To govern is to choose, however difficult the choices may be.Pierre Mends France, prime minister of France 195455If you want to understand where Joe Bidens presidency went wrong, when his administration stopped looking like Barack Obamas and started looking like Jimmy Carters, you could start with the failure of Build Back Better.Build Back Better was a sweeping agenda of economic reform on the scale of the New Deal, meant to solidify its author as the FDR-sized president he wanted to be. Dusting the text off now, you can feel that ambition. Across two bills the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan it sought to spend over $4 trillion across a decade on transportation, manufacturing and science, home care, clean energy, an expanded child tax credit, tuition-free community college, child care, and much more. It would have been an epochal expansion of government spending and ambition, on par with Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal or Lyndon B. Johnsons Great Society.Little of this became law, of course. The bipartisan infrastructure law enacted in 2021 included $250 billion in new transportation spending, less than half of the Jobs Plans number; even adding the $72 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act for electric vehicles doesnt close the gap much. While the Jobs Plan included $1.6 trillion in climate spending, the Inflation Reduction Acts climate measures are estimated to cost less than half that much. The CHIPS and Science Act passed in 2022 appropriated all of $79 billion to support manufacturing, a far cry from Bidens $590 billion bid, and largely didnt appropriate money for science at all. And then theres the American Families Plan, almost all of which fell by the wayside, not passed by Congress in any form.That Biden was not able to pass the maximal version of his agenda is not much of an indictment. No president passes everything they want. They have to prioritize, to choose which parts of the agenda are worthy of their political capital and effort and which are not. Immigration activists were furious that Obama didnt prioritize comprehensive reform in his first term, and unions were mad that he didnt do the same for labor law. He put health care first, which yielded fruit for him as it had not for Bill Clinton, whose choice to do the same in 1993 resulted in calamity.But in both cases, the president and his allies in Congress made a conscious choice, for good or ill. What stands out about Biden is the degree to which he simply refused to choose at all. From the design of the American Rescue Plan at the beginning of his term, through Build Back Better and the rocky implementation of the measures he was able to pass, Bidens domestic record is characterized by a refusal to prioritize, a paralyzing fear of pissing off any Democratic faction that too often wound up winning nothing for any of them. Multiple causes, including his advanced age, conspired to make him the weakest chief executive America has had in decades. He won his nomination in 2020 through a strange primary that left him leery of intra-group conflict. His advisers, a group of courtiers drawn heavily from his own family and longtime Senate aides, shared this distaste for infighting, and were leery of offending the boss. All this was compounded by his temperament and the approach to politics Biden has had his whole career.The result is a failed presidency that left Biden without much of an enduring domestic policy legacy and made what accomplishments he can claim immensely vulnerable to the Republican trifecta taking over the government he led.Its a rather undignified end to the career of one of Americas longest-serving statesmen. One would think that a 44-year veteran of the Senate would do well precisely at the part of the presidency that demands strong leadership over the legislative process and indeed, that was a major part of Bidens case for himself in 2020. But the legislative process that could have shepherded his agenda into law is exactly where Bidenism fell apart.Failure at conceptionPresident Joe Biden leaves after speaking about the American Rescue Plan in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC, February 22, 2021. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty ImagesBidens missteps began at the very beginning, with legislation sometimes billed as a precursor and sometimes as a part of Build Back Better: the American Rescue Plan.The $1.9 trillion bill, signed into law less than two months after Bidens inauguration, was in some ways a triumph. It was markedly larger than the 2009 stimulus passed by his former boss. Whereas Obamas stimulus proved inadequate to the task of returning employment to pre-financial crisis levels, Bidens stimulus succeeded in bringing down unemployment incredibly rapidly, returning economic growth to its pre-pandemic trend.But it also was a direct cause of the 2022 and 2023 inflation, price hikes that in retrospect contributed to Donald Trumps eventual victory in 2024. Exactly how much inflation the law caused is debatable, but one group of economists compared the US experience to that of European countries with less ambitious stimulus programs and attributed about 3 percentage points of inflation to excessive stimulus.Given that the inflation measure the economists used peaked at 6.6 percent, that implies that without the bills pressures, overall price increases could have been reduced, perhaps even halved. That wouldnt have just helped avoid a Trump comeback it possibly would have been better for workers. Inflation was high enough that the median worker saw incredibly weak wage growth, certainly weaker than under Trump or Obamas second term. A more moderate stimulus, like the $618 billion package proposed by a group of Republican senators in February 2021, could have returned employment to high levels without putting as much pressure on prices.So how did the Biden team let this happen, especially when Democratic heavyweights like Larry Summers were warning them that the stimulus was too big? Im not in the best position to judge; I cheered on the American Rescue Plan as it happened, thinking the risks of overheating were smaller than the risks of being too meek. But I was wrong, and its worth asking how policymakers like Biden got this wrong too.Biden expressed fear that the package was too big as it was being debated. In mid-December 2020, Frank Foer reports in his book The Last Politician, Bidens aides presented him with a $2.4 trillion proposal, including both stimulus measures and longer-term infrastructure and child care spending. Biden balked at the price tag, saying, I dont want to be dead on arrival, and fearing Republican backlash.Biden had his soon-to-be Chief of Staff Ron Klain pass along a $1.3 trillion plan to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who balked, arguing something closer to $2 trillion was necessary. Why?As he cut deals with the Trump administration, Schumer kept a mental tally of the pent-up demands of Democratic senators, all the measures that never made it into previous iterations of Covid relief packages, Foer writes. As soon as he heard Bidens number, he knew it wasnt big enough to cover them all.In other words, neither Biden nor Schumer, even at this early moment, were interested in setting priorities and crafting the bill deliberately. They had demands from Schumers members and would include them. Biden folded. His initial skepticism faded. He deferred to his Senate leader.That approach worked well enough. After dual victories in Georgia Senate races on January 5, Democrats had a one-vote Senate majority. They rebuffed the $618 billion offered by moderate Republicans and charged ahead. But as they crafted the package, Biden and his allies didnt stop and ask: Which of these measures is the most important? Which are the most potentially inflationary? Should we include provisions that would dial back or expand aid, depending on what happens with unemployment and inflation? It was the first indication of what a president who refuses to choose looks like.Build Back BungledBiden hands Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) a pen during the signing ceremony for the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty ImagesThe just write a wish list and pass it through approach would not work for Build Back Better.Like the American Rescue Plan, BBB was less a coherent agenda than a hodgepodge of different priorities with their own congressional champions. There was the child tax credit expansion from the American Rescue Plan, which advocates like Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) wanted to make permanent; there was universal pre-K, paid leave, and child care, which Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) championed; there were clean energy credits, which climate advocates like Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) prioritized; and much more. None of them, in other words, were specifically Bidens signature issues.It was obvious from the start that not all of this could pass. Democrats never had a majority for this full agenda, and their majority was dependent on moderate Sens. Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) then both Democrats, today both independents. These two had to be wooed for any measure to earn majority support in Congress.Theres a tendency among left-leaning observers to see Manchin and Sinema as hopelessly unpredictable, or even bad-faith negotiators, but both of them were clear throughout the process about what they wanted. Frustratingly for the administration, the two senators desires were at cross purposes. Manchin was open to tax hikes on the rich but skeptical of the child tax credit and other handouts, while Sinema was open to those programs but hostile to tax hikes. Manchin was also, crucially, insistent that the package not play numbers games to seem cheaper than it was: Instead of temporarily extending programs that were meant to be made permanent eventually, any changes to safety net programs should be enacted permanently from the start.There was an obvious way to square this circle: pass a relatively modest bill funded by revenue that Sinema could support. Indeed, this was what in fact happened in August 2022, when Manchin negotiated the Inflation Reduction Act with Schumer. But was that package of energy tax credits and prescription drug controls the best that the Democratic majority could have done? Or could a more competent administration have passed a package that included something bigger, and permanent, for working families? There are many indications that congressional leadership and the Biden administration badly bungled these negotiations. In mid-2021, Biden invited Manchin, Sinema, and a number of centrist House Democrats to the White House. According to Jonathan Martin and Alex Burnss book This Will Not Pass, Biden announced to the group that Sinema had stated that the maximum Build Back Better bill shed support would cost $1.1 trillion. Sinema was furious at Biden for betraying what she said was a private conversation. Biden then had to convince a senator whose vote he desperately needed not to leave the room.But the more telling error in that meeting was something else: Each of you are saying, Do fewer things and do them bigger, but youre all saying different things, Biden told the group of moderates, per Foer. And if you add up all your different things, its actually a pretty big number. If you add all this up, its well over $2 trillion.The advice Biden was getting was good. Build Back Better was trying to do too much, and in so doing, failed to do any one thing well or permanently. But his takeaway from this was that trying to do one thing well was a trap, because someone would still be mad at him for not doing their thing permanently.This failure to make a choice, to decide what to prioritize and make the centerpiece of Build Back Better, was Bidens greatest legislative mistake as president. It represented a profound failure of leadership. In that situation, it was precisely Bidens job to state what one or two things out of the package hed like to do permanently. Perhaps it was the child tax credit; then he could negotiate a deal with Manchin that addressed the latters concerns about work incentives. Perhaps it was universal pre-K. Perhaps it was the clean energy credits. But he had to decide and Biden was a man who could not choose.This indecision repeatedly disrupted talks with Manchin. After negotiations in late October 2021 between Biden, Schumer, and Manchin, the trio agreed to remove paid leave from the package to reduce its size. Then the House passed a version of the legislation that included paid leave anyway. Manchins allies say he was frustrated by the feeling that a concession in his direction, once agreed to, could later be rescinded, the Washington Posts Jeff Stein and Tyler Pager would report.Then, a few days later, Biden announced a Build Back Better framework that was full of the temporary measures Manchin had been arguing against. Manchin made his displeasure clear soon thereafter, but to win over progressives in the House for an infrastructure bill, Biden told them that Manchin was on board, when hed made no such commitment.The greatest missed opportunity of the whole debacle, though, was a framework Manchin presented in December 2021. The $1.8 trillion plan included $500 billion to $600 billion in climate spending (in the ballpark of what the Inflation Reduction Act would eventually include), plus 10 years of universal pre-K, and it extended the American Rescue Plans expanded Affordable Care Act subsidies for health insurance.Biden did not take the deal as it was, which was fair. Its a negotiation, after all. Instead, the White House issued a press release singling Manchin out for blame in holding up the package. Manchin had urged them not to do this before the release went out, but it went out anyway. He announced he was abandoning the effort. The White House, in a fit of pique, sent out a remarkably pointless and petty release of their own accusing Manchin of operating in bad faith.Was the $1.8 trillion package the White House threw away perfect? No. It excluded the child tax credit entirely, and if I had my druthers, that proposal, with its transformative antipoverty impact, wouldve been substituted in for universal pre-K. But the thing is that I did not get my druthers, and neither did Joe Biden. Joe Manchin did. Thats how the Senate, and the basic arithmetic of getting to 50, works. Biden could not control who the people of West Virginia elect, but he could choose how to respond to the person they elected. And the $1.8 trillion plan was certainly better, and did more for children, than the Inflation Reduction Act would a year later.Talks would not be revived for months, and only then under Schumers auspices, with the White House far away. With the Biden administration at a distance, the Inflation Reduction Act was able to come together. Schumer was often as wavering as Biden in 2021, and deserves blame for those failures too. But he redeemed himself a year later by cutting a final deal.Theres perhaps no more damning critique of the White Houses legislative strategy than the fact that a bill only came together when they got out of the way. Someone, it turns out, could choose: It just happened to be Joe Manchin, not the president.Why?Perhaps it feels like Im being unfair to Biden. He did, after all, sign not only the American Rescue Plan (which, for all its flaws, did rescue the economy), but the CHIPS and Science Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the latter of which came out of the Build Back Better negotiations outlined above.This is all true. I suspect the infrastructure and CHIPS bills would have come together under any president, but Biden did sign them. The problem is he failed to run an administration that prioritized effectively implementing the laws he did pass.As in his legislative strategy, Bidens executive strategy was motivated by a desire to serve several different ends: fighting climate change, fighting China, rebuilding US manufacturing, helping unions, and so on. This often meant that spending approved by Congress came with so many strings attached as to be practically unusable. Other spending was hobbled by administration actions making the products being subsidized unnecessarily more expensive.Why, after fighting so hard for the CHIPS and Science Act, did the administration lard on so many requirements for manufacturers to meet, from a climate and environment responsibility plan to a National Environmental Policy Act analysis to a plan to include small businesses with women or minority owners in the supply chain, all of which has hobbled implementation?Why, given his climate goals, is Biden imposing tariffs on solar panels and not just ones from China that effectively raise the price of clean energy, and limit the Inflation Reduction Acts effectiveness?Why was the $42 billion in broadband internet funding in the bipartisan infrastructure law so hard to access that, as of this writing, exactly 0 people have gotten broadband as a result of that money?Biden attends a G7 summit in Germany on June 27, 2022. The president proved much more interested in and engaged with world affairs than domestic matters. Christinan Bruna/Pool/Getty ImagesLike any president, Biden had to optimize toward many different goals in his domestic policy. But he never seemed to have a clear sense of which of these goals were most important, and what should win out when they conflicted with each other. It was an indecision that plagued his legislative prioritization, too.It perhaps should not surprise us too much that Biden failed to craft a coherent domestic agenda. In a telling slip-up shortly before Obamas inauguration in 2009, Jill Biden told Oprah Winfrey that Obama had offered her husband a choice: vice president, or secretary of state. (Biden himself has told a variant of this story, too.)The secretary of state job in some ways seemed more plausible. Bidens own primary campaign had ended after getting fifth place in Iowa, with 0.9 percent to Obamas winning 37.6. But he was the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and had years of foreign policy experience. He was widely seen as a frontrunner for secretary of state had John Kerry won in 2004. Jill Biden stated that her husband chose VP because it meant less travel and more time at home with his family.The flip side to this passion was a relative disinterest in domestic affairs. Not a total disinterest, of course Biden used to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote important (and controversial) criminal justice legislation, and was deeply invested in his identity as a guy who cared about regular, middle-class folk. But he never demonstrated much concern with or interest in the details of domestic policy in the way he did with foreign policy. Bidens willingness to let Schumer turn the American Rescue Plan into a wish list for his most progressive members reflected, in part, a Biden that didnt especially care about the contents of that wish list.Another, perhaps underrated factor constraining Biden was the nature of his 2020 primary win. It is easy to forget now, but Bidens victory came almost out of nowhere. More than his victory in South Carolina, it was the choice of fellow candidates Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar to drop out and endorse him, and the behind-the-scenes help of key party figures like Obama, that let him consolidate support after that primary and defeat Bernie Sanders in the ensuing contests.Biden less won than he was given the nomination by party leaders eager to head off a Sanders nomination, and the partys voters supported that decision. That did not give him much of the authority that a nominee typically commands. Obama and Clinton won their nominations because they were once-in-a-generation political talents with supporters eager to back them up; Biden won, after two failed presidential campaigns beforehand, because the party was desperate to beat Trump and needed a moderate, any moderate. He came out of that process owing a lot of people a lot of favors. But even though it was perceived moderation that had largely gotten him the nomination, he also left the primary feeling a strong need to patch things up with the Sanders wing and avoid a party split ahead of the general election. That led to an unusual decision to swing leftward in the general. His team set up unity task forces with Sanders allies, hashing out a policy agenda that promised bigger spending and more ambitious regulatory efforts than supported by Bidens primary campaign. Once in office, he filled his administration with Elizabeth Warren loyalists, a reflection both of Warrens skill at personnel promotion and Bidens feeling that he needed to pacify his left flank.This attitudinal shift is palpable when you read accounts from journalists like Foer, Martin, and Burns about the 20212022 period. Complaints from Congressional Progressive Caucus members like Pramila Jayapal are given prominence over the desires of Manchin and Sinema even though House backbenchers had zero leverage over Bidens agenda. They could not credibly threaten to vote against Build Back Better legislation, the way Manchin and Sinema could and did. If they did, the bill would fail, leaving the country with no progress toward progressives shared goals, or become more right-wing to win more moderate votes.The best gambit the Progressive Caucus had was a threat to vote against an infrastructure bill that Manchin wanted, but the gambit failed. Even if they had held the line, the likely outcome would have been neither an infrastructure bill nor a Build Back Better. It was all pointless theater.But the White House was deeply sympathetic to the goals of the House progressives, and so you got bizarre spectacles like Biden visiting the Hill ostensibly to whip votes for the infrastructure bill at Nancy Pelosis request, only for him to never explicitly ask progressives for their votes, and instead seem to endorse their strategy. When Pelosi thought about the White House, she struggled to understand Bidens behavior, Foer writes. He flat-out whiffed. Why wasnt Biden pressing harder for victory? Why was he so afraid to demand the loyalty of his party in his time of need?This was not the behavior of a president who confidently defeated Warren and Sanders, but of a president who felt he could not offend their factions of the party no matter what. It was the behavior of a president who could not choose.Just how much Biden was involved in presidential-level decision-making at all is, of course, a fraught question now. Since last Junes debate with Trump, revelations have mounted showing that Biden was much more cognitively compromised, and his staff much more active in concealing this fact from the American people, than I at least had previously believed. A December article in the Wall Street Journal reported that Bidens diminishment meant that senior advisers like national security adviser Jake Sullivan, counselor Steve Ricchetti, and National Economic Council head Lael Brainard were making decisions that normally the president makes. Worse, the report shared that, Press aides who compiled packages of news clips for Biden were told by senior staff to exclude negative stories about the president.Obviously, a Biden who was making fewer and fewer decisions himself, and increasingly insulated from any negative potential information that could result in productive changes in policy, is going to prove ineffectual.The obvious Shakespearean reference for Biden is Lear, an aging and vain king who is losing his wits and is tormented by his children. But ultimately his downfall was more Hamlet. Biden led America at a pivotal moment that called for strong decisions. He just could not make them.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:

Nintendo have dragged out another platforming classic from the Wii era for a refresh on the Switch console and the result is a newly polished classic well worth your cashTech14:00, 14 Jan 2025Donkey Kong Country Returns HDOur old friend Donkey Kong is back on the Switch and this classic feels as good as it ever did revamped for the modern handheld console.This brutally difficult side-scrolling title was originally built for the Wii motion control console in 2010.But 15 years later we get a lovingly remade version of the game, mixing both the Wii and Nintendo 3DS versions, which looks great, tends to be more button controlled than before and has a new modern mode thats more forgiving.The story is pretty simple but does enough set-up for the gamer.The villainous Tiki Tak Tribe have hypnotised the residents of Donkey Kong Island and made off with Donkey Kongs precious banana hoard.So its up to you as Donkey, alongside your trusty sidekick Diddy Kong, to go find the missing yellow grub and track down those bandits for some revenge.Queue a hectic side-scrolling adventure which sees you, and if you want a coach co-op partner, trying to traverse difficult levels across beaches, jungle backdrops and caves to snaffle up bananas and progress to the next, harder level.Donkey Kong loves to smash thingsREAD MORE: Daily Star's newsletter brings you the biggest and best stories sign up todayIf youve played any Nintendo platformer before youll know exactly what youre getting.But theres a real artistry in the button combinations and timings youll need to conquer the later levels in this game.Itll take a lot of trial and error at points, particularly in the original game mode. Thankfully the modern mode allows for more power ups and life hearts in-game so you can progress slightly more easily.Its a vividly cartoony world on Donkey Kong Island and the graphics look particularly great in handheld mode, they feel fresh with the revamp despite the core games 14-year age.You'll be flying, riding, jumping and rolling your way through levelsREAD MORE: Nintendo breaks silence on Switch 2 leaks after CES 'reveal' of new consoleThe game plays beautifully. For me, thumbsticks and buttons are always the best way to enjoy platform games and, while you can use motion control a bit still here, its a much nicer play with the old-school button bashing.Theres a simplicity to running, jumping and ground pounding being all you need to enjoy a cracking title.Its a big game too, featuring 80 levels across nine different worlds. So plenty of bang for your buck.And its not just about getting from the left hand side of a level to the right without dying, theres loads to go back for to perfect each level, with K O N G pieces to collect to unlock special hidden levels, secret areas to discover and puzzle pieces to find too to unlock dioramas and images in the galleries.The different parts of the island have varied backdropsIts lovely to return to classic platform gaming with Donkey Kong Country Returns HD.And while leaks suggest the Nintendo Switch 2 is imminently on the horizon, its brilliant to know at such a late stage in this consoles life that the firm can still deliver nice little surprises like this for gamers.Fun, playable, challenging and packed full of replay value.VERDICT 4.5/5Article continues belowReviewed on Nintendo Switch. Review code provided by the publisher.RECOMMENDED

Donkey Kong Country Returns HD 90s style platforming from 2010 (Nintendo)Wii game Donkey Kong Country Returns gets a new remaster on Nintendo Switch, but has it become just a bit too retro?Theres an obvious joke to be made here, about Nintendo remasters scraping the bottom of the barrel, but were not going to encourage that. We dont want to suggest that Donkey Kong Country Returns isnt a good game, or not worthy of keeping in print, but considering Nintendo already remastered its Wii U sequel, Tropical Freeze, it seems clear they originally thought thered be no point bringing over the original.But the Switch 2 still hasnt been announced, so in the meantime new titles are still needed for the current console and this remaster of the original 2010 Wii game is a perfectly reasonable choice. It was one of the best-looking games on the Wii and even with little in the way of improvements this still looks great 15 years later.The choice of remaster might also have something to do with rumours that a new 3D Donkey Kong game will be one of the first titles to be released for the Switch 2, possibly as a new Super Mario title. There has been a small uptick in visibility for the great ape in recent months, including a remake of Mario Vs. Donkey Kong, but that could easily just be because of the new area at the Super Nintendo World theme park in Japan.Of course, in the original Donkey Kong arcade game, which was also the debut of Mario, Donkey Kong was the antagonist. In later games and spin-offs, including Super Mario Kart, there was the chance to play as Donkey Kong Jr. (who, ironically, rarely turns up in new games nowadays) but it wasnt until the first Donkey Kong Country game on the SNES, in 1994, that DK himself became a playable character.The series use of pre-rendered graphics was a revelation at the time, and one of the key reasons the SNES eventually outsold the Mega Drive, but the games were relatively generic mascot platformers. In hindsight that seems a rather uninspired choice, since apart from a certain fixation with barrels the Country games dont make any real reference to the original games or the fact that Donkey Kong is a super strong gorilla.Wed hope that if there is any new game coming it would play a bit more imaginatively with Donkey Kongs potential, but as the name implies that was never the intention of Donkey Kong Country Returns. The original games were made by Rare, but since theyre now owned by Microsoft development duties were handed over to Metroid Prime creator Retro Studios.Originally, they seemed an odd choice, but the two Returns games are an excellent continuation of the series assuming what you wanted was exactly the same thing only with modern (or as modern as the Wii could provide) graphics.That means surprisingly slow-paced, precision-based platforming; a sky high difficulty level; and plenty of rote learning. The original version featured some unreliable motion controls, but this remaster makes that just an option. Although we still found ourselves accidentally doing a forward roll sometimes, when we didnt mean to.It goes without saying that the end result is a very old-fashioned feeling game, where youre ruthlessly punished for every mistake and theres a lot of trial and error involved, avoiding obstacles and enemies you could never have anticipated the first time around. Donkey Kongs weight means he has a lot of momentum and needs a bit of space to get up to full speed, so you not only need to be very precise in your jumps, but you need to plan ahead too.This can be very frustrating and while older fans will appreciate it, you spend the whole game feeling very vulnerable (which doesnt feel like a good match for Donkey Kong) and forever on the edge of disaster. For the majority of the time this works to add tension to the standard platform levels, but it turns the minecart and rocket stages into an absolute nightmare of trial and error and pixel perfect precision. Indiana Jones has a lot to answer for (Nintendo)The Switch version adds a Modern mode which offers you more hearts and various perishable items that can make a level easier. This makes the normal platform levels a lot more approachable, but it does nothing for the long distance between checkpoints and the trial and error nature of the mine cart and rocket-powered barrel levels. However, you can also skip any level you want by using Super Kong to beat them for you, while watching how he gets through it for tips.We hesitate to describe any of the difficulty issues as flaws, since this is exactly how the games are supposed to be. Our main complaint with the Retro titles is that they were too beholden to the past and not only did they not introduce any major new ideas, but they managed to leave out some that were in the originals.More TrendingRambi the rhinoceros, who you can ride and is the only time in the game you ever feel powerful, is only in a tiny handful of levels and there are no underwater stages at all (there is in Tropical Freeze though). The lack of variety is disappointing and apart from occasionally jumping between the background and foreground the more modern visuals arent utilised for any new gameplay features.You are helped by the fact that Diddy Kong is available in most levels and has a, very underpowered, jetpack. This is useful but if hes killed you have to continue on without him, with often no way of getting him back. A second person can play as him in co-op if you want, but in our experience having two people bouncing around only adds to the confusion.Donkey Kong Country Returns does exactly what it sets out to, and with a great deal of panache. The graphics still look surprisingly good on the big screen and while there are no significant new features here, beyond a small number of new levels from the 3DS version, this is a competent remaster. We do hope it is not a sign of things to come though. We welcome more DK in general, but the world doesnt need the return of another Donkey Kong Country.Donkey Kong Country Returns HD review summaryIn Short: Purposefully old-fashioned and frequently frustrating, but despite being a 15-year-old retro themed Wii game this remaster still holds up surprisingly well.Pros: An excellent continuation of the Donkey Kong Country series, for better and worse, that still looks and plays very well more than a decade later. Great soundtrack and fun visuals.Cons: The original game never had any substantial new ideas and was actually missing some from the originals. Modern mode doesnt help with frustrating vehicle-based levels.Score: 7/10Formats: Nintendo SwitchPrice: 49.99Publisher: NintendoDeveloper: Forever Entertainment (original: Retro Studios)Release Date: 16th January 2025Age Rating: 3 The rocket levels are step too far (Nintendo)Emailgamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below,follow us on Twitter, andsign-up to our newsletter.To submit Inbox letters and Readers Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use ourSubmit Stuff page here.For more stories like this,check our Gaming page.GameCentralExclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content.This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

By Margherita Bassi Published January 14, 2025 | Comments (0) | A large-volume spring in young volcanic rocks in the Cascades. Benjamin Nash While studying the landscape of Oregons Cascade Range, also known as the Cascades, a team of scientists discovered that a region of subsurface water is far larger than previously thoughtand may even be a record holder. The discovery is both a blessing and a potential curse, serving as a vital water source while also posing a volcanic hazard. Researchers from the University of Oregon and other institutions have identified an aquifera layer of water-saturated rock or sedimentbeneath volcanic rocks at the crest of the central Oregon Cascades. Its volume of at least 19.43 cubic miles (81 cubic kilometers) is much larger than scientists previously estimated. Thats more than half the volume of Lake Tahoe. The discovery, detailed in a study published on January 13 in the journal PNAS, could reshape understanding of the regions water supply and aid geologists in evaluating potential volcanic hazards. It is a continental-size lake stored in the rocks at the top of the mountains, like a big water tower, said Leif Karlstrom of the University of Oregon, who led the study, in a university statement. That there are similar large volcanic aquifers north of the Columbia Gorge and near Mount Shasta likely make the Cascade Range the largest aquifer of its kind in the world. This region has been handed a geological gift, but we really are only beginning to understand it. Oregons Cascade Range mountains were built by volcanoes and are typically divided into two regions: the western Cascades, with older river-carved slopes and valleys, and the high Cascades, featuring a younger, flatter landscape with lakes and volcanic topography, including lava flows. Scientists can study the transition zone between these two contrasting regions to analyze how volcanoes have changed the mountain ranges landscape.We initially set out to better understand how the Cascade landscape has evolved over time, and how water moves through it, said Gordon Grant, a geologist with the Forest Service who also participated in the study. But in conducting this basic research, we discovered important things that people care about: the incredible volume of water in active storage in the Cascades and also how the movement of water and the hazards posed by volcanoes are linked together.In other words, the discovery of the aquifers size is good andpotentiallybad. The Cascades provide a substantial amount of drinking water for the people of Oregonmost of the city of Eugenes potable water, for example, comes from the McKenzie River. At the same time, volcanic eruptions with large quantities of water tend to be more explosive, and as a consequence, more dangerous. The team of researchers was able to map the extent of the aquifer by relying on previous field work in the 1980s and 1990s during which scientists had drilled holes to measure temperatures deep into the earth. While rocks usually get hotter the deeper they are, the presence of underground water can lower temperatures. The team reused the holes to, once again, measure rock temperatures, and consequently infer the expanse of the aquifer from these temperature variations.The inferred volume greatly exceeded earlier estimates. Given that the team only used previously drilled holes, which might have missed parts of the aquifer, the volume could be on the conservative side of its true expanse. It may actually be even bigger. While the aquifers underestimated size is an exciting discovery, the researchers also warned that it remains a limited resource that could be affected by changes in precipitation of snow and rain projected for the region.This region has been handed a geological gift, but we really are only beginning to understand it, Grant said. If we dont have any snow, or if we have a run of bad winters where we dont get any rain, whats that going to mean? Those are the key questions were now having to focus on. It remains to be seen how the the state of Oregon will handle the complex intersection between water resources and volcanic hazards presented by this new discovery.Daily NewsletterYou May Also Like By Lucas Ropek Published October 29, 2024 By Adam Kovac Published October 26, 2024 By Adam Kovac Published October 2, 2024 By Isaac Schultz Published September 3, 2024 By Ed Cara Published July 12, 2024 By Matthew Gault Published July 10, 2024

What If Every Brick Had a Future? Rethinking Demolition and Material Reuse in the Circular EconomySave this picture!IP School Buildings Model. Image Arthur Wong, courtesy of OMAFor decades, the life cycle of buildings was a simple formula: planning, design, construction, demolition, and, of course, the great villain in this history: the landfill. Over time, architectural practice began embracing concepts like reuse, disassembly, and circular demolition, but often as secondary elements, part of the gradual shift toward a circular economy in construction. But what if these principles were no longer exceptions? What if we crafted or chose every building component to maintain value and purpose beyond its original use? The truth is, there is life after demolition. This transitionfrom demolition to practices focusing on reuse, repurposing, and sustainable dismantlingis edging closer to reality. By the time 2030 arrives, we could fundamentally reshape how we approach processes, buildings, and the market itself. As these changes unfold, we must assess how our strategies align with the evolving goals and challenges related to sustainabilityand, of course, the new opportunities they bring.Save this picture!Much discussion exists about the resolutions linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COPs), which propose new goals and present often challenging scenarios. These resolutions, frequently shaped by the priorities of more developed nations, can sometimes feel disconnected from many people's immediate realities, daily lives and the human scale. In light of this, architects and design studios face the challenge of implementing concrete initiatives and identifying new opportunities at a scale closer to people. Actions such as disassembling and reusing materials provide viable and consistent alternatives across diverse contexts, whether in regions with abundant resources or in those where reuse is a necessity rather than an option.Given the industry's evolving nature, many building codes and processes may soon change, creating new opportunities for materials management and commercialization. If resource scarcity increases or stricter regulations on virgin materials are imposed, architects and designers could transform existing buildings into valuable mines. While there is no definitive conclusion, these new dynamics might redefine the future and reverse the design order. This article explores possible scenarios and highlights how these transformations could impact us.Save this picture! Policies and Regulations Shaping the Future of Circular Design and Construction Demolition entails significant material costs and can amplify negative social consequences, particularly in large cities where affordable living spaces are scarce. In response to this reality, a compelling idea is gaining traction: advocating for our "right to reuse". This initiative is taking shape in Europe, potentially incentivizing transformations in public policies, putting refurbishment and material reuse at the forefront. By doing so, we could unlock the full potential of both public and private buildings.These changes do not signal the end of brand-new materials but will transform the relationship between project locations and the origin of the materials used. Traceability will become a fundamental pillar, allowing us to track the path of each product from its source. Additionally, implementing material passportsdigital records documenting their characteristics and reuse possibilitiescould turn this information into systematic tools. When integrated into public policies, these approaches can strengthen sustainability in construction, promoting responsible practices aligned with the principles of the circular economy.Save this picture!Save this picture! Emerging Technologies and Processes in Disassembly It is well-established that design for disassembly has become a key process in promoting sustainability within the built environment. This approach focuses on carefully separating components for recovery and reuse. As in many fields, technology plays a crucial role, with emerging innovations shaping demolition practices. One example is robotic systems with advanced sensors that precisely perform disassembly tasks. These systems optimize the recovery of materials with enhanced accuracy and care compared to manual methods. Save this picture!A pivotal extension of accurate and swift dismantling tasks is seen in zero-bonding construction systems, which are well-established as sustainable solutions for pavilions and temporary structures and show growing potential for larger-scale buildings. Their implementation simplifies assembly and deconstruction methods while promoting the reuse of components, aligning with the principles of the circular economy. Technologies like digital twins enable the precise simulation and planning of disassembly processes, allowing for more efficient resource recovery. Meanwhile, advanced material identification and tagging techniques, such as spectrometry and RFID tags already employed in the chemical industry and logistics offer significant improvements in sorting, tracking, and recycling materials, facilitating a more streamlined and accurate waste management and tracing process.Enhancing material retrieval processes also raises questions about how to manage the aging of materials over time: What happens if we recover more than we can reuse or if the components' properties degrade to the point of obsolescence? The data collected in material passports could be key in tracking component conditions, guiding inspection and repair efforts, and forecasting their future use. Moreover, digital twins (besides optimizing disassembly) would anticipate where and how those components could be integrated into other buildings, taking strategic steps toward more efficient and fast-paced reuse.Save this picture!Construction and Business Models Centered on Reuse and Environmental ResponsibilityEnvironmental responsibility and business opportunity can be compatible concepts. Perhaps the key is to find the right balance and the right conditions. There is remarkable potential in an emerging industry focused on sorting and managing recovered products. Startups dedicated to the circularity of materials are emerging, marking just the beginning of this path. Some of these companies have developed methodologies and tools to record, inventory, and account for materials, as was the case at the 2022 Art Biennale, whose resources were reused in the German Pavilion at the Venice Biennale the following year. Analyzing the reuse potential of buildingsincluding structures and componentscould soon become a common practice, especially given the growing demand for sustainable solutions in the construction sector. Developing new business models focused on material recovery and sorting could stimulate the consolidation of companies specializing in technologies for efficiently evaluating, disassembling, and documenting components. Innovations in this field could also lead to digital platforms with product catalogs to facilitate the buying, selling, and exchanging of resources. A new market approach cannot emerge in isolation; it must encompass changes in public policies and adopting technologies that optimize processes. Together, these efforts could pave the way for a construction and an architectural business model that balances responsibility and sustainability.Save this picture!Save this picture!In the long run, how can we create environments with a positive environmental impact when (all too often) the first instinct is to demolish? Advancing toward sustainable architecture requires an ongoing shift in mindset to prioritize preservation over destruction. Demolition may seem like the most straightforward solutionjust a bit of machinery and time can erase what took years to build. But before choosing it as the only option, ask yourself:How much could you salvage if you had to demolish your house?Image gallerySee allShow lessAbout this authorEnrique TovarAuthorCite: Enrique Tovar. "What If Every Brick Had a Future? Rethinking Demolition and Material Reuse in the Circular Economy" 14 Jan 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1025567/what-if-every-brick-had-a-future-rethinking-demolition-and-material-reuse-in-the-circular-economy&gt ISSN 0719-8884Save!ArchDaily?You've started following your first account!Did you know?You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream

Biden Bashed Over AI Diffusion PolicyBy John P. Mello Jr.January 14, 2025 5:00 AM PT ADVERTISEMENTEnterprise IT Lead Generation ServicesFuel Your Pipeline. Close More Deals. Our full-service marketing programs deliver sales-ready leads. 100% Satisfaction Guarantee! Learn more. An eleventh-hour move by the Biden Administration to regulate how American AI technology is shared with the world is coming under fire from the nations tech sector.According to the White House, the Interim Final Rule on Artificial Intelligence Diffusion (IFR) streamlines licensing hurdles for both large and small chip orders, bolsters U.S. AI leadership, and provides clarity to allied and partner nations about how they can benefit from AI. It added that it builds on previous chip controls by thwarting smuggling, closing other loopholes, and raising AI security standards.The new rule is necessary, it maintained, [t]o enhance U.S. national security and economic strength.[I]t is essential that we do not offshore this critical technology and that the worlds AI runs on American rails, it asserted. It is important to work with AI companies and foreign governments to put in place critical security and trust standards as they build out their AI ecosystems.Stephen Kowski, field CTO of SlashNext, a computer and network security company in Pleasanton, Calif., explained that the rule attempts to strike an essential balance between protecting advanced AI capabilities and maintaining technological leadership.Given the increasing sophistication of cyberthreats and potential misuse of AI systems, securing AI infrastructure and computing resources is crucial, he told TechNewsWorld. Strong controls on AI chip exports can help prevent advanced capabilities from being used in ways that could compromise security or enable malicious activities.Fundamentally, economic innovation and national security are intertwined, added Jeff Le, VP for global government affairs and public policy at SecurityScorecard, a cybersecurity ratings company in New York City.The global competition on sourcing and compute is key for sustained progress in the AI race and pivotal to surpassing Chinas ambitions, he told TechNewsWorld. There have been linkages with concerns about the Chinese backend and digital vulnerabilities that exist for American data and IP. Reducing the interdependence serves as a vital national security imperative and also allows us to bolster our supply chains, which represent significant vulnerability, as seen by Chinas saber-rattling on Taiwan.Derailing Economic GrowthCritics of the rule, which is set to take effect in 120 days, contend it will do more harm than good.Today, companies, startups, and universities around the world are tapping mainstream AI to advance health care, agriculture, manufacturing, education, and countless other fields, driving economic growth and unlocking the potential of nations, Ned Finkle, VP of government affairs at Nvidia, a major maker of chips used for AI applications, wrote in a company blog.Built on American technology, the adoption of AI around the world fuels growth and opportunity for industries at home and abroad, he continued. That global progress is now in jeopardy. The Biden Administration now seeks to restrict access to mainstream computing applications with its unprecedented and misguided AI Diffusion rule, which threatens to derail innovation and economic growth worldwide. In its last days in office, the Biden Administration seeks to undermine Americas leadership with a 200-plus page regulatory morass, drafted in secret and without proper legislative review, he contended. This sweeping overreach would impose bureaucratic control over how Americas leading semiconductors, computers, systems, and even software are designed and marketed globally.And by attempting to rig market outcomes and stifle competition the lifeblood of innovation the Biden Administrations new rule threatens to squander Americas hard-won technological advantage, he argued.While cloaked in the guise of an anti-China measure, these rules would do nothing to enhance U.S. security, he added. The new rules would control technology worldwide, including technology already widely available in mainstream gaming PCs and consumer hardware. Rather than mitigate any threat, the new Biden rules would only weaken Americas global competitiveness, undermining the innovation that has kept the U.S. ahead.Policy Gaps May Undermine US AI LeadershipDaniel Castro, vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a research and public policy organization in Washington, D.C., argued that the IFR raises serious concerns about its potential impact on U.S. competitiveness, global AI leadership, and international alliances.By pressuring other nations to choose between the United States and China, the administration risks alienating key partners and inadvertently strengthening Chinas position in the global AI ecosystem, he said in a statement.Confronted with such an ultimatum, many countries may opt for the side offering them uninterrupted access to the AI technologies vital for their economic growth and digital futures and currently, only one country is threatening to cut them off from these technologies.Moreover, Castro added, the IFRs narrow focus on regulating closed-weight AI models while leaving open-weight equivalents unaddressed creates a glaring and counterproductive imbalance.U.S. companies developing proprietary AI models will face stringent regulatory burdens that foreign competitors can evade by leveraging open-source alternatives, he explained. This policy undercuts American firms in the global market and fails to meaningfully mitigate the risks the regulation purports to address.Instead of bolstering national security or safeguarding U.S. technological leadership, the administrations approach risks enabling rivals to accelerate their advancements and surpass the United States in this crucial domain, he contended.The administrations initial restrictions on chip exports were misguided, and the IFR compounds this misstep, he added. Instead of correcting course, the administration persists with counterproductive policies that undermine U.S. leadership in AI while granting rivals a clearer path to dominance. The United States should be working to solidify its position as the global leader in AI by fostering innovation, strengthening alliances, and ensuring the broad availability of U.S. technology to legitimate users worldwide.A strategy rooted in competitiveness not containment will best serve Americas interests in the digital economy of the future, Castro maintained.Short-Term Gains, Long-Term LossesWhile agreeing with the underlying objectives of the IFR, University of Pennsylvania Professor of Engineering Benjamin Lee disagrees with the approach taken to pursue those objectives. Sustaining U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence both the hardware architectures and the software models is essential for national security and economic strength, he told TechNewsWorld.However, Lee pointed out that U.S. leadership means that its companies build a hardware and software ecosystem that forms the foundation for global AI computation. Although administration rulings and export controls produce a narrow, short-term advantage, they may produce a broader, long-term loss to American technological leadership, he said. In the short-term, export controls will slow some countries deployment of the most advanced GPUs and the largest AI data centers, he explained. But in the long-term, export controls will cause other countries to develop their own hardware architectures or software models.Much of this technology rests on openly published resources or code, lowering barriers to building alternatives to the American technology, if needed, he continued. Export controls may also give the United States less visibility into the technological state-of-the-art in other countries.Ten years ago, similar export controls on Intel CPUs that aimed to slow Chinese growth in high-performance scientific computing led to a burst of computer engineering within China, he added. U.S. experts now have less visibility into the state of Chinese supercomputing.Unintended Consequences of AI Lock-In PoliciesThe IFR is trying to establish lock-in at the national level, asserted Rob Enderle, president and principal analyst of the Enderle Group, an advisory services firm in Bend, Ore.While lock-in the practice of forcing customers to use only your technology can work over a short period, as IBM showcased for several decades, it can also create a trend away from your technology, which is also what happened to IBM and could now happen to the U.S., he told TechNewsWorld. This move, while tactically sound, is strategically suicidal for AI technology in the U.S. long term.I think the rule was well-meaning but poorly thought through by people who either dont understand the technology or the market in which the technology operates, he added. It will likely hurt U.S. AI interests and safety in the long term in exchange for questionable short-term benefits, making U.S. companies unable to compete with their foreign counterparts during a time when U.S. tech is superior and assure it wont be that way long-term.Chinas capabilities are increasing faster than the U.S.s largely due to Chinas government taking a far more aggressive stance on assisting with tech advancements, Enderle said. If the U.S. doesnt respond appropriately, the tech market will follow oil, trains, electronics, and automobiles to other countries, most likely China.Kris Bondi, CEO and co-founder of Mimoto, a threat detection and response company in San Francisco, added that one of the most frustrating things about decrees from any administration is that they tend to be all or nothing. Regulations are needed, but they should be on access, monitoring, and the usage of AI, she told TechNewsWorld.While I agree that the use and protection of AI is critical for U.S. national security and economic strength, this form of isolationism will undermine innovation, she said. Not every advancement is produced on U.S. soil. Instead of protecting, the bubble this rule will create will limit the ability of the U.S. to evolve and compete on a global scale.John P. Mello Jr. has been an ECT News Network reporter since 2003. His areas of focus include cybersecurity, IT issues, privacy, e-commerce, social media, artificial intelligence, big data and consumer electronics. He has written and edited for numerous publications, including the Boston Business Journal, the Boston Phoenix, Megapixel.Net and Government Security News. Email John.Leave a CommentClick here to cancel reply. Please sign in to post or reply to a comment. New users create a free account.Related StoriesMore by John P. Mello Jr.view allMore in Artificial Intelligence

Course: https://www.vfx.cgmasteracademy.com/courses/25-houdini-production-studio-destruction-fx Houdini Production Studio: Destruction FXAn 8-week course on creating feature-film quality destruction effects for filmThis intensive course is for students who already have a good knowledge of Houdini and how the data flows. Students will learn how to evaluate a scene and its structure to develop a smart and efficient workflow. They will learn the different ways to fracture assets, procedurally and art directed, then use those assets in rigid body simulations, working with different methods of activation and scale of effects, from small gravel on the ground to large buildings. We will add some secondary debris, along with some dust and smoke, for a complete and realistic looking effect. This course covers almost every possible case that is found in production. By the end of the course, students will have all the knowledge required to destroy any given asset of any type of material, and in any way that can be asked in production. They will also have a solid understanding of workflow, fracturing, art direction, simulation and attention to detail.This intensive course will require a lot of spare time in order to complete the assignments on time. Expect to spend 15-25 hours a week working on the assignments and reviewing lecture videos. This course is best taken by itself for complete dedication. If you are working on a production, it is recommended you wait to take this course the following term.Music Credits Jetfire - Jeff The Second Jeff The Second - Waves Creative Commons Attribution Free Download / Stream: https://www.audiolibrary.com.co/jeff-... Music promoted by Audio Library Jetfire Jeff The Second (No Copyrig... Track Info: Title: Jetfire by Jeff The Second Genre and Mood: Rock + Angry Available on: Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2G6qkaL iTunes: https://apple.co/3ovxgQh Deezer: https://deezer.com/us/track/841847852 YouTube: Jeff The Second - Jetfire SoundCloud: / jetfire YouTube Music: Jetfire Contact the Artist: Jeff The Second / @jeffthesecond_ https://open.spotify.com/artist/0ej2b... / artist https://play.google.com/store/music/a... https://deezer.com/us/artist/61996262 / jeff2music / jeff2music

Over the past year, our work on AutoGen has highlighted the transformative potential of agentic AI and multi-agent applications. Today, we are excited to announce AutoGen v0.4, a significant milestone informed by insights from our community of users and developers. This update represents a complete redesign of the AutoGen library, developed to improve code quality, robustness, generality, and scalability in agentic workflows.The initial release of AutoGen generated widespread interest in agentic technologies. At the same time, users struggled with architectural constraints, an inefficient API compounded by rapid growth, and limited debugging and intervention functionality. Feedback highlighted the need for stronger observability and control, more flexible multi-agent collaboration patterns, and reusable components. AutoGen v0.4 addresses these issues with its asynchronous, event-driven architecture.This update makes AutoGen more robust and extensible, enabling a broader range of agentic scenarios. The new framework includes the following features, inspired by feedback from both within and outside Microsoft.Asynchronous messaging: Agents communicate through asynchronous messages, supporting both event-driven and request/response interaction patterns.Modular and extensible: Users can easily customize systems with pluggable components, including custom agents, tools, memory, and models. They can also build proactive and long-running agents using event-driven patterns.Observability and debugging: Built-in metric tracking, message tracing, and debugging tools provide monitoring and control over agent interactions and workflows, with support for OpenTelemetry for industry-standard observability.Scalable and distributed: Users can design complex, distributed agent networks that operate seamlessly across organizational boundaries.Built-in and community extensions: The extensions module enhances the frameworks functionality with advanced model clients, agents, multi-agent teams, and tools for agentic workflows. Community support allows open-source developers to manage their own extensions.Cross-language support: This update enables interoperability between agents built in different programming languages, with current support for Python and .NET and additional languages in development.Full type support: Interfaces enforce type checks at build time, improving robustness and maintaining code quality.Spotlight: blog postGraphRAG auto-tuning provides rapid adaptation to new domainsGraphRAG uses LLM-generated knowledge graphs to substantially improve complex Q&A over retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Discover automatic tuning of GraphRAG for new datasets, making it more accurate and relevant.Read moreOpens in a new tab New AutoGen frameworkAs shown in Figure 1, the AutoGen framework features a layered architecture with clearly defined responsibilities across the framework, developer tools, and applications. The framework comprises three layers: core, agent chat, and first-party extensions.Core: The foundational building blocks for an event-driven agentic system.AgentChat:A task-driven, high-level API built on the core layer, featuring group chat, code execution, pre-built agents, and more. This layer is most similar to AutoGen v0.2 (opens in new tab), making it the easiest API to migrate to.Extensions: Implementations of core interfaces and third-party integrations, such as the Azure code executor and OpenAI model client.Figure 1. The v0.4 update introduces a cohesive AutoGen ecosystem that includes the framework, developer tools, and applications. The frameworks layered architecture clearly defines each layers functionality. It supports both first-party and third-party applications and extensions.In addition to the framework, AutoGen 0.4 includes upgraded programming tools and applications, designed to support developers in building and experimenting with AutoGen.AutoGen Bench: Enables developers to benchmark their agents by measuring and comparing performance across tasks and environments.AutoGen Studio: Rebuilt on the v0.4 AgentChat API, this low-code interface enables rapid prototyping of AI agents. It introduces several new capabilities:Real-time agent updates: View agent action streams in real time with asynchronous, event-driven messages.Mid-execution control: Pause conversations, redirect agent actions, and adjust team composition. Then seamlessly resume tasks.Interactive feedback through the UI: Add a UserProxyAgent to enable user input and guidance during team runs in real time.Message flow visualization: Understand agent communication through an intuitive visual interface that maps message paths and dependencies.Drag-and-drop team builder: Design agent teams visually using an interface for dragging components into place and configuring their relationships and properties.Third-party component galleries: Import and use custom agents, tools, and workflows from external galleries to extend functionality.Magentic-One: A new generalist multi-agent application to solve open-ended web and file-based tasks across various domains. This tool marks a significant step toward creating agents capable of completing tasks commonly encountered in both work and personal contexts.Migrating to AutoGen v0.4We implemented several measures to facilitate a smooth upgrade from the previous v0.2 API, addressing core differences in the underlying architecture.First, the AgentChat API maintains the same level of abstraction as v0.2, making it easy to migrate existing code to v0.4. For example, AgentChat offers an AssistantAgent and UserProxy agent with similar behaviors to those in v0.2. It also provides a team interface with implementations like RoundRobinGroupChat and SelectorGroupChat, which cover all the capabilities of the GroupChat class in v0.2. Additionally, v0.4 introduces many new functionalities, such as streaming messages, improved observability, saving and restoring task progress, and resuming paused actions where they left off. For detailed guidance, refer to the migration guide (opens in new tab).Looking forwardThis new release sets the stage for a robust ecosystem and strong foundation to drive advances in agentic AI application and research. Our roadmap includes releasing .NET support, introducing built-in, well-designed applications and extensions for challenging domains, and fostering a community-driven ecosystem. We remain committed to the responsible development of AutoGen and its evolving capabilities.We encourage you to engage with us on AutoGens Discord server (opens in new tab) and share feedback on the official AutoGen repository (opens in new tab) via GitHub Issues. Stay up to date with frequent AutoGen updates via X.AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the many individuals whose ideas and insights helped formalize the concepts introduced in this release, including Rajan Chari, Ece Kamar, John Langford, Ching-An Chen, Bob West, Paul Minero, Safoora Yousefi, Will Epperson, Grace Proebsting, Enhao Zhang, and Andrew Ng.Opens in a new tab