You can now try Material 3 Expressive for yourself with the Android 16 QPR1 Beta 1, which is available for the Pixel 6 and above.

ASML’s new $400 million chip colossus transforms how semiconductors are made. CNBC got the first-ever on-camera look at the new machine, called High NA.

The full ep is now available to watch for free! Today on the befores & afters podcast, we’re chatting to Steamroller Animation about their pilot episode of Spice Frontier. Back in 2019, the team released an 8 minute short film as a proof of concept, and now they’ve ramped this up for a pilot. With Adam Meyer, Josh Carroll and Dave Alve, I ask them about what went into making an original IP. I think that is definitely the dream of many VFX and animation studios out there – to develop their own intellectual property – so it’s really interesting to hear the journey Steamroller has been on to create this property. We also talk technical, in terms of utilizing Unreal Engine in their pipeline, and what some of the creative and tech hurdles have been along the way. Listen in, above, and watch the pilot episode below. Click to view slideshow. The post How Steamroller Animation made a 30 min animated pilot episode in Unreal Engine appeared first on befores & afters.

OpenAI announced its acquisition of former Apple designer Jony Ive's artificial intelligence (AI) hardware startup io on Wednesday. Just hours after that, CEO Sam Altman reportedly revealed information about the secretive AI device the two companies are building. As per the report, the under-the-wrap device is not a smartphone, or a wearable such as smartglasses. Altman reportedly also remains optimistic that the AI device could significantly boost OpenAI's valuation and become a crowd favourite. Notably, a report claimed that Ive's startup was acquired by OpenAI for $6.5 billion (roughly Rs. 55,850 crore).Sam Altman's Hints About the Secret AI DeviceAccording to The Wall Street Journal, Altman told the OpenAI staff about the AI device he is developing with Ive during an internal staff call. The publication reviewed a recording of the call where the CEO shared plans to ship “100 million AI companions,” which will become part of people's everyday life.Altman reportedly revealed that the device will be contextually aware of the user's surroundings as well as their life. The former hints at the presence of either cameras or sensors on the device, while the latter makes it likely that it would have Internet access and can connect to other devices or apps to collect information about users.However, the OpenAI CEO reportedly highlighted that the device will be unobtrusive and pocket-sized. It is said to also be able to be kept on one's desk. Again, the unobtrusive part corroborates with previous reports that claimed that the device will not have a screen. The description of the size hints that the device could be roughly the size of a smartphone — another piece of information which was previously rumoured.Apart from this, Altman reportedly said that it would become the “third core device a person would put on their desk after a MacBook Pro and an iPhone.” If this is true, then it is possible that the AI device might offer a separate use case than a smartphone or a laptop.While the description so far might lead some people to believe that it could be a wearable device, similar to the Humane AI Pin or Rabbit R1, Altman reportedly said that the device is neither a pair of glasses nor something that can be worn on the body, during the call. No other details about the device are currently known. However, Altman is said to have suggested that the acquisition could lead to a family of devices that had the potential to increase OpenAI's valuation by $1 trillion (roughly Rs. 85.65 lakh crore). For the latest tech news and reviews, follow Gadgets 360 on X, Facebook, WhatsApp, Threads and Google News. For the latest videos on gadgets and tech, subscribe to our YouTube channel. If you want to know everything about top influencers, follow our in-house Who'sThat360 on Instagram and YouTube. Further reading: Sam Altman, Jony Ive, Io, OpenAI, AI, Artificial Intelligence Akash Dutta Akash Dutta is a Senior Sub Editor at Gadgets 360. He is particularly interested in the social impact of technological developments and loves reading about emerging fields such as AI, metaverse, and fediverse. In his free time, he can be seen supporting his favourite football club - Chelsea, watching movies and anime, and sharing passionate opinions on food. More Related Stories

News Monster Hunter Wilds x Street Fighter 6 Collaboration Goes Live on May 28th It adds an Akuma armor set, a Blanka-Chan Palico set, new quests, gestures and even a recreation of the Drive Impact system. Posted By Ravi Sinha | On 22nd, May. 2025 Capcom has finally revealed its first collaboration for Monster Hunter Wilds: Street Fighter 6. The star of the show is Akuma, for whom players can unlock an armor set and layered equipment for. Check out the reveal trailer below – it kicks off on May 28th. The armor isn’t just cosmetic. You can use Akuma’s moves, including the Gou Hadoken and Gou Shoryuken, with the full set. The equipped weapon determines the damage, and if you equip the armor set instead of the layered version, combos and other attacks can inflict Stun. Even the Drive Impact system is somewhat recreated. Two new quests, “Demonic Strength” and “True Strength,” are available and dole out rewards. You can also access “Ultimate Strength” at Hunter Rank 21. The Palico also gets a Blanka-Chan set and layered equipment, and you can customize your Hunter Profile with a new background, nameplate and pose. Paid DLC will go live the same day, adding a Chun-Li outfit for the Handler and a Cammy outfit. If that wasn’t enough, a new 8-star Tempered Monster is also being added. Stay tuned for more details, especially with Title Update 2 due this Summer. Tagged With: Elden Ring: Nightreign Publisher:Bandai Namco Developer:FromSoftware Platforms:PS5, Xbox Series X, PS4, Xbox One, PCView More Borderlands 4 Publisher:2K Developer:Gearbox Entertainment Platforms:PS5, Xbox Series X, PCView More Death Stranding 2: On the Beach Publisher:Sony Developer:Kojima Productions Platforms:PS5View More Amazing Articles You Might Want To Check Out! Monster Hunter Wilds x Street Fighter 6 Collaboration Goes Live on May 28th It adds an Akuma armor set, a Blanka-Chan Palico set, new quests, gestures and even a recreation of the Drive ... Borderlands 4 – Randy Pitchford Apologises for Remarks About “Real Fans” Pitchford's apology came about in response to a fan pointing out that his statements about "real fans" sounded... MindsEye PC Requirements Revealed Build a Rocket Boy has revealed pretty steep system requirements for the PC version of its upcoming debut open... Wild Hearts S Showcases 4-Player Multiplayer Gameplay The action RPG's upcoming re-release, which is due out for the Nintendo Switch 2 in July, will add seamless fo... Atomfall Was “Immediately Profitable” at Launch, Sequel Plans Being Discussed Meanwhile, work is also continuing on post-launch updates and DLC for the first-person action survival game it... Mario Kart World’s Courses “Easily Exceed” 100, Over 200 Songs Included, Says Nintendo "If you were to add up all the possible variations, it would easily exceed 100," says producer Kosuke Yabuki a... View More

Antoo Member May 1, 2019 4,507 Full on spoilers for TLOU1, TLOU2, and both seasons of the show ahead I saw this clip on the TLOU subreddit making the rounds. Neil goes into the viability of the cure, and he says this: "Could the Fireflies make a cure? Our intent was that, yes, they could. Now, is our science a little shaky that now people are questioning it? Yeah, it was a little shaky and now people are questioning that. I can't say anything. All I can say is that our intent is that they would have made a cure. That makes it a more interesting philosophical question for what Joel does." Click to expand... Click to shrink... https://www.reddit.com/r/thelastofus/comments/1krqoz0/neil_debunks_the_cure_viability_debate_once_for/ I can't post the interview due to the interviewer, however, if you are a fan of TLOU, I would suggest maybe looking for articles/posts covering it or finding the interview yourself. Neil goes into A LOT. I'll bullet point some highlights. Show highlights: - Neil says Ellie and Dina's relationship was intentionally static in the game. The same approach wouldn't work for the show because shows need movement. - The series needs constant conflict/progression because story is everything in the medium. In games, you can have nothing of high importance going on for a while and still be invested due to interactivity. - He recognizes the divisiveness of the second season from game fans. He's appreciative of their love for the material and finds it cool how people see a game as standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a HBO show. He thinks it highlights how gaming has elevated as a medium. - Abby's motivation and the porch scene were moved up due to the reality that the second game needed multiple seasons to be fully adapted. Neil and Craig felt these elements wouldn't land if they kept the game's structure due to how long TV viewers would have to wait to get to them. There was a fear that the impact of these elements would have been lost due to people not remembering the previous season clearly enough to draw connections. - Craig is very intrigued by the idea of the prophet and wants to expand on who she is in the future. Game highlights: - There was originally a sequence planned for one of the flashbacks in TLOU2 where we would play through an infected attack on Jackson as Ellie alongside Joel. - There was no intent for the WLF/Seraphite conflict to serve as an allegory for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He took inspiration from the latter but he also took inspiration from other conflicts. Neil feels certain people online were cherry-picking statements to fit a narrative. He views the game conflict as a secular group clashing against a religious group. - He confirms he would be open to TLOU3 like he said in the documentary but wants to ensure he has the right idea for it that lives up to the series' pedigree - Neil's top priority right now is Intergalactic above all else. He claims it has the deepest gameplay they've ever done.  Last edited: Today at 2:57 AM Red Kong XIX Member Oct 11, 2020 13,276 Never understood why people thought they couldn't. That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good.  ConflictResolver Member Jan 1, 2024 4,907 Midgar I thought it was left vague in both the game and the show until the show's latest episode.   Philippo Developer Verified Oct 28, 2017 8,836 Heh, I liked the ambiguity of not knowing if there was a 100% success guarantee out of sacrificing Ellie.   Lotus One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 124,081 I'm still saving her.   FTF Member Oct 28, 2017 33,203 New York Philippo said: Heh, I liked the ambiguity of not knowing if there was a 100% success guarantee out of sacrificing Ellie. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Agreed. It should be left unknown.   Bansai Teyvat Traveler Member Oct 28, 2017 14,176 Maaan Neil really needs to stop, feels like he's stripping away what's left of the nuance with those latest comments on the story. Then again, his story, his right I suppose, my headcannon remains strong and stubborn though. :P btw. interesting interview 🤔  Risev "This guy are sick" Member Oct 27, 2017 3,896 Red Kong XIX said: Never understood why people thought they couldn't. That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I always got the impression the game wanted you to skip through the bullshit and just assume the cure would work, but it's still mediocre writing at best: - the lead doctor was a veterinarian. - the fireflies were desperate, lacking man power, and funds. - literally almost zero testing on Ellie before Just wanting to rip her brain out of her skull - literally zero attention given to the special circumstances that could have led to ellie being immune  The Quentulated Mox Corrupted by Vengeance Member Jun 10, 2022 6,565 hell yeah, next we should ask christopher nolan if the top was gonna fall down   Mauricio_Magus Member Oct 25, 2017 15,827 Death of the author applies here, I don't really care what he has to say if it's not in the original game/text. It's clearly supposed to be ambiguous and it's staying that way for me.  Axiom Member Oct 25, 2017 308 Neil knowing the answer isn't the same as Joel knowing the answer - the only guarantee was that Ellie was going to die.   FTF Member Oct 28, 2017 33,203 New York The Quentulated Mox said: hell yeah, next we should ask christopher nolan if the top was gonna fall down Click to expand... Click to shrink... lol   Threadmarks Clarification on cure New Index OP OP Antoo Member May 1, 2019 4,507 For further context, he also states that if you had a different takeaway on the ending scenario of the first game, that's fully valid as well. He's just clarifying his authorial intent while also acknowledging that a player/viewer may read the situation much differently. I think he finds the philosophical question of saving a loved one versus saving the world more interesting than the specifics of how they got to that point.   New Index harleyvwarren Member Oct 31, 2022 5,299 Illinois I always assumed there was a shot at a cure and that's what Joel denied humanity with his selfish, murderous behavior. There was no ambiguity about it for me playing the second game. It's just not subtle at all.   behOemoth Member Oct 27, 2017 6,687 ConflictResolver said: I thought it was left vague in both the game and the show until the show's latest episode. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I think his answer still keeps it vague, but emphasising that serious possibilities existed   Besiktas Member Sep 2, 2024 914 Why creators their own productruin years after a good product releases. Man just focus on making new stuff instead of clarifying theories.   Risev "This guy are sick" Member Oct 27, 2017 3,896 Antoo said: For further context, he also states that if you had a different takeaway on the ending scenario of the first game, that's fully valid as well. He's just clarifying his authorial intent while also acknowledging that a player/viewer may read the situation much differently. Click to expand... Click to shrink... With all due respect to Niel, but that'a bullshit lmao. He also said the exact same thing about Ellie forgiving Joel / knowing he killed the fireflies at the end of the first game just a month or so before the release of Part 2 which gives a clear answer and renders any other interpretation invalid   Kenzodielocke Member Oct 25, 2017 13,948 It's kind of moot if you make this so technichal Could they make it, could they deliver it, etc.  Lotus One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 124,081 FTF said: Agreed. It should be left unknown. Click to expand... Click to shrink... The game came out over 12 years ago. The idea that a creator/author should just shut up and literally never comment on an ambiguous ending or complicated choice is so weird to me, especially when it's just his opinion at the end of the day.  Shoot Member Oct 25, 2017 5,909 Red Kong XIX said: Never understood why people thought they couldn't. That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good. Click to expand... Click to shrink... This. I was surprised to see people online saying they couldn't make a cure. It also obviously had no bearing on Joel's decision to massacre the hospital either. He just went back to doing what he used to do with Tommy for 20 years. Definitely makes Druckmann's recent comment about doing what Joel did sound sociopathic.  VAD Member Oct 28, 2017 6,099 Philippo said: Heh, I liked the ambiguity of not knowing if there was a 100% success guarantee out of sacrificing Ellie. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Yes, me too. I liked that the Fireflies were acting on the basis of hope rather than hard facts. Maybe Joel was right to save Ellie from pointless sacrifice. Maybe Ellie's savior complex was based on nothing and she was right to just live and enjoy life as it was.  Khanimus Avenger Oct 25, 2017 46,469 Greater Vancouver Woah Woah Woah... You mean Joel is a shitty self-serving asshole??!! Say it ain't so...  Zemoco Member Jan 12, 2021 2,621 Death of the author and all that, he really shouldn't confirm something like that. I suppose it's his right, but it hampers the discussion irrevocably. In either case, it does not make any sense on any level to kill the one girl with immunity milliseconds after making the deduction. Not to mention since the Fireflies are murderous, lying pricks anyway, it doesn't make any sense why Joel should believe them just because an omniscient entity (as far as the universe is concerned) confirmed it.  SirKai Member Dec 28, 2017 10,181 Washington Will never understand why people split hairs over this or claim the supposed "ambiguity" of the vaccine viability adds anything to the story. In BOTH games, every character that matters is confident in the possibility of the vaccine, and that is what is important. People so DESPERATELY want to be morally vindicated that siding with Joel is not just righteous, but also rational even pursuit of a vaccine, even though the most passing glance interpretation of the ending is OBVIOUSLY written to not satisfy that perspective. It's a trolley problem, and the trolley problem is what makes the ending, and Joel's decision, interesting. If it's not actually a trolley problem, the ending and the story lose a lot of their depth and impact.   Last edited: Today at 3:02 AM Risev "This guy are sick" Member Oct 27, 2017 3,896 Khanimus said: Woah Woah Woah... You mean Joel is a shitty self-serving asshole??!! Say it ain't so... Click to expand... Click to shrink... if only he picked up the phone when Neil was calling to tell him the cure works...   SCUMMbag Prophet of Truth - Chicken Chaser Member Oct 25, 2017 7,199 Red Kong XIX said: Never understood why people thought they couldn't. That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good. Click to expand... Click to shrink... This. TLOU isn't a written masterpiece so there's some holes but the intention of those scenes were pretty clear. A lot of the ambiguity comes from things like "they did no testing" and "they decided this far too quick" which are just leaps you'd make to keep the pacing of your game.  Milk Prophet of Truth Avenger Oct 25, 2017 4,292 No shit. People trying to "um achually ☝️🤓" their way out of Joel's choice ruins the entire point of the ending in the first place. If there's no realistic way to create and disperse a vaccine then there's no choice in the first place. At the same time, I get it. Obviously you want to realistically analyze parts of a story you're experiencing. But story intent still applies, in this instance, it's literally just better to accept the Fireflies at their word and assume a cure would work.  Kalentan Member Oct 25, 2017 50,658 I feel like the cure having been likely possible is far more interesting because it means Joel's decision has more around it. Cause yeah, his decision to kill them all means a lot more than if the cure was never possible and they were just a bunch idiots cause then Joel was 100% in the right to stop them.   Glio Member Oct 27, 2017 27,779 Spain Red Kong XIX said: Never understood why people thought they couldn't. That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Because the science behind it was pretty stupid, tbh. But you're right, from a dramatic point of view, it needs to be that way.  bob1001 ▲ Legend ▲ Member May 7, 2020 2,109 If they can make a cure: The ending is a moral dilemma, where Joel is willing to sacrifice humanity to save the person he loves. If they can't make a cure: Joel is saving a child from child murderers. I never understood why anyone would prefer a Mario saves Peach style ending instead of the actual interesting ending we got. When you question their ability to make a cure you are arguing the ending is worse than it is.  Kalentan Member Oct 25, 2017 50,658 bob1001 said: If they can make a cure: The ending is a moral dilemma, where Joel is willing to sacrifice humanity to save the person he loves. If they can't make a cure: Joel is saving a child from child murderers. I never understood why anyone would prefer a Mario saves Peach style ending instead of the actual interesting ending we got. When you question their ability to make a cure you are arguing the ending is worse than it is. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Exactly.  Risev "This guy are sick" Member Oct 27, 2017 3,896 Milk said: No shit. People trying to "um achually ☝️🤓" their way out of Joel's choice ruins the entire point of the ending in the first place. If there's no realistic way to create and disperse a vaccine then there's no choice in the first place. At the same time, I get it. Obviously you want to realistically analyze parts of a story you're experiencing. But story intent still applies, in this instance, it's literally just better to accept the Fireflies at their word and assume a cure would work. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I'd say this is Neil's biggest shortcoming as a writer and is worth criticizing: wanting you to make leaps and just skip through some plot holes for the service of the plot. Uncharted 4 also contains an extremely glaring plot hole that you have to gloss over to enjoy the story  Kenzodielocke Member Oct 25, 2017 13,948 The arguments about if the cure would have worked come usually from people who want to justify hie actions. The justification there actually is, love. Edit: "They didn't even ask her" point is also kind of moot because how often we heard from Ellies mouth that she would have done it.  mbpm Member Oct 25, 2017 29,491 I thought it was more interesting leaving it unknown   psynergyadept Shinra Employee Member Oct 26, 2017 19,044 It was always the case; people just obscured things to make themselves feel better about Joel's decision. The whole point of the games ending was dealing with the "Save many by the cost of one/few" trope we've seen before.  EatChildren Wonder from Down Under Member Oct 27, 2017 7,595 Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo The story is infinitely more interesting and thought provoking, particularly in regards to character motivations, actions, and subsequent consequences, when the climax of the first game is viewed through the lens of the unknown; that people and groups make decisions and take actions, sometimes decisively and recklessly, without knowing for sure what the totality of consequence will be, or being fundamentally unable to know if the risks taken are worth the cost. I don't even care about the science behind it (which is dumb). Knowing the cure would/wouldn't work sucks shit and is a boring lame framing of the narrative. Not knowing adds a hefty ambiguity and weight to the choices made. People making decisions, or committing to causes, without ever fully knowing for sure how subsequent events will transpire, is literally how life works is is the ultimate fuel and weight behind our personal journey through guilt and accountability.  SirKai Member Dec 28, 2017 10,181 Washington Risev said: I'd say this is Neil's biggest shortcoming as a writer and is worth criticizing: wanting you to make leaps and just skip through some plot holes for the service of the plot. Uncharted 4 also contains an extremely glaring plot hole that you have to gloss over to enjoy the story Click to expand... Click to shrink... I'm not a Neil defender, but that's not a shortcoming of a writer; that's just an extremely basic aspect of storytelling to motivate the drama and create interesting circumstances. Pretty much no long-form story that depends on exceptional scenarios is going to be free of contrivance or convenience. Some stories obviously take it too far and it can make the narrative feel too arbitrarily authored and unnatural, and every individual person has their own threshold for how far they can suspend their disbelief, but the willingness to trust writers by suspending our disbelief is what makes stories strong and effective, and a writer depending on their audience to be able to do that, at least to some extent, is not a weakness.  Altairre Member Oct 25, 2017 5,211 Risev said: With all due respect to Niel, but that'a bullshit lmao. He also said the exact same thing about Ellie forgiving Joel / knowing he killed the fireflies at the end of the first game just a month or so before the release of Part 2 which gives a clear answer and renders any other interpretation invalid Click to expand... Click to shrink... It doesn't really matter what he says because within the text there clearly is ambiguity and there is basically no way to retcon that away. Considering their situation, what the audio logs say and the state of the world it's definitely a long shot but it's also THE long shot. Risev said: I'd say this is Neil's biggest shortcoming as a writer and is worth criticizing: wanting you to make leaps and just skip through some plot holes for the service of the plot. Uncharted 4 also contains an extremely glaring plot hole that you have to gloss over to enjoy the story Click to expand... Click to shrink... I'm not sure that the situation in LoU qualifies as a plot hole tbh.   Jubern Member Oct 25, 2017 1,597 Mauricio_Magus said: Death of the author applies here, I don't really care what he has to say if it's not in the original game/text. It's clearly supposed to be ambiguous and it's staying that way for me. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Exactly where I stand. Why he would want to clarify/comment on this so long after the fact leaves me dumbfounded.   FTF Member Oct 28, 2017 33,203 New York EatChildren said: Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo The story is infinitely more interesting and thought provoking, particularly in regards to character motivations, actions, and subsequent consequences, when the climax of the first game is viewed through the lens of the unknown; that people and groups make decisions and take actions, sometimes decisively and recklessly, without knowing for sure what the totality of consequence will be, or being fundamentally unable to know if the risks taken are worth the cost. I don't even care about the science behind it (which is dumb). Knowing the cure would/wouldn't work sucks shit and is a boring lame framing of the narrative. Not knowing adds a hefty ambiguity and weight to the choices made. People making decisions, or committing to causes, without ever fully knowing for sure how subsequent events will transpire, is literally how life works is is the ultimate fuel and weight behind our personal journey through guilt and accountability. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Yeah, this is what I meant and said sooo much better lol.   Cantaim Member Oct 25, 2017 35,072 The Stussining I always thought it would have worked as well. The entire game is building up to Joel facing the Trolley problem but with Ellie on the track. I don't think it really has any teeth if you just say killing Ellie doesn't do anything.   Crossing Eden Member Oct 26, 2017 58,520 Kenzodielocke said: It's kind of moot if you make this so technichal Click to expand... Click to shrink... You aren't supposed to because it's not real life Cantaim said: I always thought it would have worked as well. The entire game is building up to Joel facing the Trolley problem but with Ellie on the track. I don't think it really has any teeth if you just say killing Ellie doesn't do anything. Click to expand... Click to shrink... It's funny because literally nothing about the story ever implies that the cure wouldn't work. For every single thing that gets addressed in a "grounded" way that particular tidbit has never been more than people using it as an excuse to justify/lighten the severity of Joel's actions. "Eh does it really matter that he shot up the hospital at the end of the day? Not like the cure would've worked anyways. I, the player/Joel did nothing wrong."  TacoSupreme Member Jul 26, 2019 2,092 SirKai said: I'm not a Neil defender, but that's not a shortcoming of a writer; that's just an extremely basic aspect of storytelling to motivate the drama and create interesting circumstances. Pretty much no long-form story that depends on exceptional scenarios is going to be free of contrivance or convenience. Some stories obviously take it too far and it can make the narrative feel too arbitrarily authored and unnatural, and every individual person has their own threshold for how far they can suspend their disbelief, but the willingness to trust writers by suspending our disbelief is what makes stories strong and effective, and a writer depending on their audience to be able to do that, at least to some extent, is not a weakness. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with this. It's not about suspending disbelief, it's about the game deliberately making the whole situation with the Fireflies seem sketchy. I genuinely spit out my drink and started laughing when it was revealed that they were going to instantly take the precious immune person and dissect her almost immediately after getting their hands on her. This goes beyond contrivance or convenience and into the realm of deliberately misleading the player into thinking there's ambiguity. All it would have taken is something denoting the passage of time prior to wanting to scoop out her brain and it would have been fine. It's not about suspending disbelief, it's about making unneeded decisions that mislead the player.  GMM Member Oct 27, 2017 5,797 If they really would have made a cure or not kinda doesn't matter in the context of the story, it's about how Joel put himself over the needs of the world. Everyone out there trying to survive would agree that Ellie's sacrifice would be worth restoring some semblance of peace to the world even if it wasn't a safe bet, Ellie herself would have wanted to save the world but Joel made that choice for her. It's all about Joel being the selfish person he is, he chose himself over everyone else.  Terbinator Member Oct 29, 2017 13,379 Honestly don't think the cure being viable or not matters at all. Joel makes the decision to save Ellie to save his second daughter. It's really not that deep and you also have no agency over this in the game. Whether that's the moral thing to do on the promise of a cure is an open question.  MrKlaw Member Oct 25, 2017 36,871 Reality doesn't matter (I disagree - they are barely properly staffed, they've never done this before or seen it before so its a hail mary at best etc etc all the discussion) but from a story perspective it makes sense that at least Joel believes its possible to have a cure - it makes the narrative and his reaction stronger, and the 'my life could have meant something' from Ellie's side stronger to create that necessary tension. But I don't like it.  Sinah Member Jun 2, 2022 1,254 I mean yeah so? Honestly personally i don't think it even really matters at that point world was already in a absolute shit state with literal cannibal and murderers everywhere and the infected can not be cured so you still have millions of monsters running around everywhere ripping ppl apart. There was nothing worth saving even if they did manage to make a cure and actually distribute it which is definitely the bigger problem here considering the state the Fireflys where in and the logistics involved.  Last edited: Today at 3:24 AM Vyse One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 1,641 Joel might have pressed a 100% cure button that kills his daughter but even a 1% chance it was a hail mary by sketchy people guaranteed the slaughter.   Agni Kai Member Nov 2, 2017 10,001 None of you (and I do mean none of you) would let your child die to save other people. This new piece of information changes nothing. Joel could've never know.  Crossing Eden Member Oct 26, 2017 58,520 Agni Kai said: None of you (and I do mean none of you) would let your child die to save other people. This new piece of information changes nothing. Joel could've never know. Click to expand... Click to shrink... He never once doubted that it would work though.  

Menu Home News Hardware Gaming Mobile Finance Deals Reviews How To Wccftech Gaming Grand Theft Auto VI Patents Recap Highlights How the Game Could Revolutionize Open-World Titles Forever Francesco De Meo • May 22, 2025 at 08:05am EDT Over the years, Rockstar Games and Take-Two have filed multiple patents that highlight how Grand Theft Auto VI will revolutionize open-world games forever. Grand Theft Auto 6 Alerts recently posted on X a recap of ten patents owned by Rockstar Games that highlight how the game will push video game boundaries forward to offer an experience like few others. The patents include tech for the creation of lifelike characters, simulation of fluid flow on 3D surfaces, seamless NPC movement powered by a road network graph for smooth virtual navigation, enhanced graphics rendering with sharper details, better lighting and smoother performance, continuous level of detail for models which will make buildings, cars and NPCs look great no matter their position relative to the camera, reduced load times in online sessions that will allow users to join others seamlessly, use of motion capture in conjunction with AI to predict body pose, a system that manages in-game transactions, use of data-driven blocks for animations, allowing characters to adapt to any situation without requiring rigid coding, and enhanced anti-cheat measures with hidden game variables. Each individual patent can be checked out in full by searching for the patent number in Google Patents. Little has been shown so far of Grand Theft Auto VI, but given Rockstar Games' history, there's no doubt that it will be among the most impressive open-world games ever released, even if it ends up using only a portion of the tech showcased in the patents above. Sadly, fans of the series will have to wait longer than anticipated to return to Vice City, as the game won't launch this year as originally announced, and will debut on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X|S only in May 2026. At least, the bad news of the delay was accompanied by a new trailer, which provided a second, great look at the game. Grand Theft Auto VI launches on May 26th on PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X, and Xbox Series S. Deal of the Day Subscribe to get an everyday digest of the latest technology news in your inbox Follow us on Topics Sections Company Some posts on wccftech.com may contain affiliate links. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com © 2025 WCCF TECH INC. 700 - 401 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada

On Thursday, President Donald Trump will sit down for an intimate evening at his Northern Virginia golf club with 220 of his favorite people in the world: a group of cryptocurrency speculators who have spent an estimated $148 million on Trump’s eponymous memecoin, making the president and his associates millions of dollars in the process. Even by Trump’s standards, this dinner will be the culmination of one of the most cartoonish episodes of executive-branch graft in recent memory. Last month, Trump announced that at the end of a predetermined period, he would host an “unforgettable Gala DINNER” for the top 220 holders of $TRUMP, allowing winners to discuss the future of the industry with the “Crypto President” himself. The top 25 token holders would also get to attend an “Exclusive Reception” with Trump, along with a “Special VIP White House Tour.” (Hours after the contest went live, its website was quietly edited to promise the top 25 finishers only a “Special VIP Tour,” with no location specified. It remains unclear whether that event will indeed take place at the White House, or at a golf resort facility of the president’s choice.) The contest’s organizer, a Trump-affiliated LLC called Fight Fight Fight, maintained an online leaderboard of those jockeying for position during the sweepstakes, which ended on May 12. The website also includes helpful information about the dress code (black tie optional) and the plus-one policy (none, because “if you earned a seat at the table, it’s because you earned it”). For Trump, the logistical details were far less important than the chance to juice the market for $TRUMP, which had cratered after launching in January but then spiked by more than 50% when he announced the contest. In the two days that followed, the Trump Organization and its affiliates, which together control roughly 80% of the token’s supply, took in nearly $1 million in trading fees; by the end of the sweepstakes, that number had jumped to $3 million, according to a Washington Post analysis.  In all, the Post estimates that since the coin’s debut four months ago, Trump and company have made $312 million from crypto sales and $43 million in fees. As it turns out, one of the perks of being the person in charge of U.S. cryptocurrency policy is the freedom to profit off of cryptocurrency without fear of meaningful consequences. The details of the frenzy to secure a spot on the leaderboard make clear just how for sale the federal government is right now. Making the top 220, according to Wired, required holding or buying more than 4,000 $TRUMP tokens worth about $55,000 altogether; those who made the VIP list held an average of 325,000 tokens worth a collective $4.3 million. Many of the people who made the cut made their purchases on exchanges that suggest they are non-U.S. residents who jumped at the chance to bend the U.S. president’s ear in a semiprivate setting. Sure enough, although the leaderboard identifies winners only by username and alphanumeric crypto wallet address, among the confirmed attendees are Justin Sun, a Chinese crypto speculator who is, in a wild coincidence, trying to settle civil fraud charges with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission; an Australian crypto entrepreneur who hopes to pitch Trump on adopting an even more industry-friendly regulatory stance; and a to-be-determined representative of MemeCore, a Singapore-based crypto collective that told New York magazine that whomever it sends hopes to ask Trump, “Are you a meme, or the result of one?”  Fight Fight Fight calculated the value of contestants’ holdings based on both the amount of $TRUMP in a wallet and the length of time they’d held it, thus rewarding early investors for their commitment to padding the president’s bottom line. That said, earlier this month, the journalist Molly White found that of the wallets on the leaderboard at the time, 62% started buying $TRUMP only after he dangled the dinner invitation. Once acquiring a floundering memecoin came with a shot at a sit-down with the literal President of the United States, people who were previously uninterested apparently decided to reevaluate their investment priorities. Since the event is closed to the press, there will be no independent coverage of what Trump says to attendees, or what the attendees say to Trump, or even who the attendees are. The entire spectacle amounts to an off-the-record jam session between a bunch of people who have already gotten rich off crypto, brainstorming ways to keep getting rich off crypto. For Trump, the event is only the latest celebration of his whirlwind romance with crypto, which he spent years disparaging before realizing that embracing it could help fast-track his return to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He positioned himself as the pro-crypto candidate on the campaign trail last year, promising to create a national crypto stockpile and appoint industry luminaries to prominent administration roles. In another wild coincidence, around the same time, his adult sons helped launch World Liberty Financial, a crypto project structured to funnel 75% of revenue to the Trump family. WLF was basically a hedge against the results of the 2024 election: Even if Trump lost, he would at least have a new source of income to pay his legal bills. The fact that Trump won that election, of course, has made this alliance even more successful for everyone involved. In the hours before his inauguration, the price of Bitcoin spiked to nearly $110,000, then an all-time high. Demand for World Liberty Financial’s coins exploded, too, especially from foreign investors whom federal law bars from giving directly to presidential campaigns or inaugural funds. (Sun, who will attend Thursday’s dinner, has spent nearly $75 million on WLF tokens, making him its single largest known investor.) More recently, Abu Dhabi announced that it would use a WLF-issued stablecoin, USDI1, for its state-backed investment firm’s $2 billion deal with the crypto exchange Binance—a choice that just so happens to put tens of millions of dollars in the Trump family’s pockets.  In an interview with the New York Times earlier this year, Eric Trump spoke of the family’s pivot to crypto in glowing terms, describing World Liberty Financial as “one of the more successful things we’ve ever done.” The numbers bear this out: In March, Fortune estimated that Trump’s crypto holdings were worth $2.9 billion—not bad for an asset he was dismissing as “not money,” “highly volatile,” and “based on thin air” a few years earlier. Pundits often describe Trump’s involvement in crypto as “unprecedented,” and in a sense, this is right: Given Washington’s enduring obsessions with political scandals and conflicts of interest, traditionally, sitting presidents have not developed active side hustles in industries they have the power to regulate. But Trump has never cared about adhering to norms like this one, because he has always viewed the power of the office he holds primarily in terms of its potential to make him wealthier. He agreed to shake hands with a couple hundred crypto enthusiasts this week for the only reason he has ever done anything: He saw a chance to make money, and no one stopped him from taking it.

April 2025 was an exciting month for tech enthusiasts, with designers and creators blending nostalgia, minimalism, and modern features to produce outstanding gadgets. April’s best gadgets were not just about raw performance—they were about thoughtful design, tactile pleasure, and bringing a sense of joy and simplicity back to technology. Whether you’re a music lover, a fan of classic mobile experiences, or someone who appreciates both form and function on your wrist, this collection of five exciting gadgets will capture your imagination. Let’s explore what makes each of them special and pick out which one is your favorite! 1. iPod Video The iPod was once a symbol of the digital music revolution, instantly recognizable by its click wheel and iconic design.  Canadian YouTuber Zac Builds breathed new life into this classic device by creating a thoroughly modern iPod Video from scratch. This isn’t just a restoration—it’s a complete reimagining, blending the timeless appeal of the fifth-generation iPod with today’s tech standards. The most impressive exterior update is the use of transparent faceplates and click wheels, allowing users to admire the device’s inner workings like a piece of mechanical art. But the real magic happens inside. Gone is the original hard drive, replaced by a lightning-fast 256GB SD card for improved speed, reliability, and storage. The old screen has been swapped for a vibrant, high-contrast IPS display, making album art and menus pop like never before. Modern conveniences abound: USB-C charging, Bluetooth audio, and support for high-fidelity FLAC files bring the iPod into the present. What we like Includes USB-C charging, Bluetooth connectivity, and FLAC support, making it compatible with current tech and high-quality audio. Upgraded battery allows for extended use, giving users up to a month on a single charge. What we dislike This upgraded iPod is a one-off creation, not a mass-market product—replicating it requires technical skill and custom parts. As a custom project, it’s not widely available for purchase, making it a dream for enthusiasts rather than a mainstream option. 2. a_77 Laptop Amidst a sea of similar laptops, the a_77 stands out as a truly original approach to mobile computing. Designed by Braz de Pina, this laptop centers its entire layout around the keyboard, resulting in an ultra-compact and visually striking device that eliminates anything superfluous. The 65% keyboard size shapes the compact form factor, prioritizing comfort and functionality with every key press. The nearly square, compact screen keeps the design minimal, while the keyboard offers clever details such as a bold power button and a dedicated CoPilot key to boost productivity. Bright colors and a playful style enhance its appeal, making the a_77 an excellent companion for students, digital nomads, or anyone who wants tech that’s as fun as it is functional. What we like Extremely portable with a lively, engaging design. Efficient, thoughtfully designed keyboard layout. What we dislike The small display may feel restrictive for some tasks. Its unconventional style might not suit fans of classic laptops. 3. Sidephone While most modern phones chase ever-larger screens and all-in-one functionality, the Sidephone takes a radically different path by embracing physical buttons and modularity. This device is a love letter to the tactile joy of pressing real keys, offering an experience that feels refreshingly direct in a world full of glass slabs. The Sidephone is all about efficiency—no more endless scrolling or tapping, just the instant satisfaction of a button press. But its most groundbreaking feature is its patented swappable keypad system. Users can easily change the keypad layout to suit their needs, thanks to a clever design that employs magnets and clips for quick, secure swaps. Want a classic T9 for texting, a gaming-specific layout, or a minimalist design for distraction-free use? Simply pop off the current keypad and snap on a new one. What we like Swappable layouts allow users to tailor the phone for texting, gaming, or minimalism, making the device uniquely versatile. Real, physical buttons provide a delightful and efficient alternative to touchscreen typing. What we dislike As a feature phone, it lacks the advanced apps and capabilities of modern smartphones, which could be a downside for some users. Those accustomed to touchscreen devices might find the Sidephone’s approach restrictive or old-fashioned. 4. Vetra Orbit One The Vetra Orbit One concept smartwatch is a refreshing antidote to the sensory overload of most wearable tech. Instead of bombarding you with notifications and flashy graphics, it brings a sense of calm and tactile pleasure to your wrist, inspired by the craftsmanship of traditional watchmaking. The design is minimalist, with clean lines and a focus on essential information, making it a sophisticated accessory that complements your style rather than competing for attention. The Orbit One’s key feature is its emphasis on tangible interaction—think rotating bezels and textured surfaces that invite you to touch and engage, rather than just tap. What we like Combines the satisfying feel of classic watches with a streamlined, user-friendly interface. Delivers only the most important information, reducing distractions and making it a pleasure to wear daily. What we dislike As a concept device, it may not yet be available for purchase, and final features could change before release. The minimalist approach may mean fewer apps and integrations compared to mainstream smartwatches. 5. Nintendo Wii U Revival Handheld Nintendo’s spirit of creativity is reimagined in this sleek handheld, which serves as a modern tribute to the often-overlooked Wii U gamepad. Rather than mimicking the hybrid nature of the Switch, this device is dedicated solely to handheld gaming, delivering a streamlined experience focused on fun and nostalgia. Its design is clean and intuitive, featuring a sharp central display, symmetrical analog sticks, and a well-organized button arrangement that feels instantly familiar to Nintendo enthusiasts. Shedding the bulkiness of the original Wii U controller, this new version is lightweight and highly portable, perfect for gaming on the go. Practical updates like USB-C charging, a classic D-pad, and a variety of eye-catching color options (including a dazzling gold Zelda edition) highlight its modern appeal. What we like Huge library of retro Nintendo games spanning multiple generations, playable offline without extra fees Slim, ergonomic build with up-to-date features like USB-C and a responsive D-pad What we dislike Heavy focus on older titles may not attract gamers seeking the latest big-budget releases Lacks hybrid or TV docking capabilities, which may limit its versatility compared to the Switch The post 5 Best Tech Gadgets Of April 2025 first appeared on Yanko Design.

Vaginal health shouldn’t be something to hide.