Academic anxiety can exacerbate dermatological conditionsThomas Lohnes/Getty ImagesEven if you dont wear your heart on your sleeve, your skin may betray your mental state.There is a very strong connection between the brain and skin, and a connection between stress and skin diseases, says Gil Yosipovitch at the University of Miami, Florida. This is evident, he says, in his encounters with patients: I always ask, for instance, does anything aggravate your itch? And many patients will tell you its stress. This observation is also borne out in clinical studies.On a physiological level, it all comes down to hormones. Psychological stress, whether it be chronic or acute, causes our bodies to produce hormones called glucocorticoids, which keep us more alert and provide energy for the fight-or-flight response in dangerous situations. But they also harm the skin in two ways.Anxiety-induced acne and eczemaFirst, they can diminish the functioning of the epidermis. This top layer of skin locks in moisture and serves as the first layer of defence between our bodies and the environment. Consistently high levels of some of these hormones, like cortisol, can also cause inflammation. Second, glucocorticoids decrease the production of antimicrobial proteins in the skin.The combined effect is skin that is dry or inflamed, is prone to infections and heals more slowly, leading to a heightened susceptibility to clinical skin conditions. There is a direct connection between stress and a tendency to get sick, says Peter Elias at the University of California, San Francisco.In a review of 21 studies, Yosipovitch

Heavy smoke rises from a wildfire in Irvine, California, in September 2024Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty ImagesAn alarming trend of wildfires in the western US lofting smoke higher in the atmosphere is set to worsen. As fires grow larger with climate change, they are more likely to produce towering storm clouds that can send smoke all the way to the stratosphere.These really large wildfire-plume rise heights are the ones that are burning the most area and probably producing the most smoke, says Derek Mallia at the University of Utah, who presented the research at the American Geophysical

Fibrous foods like beans, nuts, and seeds feed the "good" microbes in the gut.Most Americans are not meeting the daily recommended fiber intake.Emily Leeming opts for whole grains instead of white carbs and sprinkles seeds on her breakfast.When it comes to your gut health, eating enough fiber is crucial.Emily Leeming, a dietitian and gut microbiome researcher at King's College London, told Business Insider how to improve.From our immune system to our emotions, a growing body of research suggests that the state of our gut health affects the whole body.The gut microbiome, the trillions of "good" and "bad" microbes that live in the digestive lining, is heavily shaped by what we eat, said Leeming, the author of "Genius Gut: The Life-Changing Science of Eating for Your Second Brain."The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends adults eat 14g of fiber per 1,000 calories. They say more than 90% of women and 97% of men do not.Leeming, who used to work as a private chef, takes a simple approach to meeting her daily fiber goal, while keeping her meals tasting good.She shared four tips for easily adding more fiber to your diet.Stock up on high-fiber foodsLeeming knows which foods are particularly high in fiber and she makes sure to add them to her shopping list."There are high-fiber foods that probably surprise people like dark chocolate and avocados," she said. One avocado is about 10 grams of fiber, and two pieces of dark chocolate contain about two grams.Leeming focuses on what she calls the "B-G B-Gs," which stands for beans, greens, berries, grains, and seeds."It's the beans, whole grains, nuts and seeds that tend to contain more fiber than the fruits and vegetables," she said, adding that fruits and veggies are of course still important.She said berries tend to be higher in fiber than other fruits because they contain seeds.Make your grains wholegrainWholegrains such as oats, quinoa, wild rice, and wholemeal bread, are great sources of fiber, Leeming said. Opting for a wholegrain such as brown rice over its white counterpart is an easy swap that will up your fiber intake, she said."I absolutely love pasta. So I do wholegrain pasta," she said. Leeming also adds legumes such as beans or lentils to dishes to up the fiber content even more."I'm a really big fan of beans and lentils with tomato sauce and some green veggies or maybe a salad on the side," she said.Sprinkle nuts and seeds on top of any dishSprinkling some mixed nuts and seeds over a dish is a quick way to add some more fiber into your day."You can add them to anything. It could be your breakfast in the morning, it could be a salad that you've just made," Leeming said.Chia seeds and flax seeds are particularly high in fiber, she said. Chia seeds contain about 30 grams of fiber per 100 grams, and 20 grams of flax seeds provide about 6 grams of fiber.Keep healthy snacks in your line of sightLeeming also keeps a jar of mixed nuts by her kettle so that she can snack on them when she goes to make a cup of tea."The things that I want to eat more of, I keep in my line of sight. That just visually prompts you to go for them as a first step," she said.

Lively and her "Gossip Girl" costar Leighton Meester reportedly "avoided each other like the plague" while filming.Blake Lively and Leighton Meester as Serena and Blair in "Gossip Girl" season one. The CW/Max While their "Gossip Girl" characters swung wildly from the ultimate BFF duo to toxic frenemies almost every other episode, off-screen, Lively and Meester were said to have had a frosty relationship.The CW teen drama ran for six seasons between 2007 and 2012. Lively played the effortlessly cool, free-spirited Serena Van der Woodson, the foil to Meester's controlling queen bee Blair Waldorf.New York Magazine reported in 2008 that the two stars were said to "avoid each other like the plague" while on set shooting the show's early seasons, with tensions running so high that their castmates were forced to "choose sides.""Blake and Leighton have never been best friends, and never professed to be. Blake goes to work, does her job, and goes home," a publicist for Lively said at the time, per Harper's Bazaar.However, speaking to Vanity Fair for a retrospective on the series published in 2017, showrunner Joshua Safran said the pair got on fine on set."Blake and Leighton were not friends. They were friendly, but they were not friends like Serena and Blair," he said. "Yet the second they'd be on set together, it's as if they were."In the same article, recurring cast member Michelle Trachtenberg denied rumors of a full-blown feud between the two."It's funny," she said. "Because when we were filming, there was, 'Leighton hates Blake, Blake hates Leighton, everyone hates Blake, everyone hates Leighton, everyone hates Chace,' and blah, blah, blah. It really wasn't. We were all chill. It was cool."Incidentally, as of 2024, Lively and Meester do not follow each other on Instagram. Meester does, however, follow two of her other costars, Chace Crawford and Penn Badgley. Rumors swirled that Lively was somehow involved in Armie Hammer's exit from "Gossip Girl."Armie Hammer on "Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen" in 2017. Chris Haston/Bravo/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images Appearing on "Watch What Happens Live With Andy Cohen," Armie Hammer was asked by an audience member to name the "biggest diva" on the set of "Gossip Girl."Hammer had a four-episode arc on the series during its second season. He played Gabriel Edwards, a conman who briefly dated Lively's character.In response to the question, Hammer diplomatically said: "Let me just say that was a tough show to film, and I didn't end up actually filming all of the episodes I was supposed to because it was such a tough film.""Really? Literally, you said, 'Get me out of this'?" Cohen asked."It was also like, 'Get him out of here,'" the actor said.Cohen followed that up by asking whose love interest he played in the series, prompting Hammer to drop Lively's name.Chelsea Handler, who also appeared on the talk show, joked, "Sounds like she was the problem."Cohen added: "It sure does, Chelsea. That's exactly what I was thinking.""No, no, that's not what I'm saying," Hammer replied, laughing awkwardly. In 2012, Lively and Ryan Reynolds married at a slave plantation in South Carolina. Reynolds said the couple didn't know about the venue's history until after their ceremony.Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively in New York City. Gotham/GC Images/Getty Images In 2012, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, tied the knot at Boone Hall plantation in South Carolina. The plantation features nine slave cabins built between 1790 and 1810, which are referred to as "Slave Street."Reynolds apologized for the decision in a 2020 interview with Fast Company after the couple was called out for the hypocrisy of a joint statement accompanied by a $200,000 donation to the NAACP Legal Defense they shared on Lively's Instagram following the murder of George Floyd by police.Reynolds said they chose Boone Hall based on Pinterest photos and only realized it was a "place built upon devastating tragedy" after the event.Reynolds added that after learning of Boone Hall's history, the actors had another wedding at home years later.Lively has not addressed the backlash over her wedding venue. Lively's now-defunct lifestyle website ran a fashion editorial that romanticized the Antebellum South in 2014.Blake Lively walks the red carpet at the 2014 Annual Cannes Film Festival. Andreas Rentz/Getty Images Two years after her wedding at Boone Hall, Lively launched a lifestyle website called Preserve.In just a matter of months, it attracted controversy when its fall issue featured a photo shoot and article that appeared to romanticize the monied world of the Confederate South.Titled "Allure of Antebellum," the photo shoot featured a white, blonde-haired model in a floppy hat, high-heeled pumps, and a leopard-print mini-skirt.In the accompanying article, the unnamed author wrote about the "innate sense of social poise" and "unparalleled warmth and authenticity" of the pre-Civil War era women."The term Southern Belle came to fruition during the Antebellum period (before the Civil War), acknowledging women with an inherent social distinction who set the standards for style and appearance," the Preserve article read."These women epitomized Southern hospitality with a cultivation of beauty and grace, but even more with a captivating and magnetic sensibility."The publication of the editorial immediately attracted criticism, with Refinery29 arguing: "The authors use the word antebellum in a misty-eyed, nostalgia-tinged way that completely ignores the brutality endured by Southern women not lucky enough to be born into privilege."A year later, in October 2015, Lively shuttered the site, explaining to Vogue in an interview that it was because she and her team had "launched the site before it was ready." Lively is rumored to have had a falling out with her "A Simple Favor" costar, Anna Kendrick, although their costar denied any friction.Anna Kendrick and Blake Lively at the New York premiere of "A Simple Favor." Jimi Celeste/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images Lively and Anna Kendrick starred alongside each other in the 2018 movie "A Simple Favor."According to reports, the two had a falling out on the set of the film.Claire Parker, cohost of the popular podcast Celebrity Memoir Book Club, previously said in a TikTok video that by the end of the movie, Lively and Kendrick "were not speaking," citing an unnamed studio source.While neither Lively nor Kendrick has addressed the rumors, their costar Henry Golding has denied the claims of a feud, saying he thought the two stars got on "reasonably well.""Definitely no friction that I noticed," he said when asked about the rumors on "Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen."Despite this, fans have continued to speculate about sensing tension between the two stars who are set to reunite for a sequel next year in joint interviews. After a clip from a resurfaced 2016 interview went viral, Lively was criticized for being rude to a journalist.Blake Lively attends the New York premiere of "Caf Society" in 2016. Sylvain Gaboury/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images ReporterKjersti Flaa interviewed Lively and her costar, Parker Posey, about the film "Caf Society" in 2016.Flaa reshared the interview eight years later at the height of Lively's "It Ends With Us" backlash when she uploaded it to YouTube with the title "The Blake Lively interview that made me want to quit my job."In the video, Lively offered a snarky response to Flaa after she congratulated the actor on her pregnancy."First of all, congrats on your little bump," Flaa said, kicking off the interview."Congrats on your little bump," Lively responded, although Flaa was not pregnant.Later in the interview, Lively challenged Flaa for asking a question about clothes. The actor also seemed to ignore Flaa in parts of the interview and angled her body toward Posey."It actually took me a while to get over the experience," Flaa previously told Business Insider, adding, "I have met moody celebrities, but nothing like this interview."Flaa told MailOnline that Lively's comment was particularly hurtful because she wasn't able to conceive."It's true that the comment hurt me because I was never able to have kids myself, but of course Blake did not know that so I can't blame her for the pain that I felt," she later told BI. Lively sparked outrage among sexual assault survivors for defending Woody Allen.The cast of "Caf Society" poses with Woody Allen at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival. George Pimentel/WireImage Lively's 2016 film "Caf Society" was directed by Woody Allen.Two years before "Caf Society" premiered, The New York Times published an open letter by Dylan Farrow, Allen's adopted daughter, reiterating the accusation that he groomed and sexually assaulted her as a child.Farrow originally accused her famous father when she was 7 years old. At the time, a state's attorney in Connecticut said he had "probable cause" to prosecute but declined to file charges.In the 2014 essay, Farrow called out Hollywood stars like Cate Blanchett, Emma Stone, and Scarlett Johansson for working with Allen in recent years and ignoring the allegation against him."Woody Allen is a living testament to the way our society fails the survivors of sexual assault and abuse," she wrote.During the press tour for "Caf Society," French comedian Laurent Lafitte cracked a joke about Allen dodging accountability during the opening ceremony for the 2016 Cannes Film Festival.Later at the festival, Lively made it clear she disapproved of Lafitte's material."I think any jokes about rape, homophobia, or Hitler is not a joke," Lively told Variety. "It was more disappointing for the artists in the room that someone was going up there making jokes about something that wasn't funny."At the same event, Lively also said she hadn't read Ronan Farrow's new op-ed in the Hollywood Reporter, in which the investigative reporter defended his sister and criticized powerful people for "sweeping aside her allegations.""I don't want to speak on something I haven't read," Lively told Vulture. "I think that's dangerous. It's definitely something that being at the festival, the media these days, you come to a film festival about film and people talk about all different types of things. You know? That can be definitely tricky to navigate."Lively continued to praise Allen throughout the press tour, describing his director style as "very empowering.""It's amazing what Woody has written for women," she told the Los Angeles Times, adding that she did not consider Allen's personal life while shooting the film."It's very dangerous to factor in things you don't know anything about," Lively said. "I could [only] know my experience. And my experience with Woody is he's empowering to women."In 2017, Farrow published another op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that questioned Allen's role in the #MeToo movement, casting Lively as a hypocrite for condemning Harvey Weinstein but continuing to support Allen.In 2018, Lively posted in support of Hollywood's anti-sexual harassment initiative Time's Up, writing, "I'm honored to be a part of this movement. The time is NOW!"Farrow replied, "You worked with my abuser, @blakelively. Am I a woman who matters too?"Farrow's account of her assault has remained consistent over the years, most recently in the 2021 HBO docuseries "Allen v. Farrow," while Allen has repeatedly denied the allegation. Lively apologized for poking fun at Kate Middleton's "photoshop fails" after the princess went public with her cancer diagnosis.Blake Lively and Kate Middleton both photographed in 2024. Eric Charbonneau/Mark Cuthbert/UK Press/Getty Images Amid the social media storm that erupted after the release of a digitally manipulated portrait of the princess and her children following Middleton's mysterious retreat from the public eye, Lively jumped on the trend of mocking her "photoshop fails."She shared an edited photo on Instagram to promote her beverage line. The photo showed Lively sitting in a chair by a warped pool with a comically enlarged thumb and a lemon floating above her head.According to People, she captioned the photo: "I'm so excited to share this new photo I just took today to announce our 4 new @bettybuzz & @bettybooze products! Now you know why I've been MIA."Middleton later announced that she had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy.Lively later deleted her post and shared a note on her Instagram Story apologizing to the British royal and her own followers."I'm sure no one cares today, but I feel like I have to acknowledge this. I made a silly post around the 'photoshop fails' frenzy, and oh man, that post has me mortified today. I'm sorry. Sending love and well wishes to all, always," she wrote. Lively has since accused Baldoni of sexual harassment on set and orchestrating a smear campaign to "bury her."Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni costarred in "It Ends With Us." Jeff Spicer/Getty Images for Sony Pictures; Gotham/WireImage On December 21, Lively filed a legal complaint against Baldoni, accusing her director and costar of sexual harassment, retaliation, and coordinating attempts to damage her reputation.According to the filing, obtained by Business Insider, Lively's strategy for promoting "It Ends With Us" which drew backlash for making light of the film's themes was "in accordance with the marketing plan created and delivered by the film's distributor Sony."The marketing plan directed the cast to avoid discussing sad or heavy themes, in order to frame the film as "a story of hope."At the same time, Lively alleged that Baldoni "abruptly pivoted" his talking points in an attempt to explain why he'd been unfollowed by much of the film's cast and crew on social media apparently prompted by Baldoni's inappropriate behavior on set."To that end, he and his team used domestic violence 'survivor content' to protect his public image," the legal filing reads.As Business Insider previously reported, Baldoni hired a public-relations crisis team, including veteran PR manager Melissa Nathan, as rumors swirled that he was on the outs with Lively and other castmates. According to Lively's lawsuit, Nathan's team helped Baldoni orchestrate an online smear campaign against Lively, partially to distract fans from speculating about his conduct on set."He wants to feel like she can be buried," a publicist working with Mr. Baldoni wrote in a message to Nathan, per the legal complaint."You know we can bury anyone," Nathan replied.A rep for Baldoni called the allegations "shameful" and "categorically false" in a statement to Business Insider.A rep for Lively told The New York Times, "I hope that my legal action helps pull back the curtain on these sinister retaliatory tactics to harm people who speak up about misconduct and helps protect others who may be targeted."

Kayla Barnes-Lentz spends much of her day optimizing her health to try to live to 150.She also runs her own business, so has to fit her biohacking around her busy workday.She has a 2 hour morning routine, takes regular biohacking breaks, and goes to bed by 8:30 p.m.From the second Kayla Barnes-Lentz wakes up, her day is built around enhancing her health.Barnes-Lentz, 33, told Business Insider that her extensive biohacking routine has helped her to reverse her biological age by 11 years. Biological age is a measure of how healthy a person's cells and organs are, but scientists don't agree on the definition.As a coowner of a longevity clinic in Cleveland and the host of a podcast about health optimization, she counts this routine as part of her work."During work, I have my office optimized for optimal productivity, and I incorporate health optimization practices throughout the day," she said.Barnes-Lentz's habits aren't all scientifically proven. But she and other biohackers, such as the millionaire entrepreneur Bryan Johnson, take a chance on experimental treatments to live as long as possible. Barnes-Lentz wants to reach 150, while Johnson's mantra is "don't die." Barnes-Lentz and her husband, Warren Lentz, in their sauna. Masha Maltsava She's inspired by naturopathic medicine, which she said involves "new age tech."health protocols." She said she has also hired female Ph.D. candidates to "dive into the literature" around women's health and longevity to inform her female-focused protocols, which she sells as part of a membership program.Medical experts say that for the average person, getting the basics right can make a big difference in how long they live. A study published last year found that a healthy diet could increase lifespan by up to 10 years, and Nathan K. LeBrasseur, a physiologist at Mayo Clinic, previously told BI that spending just 3% of your day exercising can contribute to healthy aging.Barnes-Lentz shared how she fits biohacking around running her business.Before work, she spends 2 hours biohackingBarnes-Lentz's morning routine takes about 2 hours. She starts with what she describes as an "oral protocol," which includes tongue scraping, water flossing, and oil pulling. Tongue scraping and flossing are commonly recognized as effective ways to reduce bacteria and plaque in the mouth. But there's not enough evidence that oil pulling, an Ayurvedic practice that involves swishing oil around the mouth, is beneficial enough for oral health to be recommended by the American Dental Association.She also does her first round of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy, a noninvasive treatment in which bursts of electric currents are sent through soft tissue across the body."I think of our body as a battery, and PEMF can increase your charge," she said. Barnes-Lentz uses a PEMF machine several times a day. Magdalena Wosinska Some research suggests that PEMF could be useful in treating osteoarthritis and bone fractures, but more evidence is needed to draw a connection, said the authors of a 2023 review of research published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences.Barnes-Lentz also works out, gets some sun exposure to regulate her circadian rhythm, spends time in a sauna, showers, and measures her biometrics (body composition, grip strength, lung health, and blood pressure) before breakfast.She does red-light therapy while workingBarnes-Lentz works from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. most days, running her longevity business, podcast, and social media accounts, including her Instagram account, which has 383,000 followers. She tries to do 10,000 steps a day and move her body as much as possible.To do that, she takes calls while walking and takes breaks every 90 minutes to walk or do what she considers a biohack, such as standing on a whole-body vibration plate. Barnes-Lentz standing on her whole-body vibration plate. Magdalena Wosinska Even when she does desk-based work,In her office, she has an air-filtration system and uses natural light instead of LEDs to avoid interrupting her circadian rhythm. In a 2023 report published in the journal Frontiers in Photonics, researchers found that blue light from LEDs can disrupt sleep when people are repetitively exposed to it for prolonged periods at night.Barnes-Lentz also inhales humid air using a NanoVi machine which is advertised as a way to repair proteins in the body damaged by oxidative stress to improve her cognition and brain health. Research suggests that oxidative stress, which is caused by factors including sunlight, alcohol, and certain medications, plays a role in aging and the development of neurodegenerative diseases.A small 2022 study published in the International Journal of Molecular Science suggested that the NanoVi could help improve cellular health and cognition in older people. The study involved four people with cognitive impairment who used a NanoVi over 12 weeks, so more research is needed.A cold plunge at lunchtime Barnes-Lentz and her husband take cold plunges as part of their daily biohacking routines. Masha Maltsava "My midday routine consists of a whole body vibration plate and cold plunge, which gives me a natural increase in energy, followed by a hyperbaric chamber session," Barnes-Lentz said.She does five, hourlong sessions in a hyperbaric chamber each week, using the time to catch up on messages on her phone. Hyperbaric oxygen chambers contain a pure, pressurized form of the gas to increase its absorption in the body. They are used to treat conditions including burns, wounds, skin and bone infections, and hearing and vision loss.anti-aging benefits,After work, she goes for a walk and optimizes her sleep scheduleBarnes-Lentz and her husband eat dinner at around 5 p.m., more than three hours before they go to bed at 8:30 p.m., to help them sleep.She knows that a varied diet is good for the gut microbiome, so she has different organic, seasonal vegetables and fruits delivered each week. The structure of her meals is always the same: vegetables, high-quality proteins, healthy fats, and carbohydrates that don't spike her blood sugar too much, she said.After dinner, the couple walks for 50 minutes in the hills around their Los Angeles home to aid digestion, catch up on their days, and get in more zone-two cardio."Then, we begin our wind-down routine, which may involve more PEMF or relaxing together. At sunset, we ensure that the house is only red light to promote the release of melatonin," she said.Some studies have found that using artificial red light at night can improve sleep quality, but a 2023 study published in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry found no evidence that red light increases melatonin secretion and, in some cases, can increase alertness."I've worked really hard to build the life that I have," Barnes-Lentz said. "I'm incredibly blessed and very fortunate that I get to move my body and get to do all these things. And I'm excited to see what that's going to lead to in the future."Correction: December 23, 2024 An earlier version of this story misrepresented Barnes-Lentz's naturopathic approach to medicine. It involves "new age tech," not herbs and massage.

President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of nearly all federal death row inmates on Monday, meaning that 37 men who were slated to be executed will instead spend the rest of their lives behind bars without the possibility of parole. The pardons will also help contribute to what has become a notable criminal justice trend a sharp reduction in the number of executions carried out by the United States. Bidens action applies only to federal prisoners the president does not have the power to pardon or commute sentences handed down by state courts and it leaves just three prisoners remaining on federal death row. Biden did not commute the sentences of three particularly notorious criminals: Robert Bowers, who killed 11 people at a synagogue in Pittsburgh; Dylann Roof, a white supremacist who murdered Black parishioners at a South Carolina church; and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of two brothers responsible for the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.Bidens action will likely prevent the incoming Trump administration from beginning with a wave of executions. In 2020, the last full year of President-elect Donald Trumps first presidency, the federal government resumed executions for the first time in two decades, killing a total of 13 people before Trump left office the first time. Biden instructed the Justice Department to issue a moratorium on additional federal executions during the first year of his presidency.Bidens commutations, moreover, contribute to a longstanding trend on all US death rows, both state and federal: Thanks to a variety of factors, including an overall decline in crime and better criminal defense lawyers for capital defendants, death sentences are on the decline in the United States, and have declined sharply since the 1990s. These trends are most pronounced in state criminal justice systems, which perform the overwhelming majority of executions again, at the federal level, there have been no recent executions at all except during the later part of the first Trump administration.For much of the 1990s, the United States (at the state and federal levels) sentenced more than 300 people a year to die. By contrast, according to the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), 26 people received a death sentence in 2024, as of December 16. According to DPICs data, 2024 is also the 10th consecutive year when fewer than 50 people were sentenced to die. DPICs data also shows a declining trend in the number of people who were actually executed (the particularly pronounced dip in 20202022 is likely due to the Covid-19 pandemic). Death Penalty Information CenterThat said, there are two factors that could conceivably reverse this trend. One is that the Supreme Court, with its relatively new 6-3 Republican supermajority, is extraordinarily pro-death penalty and has signaled that it may roll back longstanding precedents interpreting what limits the Constitutions prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments places on government executions. The other is that Florida recently overtook Texas as the state with the most new death sentences a development that likely stems from a 2023 state law that allows Florida courts to impose the death penalty if eight of 12 jurors hearing a case agree to impose this sentence. Should other states adopt similar laws, that could potentially cause a rapid increase in the number of sentences. Most states require a unanimous jury verdict before a death sentence may be imposed.Still, many of the structural factors causing the death penalty to decline are longstanding, and are unlikely to be reversed unless federal and state law changes drastically.Why has use of the death penalty declined so sharply in the United States?There are many factors that likely contribute to the death penaltys decline. Among other things, crime fell sharply in recent decades the number of murders and non-negligent manslaughters fell from nearly 25,000 in 1991 to less than 15,000 in 2010. Public support for the death penalty has also fallen sharply, from 80 percent in the mid-90s to 53 percent in 2024, according to Gallup. And, beginning in the 1980s, many states enacted laws permitting the most serious offenders to be sentenced to life without parole instead of death thus giving juries a way to remove such offenders from society without killing them.Yet, as Duke University law professor Brandon Garrett argues in End of Its Rope: How Killing the Death Penalty Can Revive Criminal Justice, these and similar factors can only partially explain why the death penalty is in decline. Murders, for example, have declined modestly since 2000 (by about 10 percent), Garrett writes. Yet annual death sentences have fallen by 90 percent since their peak in the 1990s.Garrett argues, persuasively, that one of the biggest factors driving the decline in death sentences is the fact that capital defendants typically receive far better legal representation today than they did a generation ago. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in 2001, People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty.The Supreme Court briefly abolished the death penalty in Furman v. Georgia (1972). Though Furman produced a maze of concurring and dissenting opinions and no one opinion explaining the Courts rationale, many of the justices pointed to the arbitrary manner in which death sentences were doled out. The particular death sentences before the Court in Furman, Justice Potter Stewart wrote, are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual because death sentences appeared to be handed down to just a random handful of serious offenders.Four years later, in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Court allowed states to resume sentencing serious offenders to death but only with adequate procedural safeguards. Gregg upheld a Georgia statute that allowed prosecutors to claim that a death sentence is warranted because certain aggravating circumstances are present, such as if the offender had a history of serious violent crime. Defense attorneys, in turn, could present the jury with mitigating circumstances that justified a lesser penalty, such as evidence that the defendant had a mental illness or was abused as a child. A death sentence was only warranted if the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors.This weighing test is now a centerpiece of capital trials in the United States, which means the primary job of a capital defense lawyer is often to humanize their client in the eyes of a jury. Defense counsel must explain how factors like an abusive upbringing, mental deficiencies, or personal tragedy led their client to commit a terrible crime.Doing this well, Garrett argues, takes a team. It requires investigators who can dig into a clients background, and it often requires social workers or other professionals who have the time and the ability to elicit sensitive, embarrassing, and often humiliating evidence (e.g., family sexual abuse) that the defendant may have never disclosed.And yet, especially in the years following Gregg, many states didnt provide even minimally competent legal counsel to capital defendants much less a team that included a trained investigator and a social worker.Virginia, for example, was once one of the three states with the most executions (alongside Texas and Oklahoma). A major reason is that, for quite some time, Virginia only paid capital defense lawyers about $13 an hour, and a lawyers total fee was capped at $650 per case.In 2002, however, the state created four Regional Capital Defender offices. And, when state-employed defense teams couldnt represent a particular client, the state started paying private lawyers up to $200 an hour for in-court work and up to $150 an hour for out-of-court work. As a result, the number of death row inmates in Virginia fell from 50 in the 1990s to just five in 2017. (Virginia abolished the death penalty entirely in 2021.)Virginias experience, moreover, was hardly isolated. As Garrett notes, many states enacted laws in the last four decades that provided at least some defense resources to capital defendants.Brandon GarrettAnd in states that did not provide adequate resources to defendants, several nonprofits emerged to pick up the slack. In Texas, for example, an organization called the Gulf Region Advocacy Center (GRACE) was formed in response to a notorious case where a capital defense lawyer slept through much of his clients trial.Capital defendants, in other words, are much less likely to be left alone or practically alone with an incompetent lawyer during a trial that will decide if they live or die. And that means that they are far more likely to convince a jury that mitigating factors justify a sentence other than death.The Supreme Court could potentially blow up this trendThe largest threat to the trend of fewer death sentences and executions is the Supreme Courts Republican supermajority, which is often contemptuous of precedents handed down by earlier justices who Republican legal elites view as too liberal. And the Courts most recent death penalty decisions suggest that a majority of the justices may be eager to roll back constitutional safeguards for capital defendants.Most notably, the Courts 5-4 decision in Bucklew v. Precythe (2019) suggests that at least some of the justices want to revolutionize the Courts approach to criminal sentencing altogether, opening the door to far harsher sentences for many offenders. Decisions like Furman and Gregg are rooted in the Eighth Amendments ban on cruel and unusual punishments. This reference to unusual punishments suggests that the kinds of punishment forbidden by the Constitution will change over time, as certain punishments fall out of favor and thus become more unusual. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in Trop v. Dulles (1958), the Eighth Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.Indeed, under this framework, there is a strong argument that the death penalty has itself become unconstitutional because it is so rarely used.Bucklew did not explicitly overrule the long line of Supreme Court precedents looking to evolving standards of decency to determine which punishments are allowed, but it seemed to ignore the last several decades of Eighth Amendment law altogether. Instead, Justice Neil Gorsuchs majority opinion in Bucklew suggested that the Courts Eighth Amendment decisions should put greater weight on what legal elites in the 1790s might have classified as cruel and unusual, than on which punishments are out of favor today.Death was the standard penalty for all serious crimes at the time of the founding, Gorsuch wrote in Bucklew. And, while his opinion does list some methods of execution dragging the prisoner to the place of execution, disemboweling, quartering, public dissection, and burning alive that violate the Eighth Amendment, Gorsuch argues that these methods of execution were unconstitutional even when the Eight Amendment was written because by the time of the founding, these methods had long fallen out of use and so had become unusual.Warrens framework, in other words, asks whether a particular punishment has fallen out of favor today. Gorsuchs framework, by contrast, asks whether a particular punishment was out of favor at the time of the founding.Although four other justices joined Gorsuchs Bucklew opinion, it is as yet unclear whether a majority of the Court actually supports tossing out decades worth of Eighth Amendment law in favor of Gorsuchs more narrow approach since Bucklew, the Court has moved more cautiously, often ruling against death row inmates, but on narrower grounds than the sweeping reasoning Gorsuch floated in Bucklew.Still, Bucklew does suggest that there is some appetite on the Court for an Eighth Amendment revolution. Among other things, Gorsuchs declaration that death was the standard penalty for all serious crimes at the time of the founding suggests that he would overrule Gregg, with its elaborate procedural safeguards limiting when the death penalty may be used even against murderers. And the Court has only grown more conservative since Ginsburg died in 2020 and was replaced by Republican Justice Amy Coney Barrett (though Barrett has, at times, taken a less pro-death penalty approach than her other Republican colleagues.)If Trump gets to replace more justices on the Court, and especially if he gets to replace some of the Courts relatively moderate voices, Gorsuch could gain allies for the broader rollback of Eighth Amendment rights that he seemed to announce in Bucklew.For the time being, however, the Supreme Courts rightward turn has not reversed the broader trend against the death penalty. Both the number of new death sentences, and the number of executions, declined sharply since the 1990s.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:

Something happens to me every December wherein movies and music that are objectively kind of bad suddenly become irresistible simply because they are about Christmas. By this I mean Im spending entire days listening to Michael Bubl and that one Zooey Deschanel album and entire nights watching whatever drivel Netflix has most recently produced namely, movies in which hot people kiss in towns called Snow Falls. This is how, recently, I found myself pressing play on the 2004 comedy Christmas With the Kranks, streaming on Hulu and starring Tim Allen, Jamie Lee Curtis, Dan Aykroyd, and the kid from Malcolm in the Middle. Of course Id already seen it, and of course the only thing that stuck out to me was, How could any college-aged woman love ham that much? (a key plot point, somehow). Anyway, it was fine. It succeeded in doing its job, which was to turn my brain into a snow globe for an hour and 34 minutes. This was before my fianc, an unrepentant Letterboxd snob, decided to look up reviews for Christmas With the Kranks and found that it has a 5 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Five! Meaning that out of 100 reviews, only five of them were good. Incredibly low, I thought, for a movie that Id consider at the very least watchable. And the reviews themselves were mean: Robert Ebert called it a holiday movie of stunning awfulness that gets even worse when it turns gooey at the end, while the Washington Post said it was a leaden whimsy so heavy it threatens to crash through the multiplex floor.My first thought was not anger at the critics of 20 years ago for ripping apart a film I had just spent 94 precious minutes watching. It was the overwhelming suspicion that, if Christmas With the Kranks were to come out today, it would have a significantly better critical reception than it did 20 years ago. So I looked up reviews for similar mid-budget Christmas movies from the 2000s that remain popular on streaming (Kranks is the seventh most popular movie on Hulu right now). Turns out, critics hated many of them, too. 2008s Four Christmases, starring Reese Witherspoon and Vince Vaughn, has a measly 25 percent rating and was called a miscast mess by Empire magazine and egregious by the Guardian. Ron Howards The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, at 49 percent, was dubbed a dank, eerie, weird movie. Most shocking of all, The Holiday, an objectively perfect Nancy Meyers film despite the fact that Kate Winslet ends up with Jack Black, was called soggy, syrupy and bloating by the BBC and was criticized for not saying much.Do you remember the last time you read a review of a Christmas rom-com that complained that it didnt have enough to say? I dont. Thats because nobody expects them to say anything anymore. And thats bad for the current state of pop culture.Consider the sorts of reviews that the legions of made-for-streaming Christmas movies are getting these days. Comedies that manage to nab actual A-listers and decent-sized budgets like Spirited and The Christmas Chronicles receive mostly positive reviews for being fun for the whole family, while middling romances like A Christmas Prince, Falling for Christmas, and Hot Frosty are praised for being simply passable. One LA Weekly critic called the bafflingly terrible Lindsay Lohan Netflix joint Falling for Christmas perfect background noise for wrapping presents, or a good reason for a cackling friend-watch and group activity (while getting jolly and juiced).Its worth asking what the point of reviewing a movie is if the conclusion is Sure, its bad, but throw it on if you dont plan on paying attention. This isnt a dig at that particular critic (who, to be fair, only included it as a part of a roundup of 2022s Christmas movies). Its rather an indictment of the way were now expected to engage with film and TV and music, too. Its now taken for granted that when we click play on a streaming platform, its probably not the only thing were paying attention to. The New Yorkers Kyle Chayka argued that homogenous, predictable vibes-based ambient TV (think Emily in Paris, Dream Home Makeover, and basically any show about food) that keeps users watching, even when theyre not, is the backbone of the streaming economy. Like earlier eras of TV, ambient television is less a creative innovation than a product of the technological and social forces of our time, he writes. Its worth asking what the point of reviewing a movie is if the conclusion is Sure, its bad, but throw it on if you dont plan on paying attention.The effect has been to diminish the quality we now expect from our film, television, and music. Yet its only part of the equation. At the same time that streaming platforms proliferated, so too did social media, which dramatically increased the amount of content people consume that is produced by amateur posters as opposed to creative professionals. Meanwhile, algorithmic social media platforms force-feed the most mediocre content to their users. Now, were also contending with the problem of an endless font of AI slop, which synthesizes everything that came before it and churns out versions that are worse. Bad movies being praised as good enough isnt just a film industry or algorithmic problem, though. In the late 2000s, social media ushered in an era of poptimism: If critics openly trashed a movie or artist who was popular, they were seen as a snob or out of touch with the millions of people who suddenly had just as much power to publish their own opinions. Now, when a pop star reaches a certain strata of fame, wrote Chris Richards in the Washington Post in 2015, something magical happens. They no longer seem to get bad reviews. Stars become superstars, critics become cheerleaders and the discussion froths into a consensus of uncritical excitement.Poptimism isnt all bad. One of its effects was that critics suddenly had to take seriously the underrepresented opinions of nonwhite people, young people, and women. But there is also something inherently cowardly about trying to match the tastes of the masses, afraid of being left behind. Perhaps because social media democratized the role of the culture critic, or perhaps because of the wider collapse of local journalism (and journalism writ large), but today, we have fewer professional critics who are writing film reviews. Which means that critics arent going full Roger Ebert-reviewing-Kranks mode like they used to with one exception. This years action-comedy Christmas movie Red One, starring The Rock and Chris Evans, was dubbed a distinctly joyless execution of a premise by critics, who mostly seemed annoyed by the gigantic budget ($250 million) and Marvel-wannabe plot. The reviews are almost refreshingly nostalgic a sign, maybe, that not every corner of media has devolved into the current state of everything: a culture industry where both producers and audiences would rather obsess over charts, follower counts, and profitability over engaging with the subject matter. I realize now Im part of the problem. I was treating Christmas With the Kranks like a film viewer in 2024: something to throw on while looking at my phone, then look up its Rotten Tomatoes score as though its algorithm could synthesize all of the infinite nuances of what a good review entails. I have no interest in litigating whether Kranks is a good movie or not, but reading its terrible reviews reminded me that even the most mediocre Christmas comedy should be taken seriously. We should demand more than just-okay films where recognizable stars follow predictably soothing tropes even when all youre looking for is to have a brain that becomes a snow globe.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:

Today, President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 out of the 40 people on federal death row, reducing their sentences to life without parole. I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level, Biden said in a statement.Biden also recently commuted sentences for roughly 1,500 people who had been released from prison during the pandemic and have since been placed on home confinement a record number of commutations in a single day.These moves underscore how crucial the pardon power really is: the last possible corrective when the criminal justice system imprisons too many people and punishes them too harshly.But it all comes after Biden showed the other side of the presidential pardon. Shortly after Thanksgiving, Biden issued a broad pardon of his son Hunter, arguing that Hunter had been unfairly prosecuted and that the tax evasion and gun charges brought against him were politically motivated. That decision was a stark departure from his campaign promise to reestablish a commitment to the rule of law and to restore norms that insulate the Department of Justice from a presidents conflicts of interest after Donald Trump so brazenly abandoned those principles during his first White House term.Bidens pardon of his son was roundly criticized by lawmakers, including members of his own party, and also appears to be unpopular with the American public. (According to an Associated Press poll, only around two in 10 Americans approve of Bidens decision to pardon his son.) In the wake of the Hunter pardon, as well as Trumps previous corrupt use of the power and promise to pardon participants in the January 6, 2021, insurrection, lawmakers have rightly renewed calls to place checks on the presidents pardon power.Bidens recent use of the pardon, however, emphasizes why the power is an important tool to preserve and why efforts to reform it ought to be careful. But there are still ways to ensure its used more for good than for personal gain.That said, any attempt at pardon reform will face an uphill battle because the power is enshrined in the US Constitution but given the bipartisan tendency to misuse it and the frustration people from both parties have over it, lawmakers now might have a unique opportunity to make some key changes.How presidents have used (and abused) their pardon powerThe pardon is one of the presidents broadest and most unchecked powers. As my colleague Ian Millhiser recently pointed out, the Supreme Court has, for more than 150 years, acknowledged that presidents can issue pardons as they please to whomever and however many people they want and neither Congress nor the courts can get in the way. The limits on the pardon power are also extremely narrow: Presidents can only pardon federal crimes, so presidential pardons dont protect their recipients from being prosecuted under state laws. And presidents cant issue pardons for crimes that may be committed in the future. The pardon power is certainly among the most expansive afforded to an American president and the least constrained, said Donald Sherman, the executive director and chief counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit government ethics watchdog, adding that it is especially dangerous in the hands of a lawless president.Throughout American history, all but two presidents have made use of their pardon power, typically issuing them on their way out of the White House to avoid political backlash during their time in office. And many presidential pardons have been, to put it mildly, controversial. Trump, for example, issued pardons of his close allies, including Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, and Steve Bannon. He also pardoned his son-in-laws father, and even seemingly publicly dangled a pardon in front of Paul Manafort, his former campaign chair, when Manafort was under investigation over Russias interference in the 2016 presidential election. Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive tax cheat whose ex-wife generously donated to Clinton and the Democrats, and Clinton also pardoned his half-brother. But perhaps most (in)famously, Gerald Ford granted a pardon of Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal led to Nixons resignation setting the precedent that presidents are, in fact, above the law.But the presidents ability to grant clemency is also a powerful tool that can be used for good, specifically to correct historic injustices perpetrated by federal courts, as evident in Bidens decision today. Barack Obama granted clemency to nearly 2,000 people, most of them nonviolent drug offenders. It can also be a democratic tool, as was highlighted on Jimmy Carters first full day in the White House, when he pardoned the hundreds of thousands of Americans who evaded the Vietnam War draft, fulfilling a campaign promise.Bidens commutations of death row prisoners on Monday are another example of how pardons can be a tool for justice. While he still left three prisoners on federal death row the Boston Marathon bomber, the Tree of Life Synagogue shooter, and the shooter at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina the decision reflects changing public opinion over the death penalty. Thirty years ago, 80 percent of Americans believed in capital punishment. And while the majority of Americans still support the death penalty, that number has shrunk to 53 percent. The movement to end the death penalty has long argued that the punishment is unconstitutional that it is too cruel and unusual and Bidens commutations showed how the president can act on that principle even when Congress or the courts are too slow to do so.By empowering the president, as the elected representative of the people, to grant clemency, the pardon is essentially the publics only means of undoing convictions that we as a society decided were wrongSo while the pardon power has certainly been misused, it also serves an important purpose and shouldnt be done away with entirely. Thats why efforts to rein it in should focus on narrowly limiting the presidents power by simply providing more transparency and oversight and the possibility of undoing a corrupt pardon. What should pardon reform look like?One of the easier routes to reform the pardon is by creating new rules at the executive level. And though those can be easily undone and are certainly unlikely to happen during the Trump years they can set standards and public expectations about how presidents issue pardons. A future president, for example, can establish a clemency board, similar to how many states grant pardons. The board would be staffed by experts, who would review petitions, and provide a more transparent and deliberative process than the current system. Right now, that happens at the Office of the Pardon Attorney with the Department of Justice, which has been criticized for its opaque process in how it makes recommendations for presidential pardons.More complicated reforms would require a constitutional amendment enshrining the new limits. One thing that may be worth exploring is a congressional override, Sherman said. That way, Congress doesnt have to necessarily curtail the presidents power or put limits on who a president can and cant pardon. But in deeply unpopular cases that present a conflict of interest, Congress can have a say in whether or not those pardons should stand. If there was a supermajority override provision, [that] might address some of the most egregious cases, Sherman added. Other proposals could include putting explicit (though narrow) limits on the presidents power. Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, for example, previously introduced legislation to amend the Constitution to bar presidents from being able to pardon themselves, their family members, and administration and campaign officials. The framers of the Constitution included the pardon provisions as a safety valve against injustice, not as the means for a President to put himself, his family, and his associates above the law, Cohen said in a statement at the time.Until these reforms happen, presidents will continue to exercise one of their most sweeping powers with no checks and balances. Biden may have shown how this power ought to be used on his way out (Hunter pardon aside), but with Trump preparing to return to the White House more unrestrained than ever, leaving the pardon power untouched should worry lawmakers across the board. Update, December 23, 11:30 am ET: This article was originally published on December 12 and has been updated with information about the commutations of people on federal death row.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:

Batman Arkham Shadow has been given an update to stabilise and tweak some of the game's wobbles while also adding in a new character viewer and four Challenge mapsTech17:00, 23 Dec 2024Batman Arkham ShadowBatman Arkham Shadow has had an 1.2 update to make one of the best VR games this year even better.The Dark Knight opus is an action-adventure video game set in the brilliant Arkhamverse for the Meta Quest headsets, a narrative sequel to the hit Arkham Origins for PS3 and Xbox 360 in 2013.You play Bats in first-person for the first time in the series, flying your way around Gotham and beating up baddies as you battle to stop the Rat King from bumping off public office officials such as District Attorney Harvey Dent.While generally welcomed as a great game on its October release, some critics moaned about the instability of Arkham Shadow on the virtual reality headsets.The new update, which is now live, fixes some of these niggles and also adds in a load more content.There are now four new Challenge maps to enjoyREAD MORE: Daily Star's newsletter brings you the biggest and best stories sign up todayAfter fan feedback, the makers at developer Camouflaj have now installed a new character viewer, which allows you to fully explore the character modelling for all the key folk in the game in 3D.There are also four new Challenge maps to enjoy; The Disorderlies and Rumble on Deck for Predator mode, and Stowaway Brawl and Arkham's Finest for Battle mode.These modes are all about the best part of Arkham Shadow, the fighting, and youll find yourself nipping around small-scale sandboxes, taking out baddies by stealth and face-on fury and generally getting one big workout with your fist-flinging acrobatics.Note to all: Please give yourself plenty of space in the living room when punching out as Batman, as youll end up smashing a real-life mirror otherwise.Another major new feature is localised language versions for the game in French, German, Italian, European Spanish, Latin American Spanish, Japanese, and Korean.This opens up the title to millions of players in their native languages for the first time away from English.There is a new character viewer in the updateTheyve also added in various new sound FX and haptic feedback improvements to the game and improved weather effects and skyline views across Gotham to boost immersion.A spokesman for the game said: Much of the teams work is thanks to the helpful feedback provided by players.Article continues belowThe update is hefty at 8.9GB of data for your Meta Quest 3 or 3S, so give yourself plenty of time for downloading before you give this Game Awards Best VR Game winner a go.You can buy it now on the Meta store in your headset.RECOMMENDED

Palworld is closing out its first year with the huge Feybreak update, bringing with it a new area, new challenges and, of course, new Pals to collect here are the full patch notesTech16:09, 23 Dec 2024Feybreak hits Palworld today(Image: Pocket Pair)Palworld took the gaming world by storm early in 2024, bringing its Nintendo -baiting array of Pals (which certainly bear at least some resemblance to Pokemon ) to PC and Xbox. It's now come to additional platforms, and is one of the biggest games to ever hit Xbox Game Pass, but developer Pocketpair isn't done yet.In fact, as a Christmas treat for fans, the development team is rolling out a major update called Feybreak today which offers a whole host of new content.In fact, with Feybreak being the game's biggest update yet, there's almost a new game's worth of content to find, from new weapons, to new Pals, and even a whole new area to explore. Here's when you can play, and what's included.Palworld rose to fame with its 'Pokemon with guns' moniker(Image: Pocket Pair)Feybreak arrived at 5 am this morning UK time, so players should be able to download it now across all platforms. If your console or PC doesn't have the update yet, be sure to check for updates and go from there.Feybreak adds a whole host of fresh content to Palworld. There are new modes, including Hardcore Mode with permadeath for players and Pals, as well as Random Pal Mode which means Pal spawns are completely random.Fresh Strongholds can be claimed, there's a new player level cap of 60, and there are fresh Pals, weapons, resources, and the titular Feybreak island to explore.In your camp, you can build new buildings including large-scale egg incubators, a flea market for selling Pals and items, and even an assembly line to manufacture fake gold coins.Thankfully, with so much to cover, developer Pocketpair has put the full patch notes in a lengthy post on X (formerly Twitter).Content cannot be displayed without consentArticle continues belowWill you be jumping into Palworld's new update? And if so, what are you most excited about? Let us know in the comments below. And, if you haven't played it yet, it's discounted on multiple platforms at the moment including the Steam Winter Sale.For the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.RECOMMENDED