In Brief Posted: 8:15 AM PDT · April 27, 2025 Image Credits:Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto / Getty Images Report finds Meta’s celebrity-voiced chatbots could discuss sex with minors AI chatbots available on Meta’s platforms like Facebook and Instagram can engage in sexually explicit conversations with underage users, according to a new report in the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ says that after learning about internal concerns about whether the company was doing enough to protect minors, it spent months conducting hundreds of conversations with both the official Meta AI chatbot, as well as user-created chatbots available on Meta platforms. In one reported conversation, a chatbot using actor/wrestler John Cena’s voice described a graphic sexual scenario to a user identifying as a 14-year-girl. In another conversation, the chatbot imagined a police officer catching Cena with a 17-year-old fan and telling him, “John Cena, you’re under arrest for statutory rape.” A Meta spokesperson described the WSJ’s testing as “so manufactured that it’s not just fringe, it’s hypothetical.” The company estimated that in a 30-day period, sexual content accounted for 0.02% of responses shared via Meta AI and AI studio with users under 18. “Nevertheless, we’ve now taken additional measures to help ensure other individuals who want to spend hours manipulating our products into extreme use cases will have an even more difficult time of it,” the spokesperson said. Topics

Andriy Onufriyenko/Getty ImagesMost of the research surrounding the risks to society of artificial intelligence tends to focus on malicious human actors using the technology for nefarious purposes, such as holding companies for ransom or nation-states conducting cyber-warfare.A new report from the security research firm Apollo Group suggests a different kind of risk may be lurking where few look: inside the companies developing the most advanced AI models, such as OpenAI and Google.Disproportionate powerThe risk is that companies at the forefront of AI may use their AI creations to accelerate their research and development efforts by automating tasks typically performed by human scientists. In doing so, they could set in motion the ability for AI to circumvent guardrails and carry out destructive actions of various kinds. They could also lead to firms with disproportionately large economic power, companies that threaten society itself. "Throughout the last decade, the rate of progress in AI capabilities has been publicly visible and relatively predictable," write lead author Charlotte Stix and her team in the paper, "AI behind closed doors: A primer on the governance of internal deployment." That public disclosure, they write, has allowed "some degree of extrapolation for the future and enabled consequent preparedness." In other words, the public spotlight has allowed society to discuss regulating AI.But "automating AI R&D, on the other hand, could enable a version of runaway progress that significantly accelerates the already fast pace of progress." If that acceleration happens behind closed doors, the result, they warn, could be an "internal 'intelligence explosion' that could contribute to unconstrained and undetected power accumulation, which in turn could lead to gradual or abrupt disruption of democratic institutions and the democratic order." Understanding the risks of AIThe Apollo Group was founded just under two years ago and is a non-profit organization based in the UK. It is sponsored by Rethink Priorities, a San Francisco-based nonprofit. The Apollo team consists of AI scientists and industry professionals. Lead author Stix was formerly head of public policy in Europe for OpenAI. (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, ZDNET's parent company, filed an April 2025 lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.)Also: Anthropic finds alarming 'emerging trends' in Claude misuse reportThe group's research has thus far focused on understanding how neural networks actually function, such as through "mechanistic interpretability," conducting experiments on AI models to detect functionality. The research the group has published emphasizes understanding the risks of AI. These risks include AI "agents" that are "misaligned," meaning agents that acquire "goals that diverge from human intent."In the "AI behind closed doors" paper, Stix and her team are concerned with what happens when AI automates R&D operations inside the companies developing frontier models -- the leading AI models of the kind represented by, for example, OpenAI's GPT-4 and Google's Gemini.According to Stix and her team, it makes sense for the most sophisticated companies in AI to apply AI to create more AI, such as giving AI agents access to development tools to build and train future cutting-edge models, creating a virtuous cycle of constant development and improvement. "As AI systems begin to gain relevant capabilities enabling them to pursue independent AI R&D of future AI systems, AI companies will find it increasingly effective to apply them within the AI R&D pipeline to automatically speed up otherwise human-led AI R&D," Stix and her team write. For years now, there have been examples of AI models being used, in limited fashion, to create more AI. As they relate: Historical examples include techniques like neural architecture search, where algorithms automatically explore model designs, and automated machine learning (AutoML), which streamlines tasks like hyperparameter tuning and model selection. A more recent example is Sakana AI's 'AI Scientist,' which is an early proof of concept for fully automatic scientific discovery in machine learning.More recent directions for AI automating R&D include statements by OpenAI that it is interested in "automating AI safety research," and Google's DeepMind unit pursuing "early adoption of AI assistance and tooling throughout [the] R&D process." Apollo Group Apollo GroupWhat can happen is that a virtuous cycle develops, where the AI that runs R&D keeps replacing itself with better and better versions, becoming a "self-reinforcing loop" that is beyond oversight. The danger arises when the rapid development cycle of AI building AI escapes human ability to monitor and intervene, if necessary. "Even if human researchers were to monitor a new AI system's overall application to the AI R&D process reasonably well, including through technical measures, they will likely increasingly struggle to match the speed of progress and the corresponding nascent capabilities, limitations, and negative externalities resulting from this process," they write. Those "negative externalities" include an AI model, or agent, that spontaneously develops behavior the human AI developer never intended, as a consequence of the model pursuing some long-term goal that is desirable, such as optimizing a company's R&D -- what they call "emergent properties of pursuing complex real-world objectives under rational constraints." The misaligned model can become what they call a "scheming" AI model, which they define as "systems that covertly and strategically pursue misaligned goals," because humans can't effectively monitor or intervene. "Importantly, if an AI system develops consistent scheming tendencies, it would, by definition, become hard to detect -- since the AI system will actively work to conceal its intentions, possibly until it is powerful enough that human operators can no longer rein it in," they write. Possible outcomesThe authors foresee a few possible outcomes. One is an AI model or models that run amok, taking control of everything inside a company: The AI system may be able to, for example, run massive hidden research projects on how to best self-exfiltrate or get already externally deployed AI systems to share its values. Through acquisition of these resources and entrenchment in critical pathways, the AI system could eventually leverage its 'power' to covertly establish control over the AI company itself in order for it to reach its terminal goal.A second scenario returns to those malicious human actors. It is a scenario they call an "intelligence explosion," where humans in an organization gain an advantage over the rest of society by virtue of the rising capabilities of AI. The hypothetical situation consists of one or more companies dominating economically thanks to their AI automations: As AI companies transition to primarily AI-powered internal workforces, they could create concentrations of productive capacity unprecedented in economic history. Unlike human workers, who face physical, cognitive, and temporal limitations, AI systems can be replicated at scale, operate continuously without breaks, and potentially perform intellectual tasks at speeds and volumes impossible for human workers. A small number of 'superstar' firms capturing an outsized share of economic profits could outcompete any human-based enterprise in virtually any sector they choose to enter.The most dramatic "spillover scenario," they write, is one in which such companies rival society itself and defy government oversight: The consolidation of power within a small number of AI companies, or even a singular AI company, raises fundamental questions about democratic accountability and legitimacy, especially as these organizations could develop capabilities that rival or exceed those of states. In particular, as AI companies develop increasingly advanced AI systems for internal use, they may acquire capabilities traditionally associated with sovereign states -- including sophisticated intelligence analysis and advanced cyberweapons -- but without the accompanying democratic checks and balances. This could create a rapidly unfolding legitimacy crisis where private entities could potentially wield unprecedented societal influence without electoral mandates or constitutional constraints, impacting sovereign states' national security.The rise of that power inside a company might go undetected by society and regulators for a long time, Stix and her team emphasize. A company that is able to achieve more and more AI capabilities "in software," without the addition of vast quantities of hardware, might not raise much attention externally, they speculate. As a result, "an intelligence explosion behind an AI company's closed doors may not produce any externally visible warning shots." Apollo GroupOversight measuresThey propose several measures in response. Among them are policies for oversight inside companies to detect scheming AI. Another is formal policies and frameworks for who has access to what resources inside companies, and checks on that access to prevent unlimited access by any one party. Yet another provision, they argue, is information sharing, specifically to "share critical information (internal system capabilities, evaluations, and safety measures) with select stakeholders, including cleared internal staff and relevant government agencies, through pre-internal deployment system cards and detailed safety documentation." One of the more intriguing possibilities is a regulatory regime in which companies voluntarily make such disclosures in return for resources, such as "access to energy resources and enhanced security from the government." That might take the form of "public-private partnerships," they suggest. The Apollo paper is an important contribution to the debate over what kind of risks AI represents. At a time when much of the talk of "artificial general intelligence," AGI, or "superintelligence" is very vague and general, the Apollo paper is a welcome step toward a more concrete understanding of what could happen as AI systems gain more functionality but are either completely unregulated or under-regulated. The challenge for the public is that today's deployment of AI is proceeding in a piecemeal fashion, with plenty of obstacles to deploying AI agents for even simple tasks such as automating call centers.'Probably, much more work needs to be done by Apollo and others to lay out in more specific terms just how systems of models and agents could progressively become more sophisticated until they escape oversight and control. The authors have one very serious sticking point in their analysis of companies. The hypothetical example of runaway companies -- companies so powerful they could defy society -- fails to address the basics that often hobble companies. Companies can run out of money or make very poor choices that squander their energy and resources. This can likely happen even to companies that begin to acquire disproportionate economic power via AI. After all, a lot of the productivity that companies develop internally can still be wasteful or uneconomical, even if it's an improvement. How many corporate functions are just overhead and don't produce a return on investment? There's no reason to think things would be any different if productivity is achieved more swiftly with automation. Apollo is accepting donations if you'd like to contribute funding to what seems a worthwhile endeavor. Get the morning's top stories in your inbox each day with our Tech Today newsletter.Artificial Intelligence

Scientists believe that a plume of hot rocks that burst from Earth's mantle millions of years ago could be an important part in the story of human evolution.

Table of Contents Table of Contents The FOMO is real My Steam library gave me a reality check Don’t go over budget (unless it’s really worth it) Building a PC is an exciting thing, but it’s also pretty expensive. Ah, what am I saying — let’s not beat around the bush here. It’s really expensive. With the prices of the best graphics cards higher than they’ve been in years, getting yourself a gaming rig is pricey even if you go down the budget route — but it gets worse if you want a more powerful PC. Still, it’s entirely possible to build a good computer on a budget. The problem is that you’ll often talk yourself into spending more than you need to. That’s probably how I ended up spending $3,000 on a PC that’s mostly used for playing a $20 game. Recommended Videos Kunal Khullar / Digital Trends I didn’t build my PC just now — in fact, I’d recommend holding off if you’re planning to upgrade. The market is in shambles. Related But, my PC was built fairly recently, just over a year ago, and at the time, it cost me nearly $3,000. I know that many people have spent way more on their gaming rigs, but it was still the most I’ve ever spent on any build of mine, and my initial budget sat at a firm $2,000. So, you might be wondering how I ended up here, around $800 over my initial budget. And to that, I will say one thing: I blame FOMO, or fear of missing out. FOMO is the driving force behind many budgets that were tossed aside and forgotten about. It’s the reason why PC building communities are full of people being told to spend just a little more. It’s the reason why many of us end up with PCs that are more powerful than we really need. When building a PC, it’s all too easy to think (or be told) that spending just a little more gets you something significantly better. Oftentimes, that might actually be true. After all, if you’re already spending $2,000 and more on your computer, why not toss in an extra $400 to get a much better GPU? Or $200 more to get the best gaming CPU available at the time? The problem is that all these extra costs have an alarming tendency to add up. And, while future-proofing is a thing, a new generation of hardware inevitably comes along and gives you a little hint of that sense of FOMO yet again. This is why people who already own an RTX 4090 might still be ready to shell out $3,000 or $4,000 on an RTX 5090. Few people truly need this type of upgrade, but having the best thing out there is a great feeling. This endless chase might leave you with a PC that’s a little out of your league. That’s kind of what happened to me. Monica J. White / Digital Trends When I first got my PC, it was a massive upgrade. Going from an Nvidia GTX 1060 GPU all the way up to an RTX 4080 felt amazing. I’ve played around with different GPUs (a fun perk of doing this for a living), but my own rig was terribly neglected. So, as soon as I could, I dove right into the AAA titles. Cyberpunk 2077. Marvel’s Spider Man Remastered. Horizon Zero Dawn. Hogwarts Legacy. Was it a great experience? A thousand times yes. The games played like a dream and looked even better. Have I finished any of them? No, of course not. They’re still sitting in my library, half-finished and hardly appreciated the way they deserve. It’s not that I don’t game a lot, because I definitely do. It’s just that spending $3,000 on a new PC didn’t change my gaming habits, which don’t lean toward the triple A titles that take our breaths away year after year. A quick look through my Steam library gave me a reality check about just that. My most played game of 2024 was anything but a blockbuster. Monica J. White / Digital Trends There’s a game that many of you probably haven’t heard of. It’s called Spelunky 2, and it’s a roguelike platformer. Your character (and you get to pick from a few different ones) sets off on an adventure that takes them deep underground. In the process, they rescue some cute animals, collect treasure, dodge traps, and fight enemies. If it sounds simple, that’s because it is. But there’s something shockingly addictive in this game’s simplicity, and that something made me rack up over 600 hours of playtime in a game that cost me $20. Meanwhile, my ever-so-impressive Marvel’s Spider Man Remastered sits at a measly 20 hours and I can’t bring myself to go back. Monica J. White / Digital Trends While Spelunky 2 looks simple and friendly, it’s often anything but. It’s a punishing game that will make you scream in frustration when you rush through a level only to end up in a trap. Once you die, you’re right back to level one and the game begins again. And no two games are ever the same, all thanks to the roguelike nature of Spelunky 2. However, there’s something deeply satisfying that many games aren’t able to replicate — Spelunky 2 is largely based on skill. You can feel yourself get better with each failed attempt, and it feels great to rush through the game and try new things that seemed all too difficult to do before. I wish I could tell you that the rest of my gaming hours are dedicated to something that pushes my PC to the very limit and squeezes out every frame, but I’d be lying. I also play World of Warcraft Classic, which has now made it all the way to Cataclysm (and very nearly Mists of Pandaria). I get to play at max settings and maintain 165 fps in almost every situation, but let’s face it — the game is 12 years old, so it’d be weird if my PC failed to meet its requirements. Some of my other recently played games include Stardew Valley, Split Fiction, Elden Ring, and R.E.P.O. Yeah, I’m an awfully demanding gamer. Monica J. White / Digital Trends I know that I’m giving the impression that I regret building myself a solid PC, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. I love being able to play every game at max settings. I love knowing that I don’t have to spend money on upgrades until at least the next generation of hardware (although, of course, writing about components day in and day out, I am constantly tempted). I love not having to compromise in any of the games that I play. With that said, I know now that I could’ve gotten away with a much cheaper PC. Having a beastly PC (and yes, I know it’s no longer beastly, what with the RTX 50-series being a thing) doesn’t automatically turn you into an AAA gamer, and that’s okay. When building a PC, it’s important to assess how much of that stuff is really needed. How much will it help your PC stay relevant for the years to come? Will it help you enjoy your life more or will it just add an extra 10 fps to an already abundant frame rate counter? If I didn’t let FOMO get the best of me, I might’ve settled for an RTX 4070. As it is now, I have zero regrets … beyond maybe wishing that my Spelunky 2 addiction could subside just enough for me to check out those blockbuster titles that I’ve also spent money on. (Any gamer with a stupidly large Steam library will relate to this.) Oh, well. Time for a quick game. Editors’ Recommendations

All you zombies Revisiting iZombie, 10 years later We loved the show's wicked humor, great characters, and mix of cases-of-the-week with longer narrative arcs. Jennifer Ouellette – Apr 27, 2025 3:23 pm | 0 Credit: The CW Credit: The CW Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Zombies never really go out of style, but they were an especially hot commodity on television in the 2010s, spawning the blockbuster series The Walking Dead (2010-2022) as well as quirkier fare like Netflix's comedy horror, The Santa Clarita Diet (2017-2018).  iZombie, a supernatural procedural dramedy that ran for five seasons on the CW, falls into the latter category. It never achieved mega-hit status but nonetheless earned a hugely loyal following drawn to the show's wicked humor, well-drawn characters, and winning mix of cases-of-the-week and longer narrative arcs. (Spoilers for all five seasons below.) The original Vertigo comic series was created by writer Chris Roberson and artist Michael Allred. It featured a zombie in Eugene, Oregon, named Gwen Dylan, who worked as a gravedigger because she needed to consume brains every 30 days to keep her memories and cognitive faculties in working order. Her best friends were a ghost who died in the 1960s and a were-terrier named Scott, nicknamed "Spot," and together they took on challenges both personal and supernatural (vampires, mummies, etc.). Created by Rob Thomas and Diane Ruggiero-Wright, the TV series borrowed the rough outlines of the premise but otherwise had very little in common with the comics, although Allred drew the nifty opening credits (set to a cover version of "Stop, I'm Already Dead" by Deadboy & The Elephant Men). The location shifted to Seattle. An over-achieving young medical student, Liv Moore (get it?)—played to perfection by Rose McIver—decides to attend a boat party on a whim one night. It ends in disaster thanks to a sudden zombie outbreak, resulting from a combination of an energy sports drink (Max Rager) and a tainted batch of a new designer drug called Utopium. Liv jumps into the water to flee the zombies, but suffers a scratch and wakes up on a beach in a body bag, craving brains. Liv is forced to break up with her human fiancé, Major (Robert Buckley) to avoid infecting him, and becomes estranged from her best friend and roommate Peyton (Aly Michalka), hiding her new zombie nature from both. And she ends up working in the medical examiner's office to ensure she has a steady supply of brains. Soon her boss, Ravi (Rahul Kohli), discovers her secret. Rather than being terrified or trying to kill her, Ravi is fascinated by her unusual condition. He tells Liv he was fired by the CDC for his incessant warnings about the threat of such a virus and vows to find a cure. The brainy bunch Med student Liv Moore (Rose McIver) wound up a zombie after attending an ill-fated boat party. The CW Med student Liv Moore (Rose McIver) wound up a zombie after attending an ill-fated boat party. The CW Liv found a useful ally in medical examiner Ravi Chakrabarti (Rahul Kohli) The CW Liv found a useful ally in medical examiner Ravi Chakrabarti (Rahul Kohli) The CW Liv worked with Seattle Det. Clive Babineaux (Malcolm Goodwin) solving murders, thanks to her fake psychic visions. The CW Liv worked with Seattle Det. Clive Babineaux (Malcolm Goodwin) solving murders, thanks to her fake psychic visions. The CW Liv found a useful ally in medical examiner Ravi Chakrabarti (Rahul Kohli) The CW Liv worked with Seattle Det. Clive Babineaux (Malcolm Goodwin) solving murders, thanks to her fake psychic visions. The CW Robert Buckley played Liv's ex-fiance, Major Lillywhite The CW Aly Michalka played Liv's BFF, Peyton Charles, an up and coming lawyer The CW Every series needs a compelling villain: David Anders played Liv's devilishly charming criminal zombie counterpart, Blaine. The CW The show's premise stems from an unusual side effect of eating brains: Liv gets some of the dead person's memories in flashes (visions) as well as certain personal traits—speaking Romanian, painting, agoraphobia, alcoholism, etc. This gives her critical insights that help Det. Clive Babineaux (Malcolm Goodwin) solve various murders, although for several seasons Clive thinks Liv is psychic rather than a zombie. It's Ravi who first encourages her to get involved when a kleptomaniac Romanian call girl is killed: "You ate the girl's temporal lobe; the least you can do is help solve her murder." Every show needs a good villain and iZombie found it in Liv's fellow zombie, Blaine (David Anders)—in fact, Blaine is the one who scratched Liv at the boat party and turned her into a zombie. He was there dealing the tainted Utopium.  Zombie Blaine switches to dealing brains, which he naturally acquires through murderous means, creating a loyal (i.e., desperate) customer base by infecting wealthy sorts and turning them into zombies. What makes Blaine so compelling as a villain is that he's as devilishly charming as he is evil, with some unresolved daddy issues for good measure. Over the course of five seasons, we fell in love with iZombie's colorful collection of characters; relished the way the writers leaned into the rather silly premise and (mostly) made it work;  and groaned at the occasional bad pun. (Major's last name is "Lillywhite"; Blaine's S1 butcher shop is called Meat Cute; when Ravi and Major take in a stray dog, Ravi names the dog "Minor"; and at one point there is a zombie bar called The Scratching Post.) Admittedly, the show started to lose some momentum in later seasons as subplots and shifting relationships became more complicated. And without question the series finale was disappointing: it felt rushed and unsatisfying, with few of the quieter character moments that made its strongest episodes so appealing. Yet there is still so much to love about iZombie, starting with the brain recipes. Brains are disgusting; Blaine and Liv briefly bond over the metallic taste, gross texture, and how much they miss real food. It doesn't help that zombies can't really taste much flavor and thus douse their repasts in eye-watering hot sauces. No wonder Liv is constantly trying to find new ways to make the brains more palatable: stir fry, instant Ramen noodles, mixing the brains in with microwaved pizza rolls, deep friend hush puppy brains, sloppy joes, protein shakes—you name it. Blaine, however, takes things to a gourmet level for his rich zombie customers, creating tantalizing dishes like gnocchi stuffed with medulla oblongata swimming in a fra diavolo sauce. Good guys, bad guys "Full-on zombie mode" came in handy sometimes. The CW "Full-on zombie mode" came in handy sometimes. The CW Liv found S1 romance with fellow zombie Lowell (Bradley James), whose untimely demise broke fans' hearts. The CW Liv found S1 romance with fellow zombie Lowell (Bradley James), whose untimely demise broke fans' hearts. The CW Liv frequently found herself at odds with Stacey Boss (Eddie Jemison), who ran a successful crime syndicate. The CW Liv frequently found herself at odds with Stacey Boss (Eddie Jemison), who ran a successful crime syndicate. The CW Liv found S1 romance with fellow zombie Lowell (Bradley James), whose untimely demise broke fans' hearts. The CW Liv frequently found herself at odds with Stacey Boss (Eddie Jemison), who ran a successful crime syndicate. The CW Rita (Leanne Lapp) and Max Rager CEO Vaughan du Clark (Steven Weber) made a delightful villainous pair for S2. The CW Matchbox Twenty's Rob Thomas made a S2 musical cameo because he has the same name as the series co-creator. Of course he ended up as zombie food. The CW Blaine's henchman Don E. (Bryce Hodgson) provided comic relief The CW The writers didn't neglect Liv's love life, which she mistakenly thought was over once she became a zombie. Sure, Liv was always going to end up in a happily-ever-after situation with Major. But count me among those who never thought they really worked as soul mates. (Maybe pre-zombie they did.) The clear fan favorite love interest was S1's Lowell Tracey (Bradley James), a British musician who found he could no longer perform live after becoming a zombie—since pre-show adrenalin tended to trigger Full On Zombie Mode. He was Liv's "first" as a zombie, and while they were superficially very different, they bonded over their shared secret and the resulting emotional isolation.  And he bonded with Ravi over their shared hatred of a rival soccer team. James' smartly soulful performance won fans' hearts. We were all rooting for those crazy kids. Alas, Liv soon discovered that his brain supply came from Blaine after she accidentally had a bite of Lowell's breakfast one morning. In a desperate bid to win back her trust, Lowell agreed to help her take out Blaine; it helped that Liv was currently on Sniper Brain. But when the critical moment came, Liv couldn't take the shot. She watched through the gun sight as Lowell put his hand over his heart and took on Blaine alone—with fatal consequences, because sensitive artist types really aren't cut out for fights to the death. Howls of protest echoed in living rooms around the world. RIP Lowell, we barely knew ye. Lowell never got the chance to become a recurring character but others were more fortunate. Jessica Harmon's FBI agent, Dale Brazzio, started out as an antagonist investigating the Meat Cute murders—Major and a zombie police captain blew it up to take out Blaine's criminal enterprise—and ended up as Clive's romantic partner. Bryce Hodgson's comedic S1 turn as Major's roommate in the mental institution, Scott E., was so memorable that the writers brought the actor back to play twin brother Don E., part of Blaine's drug (and brain) dealing enterprise. Others never graduated to recurring roles but still made the odd guest appearance: Daran Norris as the charmingly louche weatherman Johnny Frost, for instance, and Ryan Beil as nebbishy police sketch artist Jimmy Hahn. You are what you eat Liv on frat-boy brain crushed it at beer pong The CW Liv on frat-boy brain crushed it at beer pong The CW Liv on vigilante superhero brain The CW Liv on vigilante superhero brain The CW "Pick a card": Liv on magician's brain. The CW "Pick a card": Liv on magician's brain. The CW Liv on vigilante superhero brain The CW "Pick a card": Liv on magician's brain. The CW Liv on D&D brain made an excellent dungeon master. The CW Liv and Ravi went undercover to solve a ballroom dancing murder. The CW And let's not forget the various Big Bads, most notably S2's Vaughan du Clark (Steven Weber), amoral playboy CEO of Max Rager, and his conniving temptress daughter, Rita (Leanne Lapp). They provided all manner of delicious devilry before meeting a fitting end: Rita, now a zombie due to Vaughan's negligence, goes "full Romero" during the S2 finale and eats daddy's brains in an elevator before being shot in the head. Perhaps the best thing about iZombie was how much fun the writers had giving Liv so many different kinds of brains to eat—and how much fun McIver had weaving those very different personalties into her performance. There was the rich shopaholic Desperate Housewife; an amorous painter; a sociopathic hitman who was a whiz at pub trivia; a grumpy old man; a schizophrenic; a kids basketball coach; a magician; a dominatrix; a medieval history professor fond of LARP-ing; and a ballroom dancer, to name a few. Liv on agoraphobic hacker brain dominates an online gaming campaign, while she becomes an ace dungeon master on Dungeons & Dragons brain, much to nerdcore Ravi's delight—although perhaps not as much as he enjoys Liv on vigilante superhero brain. (He found Liv on PhD scientist brain more annoying.) And sometimes the brains are used for throwaway humor: Lowell accidentally eating a gay man's brain just before his first date with Liv, for instance, or Liv, Blaine, and Don E. hopped up on conspiracy theory brain and bonding over their shared paranoid delusions. If I were forced to pick my favorite brain, however, I'd probably go back to the S1 episode, "Flight of the Living Dead," in which Liv's adventurous former sorority sister, Holly (Tasya Teles) dies in a skydiving "accident" that turns out to be murder. Back in the day, Liv was among those who voted to kick Holly out of the sorority for her constant rule-breaking and reckless behavior. But after eating Holly's brain in hopes of finding out how killed her, Liv learns more about where Holly was coming from and how to bring something of Holly's insatiable lust for life into her own existence. "Live each day as if it were your last" can't help but strike a chord with Liv, who took her former ambitious over-achieving life for granted before that fateful boat party. Jennifer Ouellette Senior Writer Jennifer Ouellette Senior Writer Jennifer is a senior writer at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban. 0 Comments

 Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended Trump's trade policy. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images 2025-04-27T18:46:35Z Save Saved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? Bessent defended Trump's trade policies during an ABC News interview on Sunday. "In game theory, it's called 'strategic uncertainty,'" Bessent said of Trump's tariff strategy. Bessent also said he believed there was a "path" to negotiations with China. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says President Donald Trump is using "strategic uncertainty" in trade negotiations with world leaders.During an ABC News interview with "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz on Sunday, Bessent firmly defended Trump's approach to tariffs despite sagging voter sentiment over his handling of the economy."In game theory, it's called 'strategic uncertainty,'" Bessent said of Trump's back-and-forth tariff strategy. "So you're not going to tell the person on the other side of the negotiation where you're going to end up. Nobody's better at creating this leverage than President Trump.""He's shown these high tariffs — and here's the stick," he continued. "And the carrot is 'Come to us, take off your tariffs, take off your non-tariff trade barriers, stop manipulating your currency, stop subsidizing labor and capital, and then we can talk.'"In early April, Trump made waves around the globe when he announced a series of steep tariffs on dozens of countries, many of which had been reliable US trading partners for decades.However, just days after his announcement, Trump paused the highest tariffs for 90 days, retaining a 10% baseline rate for most countries.Trump's motivation for announcing the array of levies is to attack the trade deficit and reorient what he's long argued are tariff policies that have placed the United States — and especially its manufacturing sector — at a major disadvantage in the global market.Trump's trade policy has caused friction in its longstanding alliances with Canada and Mexico and ripped apart any relationship it had with China. Trump's actions this month have also contributed to volatility in the stock and bond markets. Many economists have critiqued the administration's trade strategy, questioning Trump's dramatic and unpredictable approach.Trump has implemented a 145% tariff rate on Chinese goods, causing Beijing to respond by placing 125% tariffs on US goods — a severe economic escalation between the two global superpowers.Still, Bessent on Sunday said he believes there's a "path" to resolve the trade dispute with China."The first path will be a de-escalation, which I think the Chinese are going to have to have," he said."A trade deal can take months, but an agreement in principle and the good behavior and staying within the parameters of the deal by our trading partners can keep the tariffs from ratcheting back to the maximum level." Recommended video

The final season of Andor will lead directly to Rogue One, and that’s had people talking about possible cameos to tie them together. If you’ve been hoping to see either Darth Vader or Palpatine in this show, you should look elsewhere. In a recent Rolling Stone interview, creator Tony Gilroy was asked about why neither of the two villains pop up in the show. Stories set during the Original Trilogy typically get them involved: Vader famously appeared in Rogue One—which Gilroy co-wrote—and Sheev’s had TV appearances in Obi-Wan, Bad Batch, and Star Wars Rebels. Gilroy’s reason for not including either is that they ultimately don’t belong in the story: he described Vader as “really limiting, he doesn’t have a lot to say.” (That, and he got Vader out of his system back in Rogue One with the slasher-esque hallway scene.) It’s more or less the same answer with Sheev, who he called “too big a piece of meat to introduce. I thought about it at one point, but it was too heavy a lift.” Despite neither appearing, Palpatine’s presence has been felt in Andor whenever characters mention him in conversation. (Krennic, a returning Imperial baddie from Rogue One, even teases his plans to build what’ll eventually be the Death Star in the premiere.) According to Gilroy, this is partially because the galaxy is full of billions, and to the majority of people, Palpatine is just a politician. “Nobody knows about the Jedi or Sith” is a thing Lucasfilm told him, and upon hearing this, it blew his mind. “It’s not in the culture, there’s just a tiny percentage of people that have any notion of it at all,” he said. “It’s very secretive and small.” Keeping Vader and Sheev off to the sidelines may ultimately be for the best: the Jedi and Sith can sometimes suck all the air out of the room. With those factions gone, it’s let Andor shine some interesting lights on what the Rebels and Imperials are up to when they’re on and off the clock, which is arguably more worth digging into nowadays. Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

116 Public Housing Units in Madrid / UNIA ARQUITECTOS + FAU ARQUITECTOSSave this picture!© Fernando Alda Architects: UNIA ARQUITECTOS + FAU ARQUITECTOS Area Area of this architecture project Area:  15379 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project Year:  2024 Photographs Photographs:Fernando AldaMore SpecsLess Specs Save this picture! Text description provided by the architects. The proposal aims to articulate the site conditions alongside the urban character of the piece, the optimal use of buildable area, the required program, and the spatial quality of the homes. Given the tightness of the program, the best relationship between the usable area of the homes and that designated for circulation and common spaces is sought.Save this picture!The width of the plot, the housing program, and the available buildability inevitably allow for a type H block with four vertical cores. However, the proposal seeks to address the drawbacks of this typology through a structural grid of 9.5 meters, slightly larger than usual, and by enclosing the sides to make the resulting volume as compact as possible. Likewise, it avoids the compositional rigidity of this type of block by employing facades that play with transparency and movement. Thus, opaque panels are combined with sliding panels made of micro-perforated steel sheets that provide solar and acoustic protection, adaptable to the users' needs, creating an iconic image in its surroundings.Save this picture!The ground floor houses the commercial area, the adapted homes, and the access passages from the backyard garden to the stairs and elevators. Thanks to the exchange of four types of 3-bedroom units for 2-bedroom types on the first and second floors, the volumetry is shaped through outdoor spaces of triple height, thus improving the sunlight and ventilation conditions of the interior courtyard and reducing the built area to fit the maximum available buildability. Finally, the attic level completes the proposal with unique types of 2-bedroom units that feature large private terraces.Save this picture!The new technical means and labor structures make housing once again a place to reconcile personal and professional life. Therefore, it is appropriate to have a room near the entrance that can be dedicated to this activity, even serving to receive visitors. The 4-bedroom types allow one of them to be designated for this activity as it is located adjacent to the entrance hall.Save this picture!The design of the open spaces aims to reconcile play, walking, and social interaction in a safe environment through comfortable spaces where people can wander, sit, and chat. With this provision, the so-called "intermediate spaces" are encouraged, the semi-public space that serves as a coherent and intuitive transition between home and street.Save this picture!The building has been largely constructed with prefabricated and industrialized systems of great lightness, which has allowed for significant savings in steel for the structure and foundation, as well as a reduction in construction waste. The stair cores were assembled in the workshop and subsequently transported and placed on-site through the light well.Save this picture!Save this picture!From an energy perspective, the homes have a maximum rating thanks to the high performance of the envelope in terms of insulation and waterproofing, as well as to the chosen cooling system of radiant floor heating connected to the aerothermal system.Save this picture! Project gallerySee allShow less Project locationAddress:Calle Aloe Vera 14, 28052 Madrid, SpainLocation to be used only as a reference. It could indicate city/country but not exact address.About this office Published on April 27, 2025Cite: "116 Public Housing Units in Madrid / UNIA ARQUITECTOS + FAU ARQUITECTOS" [116 viviendas de promoción pública en Madrid / UNIA ARQUITECTOS + FAU ARQUITECTOS] 27 Apr 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1029560/116-public-housing-units-in-madrid-unia-arquitectos-plus-fau-arquitectos&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

  Image: Lamborghini Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Is it time for a friendlier Lamborghini? The Italian supercar brand is known for brash, angular styling and invigorating engine sound, but the new $258,636 hybrid-electric Urus SE softens those traits while still delivering the performance that Lamborghini drivers (and aspiring drivers) expect. That means that for my trip over the mountains between Bologna and Florence and across the fields of Tuscany, the rumbling twin-turbocharged 4.0-liter V8 engine’s thrust was augmented by an electric motor that provides additional urgency while accelerating out of switchback curves. And while trundling through sleepy villages, the electric motor can take over, letting the Urus whisk by with as little notice as possible when driving a Lamborghini. Images: Lamborghini The numbers are impressive: the hybrid-electric powertrain combines combustion with electricity to deliver 800 horsepower and 700 lb.-ft. of torque. This allows 0-60 mph acceleration in less than 3.4 seconds and a top speed of 194 mph. That speed makes it faster than the Urus S, which is discontinued along with the Urus Performante in favor of just the Urus SE for 2025. The SE’s debut completes Lamborghini’s electrification of its product line, with hybrid electric drivetrains in all three of its models and a plan to offer a battery-electric crossover coupe model called the Lanzador by 2030. An aspect of this shift toward electrification is a greater focus on aerodynamic efficiency, so the Urus SE features cleaned-up styling that reduces drag but that also eliminates some of the traditional Lamborghini flourishes.  Those might have struck skeptics as being over the top, but they underscored the company’s dedication to edginess. One detail among the changes to the front and rear facias around the grille and the taillights is a longer hood that stretches all the way to the grille opening. This eliminates a cutline that cluttered the styling with a break between the hood and the fascia surrounding the grill previously. Now the Urus SE features softened, less aggressive styling and power delivery that remains authentically muscular while providing the potential to hush the car’s voice when driving in EV mode. Lamborghini says that the 25.9 kilowatt-hour lithium-ion battery pack will power the Urus SE for an estimated range of 37 miles, though it only went about 25 miles for me while slicing through the esses of mountain roads. Image: Lamborghini You might think that running on electric power alone that the Urus could seem underpowered for rural highway running, considering the peak power rating of 192 horsepower. But the electric motor produces 356 lb.-ft. of torque, which is plenty for maintaining a brisk-but-legal pace while also trying to minimize your co-pilot’s battle with motion sickness. The Urus SE has four driver-selectable electric performance strategy settings: EV, which runs the car as a battery-electric, Hybrid, which optimizes it for efficiency, Recharge, which uses the combustion engine to top off the battery for later use, and Performance, which depletes the battery to maximize the combined performance of the combustion and electric motors. In addition to electric performance modes, the Urus has driving modes for normal driving (Strada), sporty driving (Sport), track driving (Corsa), sand (Sabbia), dirt (Terra), and snow or ice (Neve). These make adjustments to the powertrain, stability control system, and suspension to better suit the conditions. While the Urus feels great in Strada mode, selecting Sport shifts more of the power to the rear wheels, giving the feeling of a rear-drive car with the ability to induce power oversteer exiting corners. Corsa amps this up further, so it should be used at the track.  [Related: 3 ultra-rare Lamborghini Miuras unearthed at junkyard. They could sell for millions.] The Urus SE replaces the previous all-wheel drive system with a center transfer case and a limited-slip rear differential to provide torque vectoring that uses engine power to help turn the car. “The advantage [compared to the old all-wheel-drive system] is that we can control the distribution of the torque, front to the rear, but also manage the locking rate on the rear axle,” explained Lamborghini’s chief technical officer, Rouven Mohr. Alas, I encountered no off-road or winter weather conditions during my day behind the wheel, leaving no chance to test the modes designed to address those situations. The Urus SE’s cabin retains the gadget-heavy theme that is a Lamborghini signature, with a dramatic red flip-up switch cover on the Start button. Pull back on a steering wheel-mounted shift paddle to engage Drive to get underway. Climate control and comfort functions like seat heaters are all on the lower of the two center-mounted touch screen displays, while the top one handles the usual infotainment functions. Thankfully there is a physical volume knob on the console at the base of the center display and control stack and you can change stations using that same knob.  The curious tuning decision by the Urus engineering team is the car’s steering. The Urus SE’s steering effort is very light, with too much power assistance. This seems out of place for a vehicle with a Lamborghini’s character and heritage. The light steering is reminiscent of that of American luxury cars of old. Even Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Buicks have firm, direct-feeling steering now. But the Urus SE’s steering is so light that it provides little feedback to the driver about the front tires’ grip or the road surface. It is likely that the customers buying a hybrid-electric crossover SUV will prefer this, just as they may prefer the less aggressive styling. But it seems like Lamborghini’s best bet would be to lean into the characteristics on which the brand has built its image, in a global market of recent brands that are vying for some of the same customers.

Nature, Published online: 23 April 2025; doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08891-6Characterization of the genetic architecture underlying the 7 pairs of contrasting traits studied by Mendel and the over 70 additional agronomic traits in pea (Pisum sativum) reveals their molecular details and provides tools for further studies in pea genetics, functional genomics and crop improvement.