Being aware of the maybe self-aware How should we treat beings that might be sentient? A book argues that we've not thought enough about things that might think. Lindsey Laughlin Nov 30, 2024 7:07 am | 20 What rights should a creature with ambiguous self-awareness, like an octopus, be granted. Credit: A. Martin UW Photography What rights should a creature with ambiguous self-awareness, like an octopus, be granted. Credit: A. Martin UW Photography Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreIf you arent yet worried about the multitude of ways you inadvertently inflict suffering onto other living creatures, you will be after reading The Edge of Sentience by Jonathan Birch. And for good reason. Birch, a Professor of Philosophy at the London College of Economics and Political Science, was one of a team of experts chosen by the UK government to establish the Animal Welfare Act (or Sentience Act) in 2022a law that protects animals whose sentience status is unclear.According to Birch, even insects may possess sentience, which he defines as the capacity to have valenced experiences, or experiences that feel good or bad. At the very least, Birch explains, insects (as well as all vertebrates and a selection of invertebrates) are sentience candidates: animals that may be conscious and, until proven otherwise, should be regarded as such.Although it might be a stretch to wrap our mammalian minds around insect sentience, it is not difficult to imagine that fellow vertebrates have the capacity to experience life, nor does it come as a surprise that even some invertebrates, such as octopuses and other cephalopod mollusks (squid, cuttlefish, and nautilus) qualify for sentience candidature. In fact, one species of octopus, Octopus vulgaris, has been protected by the UKs Animal Scientific Procedures Act (ASPA) since 1986, which illustrates how long we have been aware of the possibility that invertebrates might be capable of experiencing valenced states of awareness, such as contentment, fear, pleasure, and pain.A framework for fence-sittersNon-human animals, of course, are not the only beings with an ambiguous sentience stature that poses complicated questions. Birch discusses people with disorders of consciousness, embryos and fetuses, neural organoids (brain tissue grown in a dish), and even AI technologies that reproduce brain functions and/or mimic human behavior, all of which share the unenviable position of being perched on the edge of sentiencea place where it is excruciatingly unclear whether or not these individuals are capable of conscious experience.Whats needed, Birch argues, when faced with such staggering uncertainty about the sentience stature of other beings, is a precautionary framework that outlines best practices for decision-making regarding their care. And in The Edge of Sentience, he provides exactly that, in meticulous, orderly detail.Over more than 300 pages, he outlines three fundamental framework principles and 26 specific case proposals about how to handle complex situations related to the care and treatment of sentience-edgers. For example, Proposal 2 cautions that a patient with a prolonged disorder of consciousness should not be assumed incapable of experience and suggests that medical decisions made on their behalf cautiously presume they are capable of feeling pain. Proposal 16 warns about conflating brain size, intelligence, and sentience, and recommends decoupling the three so that we do not incorrectly assume that small-brained animals are incapable of conscious experience.Surgeries and stem cellsBe forewarned, some topics in The Edge of Sentience are difficult. For example, Chapter 10 covers embryos and fetuses. In the 1980s, Birch shares, it was common practice to not use anesthesia on newborn babies or fetuses when performing surgery. Why? Because whether or not newborns and fetuses experience pain was up for debate. Rather than put newborns and fetuses through the risks associated with anesthesia, it was accepted practice to give them a paralytic (which prevents all movement) and carry on with invasive procedures, up to and including heart surgery.After parents raised alarms over the devastating outcomes of this practice, such as infant mortality, it was eventually changed. Birchs takeaway message is clear: When in doubt about the sentience stature of a living being, we should probably assume it is capable of experiencing pain and take all necessary precautions to prevent it from suffering. To presume the opposite can be unethical.This guidance is repeated throughout the book. Neural organoids, discussed in Chapter 11, are mini-models of brains developed from stem cells. The potential for scientists to use neural organoids to unravel the mechanisms of debilitating neurological conditionsand to avoid invasive animal research while doing sois immense. It is also ethical, Birch posits, since studying organoids lessens the suffering of research animals. However, we dont yet know whether or not neural tissue grown in a dish has the potential to develop sentience, so he argues that we need to develop a precautionary approach that balances the benefits of reduced animal research against the risk that neural organoids are capable of being sentient.A four-pronged testAlong this same line, Birch says, all welfare decisions regarding sentience-edgers require an assessment of proportionality. We must balance the nature of a given proposed risk to a sentience candidate with potential harms that could result if nothing is done to minimize the risk. To do this, he suggests testing four criteria: permissibility-in-principle, adequacy, reasonable necessity, and consistency. Birch refers to this assessment process as PARC, and deep dives into its implementation in chapter eight.When applying the PARC criteria, one begins by testing permissibility-in-principle: whether or not the proposed response to a risk is ethically permissible. To illustrate this, Birch poses a hypothetical question: would it be ethically permissible to mandate vaccination in response to a pandemic? If a panel of citizens were in charge of answering this question, they might say no, because forcing people to be vaccinated feels unethical. Yet, when faced with the same question, a panel of experts might say yes, because allowing people to die who could be saved by vaccination also feels unethical. Gauging permissibility-in-principle, therefore, entails careful consideration of the likely possible outcomes of a proposed response. If an outcome is deemed ethical, it is permissible.Next, the adequacy of a proposed response must be tested. A proportionate response to a risk must do enough to lessen the risk. This means the risk must be reduced to an acceptable level or, if thats not possible, a response should deliver the best level of risk reduction that can be achieved via an ethically permissible option.The third test is reasonable necessity. A proposed response to a risk must not overshootit should not go beyond what is reasonably necessary to reduce risk, in terms of either cost or imposed harm. And last, consistency should be considered. The example Birch presents is animal welfare policy. He suggests we should always aim for taxonomic consistency: our treatment of one group of animals (e.g., vertebrates) should be consistent with our treatment of another (e.g., invertebrates).The Edge of Sentience, as a whole, is a dense text overflowing with philosophical rhetoric. Yet this rhetoric plays a crucial role in the storytelling: it is the backbone for Birchs clear and organized conclusions, and it serves as a jumping-off point for the logical progression of his arguments. Much like I think, therefore I am gave Ren Descartes a foundation upon which to build his idea of substance dualism, Birch uses the fundamental position that humans should not inflict gratuitous suffering onto fellow creatures as a base upon which to build his precautionary framework.For curious readers who would prefer not to wade too deeply into meaty philosophical concepts, Birch generously provides a shortcut to his conclusions: a cheat sheet of his framework principles and special case proposals is presented at the front of the book.Birchs ultimate message in The Edge of Sentience is that a massive shift in how we view beings with a questionable sentience status should be made. And we should ideally make this change now, rather than waiting for scientific research to infallibly determine who and what is sentient. Birch argues that one way that citizens and policy-makers can begin this process is by adopting the following decision-making framework: always avoid inflicting gratuitous suffering on sentience candidates; take precautions when making decisions regarding a sentience candidate; and make proportional decisions about the care of sentience candidates that are informed, democratic and inclusive.You might be tempted to shake your head at Birchs confidence in humanity. No matter how deeply you agree with his stance of doing no harm, its hard to have confidence in humanity given our track record of not making big changes for the benefit of living creatures, even when said creatures includes our own species (cue in global warming here). It seems excruciatingly unlikely that the entire world will adopt Birchs rational, thoughtful, comprehensive plan for reducing the suffering of all potentially sentient creatures. Yet Birch, a philosopher at heart, ignores human history and maintains a tone of articulate, patient optimism. He clearly believes in ushe knows we can do betterand he offers to hold our hands and walk us through the steps to do so.Lindsey Laughlin is a science writer and freelance journalist who lives in Portland, Oregon, with her husband and four children. She earned her BS from UC Davis with majors in physics, neuroscience, and philosophy. 20 Comments Prev story

Retro style Vintage digicams arent just a fad. Theyre an artistic statement. In the age of AI images, some photographers are embracing the quirky flaws of vintage digital cameras. Brendan Nystedt, WIRED.com Nov 29, 2024 7:20 am | 137 Spanish director Isabel Coixet films with a digicam on the red carpet ahead of the premiere of the film "The International" on the opening night of the 59th Berlinale Film Festival in Berlin in 2009. Credit: JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP via Getty Images Spanish director Isabel Coixet films with a digicam on the red carpet ahead of the premiere of the film "The International" on the opening night of the 59th Berlinale Film Festival in Berlin in 2009. Credit: JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP via Getty Images Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreTodays young adults grew up in a time when their childhoods were documented with smartphone cameras instead of dedicated digital or film cameras. Its not surprising that, perhaps as a reaction to the ubiquity of the phone, some young creative photographers are leaving their handsets in their pockets in favor of compact point-and-shoot digital camerasthe very type that camera manufacturers are actively discontinuing.Much of the buzz among this creative class has centered around premium, chic models like the Fujifilm X100 and Ricoh GR, or for the self-anointed digicam girlies on TikTok, zoom point-and-shoots like the Canon PowerShot G7 and Sony RX100 models, which can be great for selfies.But other shutterbugs are reaching back into the past 20 years or more to add a vintage Y2K aesthetic to their work. The MySpace look is strong with a lot of photographers shooting with authentic early-2000s digicams, aiming their camerasflashes a-blazingat their friends and capturing washed-out, low-resolution, grainy photos that look a whole lot like 2003."It's so wild to me cause I'm an elder millennial," says Ali O'Keefe, who runs the photography channel Two Months One Camera on YouTube. "My childhood is captured on film but for [young people], theirs were probably all captured on, like, Canon SD1000s, she says, referencing a popular mid-aughts point-and-shoot.Its not just the retro sensibility theyre after, but also a bit of cool cred. Everyone from Ayo Edibiri to Kendall Jenner is helping fuel digicam fever by publicly taking snaps with a vintage pocket camera.The rise of the vintage digicam marks at least the second major nostalgia boom in the photography space. More than 15 years ago, a film resurgence brought thousands of cameras from the 1970s and '80s out of closets and into handbags and backpacks. Companies like Impossible Project and Film Ferrania started up production of Polaroid-compatible and 35-mm film, respectively, firing up manufacturing equipment that otherwise would have been headed to the scrap heap. Traditional film companies like Kodak and Ilford have seen sales skyrocket. Unfortunately, the price of film stock also increased significantly, with film processing also getting more costly. (Getting a roll developed and digitally scanned now typically costs between $15 and $20.)For those seeking to experiment with their photography, there's an appeal to using a cheap, old digital model they can shoot with until it stops working. The results are often imperfect, but since the camera is digital, a photographer can mess around and get instant gratification. And for everyone in the vintage digital movement, the fact that the images from these old digicams are worse than those from a smartphone is a feature, not a bug.Whats a digicam?One of the biggest points of contention among enthusiasts is the definition of digicam. For some, any old digital camera falls under the banner, while other photographers have limited the terms scope to a specific vintage or type. Sofia Lee, photographer and co-founder of the online community digicam.love, has narrowed her definition over time."There's a separation between what I define as a tool that I will be using in my artistic practice versus what the community at large would consider to be culturally acceptable, like at a meetup," Lee stated. "I started off looking at any digital camera I could get my hands on. But increasingly I'm focused more on the early 2000s. And actually, I actually keep getting earlier and earlier I would say from 2000 to 2003 or 2004 maybe."Lee has found that she's best served by funky old point-and-shoot cameras, and doesn't use old digital single-lens reflex cameras, which can deliver higher quality images comparable to today's equipment. Lee says DSLR images are too clean, too crisp, too nice for her work. When I'm picking a camera, I'm looking for a certain kind of noise, a certain kind of character to them that can't be reproduced through filters or editing, or some other process, Lee says. Her all-time favorite model is a forgotten camera from 2001, the Kyocera Finecam S3. A contemporary review gave the model a failing grade, citing its reliance on the then-uncommon SD memory card format, along with its propensity to turn out soft photos lacking in detail."Its easier to say what isnt a digicam, like DSLRs or cameras with interchangeable lenses, says Zuzanna Neupauer, a digicam user and member of digicam.love. But the definition gets even narrower from there. I personally wont use any new models, and I restrict myself to digicams made before 2010," Neupauer says.Not everyone is as partisan. Popular creators Ali O'Keefe and James Warner both cover interchangeable lens cameras from the 2000s extensively on their YouTube channels, focusing on vintage digital equipment, relishing in devices with quirky designs or those that represent evolutionary dead-ends. Everything from Sigma's boxy cameras with exotic sensors to Olympus' weird, early DSLRs based on a short-lived lens system get attention in their videos. It's clear that although many vintage enthusiasts prefer the simple, compact nature of a point-and-shoot camera, the overall digicam trend has increased interest in digital imagings many forms.Digital archeologyThe digital photography revolution that occurred around the turn of the century saw a Cambrian explosion of different types and designs of cameras. Sony experimented with swiveling two-handers that could be science fiction zap guns, and had cameras that wrote JPEGs to floppy disks and CDs. Minolta created modular cameras that could be decoupled, the optics tethered to the LCD body with a cord, like photographic nunchaku. There are a lot of brands that are much less well known, says Lee. And in the early 2000s in particular, it was really like the Wild West.Todays enthusiasts spelunking into the digital past are encountering challenges related to the passage of time, with some brands no longer offering firmware updates, drivers, or PDF copies of manuals for these old models. In many cases, product news and reviews sites are the only reminder that some cameras ever existed. But many of those sites have fallen off the internet entirely.Steve's Digicams went offline, says OKeefe in reference to the popular camera news website that went offline after the founder, Steve Sanders, died in 2017. It was tragic because it had so much information.Our interests naturally align with archaeology, says Sofia Lee. A lot of us were around when the cameras were made. But there were a number of events in the history of digicams where an entire line of cameras just massively died off. That's something that we are constantly confronted with.Hocus focusYouTubers like Warner and O'Keefe helped raise interest in cameras with Charged-Coupled Device technology, an older type of imaging sensor that fell out of use around 2010. CCD-based cameras have developed a cult following, and certain models have retained their value surprisingly well for their age. Fans liken the results of CCD captures to shooting film without the associated hassle or cost. While the digicam faithful have shown that older cameras can yield pleasing results, there's no guaranteed "CCD magic" sprinkled on those photos."[I] think I've maybe unfortunately been one of the ones to make it sound like CCD sensors in and of themselves are making the colors different," says Warner, who makes classic digital camera videos on his channel Snappiness."CCDs differ from [newer] CMOS sensors in the layout of their electronics but at heart they're both made up of photosensitive squares of silicon behind a series of color filters from which color information about the scene can be derived," says Richard Butler, managing editor at DPReview. (Disclosure: I worked at DPReview as a part-time editor in 2022 and 2023.) DPReview, in its 25th year, is a valuable library of information about old digital cameras, and an asset to vintage digital obsessives.I find it hard to think of CCD images as filmlike, but it's fair to say that the images of cameras from that time may have had a distinct aesthetic, Butler says. As soon as you have an aesthetic with which an era was captured, there's a nostalgia about that look. It's fair to say that early digital cameras inadvertently defined the appearance of contemporary photos.There's one area where old CCD sensors can show a difference: They dont capture as much light and dark information as other types of sensors, and therefore the resulting images can have less detail in the shadows and highlights. A careful photographer can get contrasty, vibrant images with a different, yet still digital, vibe. Digicam photographer Jermo Swaab says he prefers "contrasty scenes and crushed blacks I yearn for images that look like a memory or retro-futuristic dream."Modern photographs, by default, are super sharp, artificially vibrant, with high dynamic range that makes the image pop off the screen. In order to get the most out of a tiny sensor and lens, smartphones put shots through a computationally intense pipeline of automated editing, quickly combining multiple captures to extract every fine detail possible, and eradicate pesky noise. Digital cameras shoot a single image at a time by default. Especially with older, lower resolution digital cameras, this can give images a noisier, dreamier appearance that digicam fans love."If you take a picture with your smartphone, it's automatically HDR. And we're just used to that today but thats not at all how cameras have worked in the past," Warner says. Ali O'Keefe agrees, saying that "especially as we lean more and more into AI where everything is super polished to the point of hyperreal, digicams are crappy, and the artifacts and the noise and the lens imperfections give you something that is not replicable."Lee also is chasing unique, noisy photos from compact cameras with small sensors: "I actually always shoot at max ISO, which is the opposite of how I think people shot their cameras back in the day. I'm curious about finding the undesirable aspects of it and [getting] aesthetic inspiration from the undesirable aspects of a camera."Her favorite Kyocera camera is known for its high-quality build and noisy pics. She describes it as all metal, like a briefcase, of the sort that Arnold Schwarzenegger carries in Total Recall. These cameras are considered legendary in the experimental scene, she says of the Kyocera. The unique thing about the Finecam S3 is that it produces a diagonal noise pattern."A time to buy, a time to sellThe gold rush for vintage digital gear has, unsurprisingly, led to rising prices on the resale market. What was once a niche for oddballs and collectors has become a potential goldmine, driven by all that social media hype.The joke is that when someone makes a video about a camera, the price jumps, says Warner. I've actually tracked that using eBay's TerraPeak sale monitoring tool where you can see the history of up to two years of sales for a certain search query. There's definitely strong correlation to a [YouTube] video's release and the price of that item going up on eBay in certain situations.It is kind of amazing how hard it is to find things now, laments says OKeefe. I used to be able to buy [Panasonic] LX3s, one of my favorite point and shoots of all time, a dime a dozen. Now they're like 200 bucks if you can find a working one.O'Keefe says she frequently interacts with social media users who went online looking for their dream camera only to have gotten scammed. A person who messaged me this morning was just devastated, she says. Scams are rampant now because theyve picked up on this market being sort of a zeitgeist thing. She recommends sticking with sellers on platforms that have clear protections in place for dealing with scams and fraud, like eBay. I have never had an issue getting refunded when the item didn't work."Even when dealing with a trustworthy seller, vintage digital camera collecting is not for the faint of heart. If I'm interested in a camera, I make sure that the batteries are still made because some are no longer in production, says OKeefe. She warns that even if a used camera comes with its original batteries, those cells will most likely not hold a charge.When there are no new batteries to be had, Sofia Lee and her cohort have resuscitated vintage cameras using modern tech: "With our Kyoceras, one of the biggest issues is the batteries are no longer in production and they all die really quickly. What we ended up doing is using 5V DC cables that connect them to USB, then we shoot them tethered to a power bank. So if you see someone shooting with a Kyocera, they're almost always holding the power bank and a digicam in their other hand."And then there's the question of where to store all those JPEGs. "A lot of people don't think about memory card format, so that can get tricky," cautions Warner. Many vintage cameras use the CompactFlash format, and those are still widely supported. But just as many digicams use deprecated storage formats like Olympus's xD or Sony's MemoryStick. They don't make those cards anymore, Warner says. Some of them have adapters you can use but some [cameras] don't work with the adapters."Even if the batteries and memory cards get sorted out, Sofia Lee underscores that every piece of vintage equipment has an expiration date. "There is this looming threat, when it comes to digicamsthis is a finite resource." Like with any other vintage tech, over time, capacitors go bad, gears break, sensors corrode, and, in some circumstances, rubber grips devulcanize back into a sticky goo.Lees beloved Kyoceras are one such victim of the ravages of time. "I've had 15 copies pass through my hands. Around 11 of them were dead on arrival, and three died within a year. That means I have one left right now. It's basically a special occasions-only camera, because I just never know when it's going to die."These photographers have learned that it's sometimes better to move on from a potential ticking time bomb, especially if the device is still in demand. O'Keefe points to the Epson R-D1 as an example. This digital rangefinder from printer-maker Epson, with gauges on the top made by Epson's watchmaking arm Seiko, was originally sold as a Leica alternative, but now it fetches Leica-like premium prices. "I actually sold mine a year and a half ago, she says. I loved it, it was beautiful. But there's a point for me, where I can see that this thing is certainly going to die, probably in the next five years. So I did sell that one, but it is such an awesome experience to shoot. Cause what other digital camera has a lever that actually winds the shutter?"#NoBadCamerasFor a group of people with a recent influx of newbies, the digicam community seems to be adjusting well. Sofia Lee says the growing popularity of digicams is an opportunity to meet new collaborators in a field where it used to be hard to connect with like-minded folks. "I love that there are more people interested in this, because when I was first getting into it I was considered totally crazy," she says.Despite the definition of digicam morphing to include a wider array of cameras, Lee seems to be accepting of all comers. "I'm rather permissive in allowing people to explore what they consider is right," says Lee. While not every camera is "right" for every photographer, many of them agree on one thing: Resurrecting used equipment is a win for the planet, and a way to resist the constant upgrade churn of consumer technology."It's interesting to look at what is considered obsolete," Lee says. "From a carbon standpoint, the biggest footprint is at the moment of manufacture, which means that every piece of technology has this unfulfilled potential." O'Keefe agrees: "I love it from an environmental perspective. Do we really need to drive waste [by releasing] a new camera every few months?"For James Warner, part of the appeal is using lower-cost equipment that more people can afford. And with that lower cost of entry comes easier access to the larger creator community. With some clubs you're not invited if you don't have the nice stuff, he says. But they feel welcome and like they can participate in photography on a budget."OKeefe has even coined the hashtag #NoBadCameras. She believes all digicams have unique characteristics, and that if a curious photographer just takes the time to get to know the device, it can deliver good results. Don't be precious about it, she says. Just pick something up, shoot it, and have fun.This story originally appeared on wired.com.Brendan Nystedt, WIRED.com Wired.com is your essential daily guide to what's next, delivering the most original and complete take you'll find anywhere on innovation's impact on technology, science, business and culture. 137 Comments

A cockroach with an electronic backpack can be steered remotelyCourtesy of Hirotaka Sato, Nanyang Technological UniversityA robotic arm that can automatically turn cockroaches into controllable cyborgs could be used to create swarms of biological robots for search missions.Hirotaka Sato at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and his colleagues have previously shown that groups of up to 20 Madagascar hissing cockroaches (Gromphadorhina portentosa) equipped with electronic backpacks can be steered across desert-like terrain. However, to be used in a real-world search-and-rescue mission, the team calculates that hundreds or thousands of cyborg insects would be needed.Read more

The Acidalia Planitia, the darker region towards the top right of this image of Mars, may host bacteria deep beneath its rocky surfaceNASA/JPL/USGSA specific area on Mars has been identified as a potential location for current life with the organisms living far beneath the surface.Andrea Butturini at the University of Barcelona and his colleagues investigated possible locations on Mars that could host living organisms, focusing on areas that might have the right amounts of water, heat and energy necessary for life to exist.

If NASA establishes a permanent presence on the moon, its astronauts homes could be made of a new 3D-printable, waterless concrete. Someday, so might yours. By accelerating the curing process for more rapid construction, this sulfur-based compound could become just as applicable on our home terrain as it is on lunar soil. Artemis IIIset to launch no earlier than September 2026will not only mark humanitys return to the moon after more than 50 years, but also be the first mission to explore the lunar South Pole, the proposed site of NASAs base camp. Building a home base on the moon will demand a steep supply of moon-based infrastructure: launch pads, shelter, and radiation blockers. But shipping Earth-based concrete to the lunar surface bears a hefty price tag. Sending just 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of material to the moon costs roughly $1.2 million, says Ali Kazemian, a robotic construction researcher Traditional concrete requires large amounts of water, a commodity that will be in short supply on the moon and critically important for life support or scientific research, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. While prior NASA projects have tested compounds that could be used to make lunarcrete, theyre still working to craft the right waterless material. So LSU researchers are refining the formula, developing a new cement based on sulfur, which they heat until its molten to bind material without the need for water. In recent work, the team mixed their waterless cement with simulated lunar and Martian soil to create a 3D-printable concrete, which they used to assemble walls and beams. We need automated construction, and NASA thinks 3D printing is one of the few viable technologies for building lunar infrastructure, says Kazemian. A curved wall is 3D printed from waterless concrete.COURTESY OF ALI KAZEMIAN Beyond circumventing the need for water, the cement can handle wider temperature extremes and cures faster than traditional methods. The group used a pre-made powder for their experiments, but on the moon and Mars, astronauts might extract sulfur from surface soil. To test whether the concrete can stand up to the moons harsh environment, the team placed its structures in a vacuum chamber for weeks, analyzing the materials stability at different temperatures. Originally, researchers worried that cold conditions on the dark side of the moon might cause the compound to turn into a gas through a process called sublimation, like when dry ice skips its liquid phase and evaporates directly. Ultimately, they found that the concrete can handle the lunar South Poles frigid forecast without losing its form. Some conditions, like reduced gravity, could even work toward the concretes advantage. The experiment tested structures like walls and small circular towers, each made by stacking many layers of concrete. One of the main challenges in larger-scale 3D printing is a distortion of these thick, heavy layers, says Kazemian But when you have lower gravity, that can actually help keep the layers from deforming. Kazemian and his colleagues recently transferred the technology to NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, to implement their design on a larger-scale robotic system and test construction in larger vacuum chambers. If adopted, the concrete will most likely be used for taller lunar structures like habitats and radiation shields. Flatter designs, like a landing pad, will probably use laser-based technologies to melt down lunar soil into a ceramic structure. There may only be so much testing we can do on Earth, however. According to Philip Metzger, a planetary physicist at University of Central Florida who recently retired from NASAs Kennedy Space Center, the concretes efficacy may falter with the shift from simulant to real soil. There's chemistry in the samples of these planets that the simulants cannot perfectly replicate, he says. When we send missions to these planetary bodies to test the technology using the real soil, we may find that we need to further improve the technology to get it to work in that environment. But Metzger still sees the sulfur-based concrete as a vital foundation for the tall orders of upcoming planetary projects. Future missions to Mars could demand roads to drive back and forth from ice-mining sites and pavement around habitats to create dust-free work zones. This new concrete brings these distant goals a touch closer to reality. It could benefit construction on Earth, too. Kazemian sees the new material as a potential alternative for traditional concrete, especially in areas with water scarcity or a surplus of sulfur. Parts of the Middle East, for example, have abundant sulfur as a result of oil and gas production. The technology could become especially useful in disaster areas with broken supply chains, according to Metzger. It could also have military applications for rapid construction of structures like storage buildings. This is great for people out there working on another planet who don't have a lot of support, Metzger says. But there are already plenty of analogs to that here on Earth.

ChatGPT was first released two years ago.Since then, its user base has doubled to 200 million weekly users.Major companies, entrepreneurs, and users remain optimistic about its transformative power.It's been two years since OpenAI released its flagship chatbot, ChatGPT.And a lot has changed in the world since then.For one, ChatGPT has helped turbocharge global investment in generative AI. Funding in the space grew fivefold from 2022 to 2023 alone, according to CB Insights. The biggest beneficiaries of the generative AI boom have been the biggest companies. Tech companies on the S&P 500 have seen a 30% gain since January 2022, compared to only 15% for small-cap companies, Bloomberg reported.Similarly, consulting firms are expecting AI to make up an increasing portion of their revenue. Boston Consulting Group generates a fifth of its revenue from AI, and much of that work involves advising clients on generative AI, a spokesperson told Business Insider. Almost 40% of McKinsey's work now comes from AI, and a significant portion of that is moving to generative AI, Ben Ellencweig, a senior partner who leads alliances, acquisitions, and partnerships globally for McKinsey's AI arm, QuantumBlack, told BI.Smaller companies have been forced to rely on larger ones, either by building applications on existing large language models or waiting for their next major developer tool release.Still, young developers are optimistic that ChatGPT will level the playing field and believe it's only a matter of time before they catch up to bigger players. "You still have your Big Tech companies lying around, but they're much more vulnerable because the bleeding edge of AI has basically been democratized," Bryan Chiang, a recent Stanford graduate who built RizzGPT, told Business Insider.Then, of course, there is ChatGPT's impact on regular users.In August, it reached more than200 million weekly active users, double the number it had the previous fall. In October, it rolled out a newsearch featurethat provides "links to relevant web sources" when asked a question, introducing a serious threat to Google's dominance.In September, OpenAI previewed o1, a series of AI models that it says are "designed to spend more time thinking before they respond." ChatGPT Plus and Team users can access the models in ChatGPT. Users hope a full version will be released to the public in the coming year.Business Insider asked ChatGPT what age means to it."Age, to me, is an interesting concept it's a way of measuring the passage of time, but it doesn't define who someone is or what they're capable of," it responded.

Trump on Saturday floated "100% tariffs" on the BRICS group of emerging markets.Trump is pushing back on efforts to dethrone the US dollar as the primary global reserve currency.Trump's remarks come as the BRIC nations seek to flex their economic strength on the global stage.President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday lashed out at the BRICS group of emerging market countries, threatening to impose 100% tariffs if they try to "move away" from the US dollar.BRICS comprises nine countries Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates which are aiming to flex their economic power in a world where the US dollar continues to reign supreme as the leading global reserve currency.Amid Russia's push for BRIC nations to curb the international dominance of the US dollar, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to decry such a move."The idea that the BRICS Countries are trying to move away from the Dollar while we stand by and watch is OVER," he wrote. "We require a commitment from these Countries that they will neither create a new BRICS Currency, nor back any other Currency to replace the mighty U.S. Dollar or, they will face 100% Tariffs, and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful U.S. Economy."The president-elect continued: "They can go find another 'sucker!' There is no chance that the BRICS will replace the U.S. Dollar in International Trade, and any Country that tries should wave goodbye to America."During an October summit of the BRICS nations, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the United States of "weaponizing" the dollar."It's not us who refuse to use the dollar," he said at the time, according to The Associated Press. "But if they don't let us work, what can we do? We are forced to search for alternatives."Trump's latest remarks came just days after he threatened 25% tariffs on imports from Canada, China, and Mexico, the top three trading partners of the United States. Trump pressed the three countries on the flow of drugs and illegal migrants coming into the United States.Justin Trudeau, Canada's prime minister, spoke with Trump earlier this week following the president-elect's pledge to target his country and touted the long-standing relationship between the two countries. Trudeau later reiterated that tariffs would hurt both Canadian and American consumers.On Friday, the prime minister traveled to Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, where he said he had an "excellent conversation" with the president-elect.Trudeau's office said in a statement that the prime minister and Trump "shared a productive wide-ranging discussion.""As Canada's closest friend and ally, the United States is our key partner, and we are committed to working together in the interests of Canadians and Americans," the statement continued.Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, meanwhile, also spoke with Trump on Thursday, saying afterward that "there will not be a potential tariff war" between Mexico and the United States.

Everyone wants to hold space for Defying Gravity, the powerhouse anthem from Wicked, the Broadway musical-turned-movie blockbuster. But behind the in-your-face themes of female rivalry and friendship, unrequited love, and the unfortunate circumstance of being green, theres a deeper undercurrent: the alienation that comes when you stand behind what you believe in.The story a reimagining of L. Frank Baums 1900 The Wizard of Oz explains how the notorious Wicked Witch of the West came to be. Like the musical, the movie takes place in the Land of Oz and follows Elphaba Thropp (Cynthia Erivo), a kind but hardened young woman who has been ostracized her whole life for her green skin, as she enters Shiz University to cultivate her strong magical powers. Its here where she meets, rooms with, and eventually befriends Galinda Upland (Ariana Grande), an aspiring sorcerer whos been beloved and popular her whole life. But what seems to get ignored is the root of Elphabas supposed wickedness: her horror at the mistreatment of animals and her determination to free them. In the Land of Oz, animals are regular members of society, living and working alongside other Ozians until theyre silenced and forced out of the public eye.Yes, Wicked is a fantasy tale, but if one focuses just a bit longer on Elphabas origin story, its hard not to see the parallels between the movie and the real-world state of animal welfare. The reality of animal oppression is not only stranger than the fiction in Wicked, but unfortunately much more cruel. And those who seek to expose this abuse and create change are ridiculed, jailed, and, much like Elphaba, ostracized for their stance and deemed wicked.How the animal rights message in Wicked connects to real lifeFrom the very beginning of her life, the movie shows that Elphaba has felt a connection to animals, at least partially because of the prejudice shes faced in her own life. When Elphaba is born and its revealed she has green skin, her father rejects her. Shes raised mostly by Dulcibear, her nanny who happens to be a brown bear and who empathizes with Elphaba and sees the good in her, while her father berates and chastises her for being different.Years later, when Elphaba enrolls at Shiz University after showing her magical powers, shes ostracized by much of the student population for her skin. She finds solace in her studies, particularly her class with Doctor Dillamond, a goat who teaches history. Its in his class where the disenfranchisement of animals becomes clear to Elphaba: Dillamond tells the students he is one of the few animal professors left, after animals were blamed for a widespread drought in Oz years before. Later in the class, Dillamond finds that someone has written Animals should be seen and not heard on the other side of his chalkboard. Someone has written on Doctor Dillamonds chalkboard, Animals should be seen and not heard. Universal Pictures International/Wicked trailerElphaba learns more about the oppression of animals after eavesdropping on a conversation with Dillamond and other fellow creatures about stories of animals losing the ability to speak, being forced out from their jobs, and leaving Oz entirely. This becomes Dillamonds own fate, when hes violently removed from his classroom and replaced by a new human instructor who shows his latest invention to keep animals from learning how to speak: a cage, with a scared lion cub inside. Can you imagine a world where animals are kept in cages and they never learn to speak? Elphaba asks.In the real world, animals dont speak (at least, not in languages we can understand). But caging animals? Thats a reality that most of the world widely accepts in exchange for food and entertainment though few understand what it really looks like.Humans raise about 75 billion animals for food annually, and while caging animals is not a new practice, modern factory farming has taken the confinement and exploitation of animals to new extremes. For example, female breeding pigs are held in gestation crates, small cages barely bigger than their own bodies where theyre essentially immobilized, forcefully and artificially inseminated, and made to go through repeated cycles of pregnancy and birth. Chickens, whose eggs are often sold with misleading claims like humanely raised, are also stuffed in cages so small they cant fully spread their wings (and even cage-free eggs could mean that thousands of chickens are all together in a space too small for them all, effectively living on top of each other.)And when disaster strikes, these trapped animals have nowhere to go. A fire at a pig farm in August left more than 1,000 pigs to die in flames (a routine occurrence on factory farms), after the pork industry lobbied against fire code updates that would require them to install sprinklers in barns. When Hurricane Helene hit Georgia, the countrys top chicken-producing state, its likely that millions of chickens were killed.Inhumane confinement is the tip of the iceberg. Multiple investigations have exposed the stomach-churning reality of factory farms. On one pig farm, an undercover investigation showed piglets gasping for air after being poisoned with carbon monoxide, while others were fed a mixture of pig parts and feces. One years-long investigation at livestock auctions across multiple states showed animals like cows and goats violently abused by being kicked, dragged, and thrown. While these particular findings are just snapshots, these forms of cruelty are ubiquitous, consistently reflected in investigations into the meat industry.Though farmed animals may face the worst and largest-scale abuse, they are not the only animals to be confined. Zoos, where animals are whisked away from their natural habitat and forced to live in much smaller spaces, are largely forms of entertainment for the public. While zoos do contribute to conservation work, they also come at a cost for the very beings withheld in these facilities, like zoochosis. Animals confined in zoos have been recorded engaging in repetitive behaviors like pacing around and self-harming.Elphaba, the animal rights activistAt the end of the movie, Elphaba meets the Wizard of Oz and is given the chance to work under him. While there, she tells the Wizard that her hearts desire is to help the animals, which the Wizard seemingly agrees to. But after tricking her into casting a spell that painfully sprouted wings on the Wizards monkey servants backs (the origin story of the famous flying monkeys), the Wizard reveals he can now use them to spy on other animals. Realizing its the Wizard behind the subjugation and villainization of animals in order to hold onto power, Elphaba refuses to use her magic to help him any further and flees but not before being labeled a wicked witch and a threat to all of Oz by Madame Morrible, her sorcery instructor.Vegetarians, vegans, and animal rights activists can probably relate especially the ones who put their freedom on the line. In recent years, a string of activists have been criminally prosecuted for rescuing sick and injured animals from factory farms. In November 2023, the lawyer and animal rights activist Wayne Hsiung was convicted for his role in helping Direct Action Everywhere members remove 70 chickens and ducks from two factory farms in Sonoma County, California. He faced up to 3 1/2 years in prison, but was released after 38 days in jail, much of it spent in conditions that experts have said are tantamount to solitary confinement. And even non-activists who simply point out the climate, public health, and moral ills of factory farming and animal abuse are accused of being radical, or wanting to take peoples burgers away. Just as Elphaba is made fun of after she stands up for Doctor Dillamond when he mispronounces Galindas name, those who question the cruelty of animals and its consequences are often ridiculed and socially alienated for speaking out against the status quo. Related:Vegans are radical. Thats why we need them.Like Doctor Dillamond, Dulcibear, and the flying monkeys in Wicked, animals in real life are sentient beings, according to a growing body of research. Like humans, studies show that animals feel pain and they experience joy. And in Wicked, most of Elphabas classmates seem to ignore the treatment of animals in Ozian society, even Galinda who (often superficially) seeks to do good. Its not too different from how our real world interacts with animal welfare largely, our society accepts the subjugation of animals, even if it involves large-scale cruelty. Perhaps this helps explain part of why the animal rights activism portions of the film so often get left out of the conversation: Animals being confined and stripped of autonomy is considered normal in our reality.The second installment of Wicked is scheduled to hit theaters in 2025. While the first part gave more attention to Elphabas radicalization through animal rights than did the Broadway musical, it still treats it with a lighter touch than did Maguires Wicked novel, allowing all the (very) catchy songs and sweet depictions of unexpected friendship to hit viewers harder than the animal rights message. How much of Wicked: Part Two will focus on animal rights is not entirely clear but it certainly would be much more interesting to see the movie attempt to better grapple with animal rights than its predecessor.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

In 2022, surgeons transplanted the first genetically engineered pig heart into a human. Fifty-seven-year-old David Bennett, a patient with heart failure, survived almost two months with a pig heart beating in his chest, one of five people who have received pig organs as a part of an experimental procedure called xenotransplantation the transplanting of living cells, tissues, or organs from one species to another.Some scientists view these pig organs transplants as potentially lifesaving for many like Bennett.In the US alone, more than 100,000 people are waiting for an organ transplant, and almost 20 people die every day because they cant get one in time. But a major challenge remains in making xenotransplantation work: scientists havent figured out how to get a human body to accept a pig organ for very long. None of the five patients who received these pig organs have survived beyond two months, though researchers believe theyre making progress toward overcoming rejection and eventually moving to clinical trials.This push to make pig organs viable for humans also comes with enormous ethical implications from concerns surrounding the use of humans in an experimental procedure that theyre highly unlikely to survive, to the impacts on animals who are supplying the organs themselves. At first glance, the pursuit can feel like hubris. I wanted to better understand these questions, so I spoke with bioethicist L. Syd Johnson, author of a 2022 paper on the ethics of xenotransplantation, for Unexplainable, a Vox podcast that explores unanswered scientific questions. A portion of our conversation, edited for clarity, is included below. Mandy Nguyen: Before you started doing this research, what were your general impressions of xenotransplantation?L. Syd Johnson: My initial impressions of it were, Boy, this doesnt really sound like something thats going to work. Its something that in theory might be possible, but there have actually been experiments in xenotransplantation going back to the 1960s, and some of the first experiments involved hearts from chimpanzees.One of the reasons why doctors were looking to get organs from other animals was because there wasnt a supply of [human] organs at the time. Transplantation was sort of just starting out and they were just starting to have success with figuring out how to do it, but there was no legal mechanism at that time to obtain organs from humans who had died. So they were looking at animals, which they could kill and take their organs. I think the first time I ever heard of xenotransplantation involved a case in the 1980s, which was a pretty famous case involving an infant named Baby Fae, who received a baboon heart. She was born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, which is a fatal condition, and then, as now, it was very difficult to obtain organs that were the right size for an infant. That was a really famous case where the doctor involved was actually sort of notorious and was criticized for what he had done. And of course, baby Fae also died.From those initial experiments that failed, how did we suddenly get to this being done in living people today? What was that jump?The leap was that we have this relatively new genetic editing technology, CRISPR Cas9, and it has enabled scientists and investigators to perform lots of gene edits on an animal.Several decades ago, the US Public Health Service essentially told investigators that it was too dangerous to try to transplant organs from monkeys, baboons, chimpanzees [into humans], because they were so similar to humans and had a lot of viruses that could be transmitted to a human patient through an organ. That took organs from non-human primates off the table. The effort to use pigs comes about because of the ability to genetically modify those pigs. We are not nearly as closely related to pigs as we are to the nonhuman primates, so the development of CRISPR, the ability to do lots of gene edits on an animal, is what has led to the current optimism on the part of scientists about the possibility that xenotransplantation using organs from pigs might be able to work.Right. And now to temper that optimism what do you see are the biggest ethical concerns or potential harms when it comes to the people who get the transplant?The biggest concern is that we havent figured out how to make this work. Its very possible that xenotransplantation will never work, that no animals organs could be made to support life in a human being, that the risk of xeno-zoonotic transmission of viruses from pigs to humans is still a live possibility. That for me is a major concern. Were in the middle of a zoonotic pandemic right now, the Covid pandemic. We are still dealing with another zoonotic pandemic in AIDS, which is a worldwide problem. There is a concern that putting an organ from an animal that has a virus into a human, and that human is immunosuppressed [as organ transplant recipients are], will result in the mutation of a virus that might plausibly be transmitted to other humans, and who knows what the results of that could be.Right. So in my mind, there are two big buckets of potential harm to people. One is the infectious disease aspect, and one is the danger to the patients themselves and the ethics around informed consent. Id love to hear a little bit more about that. What are the concerns there?The living patients that they have attempted these organ transplants in have been individuals who are quite sick, who are in organ failure, and who are not able to get an organ from a human. So those are all patients who have few good options. Some of them are facing almost certain death if they dont get a transplant of some kind. So the worry is that we are making these patients an offer they just cant refuse because their alternative is that they are going to die.You have to be concerned about whether or not theyre truly providing voluntary informed consent under those circumstances, whether they really understand the risks of xenotransplantation which so far has never worked and has never actually saved a human life in all the decades of experimentation and whether or not those patients understand the difference between being part of an experiment and receiving therapeutic treatment. This is something called the therapeutic misconception, where patients believe that being part of an experiment, that experiment is actually intended to benefit them. And we cant say that at this point about xenotransplants.But unfortunately, the patients who have agreed to these transplants have all said in media interviews that it was their last chance at survival, that they really had to do this because they had no other options. And that suggests that they did truly believe that these transplants would save their lives, and that is, unfortunately, a misconception. And unfortunately, all of these patients so far have died.Ive spoken to scientists and ethicists who are working with scientists to try to make sure informed consent is really tight and transparent. Do you think thats a possible solution?Is it possible to get informed consent from someone whos put in this position?Of course its possible, and someone might go into this thinking, well, its never worked before and its really a long shot and Its probably not going to work for me, but a one in a million chance is better than a zero in a million chance, so Im going to take it. We can provide patients with all of the information that they need in order to make an informed choice.Theres been lots of research showing that despite our best efforts, lots of people who are enrolled in clinical trials or enrolled in experimental therapies do still misunderstand what might happen and that the purpose of the experiment is not to benefit them, but to benefit others, to, to acquire more scientific knowledge that will be a benefit to patients in the future.But I think people are complex and they can understand both of those things at the same time, and still have this hope that this might work for them. Youve done a lot here on animal research and the use of animals as models for humans. How are you thinking about xenotransplantation here?So two things. One is, there are questions about whats happening to the pigs, and the welfare of these pigs. And the other is that we are actually still doing research transplanting monkeys with these pig organs. So far the longest that monkeys have been kept alive with a pig organ is two years. Theres not a lot of information about what happened to that monkey, what that monkey had to undergo in order to get it to survive for that long. Any time were talking about experimenting on animals, there are welfare concerns about what happens to those animals and how were using them. But theres also the fact that having a monkey living in a laboratory in a cage where we can do just about anything we want to that monkey is very different from the circumstances in which human patients exist.A human patient doesnt want to spend the rest of their life in a hospital bed. They want to be able to go home and, and go on with their lives. So were not replicating the conditions of a human life or a human existence in a laboratory animal. So I have concerns that what were doing with those monkeys actually isnt really telling us anything very useful about whether or not this will work in humans and whether it will provide the kinds of benefits that were hoping it would provide to humans.So one question is whether what we are doing with other animals is telling us anything useful about long-term survival for humans with pig organs. For the pigs themselves, there are a few concerns here. One is what the effects of the genetic modifications are on those pigs, on their health, on their survival, and on their wellbeing. Of course, those pigs are not actually created to survive. We are creating them to produce organs so that they can be killed and those organs can be used in humans. With gene editing, were trying to sand off the edges of pig organs to force it to fit into a human and to work in a human. So what are we doing to the pigs under those circumstances? What are the conditions under which they are bred or cloned and raised? Much of it requires them to stay in unnatural environments in isolation, with multiple invasive medical procedures and tests, and thats before theyre killed for their organs. These are animals who would not exist at all, except for our human intervention. And I think were treating them just for the purpose of taking them apart to provide spare parts for humans. They dont see the sky. Theyre not going to touch grass. And we are attempting to undo 80 million years of evolutionary divergence in this way that involves the radical exploitation of an animal that weve created and built for a purpose. I think we really do need to reflect on what were doing there and on the harms that were causing to living, conscious, intelligent creatures, in part so that a handful of biotech companies can profit from their existence.I was recently reading how GalSafe pigs, a kind of pig being used for xenotransplantation research, were recently FDA-approved for both consumption and therapeutic uses. I think theres something really strange about the idea that someone could get a pig heart from this pig and also be eating the same pig. Its very bizarre.That does raise some weird issues. That I am now part pig, I have this heart that I got from a pig and it saved my life, so that I could go eat parts of that pigs relatives.Say we get into a future where xenotransplantation works, it becomes common. Is there a concern that were just replicating some of the environmental harm of, say, factory farming?This would absolutely be factory farming. These would be animals grown and bred and raised in a facility. And you presumably have a fairly resource-intensive facility, even perhaps beyond what we see currently with pig farms. These are pigs that are being grown and created and controlled by these private biotech companies with this hope that we might actually have on-demand organs for everyone who needs one at some point in the future. But we are talking about expanding the footprint of factory farming expanding the use of resources to grow these animals. And we would be talking about growing perhaps millions of these animals rather than however many we are currently growing.It has been really interesting to learn how much funding is coming from these biotech companies into all this research. Are there any other concerns around that that you have?This is sort of what biotech companies do. They spend a lot of money and invest it in products that are speculative, that may or may not work, that may or may not improve human life for people in general. And part of my concern is that they are currently in control of what is being done experimentally.They create the pigs, they create the organs, and they are paying investigators at academic research hospitals to do these experiments on their patients. You cant just find patients on the street you have to access them through doctors who have patients who are in dire straits and who dont have good options So what we have now is this kind of private enterprise with lots of hype around it, but not enough attention, I think, to the profit motive behind this and how much that is driving research in xenotransplantation.Do you think were moving too fast here? What needs to be done to be able to get to a point when it feels safe to do clinical trials? Or do you think thats not really possible?I think were not close to that yet. But I also think its important for us to think about what else we might be doing as an alternative to xenotransplantation. In some sense, xenotransplantation seems like the least likely technology to be used out of the gate as the solution to this problem. We have other options that people are also working on, things like being able to grow a human organ from the cells of the actual recipient, which would be an organ that is made from that persons own cells where they wouldnt face problems of rejection. There is potential for therapeutics that would actually help address organ failure so that the patient doesnt get to the point where they need an organ transplant. There are opportunity costs in terms of the time and the effort and the resources that are being put into xenotransplantation, which, if it doesnt work, is a lot of money and a lot of time and effort down the drain. There are other possibilities that we could be pouring more resources into that dont require us to overcome 80 million years of evolutionary divergence between humans and pigs. A really important option, one of the least glamorous ones, is what else could we be doing to prevent organ failure in the first place because an organ transplant, whether that organ comes from an animal or comes from another human, is not a quick, easy fix. Youre looking at a patient who has a lifetime of immunosuppressive therapy ahead of them. Theres always going to be the potential for the rejection or the failure of that transplant for that individual where they may need another transplant somewhere down the line.One of the major causes of kidney failure is diabetes, and another one is hypertension. And those are both illnesses that we have treatments for if we provided them to the people who actually need them. And so instead of pouring however many billions of dollars are being poured into xenotransplantation research, what if we put that money somewhere else where we might actually be able to prevent organ failure in the first place? That would truly benefit lots and lots of patients.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

TechThis Argos offer is the best Nintendo Switch Black Friday deal of the dayLooking to pick up a Nintendo Switch this Black Friday? Argos has just the deal for you, with a significant discount on a bundle including Super Mario Bros. Wonder.dailystarBookmarkShareTechByLloyd CoombesGames Writer12:13, 29 NOV 2024BookmarkThe Nintendo Switch is one of the most popular consoles in history (Image: Future via Getty Images)Black Friday is here, and if you've been holding out to pick up a Nintendo Switch we've got just the bundle for you. Argos is offering our favourite deal on the hybrid console, which can operate as a handheld or home console, saving you plenty of cash. The retailer is offering the Switch's latest OLED model, with a bigger, brighter display, for just 289.99 with Super Mario Bros. Wonder and an additional 12 month subscription to Nintendo's Online service. Here's why that's an astonishingly good deal. READ MORE: Elon Musk branded 'right-wing Karen' over pronouns spat with Xbox developer READ MORE: Diablo 4 2.1 PTR Patch Notes including Witch powers, new gear and more This is the best Black Friday Nintendo Switch deal we've found The console comes with the hit Super Mario Bros. Wonder The Nintendo Switch, as mentioned above, is two consoles in one. You can take it on the go, which is much more enjoyable with the OLED version's larger display, or you can dock it to connect it to your TV. The Switch OLED in this bundle includes the console, two nifty Joy-Con controllers, a grip to attach them to, and the dock. That makes it an ideal pickup for anyone expecting to travel over the Holiday season but who wants to take their games with them. Buy it now for 289.99 Speaking of games, this bundle includes Super Mario Bros. Wonder, a fantastic 2D platformer with a whopping 92 score out of 100 on Metacritic. Wonder takes the Super Mario Bros. formula and mixes it up with the new Wonder Flower, which can cause the world to shift, pipes to turn into worms, and even Mario to turn into an elephant. The Daily Star joins Bluesky as we Make Social Media Fun Again Come and join The Daily Star on Bluesky, the social media site set up by ex-Twitter boss Jack Dorsey. It's now the new go-to place for content after a mass exodus of the Elon Musk-owned Twitter/X. Fear not, we're not leaving Twitter/X, but we are jumping on the bandwagon. So come find our new account on https://bsky.app/profile/dailystar.co.uk, and see us social better than the rest. You can also learn more about The Daily Star team in what Bluesky calls a Starter Pack. So what are you waiting for?! Let's M.S.M.F.A (Make Social Media Fun Again) Finally, the 17.99 annual Switch Online membership will let you play games online, but even if you're less interested in that, it includes cloud saves, additional eShop deals, and the option to add the Expansion Pack at a later date - adding Game Boy and Nintendo 64 game emulation. Considering the OLED console alone is around 280, you're essentially getting a 50 game and the Switch Online membership for the combined price of a tenner. Other retailers are also offering great deals on the Switch with Very offering the regular model of the console with Switch Sports and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe for 269. While game is offering the OLED version with Super Mario Wonder for 309.99, but it goes down to 299.99 with Fraser Plus. For the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters. Story SavedYou can find this story in My Bookmarks.Or by navigating to the user icon in the top right.More On