In a nutshell: Researchers have developed minuscule robots that can "assemble" and behave like a collective, building new shapes and tools. Inspired by nature, the team identified and developed the main features a robotic collective would need to achieve its programmed goal. Researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) designed a "material-like" collective of programmable micro-robots, which can behave like a fluid or bond together to create new solid structures. The technology could lead to the development of a new sub-field of robotics.The UCSB scientists set out to design simple robots that could work together, like a colony of ants or other collective groups. The study, recently published in Science, describes micro-robotic units that can switch from a "fluidizing" state to a more "solid" shape based on the rotational state of the robots.The idea is ripped straight from science fiction concepts like the T-1000 from Terminator 2: Judgement Day. The researchers claim they have turned this theoretical vision into reality after studying embryonic morphogenesis, the biological process through which cells can change their shapes and turn into different tissues in the human body.Living embryonic tissues behave like the ultimate smart material, UCSB professor Otger Camps told SciTechDaily. These cells can self-shape, self-heal, and even control their material strength. They can also temporarily soften, switching between solid and fluid states to develop the embryo's final shape.The UCSB researchers identified three biological processes they could program their robotic collective to mimic: interunit force, polarization, and adhesion. These three processes allow cells to move around together, coordinate their movement, and stick to each other while developing into a solid organic part. // Related StoriesThe team developed the micro-robotic equivalents of these three biological processes using magnets and eight motorized gears mounted to each robot's circular outer layer. For their experiment, the researchers developed a set of 20 relatively large micro-robotic units that could assemble into different shapes.The team's next step is to miniaturize the tiny bots further and increase the number of units within the collective. Powered by machine learning, thousands of micro-robots could theoretically allow researchers to assemble the collective into any desired shape with precise control.

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsSpecs and configurationsDesignPerformanceDisplay and audioPortabilityThe Yoga Slim 9i 14 is gorgeous, the MacBook Air is faster and longer-lastingIf youre looking for a 14-inch laptop, you have a ton of great choices. If you include the Apple MacBook Air 13with its 13.6-inch display (and you should), then the field is incredibly strong. But Apple isnt the only company making great laptops that balance portability with a slightly larger screen size.The Lenovo Yoga Slim 9i 14 Gen 10is a brand-new entry that features a gorgeous chassis and Intels latest Lunar Lake chipset. Pitting it against the MacBook Air makes a great deal of sense, but which one of these laptops comes out on top?Recommended VideosSpecs and configurationsLenovo Yoga Slim 9i 14 Gen 10AppleMacBook Air M3Dimensions12.31 x 8.01 x 0.57 inches11.97 inches x 8.46 inches x 0.44 inchesWeight2.76 pounds2.7 poundsCPUIntel Core Ultra 7 256VIntel Core Ultra 7 258VApple M3 (8-core)GPUIntel Arc 140V8 GPU cores10 GPU coresRAM16GB32GB16GB24GBDisplay14.0-inch 4K+ (3840 x 2400) OLED, 120Hz13.6-inch 16:10 Liquid Retina (2560 x 1664) IPSStorage1TB SSD256GB SSD512GB SSD1TB SSD2TB SSDPorts2 x USB-C with Thunderbolt 42 x USB-C with Thunderbolt 41 x 3.5mm audio jack1 x MagSafe 3TouchYesNoWirelessWi-Fi 7 and Bluetoth 5.4Wi-Fi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3Webcam32MP with infrared camera for Windows 11 Hello1080pBattery75 watt-hour52.6 watt-hoursOperating systemWindows 11macOS SonomaPrice$1,760+$1,099+Rating4 out of 5 stars4 out of 5 starsRelatedRight now, there are only two configurations of the Yoga Slim 9i 14 Gen 10 available. For $1,760, you get an Intel Core Ultra 7 256V chipset, 16GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD, and a 4K+ OLED display (the only option). For $1,835, you can upgrade to a slightly faster Core Ultra 7 258V with 32GB of RAM. Thats the reviewed configuration.The MacBook Air 13 has a starting price of $1,099 for the 8-core CPU/8-core GPU version of the M3 chipset, a 512GB SSD, and a 13.6-inch 2560 x 1664 IPS display (again, the only option). Apple just recently increased RAM to 16GB with the base model for the same price, making the laptop more competitive with similar Windows machines. You can upgrade to an 8-core CPU/10-core GPU M3, and a 512GB SSD brings the price to $1,299, while the high-end model is $2,099 for 24GB of RAM and a 2TB SSD.Both laptops are premium machines, and the MacBook Air 13 starts at a lower price. Youll spend more to fully upgrade the MacBook Air 13, however.Luke Larsen / Digital TrendsThe Yoga Slim 9i 14 Gen 10 is simply a beautiful laptop. Its dark blue color way is consistent except for a brighter blue that I think was a minor design mistake, and the glass cover on the lid gives the laptop a lovely sheen. The dark chrome edges are rounded, so they both look and feel great, and the overall aesthetic stands out without being aesthetic. If youre looking for a great looking laptop, the Yoga Slim 9i qualifies. The MacBook Air 13 is also an elegant machine, which a more minimalist design thats shared with Apples entire MacBook lineup. It comes in several attractive colors, and it, too, is a great looking laptop. You cant go wrong with either machine.Mark Coppock / Digital TrendsBoth laptops are also solidly built of all-aluminum, although they share the same attribute of a slightly bendable lid. Its not egregious with either laptop, but the Yoga Slim 9is glass cover is a little more concerning. Im sure its reasonably robust, but the fact that its glass does give me a bit of a pause. Nevertheless, Id rather them as equally well-built.The MacBook Air 13 is among the thinnest laptops you can buy today, at 0.44 inches, but the Yoga Slim 9i is pretty great too at just 0.57 inches. They weigh almost the same, which gives the MacBook Air 13 a slightly denser feel in hand. The Yoga Slim 9i has insanely thin display bezels all the way around, with a webcam thats underneath the display. That makes it seem narrower even thought its actually a bit wider given its larger display, and its almost half an inch shallower. These are both eminently portable laptops.Luke Larsen / Digital TrendsThe Yoga Slim 9i 14 Gen 10 uses Intel Lunar Lake chipsets, also known as Core Ultra Series 2. I reviewed the laptop with the Core Ultra 7 258V, an eight-core (four Performance and four Low Power Performance), eight-thread chipset consuming 17 watts of power. That makes it a low-power chipset aimed at thin-and-light machines, with an eye to efficiency over sheer performance. As such, its fast enough for demanding productivity tasks, but its integrated Intel Arc 140V graphics arent great for gamers or creators.The MacBook Air 13 currently uses the Apple Silicon M3 chipset, which we reviewed in its 8-core CPU/10-core GPU iteration. Its a very fast chipset, particularly in single-core performance, and its GPU cores are faster than Intel integrated graphics. The M3 also has various optimization that help speed up various creative tasks, making the MacBook Air 13 better for anyone whos doing demanding tasks like video editing.Ultimately, both laptops perform similarly. Note that Apple will be releasing the MacBook Air with the M4 chipset relatively soon, so its likely that it will take a lead here.Geekbench 6(single/multi)Cinebench R24(single/multi/battery)Handbrake3DMarkWild Life ExtremeLenovo Yoga Slim 9i 14 Gen 10(Core Ultra 7 258V / Intel Arc 140V)2723 / 10884121 / 649915397Apple MacBook Air M3(M3 8/10)3,102 / 12,078141 / 6011098098Mark Coppock / Digital TrendsTheres just one display option with the Yoga Slim 9i 14 Gen 10, a 14.0-inch 16:10 4K+ (3840 x 2400) OLED display running at 120Hz. Thats as sharp as you can get, and its become unusual in 14-inch machines that usually top out at 2.8K (2880 x 1800). The display is simply spectacular, with bright, dynamic colors and inky blacks to go with that ultimate sharpness.The MacBook Air 13 has a more pedestrian 13.6-inch 16:10 Liquid Retina (2560 x 1664) IPS running 60Hz. Its a very good display, with good colors and great brightness, and its contrast ratio is also very good. But, it just doesnt have the same kind of pop.Looking at our colorimeter results, you can see that Lenovos chosen OLED panel is about as high-quality as youll find today. Its great display for any purpose, including productivity, creativity, and media consumption. You wont mind the MacBook Air 13s display, but youll adore the Yoga Slim 9is.Lenovo Yoga Slim 9i 14 Gen 10(OLED)Apple MacBook Air M3(IPS)Brightness(nits)417496AdobeRGB gamut96%87%sRGB gamut100%100%DCI-P3 gamut100%99%Accuracy(DeltaE, lower is better)0.551.24Contrast28,790:11,480:1Both laptops have 4-speaker audio systems with dual woofers. Theyre similar in quality, with plenty of loudness, clear mids and highs, and more bass than usual. That makes them both better than youll find on most 14-inch laptops.Both laptops are highly portable, and almost equally so. You can stick them in a backpack and forget theyre there until you need them.As mentioned above, the Lunar Lake chipset is aimed more at efficiency than performance. In some other laptops, it does better than the Yoga Slim 9i, which was closer to previous-generation Intel laptops. Note that Lunar Lake is a direct response to Apple Silicon, which has taken the lead in efficiency and hasnt looked back.The MacBook Air 13 has much better battery life, and it can last more than a full day of actual work. The Yoga Slim cannot.VideoCinebench R24Lenovo Yoga Slim 9i 14 Gen 10(Core Ultra 7 258V)13 hours, 45 minutes1 hour, 55 minutesApple MacBook Air M3(M3 8/10)19 hours, 39 minutes3 hours, 27 minutesThe Yoga Slim 9i 14 Gen 10 is a great laptop with one of the most aesthetically pleasing designs around. Its reasonably thin and light, and it has more than good enough performance. And its display is sublime.But, the MacBook Air 13 is faster overall, and it gets much better battery life.Editors Recommendations

We highly recommend looking for Dell XPS deals if you want to upgrade your laptop, as these devices offer the perfect combination of function and style. Heres an offer from Dell itself to consider: the Dell XPS 16 at $500 off, which slashes its price from $2,600 to $2,100. Its still pretty expensive, but its worth every single penny, especially if you need dependable performance for your daily activities. Youre going to have to hurry with your purchase though, as the savings may disappear at any moment.The Dell XPS 16, which is now the largest model in the popular line of laptops following the retirement of the Dell XPS 17 with last years Dell XPS reset, scored a rating of 3.5 stars out of 5 stars in our review. We described it as one of the most beautiful and powerful laptops you can buy, and at first glance, its easy to see why. The devices ultramodern aesthetic is very attractive, with insanely thin bezels surrounding its 16.3-inch Full HD+ screen, a hidden haptic touchpad, a zero-lattice keyboard, and LED touch function keys.Dell didnt hold back with the Dell XPS 16 in terms of performance either, with this configuration coming with the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H processor, the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 graphics card, and 32GB of RAM thats necessary for running intensive applications or for engaging in any form of content creation, according to our laptop buying guide. The device runs on Windows 11 Home, which is pre-installed in its 1TB SSD that provides ample storage space for your software and files.RelatedThe Dell XPS 16 is an excellent laptop thats an even more tempting option right now following Dells $500 discount. Instead of its original price of $2,600, youll only have to pay $2,100 for this reliable device. Were not sure how much time is remaining before you miss out on the savings though, so there should be no hesitation on your part if youre interested in this bargain. Add it to your cart and complete the checkout process immediately to secure your own Dell XPS 16 for this special price, as laptop deals like this usually sell out quickly.Editors Recommendations

The Connecticut museum exhibits stellar drawings from its holdings, spanning centuries and featuring such artists as Gainsborough, Ingres, Courbet, Degas, Picasso and Mir.

Chicken Piccata Is the Ultimate Date-Night Dish, And This Is the Recipe You Need

Alexa, take two Amazons subscription-based Alexa+ looks highly capableand questionable Alexa+ will be free for Prime members, $20/month for everyone else. Scharon Harding Feb 26, 2025 5:10 pm | 9 Panos Panay, SVP of devices and services at Amazon, during an unveiling event in New York, NY on Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2025. Credit: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images Panos Panay, SVP of devices and services at Amazon, during an unveiling event in New York, NY on Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2025. Credit: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreNEW YORKAfter teasing it in September 2023 and reportedly suffering delays, Amazon today announced that its more capable and conversational version of Alexa will start rolling out to US Prime members for free in the next few weeks.Those who aren't Prime subscribers will be able to get Alexa+ for $20 a month. Amazon didn't provide a specific release date but said availability would start with the Echo Show 8, 10, 15, and 21 smart displays.Amazon is hoping Alexa+ will be a lifeline for its fledgling voice assistant business that has failed to turn a profit. Alexa has reportedly cost Amazon tens of billions of dollars over the years. Although Alexa is on 600 million devices, per remarks CEO Andy Jassy made at a press conference on Wednesday, it's primarily used for simple tasks that don't generate much money, like checking the weather. Exacerbating the problem, generative AI chatbots are a new, shinier approach to AI assistants that have quickly outperformed what people could do with todays Alexa.By using the large language models (LLMs) available under the Amazon Bedrock service and technology from Anthropic, as well as Amazon Web Services, Amazon has re-architected Alexa to, per demos Ars saw today, be significantly more useful. From its demonstrated speech and ability to respond to casual language (that doesnt include saying the Alexa prompt repeatedly), to its ability to perform actions, like book dinner reservations or put appointments in your digital calendar, Alexa+ looks way more capable than the original Alexa.Alexa+ in actionFor example, Amazon representatives showed Alexa+ learning what a family member likes to eat and later recalling that information to recommend appropriate recipes. In another demo, Alexa+ appeared to set a price monitor for ticket availability on Ticketmaster. Alexa+ told the user it would notify them of price drops via their Echo or Alexa.I also saw Alexa+ identify, per the issued prompt, that song Bradley Cooper sings. Its, like, in a duet and stream it off of Amazon Music via Echo devices placed around the room. The user was able to toggle audio playing from Echo devices on the left or right side of the room. He then had Alexa+ quickly play the scene from the movie A Star Is Born (that the song is from) on a Fire TV.Notably, Alexa+ understood directions delivered in casual speak (for example: can you just jump to the scene in the movie?). During the demos, the Echo Show in use showed a transcription of the user and voice assistant's conversation on-screen. At times, I saw the transcription fix mistakes. For example, when a speaker said Im in New York, Alexa first heard Im imminent, but by the time the speaker was done talking, the transcribed prompt was corrected.I even saw Alexa+ use some logic. In one demo, a user requested tickets for Seattle Storm games in Seattle in March. Since there were none, Alexa+ asked if the user wanted to look for games in April. This showed Alexa+ anticipating a users potential response, while increasing the chances that Amazon would be compensated for helping to drive a future ticket sale.Unlike with today's Alexa, Alexa+ is supposed to be able to interpret shared documents. An Amazon rep appeared to show Alexa+ reading a homeowner's association contract to determine if the user is allowed to install solar panels on their home. Although, as some have learned recently, there are inherent risks with relying on AI to provide totally accurate information about contracts, legal information, or, really anything. Alexa+ also aims to make navigating smart homes easier. For example, on stage, Panos Panay, Amazons SVP of devices and services, asked Alexa+ if anyone took his dog out or brought a package to his house in the last couple of days. The AI was able to sift through Ring camera footage and relay the information (supposedly accurately) within seconds.Subscription Alexa has a new, friendlier tone, which I'd hope you can scale back for getting more direct, succinct information (I dont need a voice assistant telling me I have a "great idea!"). But ultimately, Alexa's agenda remains the same: get information about you and be a part of your purchasing process.A vast web of partnershipsMaking Alexa+ wasn't "as easy as taking an LLM and jacking it into the original Alexa," Daniel Rausch, VP of Amazon Alexa and Fire TV, said today.Alexa+ relies on a pile of partnerships to provide users with real-time information and the ability to complete tasks, like schedule someone from Thumbtack to come to the house to fix the sink. Some of Alexa+'s partners on display at Amazon's Alexa+ press conference. Credit: Scharon Harding At launch, Alexa+ will work with "tens of thousands of other devices and services from our partners," said Rausch. He explained:Experts are groups of systems, capabilities, APIs, and instructions that accomplish specific tasks. So they bring together all the technology it takes to deliver on a customer's particular request. And building any single expert is actually super complicated. And having LLMs orchestrate across hundreds of them is definitely something thats never been done.Amazon trained Alexa+ to use partner APIs so that Alexa+ can work with and accomplish tasks with third-party services. Many of Amazon's partners don't have a full set of external APIs, though. In these cases, Alexa+ gathers information through what Amazon called "agentic capabilities," which is basically like having Alexa+ navigate the web on its own. Amazon also sees Alexa+ performing actions with third parties by having its LLM work with third-party LLMs. Developers can request previews of Alexa+'s three new SDKs as of today.Interestingly, Amazon's partners include over 200 publications, like Reuters, Forbes, Elle, and Ars Technica parent company Cond Nast. Based on Amazon's announcement and the need for Alexa+ to provide real-time information to maximize usefulness, it's likely that Amazon is relying on content licensing deals with these publishers and pulling in information via APIs and other tools. Training AI models on hundreds of publications would be expensive and time-consuming and would require frequent re-training. Amazon hasn't confirmed training deals with these publications.Commerce complicationsAlexa+ looks like it could potentially use AI in ways that most people haven't experienced before. However, there are obvious limitations.To start, it seems that users need to be working with one of Amazon's partners for the best experience. For example, Alexa+ can book a reservation for you at a restaurantbut not if that restaurant isn't on OpenTable. In such cases, Alexa+ could, an Amazon representative said, provide you with the restaurant's phone number, which it will have taken from the web. But I wonder if Alexa+ will prioritize Amazon partners when it comes to showing results and providing information.Also, Amazon must still convince people that Alexa+ is a better way to buy and schedule things than your computer, phone, or even your (non-Fire) smart TV. Compared to the other types of gadgets vying to be the intermediary in our buying process, Alexa+ has serious disadvantages.For one, most Alexa users access the AI from a speaker. However, the voice assistant's advanced features look much easier to navigate and leverage fully with a screen, namely an Echo Show or Fire TV. I'd happily bet that there are many more people who want a laptop or phone than who want an Echo Show or Amazon TV. Other gadgets can also make it easier to dive deeper into tasks by enabling things like comparing products across competitors, understanding reviews, or marking critical parts of important documents.Amazon is using a clever approach to dealing with fatigue with subscriptions and, more specifically, subscription spending. By including Alexa+ with Prime, Prime members may feel like theyre getting something extra for free, rather than suddenly paying for Alexa. For some who arent subscribed to Prime, Alexa+ could be the extra nudge needed to get them to pay for Prime. For most non-Prime members, though, the idea of paying $20 per month for Alexa is laughable, especially if you only use Alexa through an Echo.And those with access to Alexa through a screen will still be challenged to change how they do thingscriticallychoosing to not rely on a technology and company with a checkered past around protecting customer privacy, including when it comes to Alexa and Amazon smart cameras.If Alexa+ works like the demos I saw today (which, of course, isn't a guarantee), Amazon will have succeeded in making AI gadgets that outperform expectations. Then, one of the biggest questions remaining will be: Who is willing to pay to have Amazon manage their schedules, smart homes, and purchases?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. 9 Comments

I'm not dead yet Pixel Watch 3 gets FDA approval to alert you if youre dying But you'll have to wait a bit longer to turn the feature on. Ryan Whitwam Feb 26, 2025 4:35 pm | 20 Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreGoogle released the Pixel Watch 3 last fall alongside the Pixel 9 family, sporting the same curvy look as the last two versions. The Pixel Watch 3 came with a new feature called Loss of Pulse Detection, which can detect impending death due to a stopped heart. Google wasn't allowed to unlock that feature in the US until it got regulatory approval, but the Food and Drug Administration has finally given Google the go-ahead to activate Loss of Pulse Detection.Numerous smartwatches can use health sensors to monitor for sudden health events. For example, the Pixel Watch, Apple Watch, and others can detect atrial fibrillation (AFib), a type of irregular heartbeat that could indicate an impending stroke or heart attack. Google claims Loss of Pulse Detection goes further, offering new functionality on a consumer wearable.Like the EKG features that became standard a few years back, Loss of Pulse Detection requires regulatory approval. Google was able to get clearance to ship the Pixel Watch 3 with Loss of Pulse Detection in a few European countries, eventually expanding to 14 nations: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. It noted at the time more countries would get access as regulators approved the feature, and the FDA was apparently the first to come through outside of Europe, boosting support to 15 countries.The Pixel Watch 3 doesn't include any new or unique sensors to power Loss of Pulse Detectionit's just using the sensors common to smartwatches in slightly different ways. The watch uses a "multi-path" heart rate sensor that is capable of taking readings once per second. When the sensor no longer detects a pulse, that usually means you've taken the watch off. It's quick to make that determination, locking the watch in about a second. That's great for security but a little annoying if you were readjusting it on your wrist.Under normal circumstances, second-by-second heart rate data from the Pixel Watch 3 is logged in the Fitbit app. Remove the watch, and that data stream is interrupted without triggering an emergency call. However, the wearable can rope in other sensors, like the body temperature sensor and the accelerometer, to determine if your pulse has vanished not because you've removed the Pixel Watch but because your heart has stopped beating.So your heart stopped beatingA stopped heart is obviously a big problem, leaving your average human being just a few minutes to get help. The Pixel Watch 3 could theoretically help make the most of those crucial minutes following cardiac arrest, overdose, or another event that causes a heart stoppage.Google says the feature relies on a multi-step check that was tested with hundreds of thousands of hours of data. The goal was to ensure Loss of Pulse Detection can take action when you need it without false positives. The FDA's approval doesn't mean the feature will always work, but it's accurate enough to release to the public. Still not sure? Google Research has also published a paper in the journal Nature today, which explains how Google validated the technology. Loss of Pulse Detection When Loss of Pulse Detection is triggered, the Pixel Watch 3 sounds an alarm and gives you a 20-second countdown. If you clear the warning or simply move around, the watch will know you aren't dying. If not, it calls emergency services with an automated message requesting help. However, Google notes (as required by law) that the Pixel Watch 3's pulse loss feature is not intended for those with pre-existing heart conditions requiring medical monitoring. It's not a replacement for proper medical oversight or follow-up care.Despite scoring regulatory approval, Google isn't releasing the feature in the US right away. An update will begin rolling out in late March that enables Loss of Pulse Detection. You may get a notification about the feature, but it won't be enabled by default. In supported regions, the feature must be activated in the Pixel Watch app under Safety & emergency and then Loss of Pulse Detection.Ryan WhitwamSenior Technology ReporterRyan WhitwamSenior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam is a senior technology reporter at Ars Technica, covering the ways Google, AI, and mobile technology continue to change the world. Over his 20-year career, he's written for Android Police, ExtremeTech, Wirecutter, NY Times, and more. He has reviewed more phones than most people will ever own. You can follow him on Bluesky, where you will see photos of his dozens of mechanical keyboards. 20 Comments

A woman drinks water during a heatwave in Hyeres, FranceMagali Cohen/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty ImagesExtreme heat seems to speed up biological ageing in older people, suggesting that it could raise the risk of age-related diseases.This is one of the first large-scale studies to link long-term heat exposure to biological ageing in humans, says Eun Young Choi at the University of Southern California. Older adults living in areas with more extreme heat days aged biologically faster than those in cooler regions. AdvertisementChoi and her colleagues analysed genetic data extracted from blood samples collected by other researchers in 2006-7 from 3600 people across the US. All were aged 56 and over at the time.They estimated each participants biological age using three so-called epigenetic clocks, which involves looking at patterns of chemical tags called methyl groups on DNA. These patterns alter as we get older and such changes have been linked to age-related diseases.The researchers also examined daily air temperature readings taken within a few kilometres of where participants lived for the six years before blood samples were taken.Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday.Sign up to newsletterThey found that, for roughly every 200 days in that six-year period that participants were exposed to daily maximum temperatures of at least 32.2C (90), their biological age was up to 3.5 months older, on average, than those in cooler areas. That figure varied depending on which clock was used.This points to heat exposure increasing the speed of biological ageing, says Austin Argentieri at Harvard University, who wasnt involved in the study.Previous studies on people in Taiwan and Germany have also found a link between extreme heat exposure and biological ageing.But epigenetic clocks dont perfectly capture the ageing process or peoples risk of diseases, says Argentieri. More work that can tie together both exposure to extreme heat, biological ageing from these clocks, and the influence on age-related diseases, mortality or lifespan itself, would really help drive home what we should take away from this.Whats more, the study didnt account for access to air conditioning or how long participants spent outdoors, which would alter their personal exposure to heat, says Argentieri. The team did control for other factors such as age, sex, race, wealth, ethnicity, smoking status, alcohol consumption, obesity and physical activity.Further studies should explore whether the results translate to younger people, or those living in different countries where people may have different approaches to keeping cool, says Argentieri.Pinpointing who is at most risk of ageing faster due to extreme heat could help policymakers develop and deploy measures to protect them, he says.Journal reference:Science Advances DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adr0616 Topics:

Landmark Media/AlamyJeff Goldblum has made many contributions to this world, but perhaps the best is his delivery of an iconic line in the 1993 film Jurassic Park. During a scene in which his character, Ian Malcolm, berates the dinosaur parks creator, John Hammond, Goldblum utters the words that have become a long-enduring meme: Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didnt stop to think if they should.The could-should paradigm, as we might loftily call it, is an excellent way to think about the risks and rewards of scientific endeavours.Still, it is rare to see scientists strongly come out against their own area of research Malcolm, as a mathematician, probably didnt much care about genetics developments. Perhaps this is what made recent warnings against creating mirror life organisms in which molecules have the opposite orientation to everything else on Earth, with the potential to wreak havoc through the biosphere so stark, coming as they did from people working directly on the idea (see The story of mirror life: From intriguing idea to unprecedented threat).AdvertisementThe creation of mirror life has the potential to wreak havoc through the biosphereWhile mirror life fails hard on the should side of the scale there seems to be little obvious reason for creating it in other cases, the decision isnt so easy. Perhaps the thorniest recent example is gain-of-function research. This is where organisms, often pathogens, are modified to enhance their abilities, with both risks and rewards. Altering a flu virus, say, so that it can more easily infect humans, is clearly a risk. But if it helps us understand the virus and potentially prevent a pandemic, would it be worth it?Gain-of-function has always been contentious, but, recently, the debate around it has become explosive. People who believe that SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind covid-19, was created in a lab a belief for which there is no evidence, it should be said have leapt on gain-of-function research as a smoking gun. Does this mean such work must be banned? Probably not but, per Malcolms words, we must bear in mind the distinction between could and should.Topics:

Steven RalesRales has worked closely as a producer in Wes Anderson films since 2006. Rodin Eckenroth/Getty Images Estimated net worth: $8.3 billion, per ForbesRales, the chairman and cofounder of medical manufacturer Danaher, founded the film production company Indian Paintbrush in 2006 and has worked closely with director Wes Anderson ever since.Rales also owns film distributors Janus Films and The Criterion Collection and has a 20% in the NBA Indiana Pacers.He won the best live-action short film award in 2024 with Anderson's "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar," which he produced.Jeffrey LurieThe Philadelphia Eagles owner has won three Oscars. Brooke Sutton/Contributor/Getty Images Estimated net worth: $5.3 billion, per ForbesThe Boston businessman purchased the Philadelphia Eagles for $185 million in 1994 and has won two Super Bowls since. But Lurie has a background in film, and has produced and executive-produced more than a dozen movies.His grandfather founded the General Cinema movie-theater chain, which operated 1,500 screens at its peak in 1991 before it was acquired by AMC in the early 2000s.Lurie has won three Oscars for best documentary as executive producer of "Inside Job" in 2011, "Inocente" in 2013, and "Summer of Soul" in 2022.Steven SpielbergThe filmmaker is regarded as the most commercially successful film director of all time. Amy Sussman/WireImage Estimated net worth: $5.3 billion, per ForbesThe film director and producer has worked on some of the most successful films of the past 30 years, directing films like "Jurassic Park," "Jaws," and "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial."He's regarded as the most commercially successful film director of all time and a pioneer of the modern blockbuster, with his films amassing a box-office total of over $10.7 billion over 37 films, as reported by The Numbers.He won the Oscar for best director in 1999 with "Saving Private Ryan" and in 1994 with "Schindler's List," which also won best picture that year.Jeff SkollThe former eBay president (left) has executive produced two best picture award-winning films. Jeff Vespa/WireImage Estimated net worth: $5.2 billionSkoll, who was eBay's first president from 1996 to 1998, founded film production company Participant Media in 2004 to create films that increased awareness of social issues.He won best picture as executive producer of "Spotlight" in 2016 and "Green Book" in 2019.In total, Participant Media has won 21 Academy Awards over 86 nominations, including best international film for "Roma."George LucasThe Lucasfilm founder sold his production company to Disney in 2012. Frank Trapper/Corbis via Getty Images Estimated net worth: $5.2 billion, per ForbesThe creator of the "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" franchises founded the film production company Lucasfilm in 1971 and sold it to Disney for $4 billion in 2012.In 1992, he won the Oscars' Irving G. Thalberg Award, which awards "creative producers whose bodies of work reflect a consistently high quality of motion picture production." He was also nominated for best director and best original screenplay for "American Graffiti" and "Star Wars" in 1973 and 1977, respectively.Oprah WinfreyThe media mogul was nominated for best supporting actress in 1985 and won an honorary award in 2011. Kevin Winter/Getty Images Estimated net worth: $3 billion, per ForbesThe TV host and media mogul has been often regarded as the most powerful woman in media and was once the world's only Black billionaire.She won the Oscars' Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award, which recognizes "outstanding contributions to humanitarian causes" in 2011. She was also nominated for best supporting actress in 1985 for "The Color Purple."Pat HanrahanPat Hanrahan has won multiple Academy Awards. Valerie Macon/Getty Images Estimated net worth: $2.3 billion, per ForbesThe computer graphics researcher, founding Pixar Animation Studio employee, and computer-science and electrical-engineering professor at Stanford University has worked on groundbreaking animation software that led to films like "Toy Story."He won a scientific and engineering Academy Award in 1993 and two technical achievement Oscars in 2004 and 2014.Steve TischThe New York Giants co-owner (right) has produced over 40 films, including "Forrest Gump." Jim Smeal/Ron Galella Collection via Getty Images Estimated net worth: $1.6 billion, per ForbesThe chairman, co-owner, and executive vice president of the New York Giants has produced over 40 films and has worked closely with Columbia and Sony Pictures.He won the Oscar for best picture in 1995 with "Forrest Gump."Peter JacksonThe "Lord of the Rings" and "Hobbit" creator has amassed over $6.5 billion at the box office. Albert L. Ortega/WireImage Estimated net worth: $1.5 billion, per ForbesThe "Lord of The Rings" and "Hobbit" filmmaker has written, directed, and worked on over 20 films and is the fifth highest-grossing director of all time, with his films surpassing $6.5 billion at the box office, per The Numbers rankings.In 2004, he won Oscars for best director, best adapted screenplay, and best picture for "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King."Tyler PerryThe Madea creator has an estimated net worth of $1.4 billion. ABC via Getty Images Estimated net worth: $1.4 billion, per ForbesThe filmmaker and playwright created the Madea character in 1999 and founded his own production company, Tyler Perry Studios, in 2006. In 2019, he unveiled the new 330-acre studio grounds in Atlanta. His films have made over $765 million at the box office.He received the Oscars' Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award in 2021.Richard Anthony WolfThe "Law & Order" producer won best short film as a producer for "Twin Towers" in 2003. Araya Doheny/Variety via Getty Images Estimated net worth: $1.2 billion, per ForbesThe film producer, best known for creating the "Law & Order" franchise, founded Wolf Entertainment in 1988. It has become one of the most prolific companies in the television business.He won the Academy Award for best short film as a producer with "Twin Towers" in 2003.