building that is much larger than the existing. This means that even if the square metre rate for a retrofit was higher than the new build, the retrofit may still be lower in terms of total emissions as the scheme will be smaller. In addition, whatever the carbon emissions, reuse of buildings is generally a much more resource-efficient and circular approach, compared with new build.  My suggestions would help make the standard less complex, more accessible, and more relevant. The pilot version has several areas that I believe are unnecessarily complicated and consequently are a barrier to take-up. For example, there is a section on ‘RPEP’, ‘ERP’ and ‘ORP’ (do you know what these are?) which is very complicated and difficult to understand and surely could be simplified. It would also be less confusing if the standard aligned directly with the RICSPS, rather than having a number of divergences. These discrepancies just confuse and undermine the consistency and authority of WLC assessment and reporting. This is detrimental to the goal of maximising carbon reduction. The standard’s assessments only take place once a building is operational, which is quite a burden for bother owner and occupier. The standard should therefore be made as accessible and as simple as possible or it won’t be used. Only a major edit will resolve these issues.  For a more detailed analysis of the NZCBS, see www.TargetingZero.co.uk Simon Sturgis is a leading authority on whole-life carbon design who served on the carbon accounting task group developing the Net Zero Carbon Building Standard   2025-04-25 Simon Sturgis comment and share