Hot off the press! Our last newsletter of the year is here.This special edition provides a trip down memory lane as we reminisce on all the incredible things our amazing DNEG and ReDefine crews have accomplished over the last 12 months.Heres a sneak peek:INSPIRING COLLABORATIONS Reminisce on our biggest releases of the year, including Dune: Part Two, The Garfield Movie and moreAWARDS AND INDUSTRY RECOGNITION Catch up on the recognition our amazing crews received in 2024 (so far!), from our Emmy award for The Last of Us to our AEAF wins for both Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga and Godzilla x Kong: The New EmpireEXCITING DEVELOPMENTS Uncover the ways we went above and beyond this year to deliver the best version of everything that we doClick to read:Thank you to our teams for another great year of movie magic! Enjoy this supercut of some of the extraordinary films and shows we were honoured to help bring to life this year:Want to stay up to date in 2025? Subscribe here! See you next year!

A federal government shutdown is looking increasingly likely as theHouse of Representatives failed to pass a short-term spending bill Thursday. The House was scrambling to approve a budget after House Republicans and President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday said they opposed an earlier short-term spending bill that would have kept the government running into next year. "This chaos would not be happening if we had a real president,"Trump said in a statement. "We will in 32 days."Lawmakers have until the end of Friday, Dec. 20, to pass a spending bill that will fund the federal government into next spring while it hashes out the long-term federal budget. If that deadline passes without Congress approving funding, the government will enter into a shutdown period until one is passed, during which time federal employees will be furloughed without pay and certain government services will cease to operate.The US government has been shut down 10 times in its long history, the first one coming in late 1981. The most recent shutdown started in December 2018 and was arguably the most significant of them all, lasting a record 35 days. While the government hasn't shut down since then, the threat of one has become increasingly more common in recent years whenever funding deadlines approach.Should a shutdown occur to close out 2024, you can expect some vital services to persist while others stall. You can read on for all the details. For more, find out how to protect your Social Security number from thieves and how long you have left to sign up for ACA health insurance.Will I still get Social Security during a government shutdown? Upgrade your inbox Get cnet insider From talking fridges to iPhones, our experts are here to help make the world a little less complicated. The Social Security Administration has plans in place to ensure that Social Security checks will still be sent out in the event of a government shutdown. This applies for Social Security benefits as well as Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance.You could, however, expect to see delays for other Social Security Administration services, including the issuance of new Social Security cards and appointments for benefit applications, as well as responses to requests for customer service. Other things like benefit verifications and processing overpayments will stop entirely.Will I still get Medicare during a government shutdown?Just like with Social Security, you can expect to continue receiving benefits during a government shutdown if you have Medicare or Medicaid. According to a rundown posted by the office of Virginia Rep. Jennifer Wexton, these benefits, however, could cease in the event that a shutdown lasted longer than three months, but such a possibility is considerably outside the realm of historical precedent.Will a government shutdown impact federal nutrition programs?Food assistance programs are at a significant risk of losing funding in the event of a government shutdown. If you're among the tens of millions of Americans who participate in programs like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, your benefits could run out shortly after the start of a shutdown. The Department of Agriculture is also authorized to send out SNAP benefits for only 30 days from the start of a shutdown, funding or no.Will a government shutdown impact air travel?Federal employees in this field are still expected to work during a shutdown despite the fact that they will not be paid during it, so you will most likely not see an immediate impact on air travel. This includes air traffic controllers, Transportation Security Administration officers, and Customs and Border Protection agents.However, according to Rep. Wexton's breakdown of government shutdowns, it isn't unheard of for these employees to not show up during a government shutdown, which can result in the flow of travel at airports being heavily delayed.What is keeping Congress from approving a short-term budgetOn Wednesday, Trump came out against a proposed budget resolution that looked to have enough support to pass the House, demanding that it be reworked to either raise the debt limit or abolish it entirely,writing in a joint statement with Vice President-Elect JD Vancethat "anything else is a betrayal of our country." GOP support of the resolution in Congress stalled as Trump suggested that any who supported it would be targeted in future primary elections.The debt limit imposes a cap on how much debt the US Treasury can take on, which largely impacts how much it can borrow to pay down obligations. The limit was previously raised during funding negotiations in 2023 and raising it again was not initially part of negotiations."GOP extremists want House Democrats to raise the debt ceiling so that House Republicans can lower the amount of your Social Security check, Hard pass," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries saidin a statement posted to Bluesky.For more, find out what sort of changes could be on the way for Medicare in 2025.

Internet in Jersey City is somewhat limited with just a few providers available. However, residents can still get access to multigig internet speeds.

Our Experts Written by Giselle Castro-Sloboda, Medically Reviewed Our expert, award-winning staff selects the products we cover and rigorously researches and tests our top picks. If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Reviews ethics statement Why You Can Trust CNET 16171819202122232425+ Years of Experience 14151617181920212223 Hands-on Product Reviewers 6,0007,0008,0009,00010,00011,00012,00013,00014,00015,000 Sq. Feet of Lab Space How we test CNETs expert staff reviews and rates dozens of new products and services each month, building on more than a quarter century of expertise.Table of Contents What to consider Price The right smart scale for you will include the most features you want at the right price for your budget. Weight capacity Be sure to check the smart scale's weight capacity to ensure it can handle your weight. App compatibility If you already use a fitness app, be sure that the smart scale is compatible with it. Body image If you struggle with body image, consult with your doctor to find the best option for you. Some scales come with the option to hide your weight. Connectivity Determine if you'd like your smart scale to connect to Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or both. User-friendly interface You want a smart scale that has an interface that's easy to read and follow. Especially if there will be multiple users. Durability Choose a smart scale that is long-lasting and can handle multiple recharges or battery changes. Privacy policy If privacy is of concern, make sure you read the privacy policy of the smart scale you plan to purchase first. Battery life Whether you're going to use the scale often or occasionally, you want a smart scale with decent battery life that doesn't require constant recharging. Our Picks Most customizable smart scale Wyze Scale X View details $40 at Amazon View details Accurate body composition smart scale Sponsored - Oxiline Scale X Pro View details $100 at Oxiline View details Best smart scale with user-friendly app Renpho Smart Wi-Fi Bluetooth Body Fat Scale-Premium View details $43 at Renpho View details Best smart scale display screen Etekcity HR Smart Fitness Scale View details $68 at Amazon View details Best smart scale with basic readings Greater Goods Premium Wi-Fi Scale View details $27 at Amazon View details Smart scale with the most third-party app connections Withings Body Plus View details $100 at Withings View details Best smart scale for unlimited users Eufy Smart Scale P2 Pro View details $80 at Amazon View details Best smart scale for athletes Sportneer Smart Scale View details $70 at Sportneer View details FITNESS TRACKER DEALS OF THE WEEK Apple Watch Series 10 (GPS, 42mm, Black, S/M 130-180mm, Sports Band): $349 (save $50) Samsung Galaxy Watch 7 (Bluetooth, 44mm, Green): $243 (save $88) Garmin Instinct 2 Solar GPS Smartwatch (Graphite): $300 (save $100) Amazfit Bip 5 GPS Smartwatch (Black): $70 (save $20) Samsung Galaxy Watch 6 (Bluetooth 44mm, Graphite): $170 (save $160) Deals are selected by the CNET Group commerce team, and may be unrelated to this article. Table of Contents

OpinionDecember 19, 20245 min readThe UnitedHealthcare Tragedy Is Why Insurance Needs to Change NowI am a trauma surgeon and gunshot survivor who has experienced byzantine health insurance coverage firsthand. I understand why people are furiousBy Joseph V. Sakran edited by Megha Satyanarayana Fanatic Studio/Alamy Stock PhotoWhen I was 17 I was nearly killed when a fight broke out after a high school football game and someone fired a gun. A stray bullet struck my throat, tearing through my trachea and damaging my carotid artery.This near-death experience deeply traumatized my entire family. Yet my parents couldnt focus solely on my survival and healing. In the hospital, they were overwhelmed by a labyrinth of paperwork, billing inquiries and questions about insurance coverage. Even after I was discharged, the challenges continued. Instead of focusing on my recovery, we spent our energy addressing delayed approvals for follow-up care, denied access to physical therapy and endless requests to clarify reimbursements.Our health insurance system made a catastrophic time for me and my parents needlessly worse. Now, as a trauma surgeon, I have seen how pervasive such struggles are. And with the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, long-simmering and widespread anger about the harm that health insurers have caused seems to be reaching a boiling point. After decades of public outcry over health care policies that prioritize profits over peoplepolicies that deny lifesaving treatments, cause bankruptcy over uncovered medical treatments, and leave entire communities behindthe demand for reform is growing too loud to ignore. For too many, health insurance is a brick walla bureaucratic gatekeeper that creates barriers instead of providing solutions.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.We cannot justify his killing; so how do we channel our collective grief and frustration into meaningful change? How do we build a health care system that offers healing, not harma system that values human life over corporate gain? It will take courage, accountability, and a willingness to reimagine a system where patients are seen as people, not as financial transactions.The average annual cost of health care in the U.S. is estimated at a staggering $15,074 per person.41 percent of Americans carry medical debt, highlighting the systems profound failure to provide financial security when its needed most.On top of these ruinous costswhich patients rarely know up front and have little time to understand during medical emergenciesinsurers also decide whether they will pay for care, regardless of whether a patients doctor says such care is necessary. The delay of care through bureaucratic hurdles like prior authorizations and denied claims are carefully designed to force people and their doctors to fight their way through outdated systems like fax machines and endless phone trees to ask for appeals or reconsideration of denied treatments or examinations. All too often the mental effort and excessive time required to navigate claims, denials and appeals wears people down, leading them to simply give up on getting the coverage they are owed. This isnt just inefficiency; its a predatory failure of empathy for people during their most vulnerable moments. And it perversely exacerbates anxiety and depression for the sick person and their caregivers alike, compounding the very challenges the system is meant to address.Ive spent countless nights fighting to save lives in operating rooms. Ive witnessed how gun violence intersects with healthcare inequities, leaving families to confront not only grief but insurmountable medical bills. Survivors often endure years of physical and financial pain as they battle not only their injuries but also insurance denials for necessary care. I know firsthand what my patients go through. Every step of my own recovery felt like a negotiationnot just for my health but for access to the care I needed. At times, I questioned whether I was viewed as a patient or a cost to be managed. These frustrations extended to my family, who bore the emotional and logistical burden of dealing with appeals and authorizations while supporting my recovery.For many, financial strain forces impossible choices: families forgo optimal treatments or rehabilitation plansnot for lack of understanding but because they simply cant afford them. These compromises lead to worse patient outcomes (and even greater systemic costs), compounding suffering that could have been prevented with proper access to care. Too often, hope is eroded by a system more focused on profits than well-being.To fix this system, we need to radically reconsider the principles of care, equity, accountability and cost that underpin it. Addressing cost is essential; it threatens the stability of our health care system, and the financial burden should not fall disproportionately on people needing health care and their families.Our policy decisions must reflect our values, and so we must ask ourselves: Are we ready to expand coverage so that every American has access to affordable, high-quality care? Can we accept higher premiums or shared costs to build a system that guarantees subsidies for those who need them most and still prevents unnecessary or wasteful medicine? Beyond coverage, we must simplify and streamline processes, eliminating the unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that overwhelm patients and families. Equity must be a core pillarnot just in access but in the quality of care delivered and the financial protections offered.Mental health must be integrated and prioritized alongside physical health in care and coverage, recognizing the minds essential role in bodily recovery and overall well-being. Excessive profits in the insurance industry, rising drug costs and opaque billing practices demand accountability and shared responsibility among providers, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and policy makers. And finally, insurers and clinicians alike must be held accountablenot for short-term cost-cutting, but for improving outcomes, delivering compassionate care and ensuring within reason that no patients health journey leads to financial devastation. If we are serious about building a system that values human dignity over profit, these reforms are not just necessary; they are long overdue.With Donald Trump returning to the presidency, and Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, the likelihood of such sweeping health care reform over the next four years becomes more limited, particularly in expanding access through government programs. The focus will instead likely shift even further toward deregulation, market-driven solutions and reducing government involvement in health care, rather than pursuing universal coverage or expanding subsidies. Efforts to repeal or further weaken provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are likely to resurface, along with predatory policies promoting short-term health plans and inefficient state-level control over Medicaid.While reducing prescription drug costs may remain a bipartisan goal, broader reforms aimed at equity, simplicity and the expansion of mental health care may stall unless they align with cost-reduction strategies. The challenge will be ensuring that patient needsespecially for the most vulnerableare not sidelined amid policies that prioritize fiscal conservatism and market efficiencies over systemic change.We urgently need to create a more equitable system. Insurers must cap out-of-pocket expenses, eliminate lifetime limits and expand income-based assistance, so afflicted Americans can focus on healing and recovery.My own frustrations with the system shaped my resolve to drive positive change. This moment demands difficult reforms and introspection, but it also offers an opportunity for transformation. Our health care system should inspire hope, not compound suffering. Patients, clinicians, policymakers, and insurers must come together to prioritize care over complexity, outcomes over optics, and people over profit.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

December 19, 20245 min readBiden Pledges Huge Climate Emissions Cuts HeCantEnforce.Heres Why It Still MattersPresident Biden strengthened the U.S.s commitment to slash climate pollution under the Paris Agreement knowing that President-elect Donald Trump could abandon it, but states and cities could still use it as a guidePresident Joe Biden strengthened U.S. commitments to lower climate pollution Thursday. Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | President Joe Biden announced Thursday that he will strengthen the United States climate target by aiming to cut planet-warming pollution 61-66 percent by 2035, in a move that his successor is certain to disregard.The new goal marks an increase over Bidens 2021 pledge to slash greenhouse gases 50-52 percent by 2030 over 2005 levels, but is a downgrade from what modelers say would have been possible under a future president who acts aggressively to slow rising temperatures.President-elect Donald Trump has indicated the opposite.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Instead, the target will likely be jettisoned after Trump takes office, reflecting his promises to expand fossil fuel production and dismantle Bidens climate agenda.Though the incoming administration could just ignore the target, the goal offers an ambitious marker that states, cities and businesses can aspire to meet, even as the Trump presidency attempts to roll back federal climate programs.President Biden's new 2035 climate goal is both a reflection of what we've already accomplished and what we believe the United States can and should achieve in the future, said John Podesta, senior White House adviser for international climate policy, in a call with reporters.The move comes amid increasing pressure on the Biden administration to make urgent environmental commitments in the waning days of the presidents term, even if Trump has no intention of honoring them. U.S. officials say it sends an important signal to the world of what the U.S. could do in the face of those challenges.American industry will keep inventing and keep investing. State, local and tribal governments will keep stepping up, Biden said in prerecorded video remarks for the announcement.It also includes at least a 35 percent reduction of methane, a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas that the Biden administration has prioritized tackling through regulations and global agreements.We're looking to governors, mayors, business leaders and more to carry this important work forward, said Podesta.The targets known as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs are required under the Paris Agreement, the global deal to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in the postindustrial era. The White House said that it is formally submitting the new target to the United Nations climate change secretariat. Trump is expected to withdraw from the agreement.'A North Star'Observers argued that the new target showcases the ability of the worlds largest economy to tackle climate change without federal help.The 2035 climate target can serve as a North Star for states, cities and corporations that are committed to climate action, Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.Other advocates echoed that sentiment, saying it could help guide federal policy after 2028 or whenever a climate-focused president takes office.The 2035 emissions reduction target is at the lower bound of what the science demands, and yet it is close to the upper bound of what is realistic if nearly every available policy lever were pulled, said Debbie Weyl, acting U.S. director at the World Resources Institute.A fact sheet released with the announcement said the cuts to climate pollution could be achieved through a combination of surviving Biden-era policies; stronger state and local action; and technology advancements such as cheaper wind and solar energy, nuclear power and grid upgrades.But reaching those marks will not be easy.A bipartisan push in Congress to ease permitting rules, which could speed renewable energy installations, hasnt panned out. The Biden administration approved Californias plan to phase out gas-powered cars by 2035 on Wednesday, but Trump has threatened to roll it back.Members of the U.S. Climate Alliance, a coalition of mostly Democratic states, are on track to lower greenhouse gases 26 to 28 percent by next year but the U.S. is off track to meet Bidens initial goal to slash emissions in half five years from now.No one's hiding the ball on that. Our analysis is very clear that additional action is needed to achieve our 2030 target, but that there is a clear pathway to do so, said Casey Katims, executive director of the U.S. Climate Alliance.Hitting the new target will also depend on investments from the private sector. The clean energy tax breaks in Bidens signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, have unleashed billions of dollars for clean energy manufacturing across the U.S.Yet many of those policies are threatened by Trump and congressional Republicans, who have taken aim at government rebates used to lower the cost of buying electric cars and other clean energy incentives.Even discussion of repeal and tweaks or cuts have a chilling effect and delay and reduce the pace and scale of investment, said Zach Friedman, senior director of federal policy at Ceres, a business sustainability group. Tweaks to tax credits, timelines, restrictions, etc., has big implications for the amount of investment that comes back to American communities.Aiming highBefore the election, modeling from the University of Marylands Center for Global Sustainability showed that the U.S. could achieve emissions cuts of 65-67 percent by 2035. Studies by other groups showed a similar range.That would put the country on a trajectory to zero out emissions by 2050. But achieving that target relies on additional action at the federal, state and city level.An updated policy brief released this week by the Center for Global Sustainability assumes cuts of 54-62 percent based on no further federal action, but more at the state level.Senior administration officials who held a call with reporters to preview the announcement said such analyses show that its possible to cut pollution without aggressive federal action though they acknowledged that it would be harder.The pace is of course an issue, one official said.Robbie Orvis, senior director of modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, said, Hitting the proposed target would definitely require states to strengthen and pass policy across many states at a level we haven't seen before.Other analyses looked at some potential worst-case scenarios.Energy Innovation estimated that the U.S. emissions would fall by just 36 percent by 2035 if the Inflation Reduction Act is fully repealed. The Rhodium Group predicted a range of 24-40 percent cuts based on rollbacks of federal climate regulations and a total repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act. Neither analysis accounts for additional action at the state level.Analysts say its unlikely that the Inflation Reduction Act will be completely unraveled, particularly as its benefits expand nationwide.But even with the Inflation Reduction Act, the U.S. is still short of reaching its 2030 goal of cutting emissions 50-52 percent Bidens original target. A July analysis by the Rhodium Group found the U.S. is on track to cut 32-43 percent of its climate pollution by 2030, putting it on a path to 38-56 percent cuts by 2035.Biden was laying down a marker with the new target, said Alden Meyer, a senior associate at the environmental think tank E3G.Everyone understands its going to be very hard to meet this target, given Trump will take us off the field for the next four years, Meyer said. But they understand it for what it is what the U.S. should be doing.Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

OpinionDecember 19, 20244 min readTrumps Pick for NIH Director Could Harm Science and People's HealthWith a possible bird flu outbreak looming, Donald Trumps choice of Jay Bhattacharya, a scientist critical of COVID policies, for the NIH is the wrong move for science and public healthBy Steven M. Albert edited by Tanya LewisJay Bhattacharya speaks during a roundtable discussion with members of the House Freedom Caucus on the COVID-19 pandemic at The Heritage Foundation on Thursday, November 10, 2022. Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty ImagesPresident-elect Donald Trump wants Jay Bhattacharya, a physician-scientist and economist at Stanford University, to lead the National Institutes of Health. The NIH is a global powerhouse of science. Its mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.Most politicians, even when criticizing the agency, recognize the good it has done in building effective public health measures. Cancer death rates continue to decline, for example, because of the work NIH investigators have done around prevention, detection and treatment.Bhattacharya does not see the agencys successes this way. In his podcast Science from the Fringe, Bhattacharya recently said he is amazed by the authoritarian tendencies of public health. He struck a similar theme in a Newsmax interview: [We need] to turn the NIH from something thats [used] to control society into something thats aimed at the discovery of truth to improve the health of Americans."On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The scientists who apply for NIH funding, sit on peer review panels and administer grants would be surprised to hear they control society. They do science. The claims of authoritarianism are a screen for pushing a particular agenda that is likely to damage the NIH. Bhattacharyas science agenda is political: to set concerns for personal autonomy against evidence-based public health science. This is not appropriate for NIH leadership.Bhattacharya has never explained how the NIH controls society, given its role as a research institution, and it is hard to see how it does except perhaps in setting research priorities and awarding funding based on expert review. Is he against public health legislation that has controlled lead emissions in vehicles, enforced vaccine requirements for children attending public schools, and promoted folate fortification in bread and fluoride in drinking water? This legislation has improved population health in terms of cognitive performance, infectious disease burden, neural tube defects in pregnancy, and oral health, respectively. Is this the kind of control he fears?Public health authorities decide on a health promotion measure for a population based on the science, often for people vulnerable and unaware of health risks, when health benefits are clear. NIH research provides the evidence for these public health measures. It is fair to debate the quality of scientific evidence and benefit to population health relative to restrictions on autonomy and choice, but establishing mechanisms for population health risk and making recommendations based on this evidence are not authoritarianism, and making such a comparison is not the way to do good science or build trust.Bhattacharyas views are one more unfortunate legacy of the COVID pandemic, when he argued against supposed public health overreach in the Great Barrington Declaration back in 2020. The declaration claimed that isolating only people at highest risk and allowing continued spread of COVID among more healthy people would build herd immunity without substantial increases in COVID mortality. In response, public health officials and NIH leaders criticized Bhattacharya based on the science: In the setting of asymptomatic viral transmission, high contagiousness and inescapable population mixing, such a strategy of focused protection was unlikely to protect vulnerable populations. Bhattacharya called this censorship and unsuccessfully tried to convince the Supreme Court to weigh in against social media venues that dropped his messaging.This personal pique is a distraction and should not obscure the central focus of U.S. public health policy during the pandemic. Science supported school closures, work-from-home policies, large gathering restrictions in public spaces, and face mask requirements as effective ways to lower hospital surges and buy time for vaccine development. You can challenge the science, as many have; but it is not authoritarian to use science for policy. Likewise, you may value personal autonomy and resist vaccination or face mask mandates, but drawing on scientific evidence to support these measures does not mean scientists have engaged in censorship, data manipulation, and misinformation, as Trump has falsely claimed to justify his nominees.Authoritarianism in science or public health was not responsible for the pandemics heavy toll in the U.S. Structural factors such as income inequality and access to health care were the key drivers of COVID mortality. To prepare the country for the next pandemic as NIH director, it would be far more effective to invest in pandemic preparedness and infectious disease research and, beyond that, to ensure everyone has access to health care.Indeed, the proposed remedies for making science less authoritarian, such as shifting NIH grant funding to states in the form of block grants (recommended by the conservative policy agenda Project 2025), will not promote nonauthoritarian public health but will almost certainly degrade the quality of American science. Will states be able to match the NIH peer review system, which is regarded worldwide as the exemplar of transparent, confidential, impartial evaluation based on merit and scientific consensus? It is hard to imagine how a decentralized state-level effort would produce a more fair review or science with greater impact. Will scientists in some states be barred from funding for research on family planning or womens health, for example?We dont know what other policies Bhattacharya might propose. Banning viral gain-of-function research? Eliminating research involving fetal tissue and restricting studies using animal models? Shifting funding away from infectious disease research, as RFK, Jr., Trumps pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, has proposed? Giving peer review panels less influence in determining scientific merit?The best way to depoliticize science, if that is your concern, is to get out of the way and let scientific inquiry drive investigation and peer review determine priority for funding. The authoritarianism Bhattacharya rails against is often just the application of science to improve population health. Pitting personal autonomy against the application of science to policy is fine for vanity webcasts and think tanks, but inappropriate for NIH leadership. If he would rather focus on promoting personal autonomy in pandemic policy, perhaps he is being nominated to the wrong agency. Bhattacharya is not what the NIH needs.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Audeze MM-500 review: planar magnetic comes at a premiumMore expensive than you'd even imagine. Review by Reece Bithrey Contributor Published on Dec. 19, 2024 Audeze is an American brand best known for making everything from some serious audiophile grade headphones to some of the best gaming headsets we've tested. Their MM-500 is more of the former option, as a big, chunky and impressive set of planar magnetic cans which have an eye-wateringly high price tag to boot - you'll just need to fork out 1699/$1699, no big deal really.I've tested some reasonably dear headphones before, although none have made quite the same initial impression as the MM-500s. Whereas the likes of the Focal Bathys come with a sleek, gorgeous hard case, Audeze has chosen to go for a full-on briefcase for transporting these cans in. It's made of a blend of metal and plastic, and is seriously sturdy, while inside, there's a generous helping of moulded foam for transporting the MM-500s. You feel like you're a member of the US Secret Service opening the briefcase up.Once you open the briefcase up, you're greeted with the MM-500s. They're fully metal, with a blend of machined alumnium and spring steel, which gives a premium feel while also being reasonably light at 495g. That's still quite heavy against a pair of Grados, for instance, although is lighter than you'd initially expect. The MM-500s look like a classic pair of Audeze cans, with a thinner headband, earcups with oval cutouts on the outside, and big, plush angled earpads that are wonderfully soft amd supportive, while also coming with a heavier clamping force to ensure they stick on your noggin. Those are some thick earcups.The weight of the MM-500s takes some getting used to, especially with the stiffer headband, although placing it over a stack of books can help to loosen it up a tad if the clamping force is too much out of the box, according to Audeze. It is on the tighter side, but I didn't have much of an issue with it when using these in the evenings to listen to some tunes or play some games with.The MM-500's earcups are perhaps the opposite to the Grado Hemps I've also tested recently. Where the Hemps were a thinner, shallower option with fabric padding, the MM-500 has these luscious, deep cups with some of the plushest leather I've felt on a set of headphones outside of my own Focal Bathys I use every day. The earcups are also angled to conform to the fact that people's ears aren't actually parallel to the sides of your head - they're angled out a little. This means sound goes right into your ears, as opposed to on other headphones which lack the adjustability for you to swivel the earcups to achieve this same purpose.Your ears also sit quite close to the drivers inside the MM-500, although they aren't necessarily drivers per se. After all, these are planar magnetic headphones, as opposed to the more common dynamic drivers. I've not an expert on this by any means, but, in essence being planar magnetic means that they work by suspending the headphones diaphragm material between magnetic fields which cause vibration, as opposed to working by placing the driver over a coil that's pulled by a magnet, in the case of dynamic drivers. It means that planar magnetic cans need more surface area to work, hence the fact that the MM-500 are quite bulky against more 'standard' headphones. There's an important name on there.In terms of their tuning, it's here where the MM-500 mark a departure from previous Audeze efforts, with a move more towards a reference set of cans, in the same vein as Sennheiser's HD660S2. After all, these are designed perhaps more for music production and studio work than they are for generalist use. This is arguably due to the name that quietly adorns the MM-500's earcups. Look closely, and you'll see Manny Maroquin's name on the side. He might not be a name you've heard of, but the albums and songs by artists he's produced or mixed you most certainly will have. Taylor Swift's Red for instance, Natasha Bedingfield's Unwritten or Bruno Mars' Unorthodox Jukebox, have all had work on by Marroquin, and he's produced the MM-500 in collaboration with Audeze. That's quite the endorsement.With this point in mind, it changes how you view the MM-500. After all, they might not be as exciting or energetic as other cans out there, but they're designed with a specific purpose in mind - to give the most accurate view of music possible. Fundamentally, if audio sounds as it should when mixed in here, it's going to be excellent elsewhere. The other thing about these being designed for audio mixing means they come with the massive quarter-inch jack on the end, but do come with a 3.5mm adapter for plugging into more normal things, so you can use the MM-500s with your laptop, or a DAC.I should say that you can genuinely use these with a MacBook or otherwise - they're remarkably easy to drive, with a low impedance of just 18 ohms. While it isn't a foolproof method of measuring how easy headphones are to work with, it means you don't necessarily require specialist audio gear for them to work, and get plenty loud. I had no issues using them with my MacBook Pro, or usual gaming PC for that matter with their bundled headphone jacks, although giving them more oomph with a DAC or DAP is likely to yield higher-quality listening. These are also open backs, so sound gets out.Music out of the MM-500s, whether it's Latin pop, hard rock or jazz fusion, has this wonderfully smooth and warm quality that sounds excellent. Upon plugging them into either my HiBy R3 II, FiiO M11S or Chord Mojo 2 DAC, I was greeted with some gorgeous audio with a deep but not overbearing low-end, excellent and more prominent mid-range and smooth treble. A listen to Riverman from Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds exemplified this wonderfully, with reassuring bass, fantastic vocal handling and solid, crisp treble with the track's cymbal work.That deep low-end was also reflected in the fantastic Let's Groove from Earth, Wind & Fire, with the track's prominent funky bassline, while Rush's YYZ carried appropriate, accurate oomph with wonderful extension. As for the mid-range, James Taylor's Lighthouse was gorgeous, with the MM-500 handling his vocals well, as well as the song's prominent acoustic guitar and drum work, while Peter Mayer's The Last Island was a rich soundscape fronted by his vocals, and the track's brilliant percussion work.The MM-500 also handles treble with a smooth and crisp finish, as opposed to it being too sharp, as with some other headphones I've tested. This was demonstrated well with the intermitted cymbal crashes and tambourine hits in Phil Collins' I'm Not Moving, while on Ralph MacDonald's Calypso Breakdown, the track's constant bell hits were handled with panache. Steely Dan's Do It Again is always a track I use for testing treble, with the song's percussion-laden introduction a potential minefield for some cans. The MM-500 served up a sublime result with everything from its cymbals to chimes and organ having this excellent smoothness and precision to it. The MM-500 worked a treat with my FiiO M11S.The soundstage here isn't as wide as other, even more 'affordable' open backs I've tested, although there is a good sense of width and awe-inspiring precision, such as on Rush's 2112, the legendary 20 minute long multi-part prog epic I always use for testing headphones. The track's 'Discovery' section, which builds from limited electric guitar parts with ambient water noise into intermittent vocals and even harder rock is a particular highlight for testing, as it gives you a sense of how wide and spacious a set of cans can be, particularly at the beginning. In addition, I've always paid attention to the position of the bongos on Earth, Wind & Fire's September. Get it right, and they're far off in the distance on the right hand side, with an excellent sense of placement.The more pronounced mid-range in amongst the MM-500's frequency also helped to make games immersive too, with footsteps being prominent in the likes of CS:2, and the open back nature of the headphones also helping immersion. The solid stereo imaging also helped my immersion in Forza Horizon 5 races with engine notes of nearby cars, while also working well in Assetto Corsa, too. GTA Online was also fantastic fun with the MM-500, with the fun of the game's drift racing or when I was simply running over pedestrians and picking fights with other online players in the midst of Los Santos.The Audeze MM-500 is a brilliant set of planar magnetic headphones that, while designed for studio use for mixing and production first and foremost, quite frankly surprised me for how good they are for both gaming and for general music listening. They've got a deep bass that isn't overbearing, an excellent and precise midrange and smooth treble that made everything from Genesis to Grand Theft Auto a sublime listen. The big problem, of course, is the big price they come with - 1699/$1699 is purely for pro-grade peeps or those audiophiles with a fair chunk of change. Are they worth the price? In the context of what you're getting, probably. Would I recommend you buy them, though? No.Allow me to explain - the MM-500s are simply some of the best headphones I've used for purely listening, given their reference-like neutral profile and immense detail, although if you're looking for a bit more energy in your music and more fun, then the Grado Hemps are wonderful, and cost a third of the price of these. Or, if you want the fun of planar magnetics without spending loads, go grab a pair of Audeze Maxwells, which is one of our favourite gaming headsets.I'm not saying the MM-500 is a contextually bad set of cans, because they really aren't - the last 1600 or so words should demonstrate that. But they're only worth it if you want a neutral sound, the reputation of these planar magnetic drivers, and also if you've got 1699/$1699 to burn. Otherwise, they're a bit of a difficult sell.

Capcom has detailed its targeted performance for Monster Hunter Wilds on consoles, confirming a day one patch will be available on PS5 Pro.The game's director Yuya Tokuda shared details in a pre-launch community update stream covering various elements of the game following its open beta test. PC specs have already been revealed, but in this stream performance targets on console were shared.Both PS5 and Xbox Series X will include a Prioritise Graphics mode at 30fps and a Prioritise Framerate mode at 60fps. Xbox Series S will only run the game at 30fps, while on PC the frame rate will of course vary depending on hardware.Monster Hunter Wilds - Pre-Launch Community UpdateWatch on YouTubeNo specific details were provided on the PS5 Pro patch, beyond confirming it will enhance the graphics and will be available from launch. More details will be provided closer to launch."The target frame rate we have here was not being achieved in the OBT build," said Tokuda (via translator). "To be honest it was an earlier version that wasn't quite as optimised and there were also some rendering issues with the graphics when using frame priority mode."The current full version has seen an improvement on fine details like fur and feathers and is "getting closer to that target of 60fps".The Xbox version of the game has had a similar improvement to PS5, while on PC the development team is looking to lower the minimum required specs, though the details are still being worked on.Capcom is also considering releasing a benchmark tool for PC to help players determine if the game will be playable on their machines. Performance targets across PS5, Xbox Series X/S, and PC | Image credit: CapcomIn the stream, Tokuda shared a short snippet of gameplay to show the performance improvements compared with the open beta test.The development team previously acknowledged performance issues in the Monster Hunter Wild open beta test."The purpose of this test is to allow players to experience a limited portion of Monster Hunter Wilds and also to verify various technical aspects such as network load and overall operation prior to the game's full release," it wrote on Steam."Please note that the final product is still in development. Certain aspects such as game specifications and balance may differ in the full version. We are committed to ensuring the quality of the final product."Monster Hunter Wilds is set for release across PS5, Xbox Series X/S, and PC (Steam) on 28th February next year.

Intel explains what went wrong with its new Arrow Lake desktop CPUsAnd declares four out of five identified issues "solved".Image credit: Digital Foundry Blog by Will Judd Deputy Editor, Digital Foundry Published on Dec. 19, 2024 Intel's new Core Ultra 200-series desktop processors, codenamed Arrow Lake, launched to seriously underwhelming reviews back in October. Now the American firm has collated five issues that it says are to blame for the difference between its own performance expectations and what reviewers experienced, with four of the five problems described as being already resolved by BIOS, Windows or application updates, and further performance enhancements to arrive in January 2025. For context, our Core i9 285K and Core i5 245K review saw performance wins for the 285K against the outgoing 14900K in three titles - Crysis 3 Remastered, Dragon's Dogma 2 and Forza Horizon 5 - while the 14900K retained its crown in the other eight games we tested, often by extreme margins. Here are the five issues, their root cause and current status, quoted from Intel's release: Performance TopicRoot CauseStatusUnusual scheduling, high run-to-run variation, low single-threaded scores, intermittent ~1.5x increase in DRAM latency, performance lower on Windows 11 24H2 vs 23H2Intel mistimed deployment of OS power plan settings ("PPM"), which customises DVFS, core parking and C-states. This caused a 6-30% performance lossSolved in Windows 11 26100.2161 or newerIntel Application Performance Optimiser (APO) not demonstrating expected performance resultsMissing PPM places CPU into state where APO profiles cannot apply, select reviewer BIOSes additionally set APO to disabled by default. This caused a 2-14% performance loss on APO-profiled titlesSolved in Windows 11 26100.2161 or newerBSOD when launching Easy Anti-Cheat titles on Windows 11 24H2Known issue with Easy Anti-Cheat KMD and Windows 11 24H2, issue exacerbated by disabling Virtualisation-Based Security (VBS)Solved with new Easy Anti-Cheat driver distributed by EpicSelect performance settings misconfigured in some pre-release BIOSesConsistency of VIP performance settings not sufficiently checked by Intel, including ReBAR, Intel APO, compute ring frequency, IMC gear, sustained/transient power limits. This caused a 2-14% performance lossSolved in customer BIOSes now availableNew BIOS performance enhancementsFresh optimisations developed for upcoming BIOS updates, currently in validation by Intel and its partners, single digit performance enhancement estimated among a 35-game geomeanMotherboard BIOSes planned for January 2025The table makes for interesting reading, and Intel's community blog on the subject goes into further detail on each identified issue too. In it, Intel promises "a complete performance digest, inclusive of the January BIOSes" at CES early next year, so we should get a better idea of exactly the performance differentials we should expect with all five fixes applied. We also saw extremely poor performance in Cyberpunk 2077 in particular, and that seems to have been solved in game update 2.2 if the patch notes are to be believed. If you are one of the vanishingly small number of people to be running a Core i5 245K, Core i7 265K or Core i9 285K system, then you've probably already updated to the latest Windows and BIOS versions, but it's worth doing so now if you haven't - and again in mid January when further BIOS updates are made available - to ensure that your system is delivering maximum performance. Intel says that the January BIOSes can be "identified with Intel microcode version 0x114 and Intel CSME Firmware Kit 19.0.0.1854v2.2 (or newer)." We'll look to retest the Core i9 285K and Core i5 245K once these January BIOS updates are available, as we did see much worse performance than we expected and it would be nice to see what these proccessors are truly capable of. We're expecting to hear more from Intel at that time - as well as rivals AMD and Nvidia - so stay tuned for our reports from CES in the new year.