The internet loves a good neologism, especially if it can capture a purported vibe shift or explain a new trend. In 2013, the columnist Adrian Wooldridge coined a word that eventually did both. Writing for the Economist, he warned of the coming techlash, a revolt against Silicon Valleys rich and powerful fueled by the publics growing realization that these sovereigns of cyberspace werent the benevolent bright-future bringers they claimed to be.While Wooldridge didnt say precisely when this techlash would arrive, its clear today that a dramatic shift in public opinion toward Big Tech and its leaders did in fact happenand is arguably still happening. Say what you will about the legions of Elon Musk acolytes on X, but if an industry and its executives can bring together the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham in shared condemnation, its definitely not winning many popularity contests. To be clear, there have always been critics of Silicon Valleys very real excesses and abuses. But for the better part of the last two decades, many of those voices of dissent were either written off as hopeless Luddites and haters of progress or drowned out by a louder and far more numerous group of techno-optimists. Today, those same critics (along with many new ones) have entered the fray once more, rearmed with popular Substacks, media columns, andincreasinglybook deals.Two of the more recent additions to the flourishing techlash genreRob Lalkas The Venture Alchemists: How Big Tech Turned Profits into Power and Marietje Schaakes The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valleyserve as excellent reminders of why it started in the first place. Together, the books chronicle the rise of an industry that is increasingly using its unprecedented wealth and power to undermine democracy, and they outline what we can do to start taking some of that power back.Lalka is a business professor at Tulane University, and The Venture Alchemists focuses on how a small group of entrepreneurs managed to transmute a handful of novel ideas and big bets into unprecedented wealth and influence. While the names of these demigods of disruption will likely be familiar to anyone with an internet connection and a passing interest in Silicon Valley, Lalka also begins his book with a page featuring their nine (mostly) young, (mostly) smiling faces.There are photos of the famous founders Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin; the VC funders Keith Rabois, Peter Thiel, and David Sacks; and a more motley trio made up of the disgraced former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, the ardent eugenicist and reputed father of Silicon Valley Bill Shockley (who, it should be noted, died in 1989), and a former VC and the future vice president of the United States, JD Vance.To his credit, Lalka takes this medley of tech titans and uses their origin stories and interrelationships to explain how the so-called Silicon Valley mindset (mind virus?) became not just a fixture in Californias Santa Clara County but also the preeminent way of thinking about success and innovation across America.This approach to doing business, usually cloaked in a barrage of cringey innovation-speakdisrupt or be disrupted, move fast and break things, better to ask for forgiveness than permissioncan often mask a darker, more authoritarian ethos, according to Lalka.One of the nine entrepreneurs in the book, Peter Thiel, has written that I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible and that competition [in business] is for losers. Many of the others think that all technological progress is inherently good and should be pursued at any cost and for its own sake. A few also believe that privacy is an antiquated concepteven an illusionand that their companies should be free to hoard and profit off our personal data. Most of all, though, Lalka argues, these men believe that their newfound power should be unconstrained by governments, regulators, or anyone else who might have the gall to impose some limitations.Where exactly did these beliefs come from? Lalka points to people like the late free-market economist Milton Friedman, who famously asserted that a companys only social responsibility is to increase profits, as well as to Ayn Rand, the author, philosopher, and hero to misunderstood teenage boys everywhere who tried to turn selfishness into a virtue.The Venture Alchemists: How Big Tech Turned Profits into PowerRob LalkaCOLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING, 2024Its a somewhat reductive and not altogether original explanation of Silicon Valleys libertarian inclinations. What ultimately matters, though, is that many of these values were subsequently encoded into the DNA of the companies these men founded and fundedcompanies that today shape how we communicate with one another, how we share and consume news, and even how we think about our place in the world.The Venture Alchemists is strongest when its describing the early-stage antics and on-campus controversies that shaped these young entrepreneurs or, in many cases, simply reveal who theyve always been. Lalka is a thorough and tenacious researcher, as the books 135 pages of endnotes suggest. And while nearly all these stories have been told before in other books and articles, he still manages to provide new perspectives and insights from sources like college newspapers and leaked documents.One thing the book is particularly effective at is deflating the myth that these entrepreneurs were somehow gifted seers of (and investors in) a future the rest of us simply couldnt comprehend or predict.Sure, someone like Thiel made what turned out to be a savvy investment in Facebook early on, but he also made some very costly mistakes with that stake. As Lalka points out, Thiels Founders Fund dumped tens of millions of shares shortly after Facebook went public, and Thiel himself went from owning 2.5% of the company in 2012 to 0.000004% less than a decade later (around the same time Facebook hit its trillion-dollar valuation). Throw in his objectively terrible wagers in 2008, 2009, and beyond, when he effectively shorted what turned out to be one of the longest bull markets in world history, and you get the impression hes less oracle and more ideologue who happened to take some big risks that paid off.One of Lalkas favorite mantras throughout The Venture Alchemists is that words matter. Indeed, he uses a lot of these entrepreneurs own words to expose their hypocrisy, bullying, juvenile contrarianism, casual racism, andyesoutright greed and self-interest. It is not a flattering picture, to say the least.Unfortunately, instead of simply letting those words and deeds speak for themselves, Lalka often feels the need to interject with his own, frequently enjoining readers against finger-pointing or judging these men too harshly even after hes chronicled their many transgressions. Whether this is done to try to convey some sense of objectivity or simply to remind readers that these entrepreneurs are complex and complicated men making difficult decisions, it doesnt work. At all.For one thing, Lalka clearly has his own strong opinions about the behavior of these entrepreneursopinions he doesnt try to disguise. At one point in the book he suggests that Kalanicks alpha-male, dominance-at-any-cost approach to running Uber is almost, but not quite like rape, which is maybe not the comparison youd make if you wanted to seem like an arbiter of impartiality. And if he truly wants readers to come to a different conclusion about these men, he certainly doesnt provide many reasons for doing so. Simply telling us to judge less, and discern more seems worse than a cop-out. It comes across as almost, but not quite like victim-blamingas if were somehow just as culpable as they are for using their platforms and buying into their self-mythologizing.In many ways, Silicon Valley has become the antithesis of what its early pioneers set out to be.Marietje SchaakeEqually frustrating is the crescendo of empty platitudes that ends the book. The technologies of the future must be pursued thoughtfully, ethically, and cautiously, Lalka says after spending 313 pages showing readers how these entrepreneurs have willfully ignored all three adverbs. What theyve built instead are massive wealth-creation machines that divide, distract, and spy on us. Maybe its just me, but that kind of behavior seems ripe not only for judgment, but also for action.So what exactly do you do with a group of men seemingly incapable of serious self-reflectionmen who believe unequivocally in their own greatness and who are comfortable making decisions on behalf of hundreds of millions of people who did not elect them, and who do not necessarily share their values?You regulate them, of course. Or at least you regulate the companies they run and fund. In Marietje Schaakes The Tech Coup, readers are presented with a road map for how such regulation might take shape, along with an eye-opening account of just how much power has already been ceded to these corporations over the past 20 years.There are companies like NSO Group, whose powerful Pegasus spyware tool has been sold to autocrats, who have in turn used it to crack down on dissent and monitor their critics. Billionaires are now effectively making national security decisions on behalf of the United States and using their social media companies to push right-wing agitprop and conspiracy theories, as Musk does with his Starlink satellites and X. Ride-sharing companies use their own apps as propaganda tools and funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into ballot initiatives to undo laws they dont like. The list goes on and on. According to Schaake, this outsize and largely unaccountable power is changing the fundamental ways that democracy works in the United States.In many ways, Silicon Valley has become the antithesis of what its early pioneers set out to be: from dismissing government to literally taking on equivalent functions; from lauding freedom of speech to becoming curators and speech regulators; and from criticizing government overreach and abuse to accelerating it through spyware tools and opaque algorithms, she writes.Schaake, whos a former member of the European Parliament and the current international policy director at Stanford Universitys Cyber Policy Center, is in many ways the perfect chronicler of Big Techs power grab. Beyond her clear expertise in the realms of governance and technology, shes also Dutch, which makes her immune to the distinctly American disease that seems to equate extreme wealth, and the power that comes with it, with virtue and intelligence.This resistance to the various reality-distortion fields emanating from Silicon Valley plays a pivotal role in her ability to see through the many justifications and self-serving solutions that come from tech leaders themselves. Schaake understands, for instance, that when someone like OpenAIs Sam Altman gets in front of Congress and begs for AI regulation, what hes really doing is asking Congress to create a kind of regulatory moat between his company and any other startups that might threaten it, not acting out of some genuine desire for accountability or governmental guardrails.The Tech Coup:How to Save Democracyfrom Silicon ValleyMarietje SchaakePRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2024Like Shoshana Zuboff, the author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Schaake believes that the digital should live within democracys housethat is, technologies should be developed within the framework of democracy, not the other way around. To accomplish this realignment, she offers a range of solutions, from banning what she sees as clearly antidemocratic technologies (like face-recognition software and other spyware tools) to creating independent teams of expert advisors to members of Congress (who are often clearly out of their depth when attempting to understand technologies and business models).Predictably, all this renewed interest in regulation has inspired its own backlash in recent yearsa kind of tech revanchism, to borrow a phrase from the journalist James Hennessy. In addition to familiar attacks, such as trying to paint supporters of the techlash as somehow being antitechnology (theyre not), companies are also spending massive amounts of money to bolster their lobbying efforts.Some venture capitalists, like LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, who made big donations to the Kamala Harris presidential campaign, wanted to evict Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan, claiming that regulation is killing innovation (it isnt) and removing the incentives to start a company (its not). And then of course theres Musk, who now seems to be in a league of his own when it comes to how much influence he may exert over Donald Trump and the government that his companies have valuable contracts with.What all these claims of victimization and subsequent efforts to buy their way out of regulatory oversight miss is that theres actually a vast and fertile middle ground between simple techno-optimism and techno-skepticism. As the New Yorker contributor Cal Newport and others have noted, its entirely possible to support innovations that can significantly improve our lives without accepting that every popular invention is good or inevitable.Regulating Big Tech will be a crucial part of leveling the playing field and ensuring that the basic duties of a democracy can be fulfilled. But as both Lalka and Schaake suggest, another battle may prove even more difficult and contentious. This one involves undoing the flawed logic and cynical, self-serving philosophies that have led us to the point where we are now.What if we admitted that constant bacchanals of disruption are in fact not all that good for our planet or our brains? What if, instead of creative destruction, we started fetishizing stability, and in lieu of putting dents in the universe, we refocused our efforts on fixing whats already broken? What ifand hear me outwe admitted that technology might not be the solution to every problem we face as a society, and that while innovation and technological change can undoubtedly yield societal benefits, they dont have to be the only measures of economic success and quality of life?When ideas like these start to sound less like radical concepts and more like common sense, well know the techlash has finally achieved something truly revolutionary.Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California.

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Reviews weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.Ive thought more about gallium and germanium over the last week than I ever have before (and probably more than anyone ever should).As you may already know, China banned the export of those materials to the US last week and placed restrictions on others. The move is just the latest drama in escalating trade tensions between the two countries.While the new export bans could have significant economic consequences, this might be only the beginning. China is a powerhouse, and not just in those niche materialsits also a juggernaut in clean energy, and particularly in battery supply chains. So what comes next could have significant consequences for EVs and climate action more broadly.A super-quick catch-up on the news here: The Biden administration recently restricted exports of chips and other technology that could help China develop advanced semiconductors. Also, president-elect Donald Trump has floated all sorts of tariffs on Chinese goods.Apparently in response to some or all of this, China banned the export of gallium, germanium, antimony, and superhard materials used in manufacturing, and said it may further restrict graphite sales. The materials are all used for both military and civilian technologies, and significantly, gallium and germanium are used in semiconductors.Its a ramp-up from last July, when China placed restrictions on gallium and germanium exports after enduring years of restrictions by the US and its Western allies on cutting-edge technology. (For more on the details of Chinas most recent move, including potential economic impacts, check out the full coverage from my colleague James Temple.)What struck me about this news is that this could be only the beginning, because China is central to many of the supply chains snaking around the globe.This is no accidenttake gallium as an example. The metal is a by-product of aluminum production from bauxite ore. China, as the worlds largest aluminum producer, certainly has a leg up to be a major player in the niche material. But other countries could produce gallium, and Im sure more will. China has a head start because it invested in gallium separation and refining technologies.A similar situation exists in the battery world. China is a dominant player all over the supply chain for lithium-ion batteriesnot because it happens to have the right metals on its shores (it doesnt), but because its invested in extraction and processing technologies.Take lithium, a crucial component in those batteries. China has around 8% of the worlds lithium reserves but processes about 58% percent of the worlds lithium supply. The situation is similar for other key battery metals. Nickel thats mined in Indonesia goes to China for processing, and the same goes for cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo.Over the past two decades, China has thrown money, resources, and policy behind electric vehicles. Now China leads the world in EV registrations, many of the largest EV makers are Chinese companies, and the country is home to a huge chunk of the supply chain for the vehicles and their batteries.As the world begins a shift toward technologies like EVs, its becoming clear just how dominant Chinas position is in many of the materials crucial to building that tech.Lithium prices have dropped by 80% over the past year, and while part of the reason is a slowdown in EV demand, another part is that China is oversupplying lithium, according to US officials. By flooding the market and causing prices to drop, China could make it tougher for other lithium processors to justify sticking around in the business.The new graphite controls from China could wind up affecting battery markets, too. Graphite is crucial for lithium-ion batteries, which use the material in their anodes. Its still not clear whether the new bans will affect battery materials or just higher-purity material thats used in military applications, according to reporting from Carbon Brief.To this point, China hasnt specifically banned exports of key battery materials, and its not clear exactly how far the country would go. Global trade politics are delicate and complicated, and any move that China makes in battery supply chains could wind up coming back to hurt the countrys economy.But we could be entering into a new era of material politics. Further restrictions on graphite, or moves that affect lithium, nickel, or copper, could have major ripple effects around the world for climate technology, because batteries are key not only for electric vehicles, but increasingly for our power grids.While its clear that tensions are escalating, its still unclear whats going to happen next. The vibes, at best, are uncertain, and this sort of uncertainty is exactly why so many folks in technology are so focused on how to diversify global supply chains. Otherwise, we may find out just how tangled those supply chains really are, and what happens when you yank on threads that run through the center of them.Now read the rest of The SparkRelated readingCheck out James Temples breakdown of what Chinas ban on some rare minerals could mean for the US.Last July, China placed restrictions on some of these materialsread this story from Zeyi Yang, who explains what the moves and future ones might mean for semiconductor technology.As technology shifts, so too do the materials we need to build it. The result: a never-ending effort to build out mining, processing, and recycling infrastructure, as I covered in a feature story earlier this year.STEPHANIE ARNETT/MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW | GETTY, ENVATOAnother thingEach year we release a list of 10 Breakthrough Technologies, and its nearly time for the 2025 edition. But before we announce the picks, here are a few things that didnt make the cut.A couple of interesting ones on the cutting-room floor here, including eVTOLs, electric aircraft that can take off and land like helicopters. For more on why the runway is looking pretty long for electric planes (especially ones with funky ways to move through the skies), check out this story from last year.Keeping up with climateDenmark received no bids in its latest offshore wind auction. Its a disappointing result for the birthplace of offshore wind power. (Reuters)Surging methane emissions could be the sign of a concerning shift for the climate. A feedback loop of emissions from the Arctic and a slowdown in how the powerful greenhouse gas breaks down could spell trouble. (Inside Climate News)Battery prices are dropping faster than expected. Costs for lithium-ion packs just saw their steepest drop since 2017. (Electrek)This fusion startup is rethinking how to configure its reactors by floating powerful magnets in the middle of the chamber. This sounds even more like science fiction than most other approaches to fusion. (IEEE Spectrum)The US plans to put monarch butterflies on a list of threatened species. Temperature shifts brought on by climate change could wreak havoc with the insects migration. (Associated Press)Sources close to Elon Musk say hes undergone quite a shift on climate change, morphing from environmental crusader to critic of dire climate predictions. (Washington Post)Google has a $20 billion plan to build data centers and clean power together. Bring your own power is an interesting idea, but not a tested prospect just yet. (Canary Media)The Franklin Fire in Los Angeles County sparked Monday evening and quickly grew into a major blaze. At the heart of the fires rapid spread: dry weather and Santa Ana winds. (Scientific American)Places in the US that are most at risk for climate disasters are also most at risk for insurance hikes. Check out these great data visualizations on insurance and climate change. (The Guardian)

If you are in the EU and were thinking of buying an iPhone SE or iPhone 14 from Apple, you might want to hurry.The iPhone SE, and remaining iPhone 14 models, may be discontinued soon.A new rumor suggests that Apple may discontinue selling the current iPhone SE and iPhone 14 models it still offers by the end of the year. The report is likely to turn out to be true, but for the wrong reasons.The theory behind the claim was originally posted by French site iGeneration. The claim posits that Apple does not want to run afoul of a European Union mandate that all smartphones sold there must use the USB-C connector as of January 2025. Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums

Hozo Design has a pair of digital measuring devices in the NeoRuler and M-Cube, with both having the goal of making both micro and macro measurements more precise and easier to accomplish.NeoRuler review: The NeoRuler and M-CubeMeasurements are an area that haven't really undergone that many real innovations over the years. The humble ruler, even less so.Hozo Design aims to change that, with its NeoRuler and the M-Cube. A pair of measuring tools that can help both at the desk and away from it. Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums

In case you haven't checked outArchinect's Pinterestboards in a while, we have compiled ten recently pinned images from outstanding projects on various ArchinectFirmandPeopleprofiles.Today's top images (in no particular order) are from the boardStairs.Tip:use the handyFOLLOW featureto easily keep up-to-date with all your favorite Archinect profiles. Villa M in Mies, Switzerland byLeopold Banchini Architects; Photo: Rory Gardiner ARAKAWA Bldg. inTokyo, Japan byNIKKEN SEKKEI; Photo:Harunori Noda (Gankohsha) Casey Casey Showroom inParis, France byAtelier NEA; Photo:Lorenzo Zandri Porcelain Factory Plugin Revival inJingdezhen,China by Liu Kecheng Design Studio andPeoples Architecture Office (PAO); Photo: Zhuyumeng HouseinKutn Hora, Czech Republic byBYR architekti; Photo:Alex Shoots Buildings Manhattan Brownstone inNew York, NY byDelson or Sherman Architects; Photo: Jason Schmidt Uncloud Coffee inBang Saen, Thailand byUnknown Surface Studio;...

Three of the country's highest individual honors for architecture, the Whitney M. Young Jr. Award, AIA/ACSA Topaz Medallion for Excellence in Architectural Education, and Edward C. Kemper Award, have been bestowed by the American Institute of Architects as part of its year-end awards program.The winner of the 2025 Topaz Medallion was named as Thomas Fisher, the Minnesota Design Centers current Director and former Dean of the College of Design at the University of Minnesota from 1996 to 2015.

Create stylized and beautiful grasses with Grass Paint [Now Available on Blendermarket]https://blendermarket.com/products/gr...#blender #b3d #blender3d #animation #stylized #3d #vegetation(Feed generated with FetchRSS)

Wiggly is a versatile and lightweight Blender add-on https://blendermarket.com/products/wi...designed to create dynamic, noise-based animations with ease.#blender #blender3d #3d #b3d #wiggly #clay(Feed generated with FetchRSS)

The Witcher 4sofficial announcement was one of the highlights of The Game Awards, and though we didnt really get to see any actual gameplay footage, the cinematic reveal trailer we got was a lengthy one, with plenty of tidbits to divulge regardless. In an official trailer breakdown uploaded by CD Projekt RED, game director Sebastian Kalemba has shared some of those details.For starters, whats showcased in the trailer is an actual quest in the game, and the young village woman that Ciri tries to save from the ritual sacrifice is named Mioni. Meanwhile, the monster that she fights is called the Bauk. Interestingly enough, though Mioni dies at the end of the trailer, Kalemba says she can actually survive in the game based on the choices players make.Kalemba also revealed light details on the games combat. As glimpsed in Ciris fight against the Bauk in the trailer, the young Witcher can also use chains in combat, while those chains can also be enchanted with magic (like with fire in the trailer) to make them stronger. Additionally, Ciri, who is a particularly powerful Source, can also use her abilities to drain elements from the world around her and catalyze them to be used as powerful magic spells.Ciris expanded combat moveset certainly seems to add to Kalembas promises of much more varied gameplay and greater player agency inThe Witcher 4compared to its predecessor. The director has also confirmed that the game will maintain continuity with all ofThe Witcher 3sendings. Meanwhile, former series protagonist Geralt will also have a role to play.

NOTE: There are spoilers ahead for one of The Witcher 3s endings.The Witcher 4is going to kick off a new trilogy for CD Projekt REDs fantasy action RPG series, but though its clearly marking a new beginning, its also obviously not a completely fresh start. Its calledThe Witcher 4,after all, and not only stars a familiar character as its new protagonist in Ciri, but is also bringing back former protagonist Geralt of Rivia in some capacity. As you may guess, then,The Witcher 4is going to maintain full continuity with events that preceded it.Of course, thats a little more complicated than it may seem, because one ofThe Witcher 3sending actually sees Ciri dying. According to Cian Maher, CDPRs franchise and lore designer forWitcher, however, that ending may not be such an open-and-shut case. Speaking in an interview with IGN, he stated that there are hints in the ending that Ciri may have been alive after all.The one complication is probably the idea that there is an ending in which Ciri can die in The Witcher 3, he said. There are hints in that ending that highlight the fact that she probably does not die.As such, as per Maher,The Witcher 4isnt going to break any canon or even offend any canon, regardless of which ofThe Witcher 3sendings you want to consider canon.Game director Sebastian Kalemba has also spoken about howThe Witcher 4will place even greater emphasis on player agency, not only with its branching storytelling, but also with its greater gameplay variety. Read more on that through here.