Nvidias RTX 5090 is almost here, but the January 30 release date doesnt necessarily mean immediate availability on the shelves. So far, it seems like stock levels will be highly limited for a while, which prompts some retailers to get creative. One Japanese retailer is now hosting a lottery, and the prize is a ticket that allows you to spend $2,000 and more on Nvidias best graphics card. Meanwhile, even MSI confirms that availability is going to be pretty scarce.The store, called Goodwill Nagoya Osu, said that itll begin selling the RTX 5090 on January 31, but you cant just walk in and shell out some of your hard-earned cash on a GPU. Youll have to gamble and hope for the best. Sales begin at 11 a.m., but only those who are lined up outside the store at 10.20 a.m. will be given a ticket. This peculiar ad was spotted by VideoCardz.Recommended VideosCamping outside a store is no news to a GPU enthusiast, as weve seen people setting up tents outside of Micro Center a couple of days ago. Thats a much longer wait, but at least those shoppers wont have to rely on luck to let them spend $2,000 and get their hands on Nvidias latest graphics card. However, we have also seen the lottery system used in the U.S. before during the GPU shortage, so its not that unusual we just havent had to deal with these types of shortages for a while now.Get your weekly teardown of the tech behind PC gaming RTX5090,RTX50801/3111GPU102010201/3023 pic.twitter.com/sWUh0p9nOa GOODWILL (@GW_Nagoyaoosu) January 29, 2025All of these somewhat extreme measures can be traced back to the limited stock weve been hearing about for the last week or so. It appears that at launch, the RTX 50-series will be hard to come by. While Nvidias Founders Edition is likely to be available, there may not be enough GPUs to meet the demand which is definitely saying something, given how expensive the card is going to be.Third-party cards are a gamble its hard to say which retailer and which manufacturer will have good availability on launch day. As reported by StinceBuilt, MSI has confirmed that itll be delaying the shipment of its RTX 5090 graphics cards, and the GPUs will not be available until February 6. Preorders will still open on January 30 as planned, though.What about the RTX 5080? Will that card be in stock? Check back tomorrow as well make sure to keep you posted on where to buy an RTX 5090 and an RTX 5080 on launch day.Editors Recommendations

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsDesign and remote controlConnections and portsUser interfacePicture and sound qualityPriceThe verdictChoosing one of the best streaming devices for your home is more complicated than ever, thanks to the breadth of options available today. While you can access the most popular streaming services through each individual app, these streaming set-top boxes deliver a home entertainment hub that lets you watch everything from one place, along with checking out connected home functionality, different apps, and even games. There are plenty of different options worth checking out, but today were comparing two of our favorites, Apple TV 4K and Google TV Streamer.Both of these streaming devices feature an intuitive user experience, thats streamlined and designed to get you watching within minutes. However, that doesnt make it easier to choose between them. Apple TV delivers access to a variety of apps, games, a free three-month subscription to Apple TV+, connects to Apple Smart Home devices, and you can even connect your AirPods for private jam sessions.Recommended VideosAlternatively, Google TV Streamer is a bit more affordable, connects to tons of apps, and to the Google Home ecosystem. Its a big step up from Chromecast with Google TV, trading out the flimsy dongle for a set-top box that easily integrates into any home theatre setup.RelatedSo which one is right for you? Lets take a look.Google TV Streamer replaces the venerable (if underpowered) Chromecast with Google TV. Phil Nickinson / Digital TrendsBefore we get into the nitty gritty, were going to be talking about the most recent versions of both of these devices. After all, you want to know whether the device currently available is the best option for you, right? Both Apple TV and Google TV Streamer are smart, stylish, small devices that will easily fit into your setup without taking up too much space. But lets take a closer look at each device up close.Apple TV 4k measures 3.7 inches wide, 3.7 inches deep, and 1.2 inches from top to bottom. It features the same glossy exterior as previous versions, and it looks great wherever you end up placing it. The 2022 model has updated the Siri remote with a USB-C charging port, making it easier to charge than earlier versions that used the Lightning port. This is also good news for anyone who hasnt fully bought into the Apple ecosystem, since youre more likely to have a USB-C charge cable lying around, than the Apple only lightning cables.Google TV Streamer is a huge jump forward versus the previous Chromecast dongle. It measures 6.4 inches wide, 3.0 inches deep, and 1.0 inches from top to bottom, weighing just 5.7 ounces. This set-top box is no longer a dongle, and features a raised design that hides its actual size. The remote has gotten a significant upgrade, delivering a larger body with more buttons, but keeping the matte plastic design from earlier iterations with Chromecast. Instead of a charging port, it runs off of 2 AAA batteries that are included with the device. This does mean it wont need to be charged regularly, but at the same time youll need to ensure that you have backup batteries in the house when the initial batteries eventually lose their charge.Apple and Google are both well designed when it comes to both the set-top boxes, and remotes, but with its slightly smaller footprint for home entertainment centers without much wiggle room, Apple takes the win here.Winner: Apple TV 4KApple TV 4K has a bare minimum of cables and ports just as youd expect from Apple. Phil Nickinson / Digital TrendsApple TV 4k boasts the new Apple A15 Bionic chip, making it beefy enough to let you enjoy your shows for years to come. Apple claims it will deliver up to a 30% jump in performance, which translates to better voice navigation, a more responsive user interface while scrolling, and faster load times when launching apps.When it comes to ports, Apple TV 4K has continued its trend of delivering only what you actually need. The 64GB model includes only a power port, and an HDMI slot, since its built to be used over Wi-Fi. The 128GB model adds an ethernet port, which is extra helpful if you have issues with connectivity over Wi-Fi, or you want to ensure you have the fastest possible connection.Google TV Streamer only has a single model available, and it includes an ethernet port, HDMI port, and a power port. This means you dont need to worry about choosing between models, because Google has included the ports necessary. However, this device only includes support for Wi-Fi5, and not Wi-Fi6. If you dont have a ton of devices running off of your home network, this shouldnt be an issue. However, for folks who have fully opted into a smart home ecosystem, this can slow Google TV Streamer down a bit.In the end, Apple TV takes the win here thanks to the A15 Bionic chip that gives it a leg up over Google TV Streamer in terms of speed. Its also a chip thats currently capable of doing way more than Apple TV is asking of it, making it a great option if you want a set-top box built to last for years to come.Winner: Apple TV 4KThe Google TV homescreen is still as busy as ever. Phil Nickinson / Digital TrendsWhen it comes to user interface, you want something that lets you easily navigate between apps and features, allowing you to find the shows you want to watch without scrolling endlessly to get there. Both Apple TV and Google TV Streamer feature a home screen that delivers previews of current popular shows, along with tiles to select different apps or features. However, they arent quite the same.Google TV Streamer has a lot going on when you turn it on. The top of the screen gives you quick links for the curatedFor You page, live programming, apps, and then programs youve saved in your library. On the top right you can access search, and the settings menu easily. There is a scrollable screen with current big-name shows or movies available that takes up about 50% of the screen. Under that youll seeTop Picks for You, which are built off of Googles algorithm. These are shows and movies that Google thinks youll enjoy based on your other viewing habits. Below that, youll find the apps that youve downloaded, with more recently opened apps further to the left.Alternatively, Apple TV 4K is much more pared down. In the upper right corner of the screen youll see your user icon, along with the current local time. About 70% of the screen is taken up by program previews for shows that Apple thinks youll enjoy. You can swipe up on the Siri remote to enter full screen mode, and view the entire preview to see the trailer in full, and if you hit the middle button on the Siri remote itll show you the program and where you can watch it. Under the preview, there is a line of apps and by scrolling down you can see the rest of the apps youve installed, along with the tile for the Settings menu.While both of these options deliver an easy to use interface, Apple TV 4K takes the win again. Its UI is far more curated, and lets you find everything easily without being overwhelming. In juxtaposition, Google TV Streamer delivers a bit too much on the home screen, making it feel cluttered and like too much is going on when you look at it.Winner: Apple TV 4KThe Apple TV homescreen is nearly all app icons. Simple. Easy. Clean. Phil Nickinson / Digital TrendsHaving a proper home theatre setup lets you enjoy your favorite shows like youve gone to the movies. From HDR delivering crystal clear picture, to wall-rattling surround sound, if youve spent time curating your AV setup, you want devices that can deliver everything youve prepared for. Thankfully, both Apple TV 4K and Google TV Streamer support a variety of HDR formats, along with immersive Dolby Atmossound.Both devices support HDR, HDR10+ and Dolby Vision for the best possible picture quality. Apples A15 chip does some heavy lifting, and you even have the option to enable spatial audio if youve connected your AirPods. Google TV Streamer also delivers top-notch quality from the onboard processor. This means both options can open and play even blockbuster movies from Disney+ and Netflix without waiting for a program to buffer along the way. If you opted for connecting your device to ethernet, the load times are even shorter.Since both devices deliver the same formats for picture and audio quality, were calling this one a tie. No matter which streaming device youre leaning towards, its more than capable of delivering a quality experience.Winner: TiePhil Nickinson / Digital TrendsThe most recent version of Apple TV 4K comes at two price points. You can snag the base 64GB model for $130, or grab the 128GB model with Wi-Fi and ethernet for $150. Spending an extra $20 may not be worth it for some people, but it is the only version of this streaming device that includes an ethernet port. It also doubles the onboard storage capacity, making it well worth the small bump in price.Google TV Streamer retails for $100, making it a more affordable option, while delivering many of the same features.This win goes to Google TV Streamer since its more affordable than either option available with Apple TV.Winner: Google TV StreamerJen Karner / Digital TrendsAt the end of the day, you need to choose between Apple TV 4K and Google TV Streamer, and its honestly a close race. Both streaming devices are stellar options delivering high quality picture and sound, an intuitive UI, and plenty of processing power. While Google TV Streamer is the more affordable option, Apple TV 4K is an option that is built not only to last, but to deliver the best possible experience, for years to come.Apple has put a ton of work into ensuring that Apple TV 4K will be a stellar device not only today, but for the foreseeable future. With Apples A15 Bionic chip, a less cluttered user experience, home connectivity, and a smaller overall size, it manages to squeak by and take the win. It is a bit more expensive than the competition, but theres good reason for that, and its why it remains our pick for the best all-around streaming device available today.Winner: Apple TV 4KEditors Recommendations

The company is vying to sell long-range strike weapons to the U.S. military.

The Silicon Valley-based startup said Chinese entities have tried to exfiltrate data from its tools.

I hate it here Trumps new head of DOT rips up US fuel efficiency regulations Secretary Duffy claims polluting more will make cars cheaper. Jonathan M. Gitlin Jan 29, 2025 9:11 am | 14 We can look forward to more air pollution and more climate change as a result of the Trump administration's policies. Credit: Getty Images We can look forward to more air pollution and more climate change as a result of the Trump administration's policies. Credit: Getty Images Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreUS President Donald Trump's pick to run the Department of Transportation was sworn in to his new job yesterday. And as widely expected, Secretary Sean Duffy moved to immediately rip up the nation's fuel efficiency standards.Duffy issued a memo soon after starting the job on Tuesday evening, ordering the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "to commence an immediate review and reconsideration of all existing fuel economy standards applicable to all models of motor vehicles produced from model year 2022 forward," with particular attention to the tougher new regulations put in place last year by the Biden administration."The memorandum signed today specifically reduces the burdensome and overly restrictive fuel standards that have needlessly driven up the cost of a car in order to push a radical Green New Deal agenda. The American people should not be forced to sacrifice choice and affordability when purchasing a new car," Duffy said in a statement.In his memo, Duffy repeats the Trump administration's messaging, claiming that making the nation's vehicles pollute more is necessary to "remove regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access," and that doing so will create "a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice."The memo also says that state waivers on vehicle pollutionsuch as California's legally enshrined right to regulate air quality within its bordershould be terminated, as it "function[s] to limit sales of gasoline-powered vehicles." It also calls electric vehicle subsidies an "ill-conceived government-imposed market distortion" that is making cars unaffordable.Duffy's attack on California's waiver was probably superfluoushis boss already issued an executive order doing just that upon being sworn in as president earlier this month.The first Trump administration spent much time attacking fuel efficiency and California's waiver, moves that were slowly reversed during the Biden administration. Even so, under former President Biden, the US Environmental Protection Agency moved to soften the incoming Corporate Average Fuel Economy regs meant to go into effect between model years 20272032.The updated regulations remained relatively strict but gave automakers more time to reach their targetsand allowed for a greater mix of hybrid vehicles.In a further attack on clean air and climate change mitigation, the acting administrator of the General Services Administration issued a memo late last week that barred the federal government from purchasing any zero-emissions vehicles. In 2021, former President Biden ordered that most federal vehicle acquisitions be zero-emissions vehicles by 2032.Jonathan M. GitlinAutomotive EditorJonathan M. GitlinAutomotive Editor Jonathan is the Automotive Editor at Ars Technica. He has a BSc and PhD in Pharmacology. In 2014 he decided to indulge his lifelong passion for the car by leaving the National Human Genome Research Institute and launching Ars Technica's automotive coverage. He lives in Washington, DC. 14 Comments

It's going to be a long year Streaming prices climb in 2025 after already surpassing inflation rates Five services started charging more in January. Scharon Harding Jan 29, 2025 7:30 am | 23 Credit: Getty Credit: Getty Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreIf you were hoping for a respite from rising streaming subscription fees in 2025, youre out of luck. Several streaming providers have already increased monthly and/or annual subscription rates, continuing a disappointing trend from the past few years, with no foreseeable end.Years of pricing and value concernsSubscribers have generally seen an uptick in how much money they spend to access streaming services. In June, Forbes reported that 44 percent of the 2,000 US streaming users it surveyed who engage with content for at least an hour daily said their streaming costs had increased over the prior year.Deloitte's 2024 Digital Media Trends report found that 48 percent of the 3,517 US consumers it surveyed said that they would cancel their favorite streaming video-on-demand service if the price went up by $5.Similarly, in a blog post about 2025 streaming trends, consumer research firm GWI reported that 52 percent of US TV viewers believe streaming subscriptions are getting too expensive, which is a 77 percent increase since 2020. It added that globally, the top reason cited by customers who have canceled or are considering canceling a streaming service was cost (named by 39 percent of consumers), followed by price hikes (32 percent).In its Digital Video Forecast and Trends Q1 2025 report, eMarketer (a marketing, ads, and commerce research firm that merged with Insider Intelligence in 2020) found that subscription fees for ad-free streaming tiers have greatly outpaced inflation and pay TV increases since 2023, as shown in the graph below: Credit: eMarketer Pay TV packages and inflation have increased at similar rates in recent years. But over the past two years, streaming has gotten much more expensive relative to both, eMarketers report says.And people seeking ad-free streaming have had an increasingly expensive time since 2020, the research firm noted: Credit: eMarketer Meanwhile, some research shows that subscribers consider the quality of content available on streaming services to be sub par and/or declining. Thirty-six percent of respondents in Deloittes March report, for example, said that "the content available on streaming video services isnt worth the price." A Q2 2024 TiVo survey of 4,490 people in the US and Canada ages 18 and up found that fewer subscribers perceive their streaming services as having moderate to very good content. In Q2 2022, the percentage was 78.6 percent for ad-free subscribers, compared to 74.5 percent in Q2 2024. Ad-supported services also reportedly saw a drop here, going from 74.2 percent in Q2 2023 to 60.8 percent in Q2 2024.Price increases are happening as several streaming services are cutting back on their content libraries," eMarketers report says. "These issues have contributed to consumer dissatisfaction. Meanwhile, streaming services are finally appearing more profitable on paper.Despite criticisms around streaming prices and value and streaming evolving into a costly, bundled affair la cable, many streaming services have already upped prices for 2025.Below is a breakdown of those price hikes and the reasoning provided, as well as other likely factors, for the increases.FuboPrices for all of Fubo's English-language streaming subscriptions increased by $5 per month, The Streamable reported on Friday. That makes the live sports streaming platform's cheapest plan $85 and its most expensive $95.The news follows efforts from Fubo to block Venu Sports, a proposed sports streaming app that would have offered sports channels from Fox, Disney, and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) for $43/month. The conglomerates behind the app canned Venu shortly after Fubo dropped its antitrust case against the proposed app team-up. At the same time, Fubo announced that Disney was planning to buy a majority stake in Fubo. It's no coincidence that there's some customer blowback around Fubo's price hike and the timing.I hate Fubo. They killed Venu so that they could raise prices?!?! Never will they see my [money] again, a Reddit user wrote on the FuboTV subreddit this week.When asked for comment on customer gripes, Jennifer Press, Fubos communications SVP, attributed the price hikes to rising costs from our programming partners." She added that Fubo only makes adjustments when necessary while noting discounts for new customers.The company's new pricing and potential merger come as it has never turned a profit since its January 2015 launch. In its fiscal Q3 2024 earnings report released in November, Fubo reported a net loss of $54.7 million, down from $84.4 million in Q3 2023.NetflixLast week, Netflix raised subscription prices by as much as 16 percent, depending on the plan. The new monthly prices took effect immediately and sent the cheapest ad-free plan (Standard) from $15.50 to $18, the Premium ad-free tier from $23 to $25, and the Standard With Ads plans from $7 to $8.While announcing higher prices, Netflix also unveiled its largest quarterly subscriber gain ever, with 18.91 million people subscribing for a total of 301.63 million. eMarketer predicts Netflix will make $17.12 billion in US subscription revenues in 2025. But for Netflix, that isnt enough.Netflix attributed its first price increase since 2023 to programming costs. Netflix CFO Spencer Neumann told investors that it will increase content spending from $17 billion in 2024 to $18 billion, emphasizing "big, scripted TV series," live events, and original programming, while growing impactful licensing opportunities.Further, the price hikes favor those willing to subscribe to Netflix with commercials, as the ad-free Standard plan got the biggest price bump. Netflix plans to double its 2024 ad revenue in 2025, and these new prices should help those efforts.Raising prices since 2012Along its path to being the largest streaming service, Netflix has constantly raised prices since 2012, as The Verge recently illustrated. Since 2012, monthly fees for Netflixs Standard ad-free plan have increased from $8 to $18 across seven price hikes. The Premium ad-free plan went from $12 in 2013 to $25 across six price hikes. Netflix released its ad-free standard plan in 2023 and has now issued a $1 price hike.Netflix wont report subscriber numbers to investors anymore, giving us less insight into whats driving its strategy. But co-CEO Greg Peters has shown a commitment to growing revenue one way or another, telling investors last week:"We earn, right now, only 6 percent of the revenue opportunity in the countries and segments that we currently serve. And as long as we continue to deliver on improving the variety, the quality of our TV and film slate, we gradually expand the offering with newer content types, we believe well be able to increase that share progressively every year."Netflix also has strong customer loyalty compared to other streaming services. In September, the service had lower churn rates than its rivals, per Antenna. (Antenna says it sources data from various data firms with millions of permission-based, consumer opt-in, raw transaction records." The research firm says it cleans and models this raw data, and then subsequently weighs the panel to correct for demographic and behavioral skews.) Credit: Antenna Discovery+On January 7, WBD raised prices on its streaming service that isnt Max, Discovery+. The services ad-free and ad-supported monthly plans each increased by $1, bringing the former to $6 and the latter to $10 for new customers. Old subscribers will start paying the new prices on or after February 7.Discovery+ last raised prices in October 2023, bumping the price for an ad-free monthly subscription by $2 to $9. WBD didn't provide any official reasoning for the new prices. It's possible that Discovery+ wasn't expecting much blowback, considering the service's relatively small user base and comparatively low prices (Discovery+ has equal or cheaper monthly rates than every major subscription streaming service).Of course, Max remains WBDs streaming darling, with more content (it also includes Discovery+) and a larger subscriber base than Discovery+. Notably, though, in a February 2023 earnings call, WBD CEO David Zaslav said that Discovery+ had "very low" subscriber churn and was profitable. The above bar graph from Antenna also shows Discovery+ having a lower churn rate than Max. Perhaps WBD feels more open to testing subscribers' limits with these advantages at play.AMC+On January 15, the higher prices for AMC+ that AMC Networks announced in December took effect. Subscribers to the cable channels on-demand streaming service, (which includes content from some of AMC+'s sister streaming services, including Shudder), increased the subscription fee for its monthly ad plan by $2, to $7. The monthly fee for AMC+'s ad-free subscription increased $1, to $10, and its annual ad-free subscription increased $8, to $96.In its announcement, AMC Networks seemingly sought to rationalize the higher rates by noting the addition of new seasons of TV shows for 2024 and 2025 and plans to introduce more exclusive new films.In its Q3 2024 earnings report announced in November, AMC Networks reported a 5 percent increase in streaming subscribers compared to fiscal Q3 2023. Streaming revenues also increased 7 percent, with AMC citing year-over-year subscriber growth and price increases." AMC Networks also makes a lot of money ($81 million in Q3) by licensing content. And with AMC+ being cheaper than nonproprietary streaming services licensing AMC content, it had an opening to pull more money from its growing subscriber base.AMC Networks' overall ad revenue declined 10 percent in Q3 due to linear ratings declines and a challenging ad market, partly offset by digital and advanced advertising revenue growth" and putting more emphasis on the need for streaming revenue.YouTube TVOn January 13, YouTube TV subscribers started paying higher rates, which Google announced in December. The pricing scheme increases the monthly fee for the basic plan by $10 (13.7 percent) to $83.In an email to subscribers, Google blamed the changes on the rising cost of content and the investments we make in the quality of service.But that doesnt explain why Googles announcement came three days after Google claimed via X that YouTube TV was not getting a price hike, after a Verizon promotion suggested that current pricing for the service was $83/month. The practice isnt a good precedent for the streaming service that became America's fourth-largest cable TV provider by subscribers in February. Wall Street research firm MoffetNathanson predicted in March that YouTube TV would become the largest pay TV service by subscribers in 2026.YouTube TV has seen regular price hikes since it debuted at $35/month in 2017. In 2018, it went to $40, then $50 in 2019, $65 in 2020, and $73 in 2023.That said, YouTube TV hasnt announced any profitability, though MoffettNathanson predicted early last year that the service would be profitable in 2024 (no updates yet). New prices help with that goal while bringing YouTube TV pricing closer in line with rival service Hulu + Live TV, which starts at $83/month but also includes subscriptions to Disney+ and ESPN+ with ads.Bonus: Sling TVSling TV also started charging $6 extra per month for all of its plans. That change technically started on December 20, 2024, but many customers will pay the new rate for the first time this month. Sling blamed the change on unspecified, industry-wide "rising costs." But Sling has also struggled to maintain subscribers (although, it recently enjoyed an uptick there) and revenue over the years, and parent company EchoStar has struggled to stay profitable in recent quarters.Scharon HardingSenior Technology ReporterScharon HardingSenior Technology Reporter Scharon is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica writing news, reviews, and analysis on consumer gadgets and services. She's been reporting on technology for over 10 years, with bylines at Toms Hardware, Channelnomics, and CRN UK. 23 Comments

"Sex and the City" star Kristin Davis said a man once "ghosted" her after she lent him $5,000 while they were dating.She said she made the "horrible mistake" of lending money to the "out-of-work" actor in the 1990s.The "now very successful" actor never paid her back, she said.Kristin Davis said a "very successful" actor once "ghosted" her after she loaned him $5,000 while they were dating.The "Sex and the City" star spoke about her experience with guest and former costar Sarah Wynter in a recent episode of her podcast Are You A Charlotte?"Davis told listeners she made the "horrible mistake" of lending the money to the then "out-of-work" actor in the mid-1990s. She recalled: "At the time, I had money because I'd been working, and I was at his house, and he had all of these 'your electricity's gonna be turned off' notices that you get when you can't pay your bills. They were all just all over his house."Davis said the unnamed actor had also "wrecked his motorcycle," which prevented him from attending auditions."I was like, 'Can I lend you some money?'" she said. "Horrible mistake. Anyone listening, do not lend anyone money that you are dating. It doesn't end well. It really irked me." Kristin Davis said the incident occurred before she found fame on "Sex and the City." HBO/Getty Images Davis said that the incident occurred sometime before she found fame as Charlotte York on the hugely successful HBO series "Sex and the City," which ran for six seasons between 1998 and 2004 and around the time she was on "Melrose Place."Davis said the pair had what she called "a casual thing" and refused to name the actor involved, although she said he had gone on to become "very successful."But she added that she soon regretted the decision, as lending the money "changed the dynamic in a horrible way."She continued: "I probably should have known better. But I just felt like, 'I can help. I should help this guy. He's so talented,' which he is.""I think it was all of $5,000. So I lent him this money, and then he stops calling. I'm like, 'What the heck?'""I just would love some acknowledgment or whatever, which is kind of a fantasy," she added.But that seemingly wasn't the last time the "And Just Like That" star made the mistake of lending a date money."I think the next time was the last time," she said.Davis, who starred in "Cash Out" alongside John Travolta last year, announced her podcast in December.The show, which debuted on January 13, sees Davis and special guests share "untold stories" and behind-the-scenes tales from "Sex and the City."

Intensive parenting has parents over-extending themselves and children under-extending themselves.A Montessori approach can help increase children's independence and parents' autonomy.Breaking an intensive parenting cycle takes time, but it's worth the effort.One of the delicate paradoxes of parenthood is that it is a parent's job to meet their child's needs while at the same time ensuring their child needs them less over time.As intensive parenting rises, parents are encouraged to meet their children's needs with increasing efficiency but fail to ensure they gain the independence and autonomy needed to be functional adults. As the director of a Montessori school and a mom of four children, I worry the shift to intensive parenting stifles children's natural desire for independence while creating an unsustainable job description for parents.Why I raised my own children with a Montessori approachWhen it comes to parenting, there is a way in which less can be more. A Montessori approach strikes the right balance between parental involvement and paving the way for a healthy level of effort from the child.On a typical workday, in a Montessori setting, it's not uncommon for me to see children as young as 3 years old cheerfully preparing their own snacks, washing their own dishes, cleaning up their own spills, and skipping off to use the bathroom whenever nature calls. However, a Montessori setting isn't a requirement for implementing a Montessori approach.I've raised my four kids with a Montessori philosophy and noticed how self-sufficient they are, which takes a huge load off of my shoulders daily. There's no magic to getting children to function with such high levels of independence, but a few approaches used in Montessori can help.Kids learn practical life skillsIntensive parenting pushes children to achieve outer markers of success, often well before the child has a chance to develop foundational life skills. By contrast, Montessori has a whole area of the classroom designated to "Practical Life," which supports children in cultivating the many skills they need for daily living.Everyday tasks that seem intuitive to adults are broken down into manageable steps for young children. Showing a child how to blow their nose, carry a glass of water without spilling, sweep up crumbs, or zip up their jacket is a simple, worthwhile investment of time that pays dividends down the road.Focusing on foundational skills with the trust that children will inevitably excel in more complex skills as their development unfolds is far more respectful to the child's natural development and ensures a more sustainable experience for the parent.Children love a good challengeContrary to the tenets of intensive parenting, children love a good challenge. However, when parents are too quick to rescue their child from struggle, it can lower a child's tolerance for frustration and create a dynamic in which children begin to shy away from activities that feel challenging or even avoid exerting sincere effort altogether. This not only stunts the child's development but also keeps the parent doing almost everything for the child.Giving children time and freedom to try something just a little bit outside their comfort zone keeps them immersed in a growth mindset, laying the foundation for their striving toward independence.In an intensive parenting culture, parents are encouraged to rescue children from struggle, whereas in a Montessori approach, parents are encouraged to stand back and respect a child's effort. Parents who can resist the urge to step in the minute a child struggles with a new task may be pleasantly surprised at how quickly progress follows.Freedom within limitsIntensive parenting offers very little freedom for children, given that their schedules are structured, their parents almost constantly manage them, and "optimization" of a child's development replaces open-ended exploration.By contrast, a Montessori approach offers freedom within limits, encouraging the child to build autonomy by making their own age-appropriate choices and following their interests. After all, children can only learn to take responsibility for their choices when they have the freedom to make them. For children to benefit from freedom, reasonable limits must be established to ensure safety, stability, and structure. And, of course, the balance between freedom and limits should naturally shift as children mature.Breaking the intensive parenting cycleMontessori isn't just about pristine-looking classrooms and expensive wooden materials. Montessori is a philosophy that can be applied outside the classroom in simple ways like teaching practical skills, embracing manageable challenges, and restoring freedom within limits. Intensive parenting is stifling children's independence while overextending parents.Breaking the intensive parenting cycle isn't easy, but staying in an unhealthy dynamic is far more difficult. Ultimately, every parent's goal should be to work themselves out of a job helping their child slowly but surely learn to function with a level of confidence, independence,ce and responsibility that will allow them to eventually thrive on their own.Christine Carrig, M.S.Ed., is the founding director of Carrig Montessori School in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. You can subscribe to her Substack or follow her on Instagram @christine.m.carrig.

On Sunday afternoon, I went to the National Football Conference championship game at Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia. At one point early in the fourth quarter, the Philadelphia Eagles were on the 1-yard line of the opposing Washington Commanders, ready to run their unstoppable Brotherly Shove play for a score. (Trust me this has something to do with Future Perfect.)Knowing they would almost certainly give up a touchdown, the outmatched Commanders decided to do something a little different. First, a Commanders defender purposefully jumped over the line early, leading to a penalty for encroachment. Then they did it again same thing. And again same thing. They seemingly had every intention to keep jumping the line, over and over. And each time, the referees moved the ball half the distance to the goal line, as happens when defensive penalties occur close to the end zone.Anyone familiar with the principle of infinite divisibility in geometry can see the problem here. A line segment like the distance here between the line of scrimmage and the end zone can be infinitely divided, over and over. Which means that theoretically, the Commanders could have kept encroaching, and the Eagles could have kept advancing half the distance to the goal line without ever getting there, until the end of time.Fortunately for the players, coaches and nearly 70,000 fans in attendance, the referees found a way out of this particular paradox by invoking a little-known NFL rule that allows the offense team to be automatically awarded a touchdown if the defense keeps purposefully committing penalties to stop them. That was finally enough to get the Commanders to cut it out.All of which brings us to a subject weve written about a few times here at Future Perfect: the Doomsday Clock. (See, I told you wed get there.)What time is it?Created and run by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which itself was founded by many former Manhattan Project physicists who had become alarmed by the threat of nuclear weapons, the Doomsday Clock is meant to be a symbolic representation of how close humanity is to existential destruction. Each year, a group of experts in everything from nuclear science to climate change to cybersecurity sets the hands of the clock. The closer it is to midnight, the closer humanity supposedly is to extinction. In 2023, the Bulletin made some news when it moved the hands of the clock up 10 seconds, to 90 seconds until midnight the closest it had ever been since it was launched in 1947. While that meant humanity was supposedly closer to annihilation than it had been in such famously dangerous times as 1964 (not long after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when it was set to 12 minutes to midnight) or 1984 (shortly after one of the closest nuclear calls in Cold War history, when it was 3 minutes to midnight), this was the first setting after Russia invaded Ukraine and raised nuclear fears to a height they hadnt reached in decades. Last year, citing everything from Ukraine to Gaza to climate change to growth in AI, the board kept the clock at 90 seconds to midnight. And then yesterday morning, the board revealed the clocks new setting. Set your doomsday time to drumroll please: 89 seconds to midnight, one second closer. The board listed a slew of factors: continued nuclear risk around Ukraine and the disintegration of nuclear arms control; the growing impacts of climate change after what is likely the hottest year on record; the threat of new diseases like bird flu; AI progress, and especially, potential military applications; and disinformation and cyber insecurity. If those sound familiar, well, theyre pretty much the same factors as the year before, and the year before that, something board chair Daniel Holz acknowledged at Tuesdays event, saying these factors were not new in 2024. But we have seen insufficient progress in addressing the key challenges, and in many cases this is leading to increasingly negative and worrisome effects.Still, everything about Tuesdays announcement underscored an essential problem with the Doomsday Clock. Its running out of time perhaps metaphorically, as its meant to, in the case of humanitys survival, but quite literally, in the sense that a clock only has so many hours, minutes, and seconds. And that problem is something the entire field of existential risk suffers from. Just like those referees in Philadelphia, there are only so many times you can issue a warning before it starts to feel meaningless, especially as we seem to get closer and closer to annihilation without, quite, getting there.Before midnightIn a way, the Doomsday Clock is a victim of its own success as an unparalleled symbol of 20th-century, Cold War nuclear fear. So compelling was the idea of the hands of a clock, inching toward the midnight moment when the missiles would launch, that the classic 1980s Watchmen graphic novel used it as an unforgettable central motif. Like James Bond movies and Rambo films, though, the Doomsday Clock suffered after the end of the Cold War and the apparent removal of its reason for being: nuclear war. With that threat seemingly behind us, the clock branched out into new threats like climate change and infectious disease, and later very 2010-era worries like disinformation and democratic backsliding. This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter.Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.The problem, as weve written before, is that non-nuclear existential risks simply dont fit well into the metaphor of a clock. A nuclear war is largely a binary risk the missiles fire, and the clock strikes 12, or they dont. And theres an entire field of geopolitics and diplomacy dedicated to gauging just where the world is on nuclear risk. It is about as measurable and knowable as existential risks get, which is why the Doomsday Clock was so iconic.But other, newer existential risks dont work that way assuming they even are, indeed, true existential risks. Climate change is not a binary but a cumulative, ongoing risk, less sudden fatal heart attack than lifelong case of planetary diabetes. If climate risk were a clock, itd be hard to know what time it is, or even whether the clock would ever truly strike midnight.Other risks are even more difficult to track. Artificial intelligence just experienced one of the most eventful weeks in its young history, as Chinas DeepSeek showed that advanced models might be cheaper and harder to stifle than the industry had thought, even as Americas big AI players lined up for an unprecedented $500 billion buildup. Is AI even an existential risk? Maybe though no one can tell you with any certainty how precisely it might unfold, or how close we really are. And AI, unlike nuclear weapons, has benefits for science and society we cant just put aside.When it comes to infectious disease, as worrying as the recent outbreaks of bird flu have been, we have no certainty that this will indeed be the next pandemic or how severe it would be should that happen. A new virus will come for us, but chances are well be surprised by what it is, just as we were surprised by Covid. And the odds that such a virus would actually threaten us with extinction seem very low.We live in a world that is right now awash in fear, even if those fears are often overstated and out of step with reality. I worry that as the Doomsday Clock waters down its original focus on nuclear war something that really is getting worse and makes these minute changes year to year, it will end up burning out the very audience it is meant to galvanize. You can only say the world is close to ending so many times, only elevate so many risks to the status of existential ones, before people begin to tune you out.A postscript to that story about the Eagles game: Once the referees had made their final warning, the Eagles were able to run their Brotherly Shove, and push quarterback Jalen Hurts into the end zone for a touchdown, en route to a dominating 55-23 victory. (Go Birds!) You can have all the warnings in the world but that doesnt mean you can stop the inevitable from happening. 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:

A Vox reader asks: Why do people pay more to watch mens sports than womens sports?For all of Caitlin Clarks feats on the basketball court breaking all-time scoring records, taking the Iowa Hawkeyes to two national championships and getting the Indiana Fever to the WNBA playoffs what might be more impressive is the attention shes captured and the sheer amount of people who want to see her play and are willing to pay top dollar to watch her dish dazzling assists and launch 3-point daggers from the logo. In her rookie season, Clark helped the Fever achieve the best attendance in the league over 17,000 people per game, a 265 percent increase over last season and their televised games regularly reached over 1 million viewers per contest. Scalpers were selling tickets outside the arena. At one point in the season, they were asking $250 for a ticket that usually went for under $100, while some secondary market sellers were looking for up to $9,000, CNN reported. Clarks emergence alongside a new generation of exciting rookies and ultra-talented, already-established veterans has created momentum for womens basketball and more generally womens sports. Mainly: People are finally willing to pay more to see womens basketball? That raises the question: Why werent they already? Why have womens sports historically been less popular?At the heart of this question is a pretty simple answer: Men have had decades-long head starts when it comes to sports and professional sporting leagues. To put it in perspective, women were allowed to compete in the 1900 Olympics in five sports; it wasnt until the 2012 London Olympics that women competed in all of the sports that the men were. Similarly, in the US, experts specifically point to Title IX the federal law that bans gender discrimination at schools receiving federal aid and its passing in 1972 as a watershed moment for gender equality in sports. Before that, US schools had no obligation to provide the same athletic opportunities to girls that they did for boys. It broke down existing barriers to entry, allowing women not only to compete but also receive equal financial opportunity tied to sports (e.g., college scholarships ). But when Title IX solidified womens rights into law and protected them from discrimination, the NBA was already over 20 years old. The easy way to think about it is to look at the overall lack of investment, Lindsey Darvin, an assistant professor at Syracuse University, told me. Darvin studies womens sports and gender equity in the intercollegiate and professional sports industry. She said that the NBA, and any other major sports league, have had decades upon decades of resources, both external and internal, infused into them. Womens leagues are, relatively speaking, still so young and dont (yet) gather the same kind of attention. The amount of investment thats been put into the NBA it dwarfs whats been put into the WNBA, Darvin said. The WNBA was founded in 1996, almost 30 years ago. The same number of years on the NBA timeline would be the late 70s, when the league was finally established and on the verge of a massive leap in popularity. While the WNBA is growing, it hasnt seen the same kind of trajectory at least not yet. It took decades for teams like the Lakers, Yankees, Arsenal, Bruins, and Packers to become lucrative sports franchises that generate millions in revenue each year and play in arenas and stadiums in front of thousands of people. Some professional leagues count revenue in the tens of billions of dollars. Decades of investment money, advertising, promotion, television deals, sponsorships, etc., have turned teams and leagues into brand names. Thats what youre paying for when youre purchasing a ticket. Thats also why a mens pro sports ticket is usually going to be more expensive than a womens.How does marketing factor into it?The last couple of years in womens college basketball have shown us that womens sports can challenge mens in popularity like, right now. At the 2024 Final Four, tickets for the womens tickets on the secondary market were going double for the price of the mens games. The Caitlin Clark effect was in full motion, and the ratings for Clark and her cohort were at an all-time high. Clarks last two games were the most-watched in history, averaging close to 14 million and, as The Athletic reported, eclipsed mens sporting events like every World Series since 2019, every NBA Finals game since 2017, and every Daytona 500 since 2006. As a researcher, I dont like to say the phrase that the stars align because that just seems so kind of out there but the stars aligning is a piece of it, and thats what happened, right? Darvin said, noting that Clarks skill and flashy, appealing game; the success of the Iowa basketball team; and Clarks marketability and her teams underdog story were all factors in becoming a phenomenon. But what intrigues Darvin is now that Clark has graduated and driven similar sellouts in the WNBA, is whether this can convince people especially those in charge that people are willing to spend more money to see womens sports. One of the trickier reasons about why mens sports are valued over womens is because thats what weve been told they were more important for so long. Clark and Iowa basketball are one of the rare examples when investment, promotion, and media hammered home that Clarks games were worth watching, worth paying for, and even more exciting than the mens teams. Youre steered in directions through marketing, advertisements, and the media you are basically told what youre supposed to like and what you should pay for, and what youre going to enjoy, Darvin said. And what is cool to enjoy and pay for has always been mens sports.Essentially, we were told to value Caitlin Clarks senior season in a way that hadnt happened in womens college basketball. But while Clark is the most recent barrier-breaker, she isnt alone. During her career, Serena Williams and her rivals were at times bigger stories than male tennis players. (Not unrelated: Tennis has been one of the better sports at striving for equal pay.) Simone Biles and the US womens gymnastics team are bigger stories than the American men, and similarly, womens figure skating is usually as popular as mens at the Olympics. Those are all examples, Darvin said, where women athletes fare better when it comes to marketing and publicity. The more womens pro sports are publicized and marketed, the more people are willing to pay to see pro women athletes, and ostensibly the idea is that all this capital turns into growth, opportunity, and equality for women. With more money, perhaps the WNBA will be able to pay rookies more than $76,000 for their first season! A possible sign of progress: Unrivaled, a stateside professional 3x3 womens league debuted in January with a $200,000 average salary per player and a multiyear media deal with TNT. Darvin also notes that college women athletes signing lucrative NIL deals are also changing the playing field and upping their media profiles. If theres one drawback its that if all goes according to plan, eventually well get to the point (in the distant future) where womens pro sports wont be as accessible. Currently one of the debates around the NBA is that the ratings are down and whether thats due to it being very expensive to watch or even attend a game. One of the best things about womens pro sports and womens basketball is that its affordable. Well, they are for now.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: