Donald Trump has incoherent and unhinged beliefs about trade policy. He also has a penchant for pretending to be a crazy guy for the sake of increasing his leverage in negotiations.This made it difficult to tell whether his proposal for an across-the-board 25 percent tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports was sincere. That policy was supposed to take effect Tuesday. But a flurry of last-minute diplomacy on Monday yielded agreements that postponed the onset of the tariffs for 30 days, while the US and its neighbors worked on shoring up security along Americas northern and southern borders. In exchange for the delay of these tariffs, the Mexican government agreed to send 10,000 national guard troops to its northern border while Trump vowed to stem the flow of American firearms into Mexico. Canada, meanwhile, pledged to implement its 1.3 billion border security plan (which it had already enacted in December). Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he was very pleased with this initial outcome, and the Tariffs announced on Saturday will be paused for a 30 day period to see whether or not a final Economic deal with Canada can be structured.For now, it looks like Trumps avowed desire to upend North American trade if not to coerce Canada into becoming a US state was more negotiating ploy than agenda. Or at least, it appears that Trump was not sufficiently committed to that agenda to stick by it, even in the face of overwhelming industry opposition.This said, Trump did not withdraw his proposed tariffs he only shelved them for one month. There is a strong case for thinking that those tariffs will never take effect. But there is also some reason to fear that he might revive his plans for a North American trade war, if perhaps in more modest form.Why Trumps 25 percent tariffs will (probably) never take effectThere are at least three reasons to think that Trump will delay his 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico indefinitely:Trumps proposed tariffs would benefit virtually no one, while imposing steep costs on US consumers and manufacturers alike.The Trump administration had explicitly framed these tariffs as a tactic for extracting narrow concessions from Mexico and Canada, rather than a strategy for economic reform. During his first term, Trump repeatedly threatened to enact massive tariffs, only to back down after concessions from Americas trade partners.The economic consequences of Trumps tariffs would be punishing. Altogether, his newly proposed duties would cost the typical US household more than $1,200 a year, according to an analysis from the Peterson Institute of International Economics. And this de facto tax increase would be regressive, burdening lower-income households more than wealthy ones, as the former spend a greater share of their incomes on foreign consumer goods.Economic nationalists might frame this as the necessary price of revitalizing American manufacturing. Yet high tariffs on Canada and Mexico would also have devastating consequences for US producers. The North American economy has been structured around the presumption of near-zero tariffs for three decades now. American automakers have constructed supply chains that stretch across our nations northern and southern borders: Different stages in the production of a car component often take place in different countries, with inputs being sent from back and forth across borders as many as eight times before the finished product is complete. If US carmakers need to pay a 25 percent tax each time they purchase a car part from a Canadian or Mexican supplier, their costs of production will soar. By one estimate, Trumps tariffs on Canada and Mexico would add $60 billion in costs to the industry. And firms would seek to pass on those costs to consumers. The consultancy Wolfe Research has estimated that the price of a new car would jump by about $3,000, according to Bloomberg.Meanwhile, the National Association of Home Builders warned over the weekend that imposing steep tariffs on housing materials and lumber from Canada and Mexico would lead to a slowdown in residential construction, at a time when America is suffering an acute housing shortage (and the rebuilding of Los Angeles is already taxing our nations supply of construction labor and materials).More broadly, Trumps tariffs would increase the value of the dollar, which means that US-made goods would become more expensive for foreign consumers (and thats before considering the retaliatory tariffs that Trumps moves would provoke). Thus, his policy would render American exporters goods less competitive in global markets, while also forcing up their costs of production by imposing a tax on foreign-made inputs.Given that Trumps tariffs would hurt almost all voters and business interests aligned with his party, its reasonable to suspect that they will eventually be withdrawn. The second reason to think that Trumps tariffs on Mexico and Canada will never take effect is that they were officially intended to fight a drug war, not a trade war. Trump claims that our neighbors to the north and south have been abetting the transfer of fentanyl and undocumented immigrants into the United States and that this constitutes a national emergency. This was the legal basis for Trump to enact the tariffs immediately, under the auspices of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).If the point of Trumps tariffs was not to restructure the North American economy but merely to persuade Canada and Mexico to increase their border control efforts then the three countries should have little difficulty negotiating a lasting economic peace. The third reason to think that Trump will eventually withdraw his tariffs on Canada and Mexico is that weve seen this movie before.In 2019, Trump promised to slap a 5 percent tariff on all Mexican imports and increase it steadily to 25 percent if Mexico failed to reduce the number of undocumented immigrants entering the United States. After Mexican President Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador agreed to reinstate the Remain in Mexico migration policies, the tariff threat was dropped.Whats more, in 2017, Trump reportedly told his top trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, to tell South Korean officials that Americas president was so crazy, he could pull out of the US-Korean trade deal any minute if he didnt get concessions.Thus, at times in the past, Trump has tried to make his intentions on trade policy appear more extreme than they were in actuality, for the sake of gaining leverage in negotiations.Why Trumps tariffs could rise againAll this said, there are still three reasons to think that Trump may yet revive his North American trade war:Trump has repeatedly suggested that his policy is not actually motivated by narrow concerns about border security, but rather, grand economic and imperial ambitions.Trump has been advocating for radically protectionist trade policies since the late 1980s, long before his ravings on that subject could serve as a negotiating ploy with foreign leaders.During his first term, Trump often sought to take radical actions on both trade and foreign policy only to have his instincts checked by adversarial advisers. This time around, Trumps inner circle appears much less interested in vetoing his most extreme impulses. Although White House officials such as National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett have taken pains to portray Trumps tariff as a response to the fentanyl crisis, this appears to be a legal nicety. Over the weekend, Trump posted on Truth Social: We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why? There is no reason. We dont need anything they have. We have unlimited Energy, should make our own Cars, and have more Lumber than we can ever use. Without this massive subsidy, Canada ceases to exist as a viable Country. Harsh but true! Therefore, Canada should become our Cherished 51st State. Much lower taxes, and far better military protection for the people of Canada AND NO TARIFFS!He further lamented that The USA has major deficits with Canada, Mexico, and China (and almost all countries!), owes 36 Trillion Dollars, and were not going to be the Stupid Country any longer. MAKE YOUR PRODUCT IN THE USA AND THERE ARE NO TARIFFS!These are not complaints about Canadian or Mexican drug policy. Rather, they are arguments for blowing up the North American trade system because it leads America to run trade deficits with Canada and Mexico which means that the US is subsidizing those countries.This is awful economic analysis. The fact that America purchases more goods from Canada than vice versa does not mean that we are subsidizing that country. You purchase more goods from your grocery store than it purchases from you. In that sense, you run a trade deficit with your grocer. But it does not follow that when you hand over your currency in exchange for a shopping cart full of food, you have just made a charitable donation to Kroger.Nevertheless, Trump complains far more often about the fundamental undesirability of trade with Canada than about that nations supposed laxity about stopping fentanyl exports.Separately, he reiterated on Monday that he would like to use tariffs to coerce Canada into accepting its annexation by the United States.Suffice to say, Canada still isnt the 51st state probably does not qualify as a national emergency that would legally justify extraordinary economic measures from the president. For this reason, the Trump administration likely faces a legal imperative to minimize the ambitions behind the presidents tariff policy.The second reason to think that Trump will stick to his guns on tariffs is that hes been making the same arguments about trade for nearly 40 years. A lot of people are tired of watching other countries ripping off the United States, Trump said of Americas trade deficit in 1987. They laugh at us behind our backs. They laugh at us because of our own stupidity.Trump had no motivation at that time to pretend to believe that trade is a zero-sum exchange in which the country running a surplus is the winner, and one running a deficit is the loser. The man was still a real estate mogul at that time, not a federal official, so his remarks could not have been intended as a mere diplomatic ploy. Finally, Trumps decision to keep his tariffs relatively modest during his first term may say more about the team that was around him at that time than it does about his own pragmatism.In 2017, Trump reportedly came extremely close to suddenly withdrawing the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It took the concerted lobbying of his cabinet to stay his hand (a feat that was only achieved by presenting him with maps that suggested Trump voters would be disproportionately harmed by a collapse of trade with Canada and Mexico). Trump ultimately renegotiated and retitled NAFTA, dubbing his new version, The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Indeed, Trump tried to pursue a wide variety of radical and impulsive policies from withdrawing the US from NATO or bombing Irans nuclear facilities only to have his inner circle deter him or slow-walk his orders. But his advisers do not seem inclined to check his impulses this time around. To the contrary, they have expedited the execution of Trumps most harebrained ideas, such as releasing dammed waters into Californias Central Valley a policy ostensibly aimed at fighting wildfires in Los Angeles, but which in practice accomplished little beyond endangering homeless people, overwhelming local water managers, and depleting a water supply that Golden State farmers will need to draw on come spring and summer. Trump may give trade peace a chanceIn the end, it seems much more likely than not that Trump will beat a full retreat on his 25 percent tariffs. Although a new 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports is still slated to take effect Tuesday, the president plans to renegotiate the USMCA in 2026. To this point, whenever Trumps idiosyncratic impulses have come into blatant conflict with his corporate backers core interests, the latter have taken precedence.Yet the threat that Trump will eventually pursue profoundly costly protectionist policies cannot be fully dismissed. He has many genuinely mistaken conceptions about economic reality, and less political incentive to put pragmatism above ideological conviction than ever before.See More:

Welcome to The Logoff. Todays edition is about Donald Trumps efforts to purge the Federal Bureau of Investigation of his perceived enemies a power struggle with ramifications for the rule of law throughout the United States.Whats happened so far? On Friday night, the Department of Justice moved to fire several senior FBI executives including the head of the Washington field office. Additionally, DOJ is demanding a list of FBI personnel who investigated the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Whats next? DOJ says the list will be reviewed to determine whether any additional personnel actions are necessary raising the possibility that theyll fire some or all of the thousands of FBI staff who worked on the January 6 investigation. Meanwhile, legal advisers are preparing to sue to block the firings if they go forward.Is this normal? Absolutely not. I asked two scholars of FBI history if there was any precedent for this. Both said no. Agents can be fired for corruption or incompetence after a review, but a mass firing for participating in an investigation is unheard of, they said.Whats the larger context? The firing of top officials could make the FBI less effective in critical areas such as counterterrorism. And mass firings of FBI staff involved in the January 6 investigation would serve as a warning to bureau employees about what happens if they investigate Trumps political allies, corroding the independence the agency depends on to enforce federal law.Whats the long-term fear? Both historians mentioned potential long-term fears for the rule of law and for civil liberties if Trump continues on this path. This is what authoritarian secret service and intelligence operations look like, Beverly Gage, a history professor at Yale University who wrote a book about the FBI, told me. They are the security wing of one man, serving at his behest, rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies. Weve got a lot of battles ahead, but it is extremely bad news.And with that, its time to log off ...As a reminder: Logging off doesnt mean turning off your brain. It means taking care of yourself so you and not the doomscroll are in charge. To that end, I offer this remarkable Vox piece about one persons quest for confidence, and all the revelations she had along the way.See More:

Across the last 45 years of mecha anime history,Gundam has been unafraid to both imagine alternative riffs on its iconic primary timelineeither across re-imaginings of its story, alternate scenarios, or heavily inspired alternate timelines and settingsor expand on it entirely. But the latest entry,Gundam GQuuuuuuX, is perhaps going for one of the boldest yet well have seen on screen, and we finally have a little more information what that exactly looks like. A few short weeks after the Japanese release of Mobile Suit Gundam GQuuuuuuX Beginning, a theatrical compilation of the early episodes of the series with new material, Bandai and Khara have formally lifted the lid on a series of designs and information about the mysterious new shows settingconfirming what has been rumored and furiously speculated upon by anyone poring over snippets of footage over the past few months that yes, GQuuuuuuX is indeed a retelling of the events ofGundams iconic Universal Century timeline, from a perspective where the Principality of Zeon won the war depicted in the 1979 anime rather than the Earth Federation. The new information confirms thatGQuuuuuuX is set in the year 0085, little over half a decade after the conclusion of the One Year War that formed much of the worldbuilding for the originalGundam. This time around, Char Aznable successfully manages to steal the Federations prototype Gundama recon mission we saw go south in Gundams very first episodeclaiming it for Zeon, who go on to retrofit its advanced technology and use the Gundam to turn the tide of the conflict in their favor. And of course, Char being Char, he paints the damn thing red in the process.Mobile Suit Gundam GQuuuuuuX Mecha and Zeon Characters White Gundam, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Red Gundam, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Zaku, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Chars Zaku, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Char Aznable, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Dren, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Denim, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Challia Bull, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Xavier Olivette, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Comoli Harcourt, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara By 0085, Char is seemingly nowhere to be foundbut the Red Gundam, as its now dubbed, re-emerges in the Earth Sphere, participating in underground mobile suit battles at the colony GQuuuuuuX protagonist Machu calls home. As well as new looks at both classic and Zeonic forms of the Gundam RX-78-2re-imagined by Evangelion mechanical designer Ikuto Yamashita as something altogether more skeletal and like the frame of a prototype compared to the armored form of the classic aestheticthe new material also includes a look at the settings take on the iconic Zeon grunt suit, the Zaku, given curved armor placements over a similarly skinny internal frame, as well as several intriguing Zeon characters beyond Char himself. Those include Challia Bull, a newtype Zeon officer who appeared in a later episode of the 1979 anime to help set the stage for its exploration of psionically enhanced pilots, and two new young officers of various Zeon military academies, Xavier Olivette and Comoli Harcourt. The studio also revealed a few more characters who also call the Side 6 colony home that Machu eventually meets as shes wrapped in the world of clan battles in the form of the proprietors of Kaneban Co, a junk dealer acting as a front for recruiting pilots into the underground fight sceneincluding an adorable Pomeranian who acts as company mascot, and two little robots, one new (Konch, a cuboid little robot seen in the trailers with Shuji, the new pilot of the Red Gundam), and one very familiar (a Haro, wearing a beanie, the spherical robot whos been a part ofGundam since the very beginning).Mobile Suit Gundam GQuuuuuuX Colony Characters Annqi, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Jezzi, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Nabu, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Kaine, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Pomeranian, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Haro, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara Conch, Bandai Namco Filmworks/Khara WhileGundam diehards have had a little while to ponder just what exactly it means for the new show to directly riff off the originalGundam like thisa Rebuild, if you will, given series director Kazuya Tsurumakis prior work on the Evangelion re-imagining film seriesthis is the first time the studio has been willing to really show off what it has cooking to the world beyond Japanese theatergoers. Just how it all comes together remains to be seen, but in many ways, Gundam has been in conversation with itself ever since the franchise was saved from seeming doom, from how successor series to the first show developed the story of the Universal Century and its cyclical conflicts, to how myriad alternate universe in the franchise since have tackled its premise and grandest questions in their own way. What GQuuuuuuX is doing might be more direct, but it still in turn is part of that broader conversation of re-examiningGundams legacy: an idea thats full of potential, and ripe for exploration in a project that was explicitly announced in celebration of the franchises latest anniversary milestone. Mobile Suit Gundam GQuuuuuuX Beginning is set to come to American theaters in a limited capacity later this month on February 28. The TV anime is expected to begin broadcast in Japan this spring. Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, whats next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

The craze over Bill Skarsgrds yearning desire as a powerful vampire in Robert Eggers Nosferatu and the rumblings of Guillermo del Toros Frankenstein monster (played by Saltburns Jacob Elordi) being hot has us wondering why the monster appeal? You could say its because creature monsters have become more desirable than the Temu Gastons of the internet manosphere. Fans of lore about monsters being misunderstood or harbingers of pure power have known these myths have always been alluring since tales like Persephone and Hades(which got modern love thanks to Webtoons hit Lore Olympus), Cupid and Psyche in mythologynot to mention more recent classics like The Phantom of the Opera, Disneys Beauty and the Beast, andBuffy the Vampire Slayer. When it comes to Count Orlok in Nosferatu, its been wild to see the fandom quickly thirst for the tall, mustache-rocking decaying corpsepreferring him over Thomas, the living suitor in the film played by Nicolas Hoult (a former hot zombie himself, in Warm Bodies). In an interview with Fangoria Bill Skarsgrd talked about why he thought Ellen Hutter (Lily-Rose Depps character) was torn between Orlok and Thomas, Hes the romantic lead, isnt he [laughs]? Yeah, its tricky. Is he a villain? He continued. Yeah, of course; I mean, hes Nosferatu, hes Dracula, hes one of the most, if not the most iconic horror villain there is. But I think the script has nuances that make it more complex, more layered, in the sense that the movie is sort of a love triangle with Ellen in the middle. Shes torn between a good, stable, benevolent, loving husband and something that is very powerful, very destructive, but also very alluring to her, and you watch her being torn between these two forces. In Eggers Nosferatu, Depps Ellen is destined to be more than her breeder friend, whose husband constantly talks about keeping submissive and making babies while annoyed at Ellens supernatural awakening being a disruption. We hooted and hollered at the Willem Dafoe characters line reading to Ellen about how in any other lifetime shed be considered a high priestess. Whats funny is that even though Orlok is covered in grotesque prosthetic make-up, audiences quickly made him the internets baby girl over Thomas, who tries to side with the status quo. In an interview with Access Hollywood, Skarsgrd was asked how it felt to go from hot clown (in the It movies) to hot vampire. I dont know what to say. Itsit is what it is, he answered, probably alarmed that his Orlok and Pennywise do it for people over, say, his Eric Draven from The Crow reboot.He added, Its in the eyes of the beholder. Lets put it that way. He can put it anyway he wants, admirers will still want to bounce on it crazy style. Vertical/Universal Pictures Later this year were getting Oscar Isaac as Victor Frankenstein opposite Euphorias Jacob Elordi as the monster in Guillermo del Toros highly anticipated Frankenstein adaptation for Netflix. And according to io9s recent first look, monster lovers will be happy: [Elordis monster] is tall, hes lanky, and despite being pieced together from various body parts, you can very clearly see that its Elordi under all the makeup. His movie star good looks clash with the horrific makeup in a way that just works. Even the signature cut across the head, a staple of every Frankensteins monster, is a little cooler than usual as it starts on the upper right side of his head and then swoops down closer to above his left eye. How can we really keep it together?In the meantime, were pondering romancing other recent hot monsters in film who have maybe been swept under the shadow of the vampires. A special shout-out goes to Christopher Abbotts hot girl dad in Wolf Man (which you can rent now) who showed what it means to be a true family man; hes also pretty ripped for a father. And we have to give a mention to Tommy Dewey, who plays Melissa Barreras adorable grumpy beast in Your Monster (now on Max), who seductively recites Shakespeare to boot. All representing figures of raw emotion and power over peacocking toxic modern masculinity. Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, whats next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

Hortensia Herrero Art Center / ERRE arquitecturaSave this picture! Pedro PegenauteValncia, SpainArchitects: ERRE arquitecturaAreaArea of this architecture projectArea:37674 ftYearCompletion year of this architecture project Year: 2022 PhotographsPhotographs:Pedro Pegenaute, David ZarzosoManufacturersBrands with products used in this architecture project Manufacturers: Andreu World, Color Kinetics, Mediclinics, Comon, Noken, Porcelanosa Grupo, TAU cermica, VICENTE CAMPMore SpecsLess SpecsSave this picture!Save this picture!Text description provided by the architects. The Hortensia Herrero Art Centre is located in the former Valeriola Palace in the city of Valencia, Spain, an emblematic Baroque-style building dating back to the 17th century that has served various purposes throughout its history, undergone various interventions, and, in recent decades, been unused and abandoned.Save this picture!Save this picture!The project was born to house the private collection of the patron Hortensia Herrero, which includes works by artists such as Andreas Gursky, Anselm Kiefer, Georg Baselitz, Anish Kapoor, and Mat Collishaw, among others, along with other exhibitions by world-renowned artists. Some of these artists have created site-specific works that will reside in specific areas of the Art Center, establishing a continuous dialogue between art and architecture.Save this picture!The restoration took place over 5 years during which extensive work was carried out to adapt this iconic building to its new use as an art centre. To achieve this, a multidisciplinary team of architects, restorers, archaeologists, craftsmen, and specialists was employed.Save this picture!Save this picture!The exhibition area is divided into 4 levels and is organized around two volumes. On one hand, the Valeriola Palacehas undergone an exhaustive and meticulous rehabilitation process to highlight its historical character. On the other hand, the volume facing San Cristobal Street, of which only its faade and the sloping roof typology have been preserved, allowing the expansion of the exhibition space to 3500 square meters. Both buildings are connected by a bridge-like structure located in the garden courtyard, serving as a link between them.Save this picture!Save this picture!One of the main challenges of the project was to design a continuous itinerary that could offer a comfortable and pleasant experience for visitors, while also allowing them to navigate the project easily. This itinerary ascends through the Valeriola Palace and descends through the San Cristbal Street volume, connecting through the building located in the garden.Save this picture!The main entrance to the museum is through the Valeriola Palace, providing access to the interior courtyard around which the different exhibition rooms are organized. This courtyard maintains its original structure and heritage elements, including the stone staircase.Save this picture!Save this picture!On the upper floors, the visitors can enjoy various emblematic rooms of the old palace, such as the noble hall or the "andana (The place that was used for storing and drying wheat.), culminating on the fourth and final floor that offers excellent views of Valencia and the San Juan del Hospital Church.Save this picture!The garden has been designed as an additional gallery of the museum, but outdoors, blending with a strong presence of greenery and water elements.Save this picture!The project also includes a basement where the public can visit the remains of the ancient Roman circus of Valencia, discovered during archaeological excavations.Save this picture!The Hortensia Herrero Art Center is presented to the public as a project that respects and honors history and heritage. A new museum that aims to share the most relevant international contemporary art and become a cultural and artistic reference point open to the city and society.Save this picture!Project gallerySee allShow lessProject locationAddress:C. del Mar, Ciutat Vella, 46003 Valencia, Valencia, SpainLocation to be used only as a reference. It could indicate city/country but not exact address.About this officeERRE arquitecturaOfficeMaterialsMaterials and TagsPublished on February 03, 2025Cite: "Hortensia Herrero Art Center / ERRE arquitectura" [Centro de Arte Hortensia Herrero / ERRE arquitectura] 03 Feb 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1013611/hortensia-herrero-art-center-erre-arquitectura&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

In 1997, Jeanne Calment set the record for the longest recorded time a person has lived, passing away at the age of 122 years old. So far, no one has broken this record. But even before Calment, the 20th Century heralded the last radical expansion of human lifespans thus far, spawning what some researchers call the longevity revolution by skyrocketing our chances of living longer. Thanks largely to improvements in medicine and public health measures, the average life expectancy is no longer capped below 50. Now, as we make our way through the 21st Century, the question is no longer whether we can live longer but how much longer. Do we Have a Lifespan Limit?In the 1990s, during which Calment was still alive, most scientists believed humans were approaching a hypothetical limit, according to Natalia Gavrilova, a senior research associate at the Center on the Demography and Economics of Aging at the University of Chicago. But when Gavrilova and her co-author Leonid Gavrilov looked at the data, she said, Contrary to our expectations, we observed not an acceleration but rather a deceleration of mortality rates at older ages, eventually leveling off. This finding suggested that there is no fixed limit to the human lifespan. Upon revisiting the hypothesis in a study later published in 2020, Gavrilova found a similar pattern, though she noticed a new phenomenon as well: Mortality rates accelerated much more steeply after the age of 113 than at younger ages, which may explain why few have hit Calments record. Whether thats due to something innate in our biology, Gavrilova says its still too early to draw conclusions.Todays LifespansThat brings us to now. Thanks to ongoing breakthroughs in medicine and technology, the average person can live longer. But edging up the maximum age is going slower, according to David Sinclair, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical Schools Paul F. Glenn Center for Biology of Aging Research.A statistical study published in 2021 found that there is only a 13 percent chance that an individual might reach the age 130 this century, suggesting that even if lifespans dont have a hard limit, falling short could simply be a matter of practicality. But to Nir Barzilai, director of the Institute for Aging Research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, the question of lifespan limitations isnt a controversial issue. Simply put, it may look like theres a limit now, but it doesnt have to be. Today, the gap between when the average person dies and when a centenarian breaks 100 years provides a ripe area for researchers to explore interventions for aging. We die, on average, before the age of 80, Barzilai says. Now, whether this limit can be broken in the future, it may or it may not. I would say we probably will be able to un-limit it sometime in the future maybe not in my life. Maybe in yours. Factors that Impact LongevityThe prevailing piece of advice when it comes to living longer and healthier is to watch your lifestyle. For all of us at any age, exercise or movement, nutrition, sleep, and social connectivity can be optimized, Barzilai says. When you optimize that, they really help in the aging process.But there may also be factors deeper in our DNA that predispose someone to live long past todays average life expectancy. Our studies of centenarians revealed that the strongest predictors of personal longevity are the lifespans of ones parents, writes Gavrilova. Recent research increasingly points to the fact that lifestyle seems to matter less, the older someone gets. A 2017 study in the journal Extremes found that while lifestyle matters in getting people to an older age in the first place, it made no statistically significant differences in survival rates at extreme ages.According to Barzilai, about 60% of centenarians have alterations in growth hormone genes that essentially slow their growth and let them better deal with the breakdowns of aging.The Promise of Longevity GenesSinclair also works on longevity genes, specifically the sirtuins that govern human epigenomes. The information stored in epigenomes is essential for maintaining cellular identity and function they decide which toggles to switch on and off, ensuring that a brain cell remains a brain cell and not a skin cell. Sinclair theorizes that epigenomes may provide an in for scientists to intervene in the aging process, due to their connections with bodily functions. His labs experiments in mice, published in Cell in 2023, have so far shown that disrupting epigenomes can accelerate aging and recovering information could turn it back. If you have less epigenetic change and your cells express the right genes for longer, then you would be healthier and therefore live longer, Sinclair says. He caveats that there is still debate over whether epigenomes are the key aging drivers, and efforts to replicate results in humans are still ongoing, but they can be effective predictors for health.Are There Benefits to Living Longer?The most common question that Sinclair and researchers like him grapple with is not necessarily how to achieve longevity but why bother. While it may be perceived that longer-living humans will only further drain already limited resources, Sinclair argues that the improvements in life quality, driven by increased longevity, will be critical for boosting social productivity and happiness. That doesnt mean denying deaths eventual arrival but rather having more time to do what we love which, for Sinclair, is finding an answer to this problem.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Our World in Data. Life ExpectancyDavid Sinclair. The Sinclair labDr. Nir Barzilai, director of the Institute for Aging Research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine,Health Economics & Outcome Research. The Impact of Lifestyle Choices on HealthExtremes. Human life is unlimited but short

Outer space could use a set of traffic laws and cops who can enforce them.The amount of both space junk and satellites orbiting the Earth now, the moon soon, and Mars eventually, poses a massive, unseen threat to people on the ground, wrote three scientists in a commentary. Risks of Space JunkThe threat to humans isnt so much about debris falling from the sky (although a major hunk did land in Kenya in January 2025) and hitting someone (the odds of that are possible, but infinitesimal) as it is about losing satellites that could interrupt cell phone communication, disrupt GPS services, and even shut down large portions of the Internet, among other things. People tend to think of space as a vast, unlimited resource. The word itself evokes the notion of wide-open-ness. But they dont understand the sheer number of objects in orbit now. Elon Musks Starlink services alone employs 7,500 satellites. Bottom line: its getting crowded up there which has consequences, including the potential danger of rendering entire orbits unusable, the commentary says.Read More: What Is Space Junk And Why Is It A Problem?Crowded SpaceJoe Pelton, a space expert who is, among other things, dean emeritus of the International Space University in France and co-author of the commentary, estimates there is about 30,000 objects in Earths orbit. Tens of thousands more could join them in the coming decades. Grand upcoming missions will create even more space debris.Humanitys plans for lunar settlements, mining of the Moons resources and other security and military activities in and around Moon orbits do not include provisions for the clean-up and disposal of space objects, says the commentary.Pelton says hes not being alarmist; a NASA astronaut Donald Kessler proposed the consequences of increasingly crowded orbits in 1978. The Kessler Syndrome is the name for the phenomenon when two objects collide, generating potentially thousands more tiny objects in space, all of which could also damage or destroy satellites.Models developed by NASA and the European Space Agency suggests that we're dangerously close to being in that situation. If the Kessler syndrome were to happen, it would create chaos for a virtually $1 trillion space industry, says Pelton.Deep-Sea Mining GuidelinesThere is a precedent for reform. The coauthors point to deep sea mining but not in a good way. After years of discussion, the United Nations reached an agreement on deep-sea mining guidelines. The catch? The rules are both voluntary and unenforced. For now, space debris faces similarly toothless regulations. There's no enforcement mechanism, says Pelton.The commentary concludes by advocating for change both for the ocean floor and the Earth, Moon, and Mars orbits.We need to recognize the pollution of the Moon and its orbits, and then Mars, will entail. We advocate for the need for binding rules to safeguard Earth orbits, plus the orbits of Moon and Mars from space debris contamination, the commentary concludes.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Before joining Discover Magazine, Paul Smaglik spent over 20 years as a science journalist, specializing in U.S. life science policy and global scientific career issues. He began his career in newspapers, but switched to scientific magazines. His work has appeared in publications including Science News, Science, Nature, and Scientific American.

Nature, Published online: 03 February 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-00365-zThe US National Science Foundation has unfrozen grant funding, but it continues to scrutinize research projects, sowing turmoil.

A different perspective on my most recent Short Film - PART 1 Cheating and only animating what is necessary is key to pull off some complex shots. Funny to see it later how all the cheats are hidden behind the camera Sometimes it's just easier to teleport characters instead of animating the whole walk. You can watch the whole film on my YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHUJbzBOXxQ Cheers submitted by /u/DemNikoArt [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/dotBouman [link] [comments]