Find insight on the “Trump strangle,” Lenovo, NetEase, AT&T and more in the latest Market Talks covering Technology, Media and Telecom.

That blue bar sure does take me back... That blue bar sure does take me back... If that kind of nostalgia were all there was to Desktop Survivors 98, it would probably not be worth much more than a 15-minute demo. But the underlying game actually takes the developing Survivors-like genre in some interesting directions. As usual for the genre, the gameplay here centers around navigating through throngs of encroaching enemies (and their projectiles), all while herding those enemies together so your auto-firing weapons can take them out. Defeated enemies drop gems that are crucial to gaining new weapons and powers that also lean heavily on nostalgic computing gags—I particularly liked one weapon based on the "flower box" screensaver and another based on the "bouncing cards" at the end of a successful Solitaire game. Theming aside, the main element that sets Desktop Survivors apart from its predecessors in the genre is the mouse-based controls. Your old-school mouse pointer is your character here, meaning you get to precisely dodge and dart around the screen with all the speed and accuracy you'd expect from such a flexible input device. Once you move through these dungeons with a mouse, you won't want to go back to a joystick. Once you move through these dungeons with a mouse, you won't want to go back to a joystick. While there is a serviceable Steam Deck mode designed for analog stick-based movements, it's a hard control paradigm to return to after experiencing the freedom and speed of mouse movements. Decades of mouse use have likely been preparing you for just this moment, training you to weave your pointer through the tight, quickly closing spaces between enemies without really having to think about it. More of the same? Desktop Survivors also sets itself apart by taking place on a series of single-screen battlefields rather than smoothly scrolling maps. These rooms don't feature any significant obstacles or walls to block your movements, either, making each enemy room play kind of similarly to the ones you've seen before it. This also makes it a little easier to avoid many enemies simply by scrubbing your mouse pointer in a wide circle, causing the enemy horde to bunch up in comical blobs.

Quantum computers have long been a potential threat to encryptionsakkmesterke/Shutterstock Quantum computers could crack a common data encryption technique once they have a million qubits, or quantum bits. While this is still well beyond the capabilities of existing quantum computers, this new estimate is 20 times lower than previously thought, suggesting the day encryption is cracked is closer than we think. The widely used RSA algorithm relies on the fact that multiplying two prime numbers to generate a large encryption key is easy, but finding those original prime factors when all you have is the resulting key is…

Apple CEO Tim Cook oversaw his company's deep investment in China. That was an enormously successful strategy for Apple — but now it's a real problem, argues author Patrick McGee. VCG/VCG via Getty Images 2025-05-23T16:56:30Z Save Saved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? Donald Trump wants Apple to make iPhones in America. There's no chance that will happen, says Patrick McGee, a journalist who just published a book on Apple's deep ties to China. McGee also argues that Apple's end-around on Trump's China tariffs — saying that some iPhones and other products are made in India and Vietnam — is misleading. Donald Trump says that iPhones need to be built in the US, or they'll face a 25% tariff.But it doesn't matter what Trump says: iPhones are never going to be built in the US.That's according to Patrick McGee, a journalist who just published "Apple In China: The Capture of the World's Greatest Company" — a detailed look at all of the money and effort Apple spent over decades to enmesh itself in China.McGee, who has covered Apple for the Financial Times, explains why this has been enormously helpful to Apple — because it created an ecosystem that lets it make ultra-complicated devices at vast scale. But he argues that it was even more helpful to China — because Apple gave Chinese engineers access to valuable technology that has let them build other high-value supply chains.And that McGee posits, has created both a problem for Apple CEO Tim Cook — because he can no longer practically extract the company from China — and for the US — because its adversary is now using American know-how to compete with American companies.(I asked Apple if it wanted to weigh in on McGee's book. Via a rep, the company said that "claims in the book are untrue" and "filled with inaccuracies" and that McGee didn't fact-check the book with Apple.)I talked to McGee for the newest episode of my Channels podcast. In the edited excerpt below, we talk about why he thinks it's impossible for Apple to move iPhone production to the US. And why McGee thinks that Apple saying it's moving some production to India and Vietnam, in order to escape some US tariffs on China, is deeply misleading.Peter Kafka: The Trump administration says it wants Apple to move all of its manufacturing to the US. You and anyone else who knows anything about Apple saying that is literally not possible when it comes to the iPhone. Why?Patrick McGee:And then they're moving on to another project. So Apple doesn't bear the cost. It's using the likes of Foxconn to do manufacturing as a service.There's an analyst quoted last month who said it would be like if in the city of Boston, every person dropped what they were doing and just worked on iPhones. And as quotable as that is, that understates the challenge. Because it would like the city of Boston transporting itself to some other place, like Milwaukee, assembling iPhones for a few weeks and then moving on to some other project.China has this floating population — that's literally what it's called — and that workforce alone is greater than America's entire labor force. So we're never going to match them in terms of density of population and, more especially, dynamism of the population.Let alone that it's happening at way lower labor rates. Let alone it's got way better machinery and automation. It's not a matter of willpower and cost — that seems to be what the MAGA dream is based on. It goes so much beyond this.We often say Americans don't want to do these jobs. The Chinese don't want to do these jobs. But there are so many people that would rather be doing that than toiling in the fields for 14 hours a day. We just don't have a base of labor that would do that.One of the other arguments you and others make is that China has people, but there's also just huge infrastructure: a whole series of plants and subplants and subcontractors that all are sort of built around getting Apple the products it needs, at a drop of a hat.Yeah. In the amount of time that it would take China to build a new factory, we would still be doing the environmental paperwork.But in Apple's most recent earnings call, the company said that for the next quarter at least, every iPhone they sell in the US is going to come out of India, and most of the other electronics they sell in the US — AirPods, etc — are going to come out of Vietnam.So what am I missing here? It makes it seem like Apple has gone ahead and figured out how to move this stuff out of China.Not at all. Think of it like this: If there's a thousand steps in making an iPhone and the final one is now in India, you're avoiding tariffs. The final assembly is considered "making it in India."Like if I took every step of baking a cake except for putting the icing on or ...Putting it in the box or something.Honestly, not much is happening in India. That might change in the next five to 10 years, but the idea that there is actual production happening in India is just wrong.If you buy an iPhone next year, it'll say "made in India." I think that's a near-certainty. But that phone will be no less dependent on the China-centric supply chain than any other iPhone you've ever purchased.On that earnings call, Apple also said that the existing tariffs will cost them $900 million in the next quarter. That may sound like a big number, but Apple makes $100 billion in profit a year, so it's not. If that was just the only impact from the tariffs, that seems like a pretty solvable problem for Apple: They have to move final assembly to India, and eat some costs, but they could do it.Yeah, absolutely.Where I think things are much dicier is that the political ties that Apple has with China are unbreakable. I shouldn't say political ties — I really mean the business ties. They are not going to leave China anytime soon.Yet the technological transfer that is engendered by designing cutting-edge products every year and building them in China inherently causes a technology transfer from America to China on a crazy level. And if you think of China as a threat, if you think of them as America's biggest adversary, it is insane that the world's greatest company is equipping China with this technological know-how year in, year out.The Wall Street Journal just reported that Apple is thinking about maybe tacking on some of these additional costs to the next round of iPhones they start selling this fall — passing those costs on to the consumer. Does that sound right to you?Yes, because the other alternative is that you're squeezing out more from your suppliers. Some analysts have suggested that, and it's kind of laughable. Because if there's anything to squeeze out of the supply chain, you damn well better know that Apple's already done it. Apple pays its suppliers very slim margins. There are not a bunch of fat cats out there that they can just be squeezing

On Thursday evening, the Supreme Court handed down a brief order, which temporarily permits President Donald Trump to fire two federal officials who, by law, are shielded from being summarily terminated. That, in itself, is not particularly significant because, on April 9, Chief Justice John Roberts acted on his own authority to temporarily permit Trump to fire the same two officials. So the practical effect of Thursday’s order in Trump v. Wilcox is simply to maintain the status quo.That said, the Thursday order does contain some important new information from the Court’s Republican majority. While the Republican justices have signaled for quite some time that they are eager to give the president broad authority to fire officials that Congress intended to insulate from presidential control, the order includes a paragraph signaling that they will not allow Trump to fire members of the Federal Reserve.From a legal perspective, the paragraph is difficult to parse. And, as Justice Elena Kagan writes in a dissenting opinion, is not supported by the legal authority it cites. But it is likely to reassure investors that, while the Supreme Court does appear eager to expand Trump’s authority over previously independent parts of the federal government, it won’t permit him to disrupt the Fed’s ability to make technocratic decisions about interest rates. The immediate stakes in Wilcox involve a former member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which enforces labor laws and adjudicates union-related disputes, along with a former member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which hears disputes claiming that a civil servant’s employment protections were violated. Trump fired both shortly after taking office, despite the fact that federal law only permits them to be fired for some sort of neglect or malfeasance.The NLRB and the MSPB, moreover, are just two of an array of “independent” agencies led by multi-member boards, whose members all enjoy similar employment protections – agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Reserve.For at least 15 years, when the Court handed down Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Board (2010), a majority of the justices have signaled that they are eager to strip Congress of its authority to create such independent agencies, and give the president full authority to fire these agencies’ leaders at will. Many economists and investors, meanwhile, have warned that it would be particularly dangerous to strip the Federal Reserve — which is supposed to set interest rates based on delicate economic calculations and not based on what will benefit the sitting president — of its independence, as doing so could throw the US economy into chaos.Thursday’s order is a clear signal that the Court has heard these concerns and does not intend to eliminate the Fed’s independence. It is unlikely to satisfy many constitutional scholars, as its explanation for why Federal Reserve leaders should be treated differently than the leaders of any other independent agency is so baffling that it appears contrived. Regardless of the underlying reasoning, however, the order does strongly suggest that this Court will not give Trump full control over the Fed.The “unitary executive,” briefly explainedTrump v. Wilcox is the culmination of a longstanding grudge many Republican legal elites hold against Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court case establishing that Congress may create independent agencies whose members may only be fired for cause. Though the leaders of these agencies are typically nominated by the president for a term of several years, and confirmed by the Senate, Humphrey’s Executor explained that laws protecting them from being fired while in office are supposed to ensure that they “act with entire impartiality,” and “exercise the trained judgment of a body of experts.”All six of the Court’s Republicans, however, have made it clear they believe in a theory known as the “unitary executive,” which is incompatible with Humphrey’s Executor.The Constitution provides that “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” In a 1988 dissenting opinion, which many legal conservatives now treat as if it were a holy text, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that “this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power.” And thus, if a federal official is charged with executing federal laws in some way, they must be fully subject to presidential control.If you take this unitary executive theory seriously, then there should be no doubt that Federal Reserve governors may be fired at will by the president. The Fed’s authority over interest rates, after all, derives from federal statutes instructing it to pursue the dual goals of “maximum employment” and “stable prices.” So the Fed is charged with executing federal laws.But the consequences of stripping the Fed of its independence could be catastrophic. In 1971, President Richard Nixon pressured Fed chair Arthur Burns to lower interest rates in advance of Nixon’s reelection race — the idea was to juice the economy right while voters were weighing Nixon’s record — and Burns complied. In the short term, this worked out great for Nixon. The economy boomed in 1972, and Nixon won reelection by a historic landslide. But Burns’s action is often blamed for years of “stagflation,” slow economic growth combined with high inflation, in the 1970s.The Fed, in other words, has the power to effectively inject cocaine into the US economy – giving it a temporary boost that can be timed to benefit incumbent presidents, at the cost of much greater economic turmoil down the road. It’s not hard to see how presidents could abuse their power if they can fire members of the Federal Reserve who refuse to give the economy such a temporary and costly high.One might think that these risks would be enough to caution the justices against overruling Humphrey’s Executor. But the Republican justices appear quite committed to the unitary executive theory, and they have been that way for quite some time. (If you want to know more about why they feel this way, I can refer you to three separate explainers I’ve written on this subject.)And so those justices spend the bulk of Thursday’s Wilcox order laying out the process they are likely to use to formally overrule Humphrey’s Executor. The order announces that the Trump administration is “likely” to prevail in its bid to fire NLRB and MSPB officials, and it temporarily blocks lower court decisions that reinstated the two officials at issue in this case. But the Court puts off the question of whether to formally repudiate Humphrey’s Executor until after the ordinary appeals process plays out and the justices receive full briefing and oral argument on whether to do so — which could happen as soon as the Court’s next term.The Wilcox order’s language protecting the Fed is gobbledygookEmbedded within all this language laying out the process to challenge Humphrey’s Executor is the paragraph indicating that the Fed is safe. While the two fired officials “contend that arguments in this case necessarily implicate the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors or other members of the Federal Open Market Committee,” the order states, “we disagree.”The justices who joined the order then offer a single sentence explaining why: “The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”It’s certainly possible to parse the components of this sentence. The description of the Fed as a “quasi-private entity,” for example, may refer to the fact that much of the Fed’s authority is wielded through regional entities, which are themselves controlled by board members who are mostly selected by commercial banks. But it is hardly unusual for members of the private sector to be given a formal role within government — just ask Elon Musk. Indeed, the Supreme Court heard at least two cases this spring involving the role experts from the private sector may play in setting government policy.The “First and Second Banks of the United States” are 18th- and early 19th-century predecessors to the Fed. The Supreme Court upheld Congress’s power to create national banks in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), but the nation abandoned national banking under President Andrew Jackson, setting off a period of economic turmoil, including an economic depression shortly after Jackson left office.But it’s unclear what any of this has to do with the president’s powers as outlined in the Constitution. If the theory of the unitary executive is correct, then no entity — regardless of whether it is “quasi-private” or is part of a “distinct historical tradition” involving banks — may execute federal laws, unless that entity is controlled by people who are themselves under presidential control. As a legal matter, the Court’s explanation of why the Fed is special is nothing more than word salad.The only legal authority that the Wilcox order cites to support its claim that the Fed is special is a footnote in its pro-unitary executive decision in Seila Law v. CFPB (2020). But nothing in that footnote provides any support for this claim.As Kagan points out in her dissent in Wilcox, the only relevant language in that footnote is a throwaway line responding to her partial dissent in Seila Law. Kagan had argued that “federal regulators” historically have enjoyed some insulation from the president. The footnote dismisses this argument, stating that even “assuming financial institutions like the Second Bank and the Federal Reserve can claim a special historical status,” the agency at issue in Seila Law does not qualify.The Court, in other words, waved away Kagan’s argument that institutions like the Fed should be shielded from presidential control in Seila Law. Now, however, the justices in the majority appear to be signaling they believe there is some merit to Kagan’s argument.If the Court does formally overrule Humphrey’s Executor in the coming months, the justices in the majority will likely elaborate on why a different rule should apply to the Fed. The best reading of the Wilcox order’s one paragraph about the Fed is that a majority of the justices have already decided that they want to protect it, and they would now like some smart lawyers to file briefs coming up with an argument for that position — one that uses terms like “quasi-private” and that refers to the early history of national banking.Of course, this is not how the law is supposed to work — judges are not supposed to start with the outcome that they want and then invite members of the bar to explain how to get there. But this also will hardly be the first time that the Roberts Court started with its intended outcome and reasoned backward to get there. It’s just being more transparent this time around.See More:

Resident Evil 9 began as ‘open world multiplayer game’ as insider reveals scrapped sequel Adam Starkey Published May 23, 2025 5:22pm Updated May 23, 2025 5:22pm Leon Kennedy is apparently back for Resident Evil 9 (Capcom) An insider has shared details about early plans for Resident Evil 9, amid claims of a canned follow-up to Resident Evil: Revelations 2. While Capcom has confirmed Resident Evil 9 is in development, we still know nothing about the sequel – with an official reveal expected at some point this year. The only details we have about the follow-up to Resident Evil Village is from rumours, which claim it will mark a ‘big reinvention’ for the series, be open world, and use the same tech as Dragon’s Dogma 2. The source of these rumours, AestheticGamer aka Dusk Golem, has now made several claims about the sequel on X, including how it apparently began as a multiplayer title. According to the insider, Resident Evil 9 began development in 2017 as a ‘big open world multiplayer game’, a decision which was apparently made in response to Resident Evil 7’s low sales at launch (it later went onto find success with over 14 million copies sold). It’s unclear whether this refers to cooperative or competitive multiplayer, but the leaker claims this original version featured Leon Kennedy and Jill Valentine as the game’s protagonists, and was set on a fictional island based off of Singapore. It’s claimed Resident Evil 9 underwent a ‘pretty heavy reboot’ in 2021, around the launch of Resident Evil Village, but ‘a few things stayed the same’. According to the insider, one thing which remained was Leon Kennedy as the main character, but Jill was apparently dropped. While it isn’t stated explicitly, it’s implied the multiplayer aspect was dropped as well – considering that aspect has never been mentioned before. Past mainline games have leaned on cooperative multiplayer, specifically Resident Evil 5 and Resident Evil 6, but these are widely considered to be among the worst of the numbered entries. In other posts, Dusk Golem claims Resident Evil 9 is ‘designed as a third-person game’, so it won’t have the first-person perspective of Resident Evil Village. They also claim it will launch in 2026, although Capcom’s recent financial reports suggest it will be sometime after March. Beyond Resident Evil 9, the insider claims a sequel to 2015’s Resident Evil: Revelations 2 was also in development at some point, but it was cancelled by Capcom in 2022 to prioritise ‘manpower and budget’ on Resident Evil 4 remake and Resident Evil 9. More Trending Resident Evil: Revelations 2 was an episodic sequel to the 2012 spin-off, which originally released on the Nintendo 3DS. As of March 31 this year, the sequel has sold 3.7 million units, so it’s on the lower end of Resident Evil sales overall. Capcom hasn’t announced anything about Resident Evil 9, so it’s worth taking these rumours with a pinch of salt, but it has dropped hints that news could arrive soon, with all eyes on Summer Game Fest on Friday, June 6, 2025. Aside from the next mainline instalment, Capcom is said to be working on several Resident Evil remakes too, with the next one expected to be Resident Evil Zero. A Revelations 2 sequel is apparently off the table (Capcom) Email gamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below, follow us on Twitter, and sign-up to our newsletter. To submit Inbox letters and Reader’s Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use our Submit Stuff page here. For more stories like this, check our Gaming page. GameCentral Sign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

The more we hear about Noah Hawley’s Alien: Earth series, the more eager we are to start watching it ASAP. Alas, August 12 is a decent chunk of time to keep waiting, but at least we’re continuously learning new tidbits about what to expect. Earlier this month, FX and Hulu shared concrete details about the show’s plot for the first time; today, we’re learning more about its main character, a human-robot hybrid played by Sydney Chandler, and central themes. The latter won’t surprise anyone who’s watched any of the Alien movies. At the show’s heart will be a question that’s threaded through all the entries since Ridley Scott’s 1979 original: of all the monsters in the universe, are humans actually the worst? “Sydney’s character is someone who’s trying to figure out what her role is in this world and, on some level, the age-old question of, does humanity deserve to survive?,” Hawley explained in a new interview with Entertainment Weekly. The series creator said he took direct inspiration from Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) wondering “which species is worse” in 1986’s Aliens. “This idea of the horrible things that we do to each other,” Hawley continues. “Sydney plays a somewhat innocent character who finds herself trying to navigate two kinds of monsters. One is human and the other is from outer space. We do expand on that idea that it’s going to be up to the audience which species is worse.” Chandler’s character, who is named Wendy, is innocent because she’s literally a child: according to EW, she has “a child’s brain in a bot’s body.” That makes her and her fellow hybrids’ interactions with the show’s Xenomorphs unique. “Noah took us more into the mindset space,” Chandler told the magazine. “What is the essence of a kid or a young adult? How do their minds work differently than the adult mind? Kids are so present and they haven’t been battered by the world as much as an adult. So they trust their gut and they don’t second guess.” Alien: Earth arrives August 12 on FX and Hulu. 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.

Maison-Jardin BEAU / Alexandre Bernier ArchitecteSave this picture!© Maxime BrouilletHouses•Montréal, Canada Architects: Alexandre Bernier Architecte Area Area of this architecture project Area:  2300 ft² Year Completion year of this architecture project Year:  2023 Photographs Photographs:Maxime Brouillet Manufacturers Brands with products used in this architecture project Manufacturers:  Alumico, Artemide, Chez Lamothe , David Roussel, Hamster, MQ, Mac, Matter, Plan Beton, Showroom Montreal Lead Architect: Alexandre Bernier More SpecsLess Specs Save this picture! Text description provided by the architects. Located in the heart of St-Henri, a dense post-industrial residential neighborhood in Montreal, this single-family residence asserts itself discreetly through its vertical volume, raw materiality, and sensitive relationship to the garden.Save this picture!It stands out for its compact and rigorous form, constructed almost entirely of concrete, used for the structure, floors, ceilings, and interior finishes alike. This radical transformation of a typical Montreal duplex challenges domestic space through a bold mono-material approach—a typology traditionally built in wood. The unconventional use of concrete in a Montreal home makes it a unique project.Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!The architectural gesture explores the tension between the archetype of the mineral refuge and the lightness of a dwelling open to its environment. The dialogue between this raw materiality and the transparency of the garden-facing façade reveals an architecture that is both monolithic and porous. The whole is organized around the stacking of free and open floor plates. Freed from structural constraints, the façade allows natural light to penetrate deep into the space. The shifting shadows of foliage, cast throughout the day on the mineral wall, bring a discreet and contemplative poetry, giving the concrete's roughness an unexpected sensitivity.Save this picture!Save this picture!On the ground floor, the façade literally vanishes thanks to a large sliding door, merging the living space with the garden. A reflecting pool acts as a water mirror that amplifies the light. This liquid presence balances the building's density, introducing freshness and lightness.Save this picture!Textures, Finishes, and the Mass of Concrete - The surfaces are distinguished by a variety of concrete textures and finishes. The floors, in polished terrazzo, reveal selected aggregates exposed through scarification. The exposed concrete walls retain the imprint of the formwork ties, highlighting the constructive nature of the project. The kitchen work surfaces, including the 14-foot-long island with rounded corners, are also made of concrete.Save this picture!Save this picture!As a massive material, akin to mono-material stone houses, concrete promotes thermal inertia, passive heating, and heat storage. Complemented by a radiant floor system, it acts as a thermal battery. Its load-bearing capacity frees the façades from bracing, allowing for generous fenestration tailored to solar orientations.Save this picture!Save this picture!Decidedly contemporary, the BEAU Residence proposes a sensitive architecture of contrasts, where the weight of concrete is lightened through contact with the living. Through the use of material and an intimate relationship with vegetation, it offers a new way of inhabiting the city—between mass and transparency, permanence and flexibility, rigor and softness. A simple yet powerful gesture for a contextual, sustainable, and resolutely contemporary architecture.Save this picture! Project gallerySee allShow less About this office MaterialConcreteMaterials and TagsPublished on May 23, 2025Cite: "Maison-Jardin BEAU / Alexandre Bernier Architecte" 23 May 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1030350/maison-jardin-beau-alexandre-bernier-architecte&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

Unlock the secrets of Unreal Engine 5 with our step-by-step guide to creating mesmerizing magnetic fields using Niagara. This tutorial covers everything from setting up your project to fine-tuning dynamic effects, perfect for both beginners and seasoned VFX artists. Dive into the world of real-time visual effects and elevate your game design skills with cutting-edge techniques in UE5 Niagara. https://linktr.ee/cghow #UnrealEngine #RealtimeVFX #magneticfield

Henry Goodsell captained a schooner similar to the one seen above. Credit: Deposit Photos Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. In 1995, a mystery skull washed onto a beach in Longport, New Jersey. Four years later, additional bone fragments were discovered less than two miles away on a shore in the neighboring southern New Jersey town of Margate. It would take another 14 years for even more skeletal remains to arrive on a beach another five miles away in Ocean City. But over those three decades, forensic experts and law enforcement couldn’t put a name to the individual known only as “Scattered Man John Doe.” After 30 years, the mystery has finally been solved thanks to a combination of genetic testing, historical research, and archival analysis. “Scattered Man John Doe” wasn’t a victim of foul play—he wasn’t even a comparatively recent death. Instead, the bones belong to Henry Goodsell, a 29-year-old merchant ship captain who perished along with his crew during a storm in the winter of 1844. The identification comes two years after state law enforcement reached out to the Ramapo College of New Jersey’s Investigative Genetic Genealogy Center. After sending bone samples to Intermountain Forensics, a nonprofit dedicated to identifying missing person remains, Ramapo undergraduates began crossreferencing archival files in the hopes of finding a lead. Genetic analysis results traced ancestry as far back as the 1600s, to Connecticut’s Litchfield and Fairfield counties. From there, they also started investigating newspaper reports of any shipwrecks off the coast of New Jersey. Eventually, the students flagged two articles dated from December 20 and 24, 1844. “The schooner Oriental… was lost on the evening of the 4th on Brigantine shoals and all hands with her,” read the Friday edition of the York Democratic Press. An initial report of the ‘Oriental’ shipwreck from December 20, 1844. Credit: Ramapo College According to the paper’s account, the ship left Bridgeport, Connecticut for Philadelphia with around 60 tons of marble intended for Girard College. While cautioning that it was “possible that the crew had taken off, and that the vessel had been abandoned. Four days later, however, newspapers across the northeast confirmed the worst case outcome. “The Bridgeport Standard (Conn.) has further accounts from this ill-fated vessel, which render it certain that all on board must have perished,” reported the Boston Daily Bee on December 24. The consensus at the time was that the Oriental likely sprung a leak before sinking less than a mile from the shoreline, but an intense storm prevented any rescue attempts. All five crew members including Capt. Goodsell ultimately drowned, but only one sailor “was thrown on the shore” five miles away. Authorities later identified him as John Keith before seeing that he was “decently buried,” according to the Daily Bee. Capt. Goodsell left behind a wife and three children. After digging deeper into his family tree, the students suggested he warranted a closer look from the New Jersey State Police (NJSP). On March 7, 2025, authorities collected a DNA reference sample from one of Goodsell’s great-great grandchildren. One month later, the NJSP confirmed “Scattered Man John Doe” to be the late Capt. Goodsell. “The ability to bring answers to families—even generations later—shows how far science and dedication can take us,” NJSP superintendent Col. Patrick Callahan said in a university announcement on May 21. While Goodsell marks the school’s Investigative Genetic Genealogy Center’s  92nd consultancy project, Ramapo College reports it is one of the oldest cold case files ever solved using this advanced type of investigative genealogy.