The nation of Mexicos lawsuit against several major US gun manufacturers, known as Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, was cursed long before it reached the Supreme Court. Tuesdays oral argument in the case only confirmed that. It appears that at least seven, and possibly as many as all nine, of the justices will reject Mexicos argument that gun companies are liable for crimes committed with their products across the US-Mexico border.Mexico sued seven gun companies plus a company that distributes firearms, claiming that these companies knowingly and unlawfully supply guns to drug cartels. According to a federal appeals court, the defendants in this case produce more than sixty-eight percent of the U.S. guns trafficked into Mexico, which comes out to between 342,000 and 597,000 guns each year.Though the appeals court determined that this case could move forward, at least for now, Mexicos lawsuit seemed to hit a wall during Tuesdays argument. All six of the Courts Republicans plus Biden-appointee Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sounded highly skeptical of Mexicos claims, and all nine justices asked questions suggesting that they may not buy Mexicos legal theory.One reason why this case is cursed is a 2005 federal law, known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which gives gun companies an unusual level of immunity from lawsuits. Under PLCAA, gun manufacturers are immune from most suits for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.PLCAA does allow gun companies to be sued when they knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. In Smith & Wesson, Mexico claims gun companies aided and abetted violations of federal law by knowingly distributing guns to traffickers who provide them to drug cartels.While few, if any of the justices seemed to buy that argument, they seemed quite unsure about how they would rule that the gun companies are immune from this lawsuit. It was clear, however, that Mexico is unlikely to prevail in this lawsuit. The open question is how the justices will get to that result.The many ways that Mexico could lose this case, briefly explainedPLCAAs core provision prohibits lawsuits arising out of the criminal or unlawful misuse of a gun by a third party, thus cutting off most lawsuits against gun companies if someone uses their product to commit a crime. The law does contain an exception, but only when the gun company knowingly violated a State or Federal statute, and only when that violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. (I will explain what proximate cause is down below.)Right out the gate, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether Mexico had even identified a statute that the gun companies had allegedly violated. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that Mexico would have to prove that the gun companies intended to violate a particular law, although he did point to two federal laws prohibiting unlicensed dealers from selling guns, which may have been violated by these traffickers.But Mexico does not actually argue that the gun companies, which presumably are licensed to sell their core product, directly sold any guns without a license. Instead, it argues that, by knowingly distributing their product to these traffickers, the gun companies aid and abet a legal violation.The Courts cases governing when someone can be held liable for aiding or abetting someone elses illegal activity are vague, and the Courts most recent case considering this question includes some prominent language that cuts against Mexicos legal theory. In Twitter v. Taamneh (2023), a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the idea that social media companies can be liable for aiding and abetting terrorism, simply because some terrorist groups may use their platform for recruitment. That case warned that if aiding-and-abetting liability were taken too far, then ordinary merchants could become liable for any misuse of their goods and services, no matter how attenuated their relationship with the wrongdoer.Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to latch onto this concern as a good reason to rule against Mexico. He noted that lots of products ranging from knives, to baseball bats, to prescription drugs can be used to commit crimes. He was concerned that, under Mexicos legal theory, a baseball bat manufacturer might be held liable for aiding and abetting a beating if it sold its product in an area where assaults with baseball bats are statistically higher than in other areas.Jackson, meanwhile, argued that the statute permits suits alleging a statutory violation to move forward, but not suits rooted in the common law, a body of judge-made law that often governs personal injury lawsuits. Congress, she claimed, was concerned that judges applying common law rules might displace the legislatures power to decide when gun manufacturers should face liability, so it tried to cut off common law suits when it enacted PLCAA.The reason why this distinction between common and statutory law matters, at least to Jackson, is because the concept of aiding and abetting arises out of the common law.Justice Samuel Alito, at one point, took a completely different approach, claiming that many Americans believe that Mexico is harming Americans as if thats somehow relevant to the narrow legal question of whether PLCAA immunizes gun companies from this particular lawsuit.In any event, the Court never seemed to coalesce around a single theory, so it is difficult to predict how the justices will ultimately decide to rule against Mexico. But it seems safe to say that Mexico is likely to lose this case.The justices did seem to reject the gun companies most disruptive argumentAll of this said, the gun companies did make one argument that several of the justices seemed to firmly reject early in the argument, which could have disrupted significant swaths of US law had the justices accepted it.Recall that PLCAA requires Mexico to show not only that the gun companies knowingly violated a statute, but that this violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. Proximate cause is a foundational legal concept, which refers to when someone can legally be held responsible for causing another person to be injured.Suppose that Denise hits someone with her car while driving home, causing them to break their arm. Any number of acts could be said to have caused this accident, including the car makers decision to make the car, the car dealers decision to sell it to Denise, a steel companys decision to refine steel that was used to make the car, and a mining companys decision to mine the iron that was used to make this steel. But, absent unusual circumstances, the law only holds Denise liable for her own negligent driving, rather than imposing liability on literally anyone who made it possible for this accident to happen.Though the concept of proximate cause can be slippery, the general rule is that a defendant can be held liable for injuries that are the reasonably foreseeable result of their illegal actions. The gun companies, however, spend much of their brief arguing for a different definition of proximate cause. Under their proposal, when a chain of events leads to a bad outcome, the legal cause of that outcome is generally limited to the first step in a causal chain. This is especially true, they argue, when that chain of events involves separate actions carried out by separate parties that is, when multiple independent actions by multiple people led to the bad outcome.Thus, if a gun company sells hundreds of firearms to the International Brotherhood of Hitmen and Contract Murders, fully intending that these guns be used to kill innocent people, the gun company still could not be held legally responsible for doing so because an individual hitmans decision to use one of these guns to kill someone is a separate action committed by someone other than the gun company itself.In any event, none of the justices seemed to buy this redefinition of proximate cause. And a few of them, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett, appeared quite dubious of this legal argument.Thats a small silver lining for anyone hoping that gun manufacturers may someday face legal consequences for the harms caused by their products. But the overall thrust of Tuesdays argument still suggests that the gun companies are likely to win this case.See More:

The government produces many of Americas most important economic indicators. And that data influences the medias coverage of the economy, which likely colors voters views of the president.These facts have long led partisans to fear presidential manipulation of economic data. Specifically, during Democratic presidencies, conservatives have often sought to dismiss positive economic trends by alleging data manipulation. Last August, Donald Trump accused the Biden administration of manipulating jobs statistics to make unemployment look artificially low before Election Day. Such allegations have always been baseless. Presidents might have an incentive to tamper with economic data reported by the executive branch. But they have always been constrained from doing so by respect for the independence of data-gathering agencies like the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis, fear of scandal, and a desire to provide the private sector with clear and accurate information about economic conditions.But Trump appears uniquely unencumbered by such constraints. His administration is openly contemptuous of agency independence, arguing that the president should boast unitary authority over all of the executive branchs activities. It also evinces no concern for giving off the appearance of corruption (before taking office, the president established a memecoin that enables any interest group to directly burnish his net wealth). Trumps constantly shifting tariff threats indicate an indifference to providing business owners with clarity about the economys future trajectory, while his entire history as a public figure suggests an indifference to the truth. All this gives us some cause for fearing that Trump might tamper with government economic data, should it become politically inconvenient. And over the weekend, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested that he intends to do just that, by altering how the government calculates gross domestic product (GDP) the total value of goods and services produced in the economy. You know that governments historically have messed with GDP, Lutnick said during a Fox News interview Sunday. They count government spending as part of GDP. So Im going to separate those two and make it transparent.Lutnicks remarks came days after Elon Musk argued that A more accurate measure of GDP would exclude government spending since Otherwise, you can scale GDP artificially high by spending money on things that dont make peoples lives better.In other words, Musk believes that the US government has been producing useless goods and services just to inflate GDP numbers.This argument is substantively unsound. And it also appears politically motivated: Musks comments came in response to a new projection from the Atlanta Federal Reserve, which showed GDP on pace to decline during the first quarter of this year. Musks implication was that this projected decline is entirely attributable to his elimination of wasteful government activities that had been distorting growth statistics. Stripping government spending from official GDP data would not be the most corrosive form of data manipulation. Such tampering would at least be transparent; the administration would not be producing fabricated economic statistics, but merely seeking to redefine an existing measure. But the administrations desire to alter the content of GDP seemingly, due to political concerns makes the threat of more covert and destructive data manipulation more plausible.The problem with Elon Musks case against GDPThe Trump administrations complaint with conventional GDP estimates has a certain logic to it: Governments often aspire to produce high GDP growth and public investment can mechanically increase such growth, even if the goods and services produced have little value to consumers or businesses.This dynamic is a genuine problem in China, where the ruling Communist Party sets explicit goals for GDP growth, and often meets them by building economically useless infrastructure like ghost cities comprised of mansions and apartment towers that no one has ever occupied and bridges that are rarely used.Nevertheless, there are several problems with Musk and Lutnicks argument. First, while its true that the government sometimes makes bad investments, which raise GDP without providing much economic value, this is also true of the private sector. Production of the Juicero contributed to GDP, but was of virtually no use to consumers. And this happens on a much larger scale each time investors enthusiasm for a given asset such as internet companies or homes causes the private sector to produce a larger supply of that asset than consumers can support, which leads to an eventual crash (like the dot com one in 2000 or the housing one in 2008 ).Ultimately, GDP is not meant to measure wise or socially valuable economic activity, in part because such a metric would be inherently subjective. Perhaps it is obvious to Elon Musk that the governments investments in highway repairs or public education have produced less economic value than his own investment in the Hyperloop. But I think most people would not find this self-evident. It is useful to have an impartial tally of all goods and services produced in the US economy. This would be true even if GDP did not correlate with other indicators of prosperity, but it does.Second, the US government already produces an estimate of what GDP would be without public production, a measure called real value in private industries. Businesses and consumers already have access to this information, there is no need to alter GDP calculations to provide it to them.Third, it simply is not the case that the US government has been using public spending to artificially inflate GDP. As former White House economist Mike Konczal notes, a measure of GDP that excluded public spending would show stronger growth during Joe Bidens presidency than the actual GDP data does.Over a longer time horizon, meanwhile, changes in the real value produced by private industries have correlated almost perfectly with changes in GDP. Were the US government propping up growth with massive investment in useless infrastructure, we would see a large gap between these two figures. Why the Trump administrations silly critique of GDP is ominousThe context of Musk and Lutnicks remarks makes them especially troubling. On Friday, the Atlanta Feds projection for first-quarter GDP growth turned negative, after a Commerce Department report showed that personal spending fell by 0.2 percent in January. As of this writing, the Atlanta Fed is currently forecasting that GDP will decline at a 2.8 percent annualized rate during the first four months of this year.Musk suggested that this apparent economic downturn was entirely attributable to his elimination of wasteful government programs. Lutnicks proposal for removing publicly produced goods and services from GDP therefore appears politically motivated. As it happens, Musk is actually completely wrong about why Americas economic outlook is souring. If one stripped public sector production out of the Atlanta Feds forecast, then GDP would be on pace for a 3.8 percent contraction this quarter, according to Harvard University economist Jason Furman. Whats actually driving the Fed models pessimism is slowing consumption and private investment, the latter being partly a function of Trumps tariff policies. Nevertheless, Musk thought he was proposing a change in the measurement of GDP that would make the Trump administration look better. And Americas Commerce Secretary suggested days later that he would pursue that very change. This is an ominous development. Right now, the Trump administration does not have especially strong incentives to manipulate economic data. The midterm elections are more than a year and a half away. And although GDP forecasts have declined, we are not actually in a recession as of yet. In fact, some forecasters still project healthy growth for this quarter. If this White House is willing to mess around with GDP now, its conceivable they would be interested in suppressing adverse inflation or employment readings more insidiously in the future. Pulling off such manipulation would not be easy. Any attempt to covertly alter how the governments statistical agencies report data would almost certainly trigger mass resignations and leaks to the press. And further attempts to redefine economic data points in politically convenient ways can only achieve so much; the private sector produces a lot of economic data, and if the governments numbers paint a dramatically different picture from other sources, business and the mainstream media will likely dismiss the former.Nevertheless, further attacks on the integrity of government data would be costly, undermining the capacity of the government, businesses, and households to make informed economic decisions. Rather than scheming to change unflattering economic indicators, White House officials should try to better understand them. Proposing changes to how GDP is calculated which would actually make your own economic management look worse is not the best way to reassure a skeptical public that you know what youre doing.See More:

Rockstar has acquired a new Australian studio, spurring suggestions that the company will look to delay GTA 6 and remaster classic titles to fill the gap in the release scheduleTech16:15, 04 Mar 2025Updated 16:16, 04 Mar 2025Rockstar just grew again(Image: Rockstar)Grand Theft Auto 6 will be this year's biggest game (yep, it's still expected this year), but Rockstar's radio silence on the project is getting fans a little worried.While a potential Rockstar dev was 'outed' on Reddit yesterday, the company hasn't made any big announcements for GTA 6 (or any announcements about it) since the first trailer in December 2023.And, after promising PC players of GTA 5 will get a huge free upgrade, the company has acquired another studio. While that should be cause for celebration, some are panicking that a GTA 6 delay is coming. Let's unpack all we know so far.GTA 6 is still aiming for this year, apparentlyIn a new press release, Rockstar confirmed it has acquired Australian studio Video Games Deluxe. The studio previously worked on updated versions of L.A. Noire, the game's 'VR Case Files' version for virtual reality, and helped fix the Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy Definitive Edition on multiple platforms.After working together closely over many years, we are excited to have Video Games Deluxe join the team as Rockstar Australia, said Rockstar Games Head of Publishing, Jennifer Kolbe.Its been an honor to work closely with Rockstar Games this past decade, said Video Games Deluxe founder Brendan McNamara, whose previous studio developed L.A. Noire, published by Rockstar.We are thrilled to be a part of Rockstar Games and to continue our efforts to make the best games possible.Here's hoping we get a new trailer soon(Image: Rockstar)So what's the drama? Put simply, some fans are concerned that Rockstar acquiring a studio that's done such good work on remastering its back catalog means that the company is looking to delay GTA 6 and release a GTA 4 remaster in the middle.Article continues belowThere's a lot of jumping to conclusions in that, and it's worth remembering Rockstar isn't JUST about GTA. The company was behind Max Payne 3, Bully, Midnight Club, and The Warriors, as well as Red Dead Redemption.And who knows, maybe the team wants to remaster Rockstar Table Tennis for current-gen systems? Time will tell.For the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.

Split Fiction is Hazelight Studios' magnum opus, an endlessly enjoyable co-op adventure that challenges both in gameplay and theming, and shows boundless imaginationTech16:00, 04 Mar 2025Mio and Zoe work to collect Glitches to escape from Rader's machine(Image: Hazelight Studios/EA)It Takes Two was a release that lives long in the memory. Aside from dozens of award wins, it launched not long after lockdown and offered a chance to strengthen my relationship with my now-wife in a way that spread throughout our friendship group until everyone was playing it.Against that backdrop of expectation, you may think Split Fiction would be doomed to fail. After all, it's nigh-impossible to capture lightning in a bottle twice, and while It Takes Two was a very personal story about two parents on the brink of separation, I was worried some of that tenderness would be lost when strewn across a multitude of science-fiction and fantasy worlds.As is so often the case, I'm wrong and I'm very glad to admit it.These sandworm creatures need to be lured away from your partner(Image: Hazelight Studios/EA)Split Fiction's core concept is much less easy to grasp than "Mum and Dad get shrunk and have to work together to return to normality". Zoe and Mio, our two protagonists, are budding (read: struggling) authors looking to earn a publishing deal with a tech giant called Rader.The company has a machine that can extract ideas, and circumstances conspire to drop both in a simulation that's half Zoe's and half Mio's work. This means players traverse numerous fantasy and sci-fi worlds as they look to escape the clutches of Rader's machine, as Zoe and Mio learn to trust each other.Shapeshifting is key in one world, with some tricky puzzles(Image: Hazelight Studios/EA)It's a buddy movie involving dragons, cats, and more imagination than even It Takes Two, but what makes it so endearing are the performances from Zoe and Mio's voice actors. Mio begins as a stony, resolute character with her own reasons for her metaphorical walls, while Zoe's kind-hearted nature works tirelessly to chip away at them. The way their dynamic evolved had me just as hooked as getting to the next boss fight or set piece, and in a world where AI is seeping into almost every creative decision made, I appreciated Hazelight Studios taking aim at those that would prise creativity away from artists.The commentary about generative AI begins relatively thinly veiled, but manifests itself as a scenery-chewing villain in a way that feels particularly pointed given the current entwinement of tech and politics. Split Fiction stops short of beating you over the head with its message, instead revelling in moments of emotion amid the chaos. There are dozens of touching moments throughout Zoe and Mio's story, and I'd love to see more from them in the future, as unlikely as it is.Mio's sci-fi levels are always action-packed(Image: Hazelight Studios/EA)That's not to say there's not a huge amount of mischief to get into while in Rader's machine. As with its predecessor (and A Way Out), Split Fiction will leave you frequently slack-jawed at both its spectacle and its diverse gameplay offerings.Zoe and Mio are both able to jump, double jump, and dash, and these become building blocks that allow for some fun sections, supplemented by additional mechanics that often complement one another. In the Dragon world that features heavily in the game's trailers, for example, Mio can glide with the dragon on her back while Zoe's allows her to climb sheer walls.Flipping between sci-fi and fantasy means nothing ever settles enough to feel comfortable, as Split Fiction almost wants you to say "surely this can't be topped" before doing just that in a couple of scenes' time. One sci-fi sequence has you triggering puzzles with a pair of guns and destroying colour-coded shields, before perspective shifts to a Metroid-like side view that employs portals and traps, before a huge final battle that feels ripped from a bullet hell.Split Fiction is a beautiful game(Image: Hazelight Studios/Electronic Arts)I played Split Fiction with my wife who prefers more casual games, and she'd be the first to admit the heavier focus on combat encounters in certain levels had her worried, but Split Fiction's forgiving checkpoints and quick revives, plus the lack of loading times throughout, make it feel less frustrating to die.You'll die a lot, too. With the exception of some smaller, interstitial levels, Split Fiction offers some pretty challenging sequences even without combat. Platforming is responsive, with ledges about as sticky as you could ask for, but there are some particularly challenging sections that require co-ordination and problem-solving from both players. It's much more challenging than its predecessor, but that meant every victory for Zoe and Mio (and my wife and I) tasted all the sweeter.Side Stories are just as thrilling as the main levels(Image: Hazelight Studios/EA)Throughout your adventures, you'll encounter mysterious portals that lead to 'Side Stories', which are unfinished ideas from either writer that offer a sizeable change of pace. With some of the main levels running for an hour or two, it's a great way to switch things up when being a cyber ninja or shapeshifter gets a little long in the tooth.Despite being 'missable', they're pretty well signposted, and almost always rewarded my wife and I with some of the game's finest moments. Flying on a wingsuit to attach to a flying train, or racing through a warzone on a hoverboard were some of the best examples, and to spoil more would be unfair.It's not just these experiences that are worth seeking out, either. Some areas offer a brief respite, letting you engage with NPCs in these fantastical worlds, or take part in minigames. Some even offer some fantastic references to other games, Hazelight or otherwise, that had me chuckling while my wife looked on puzzled.Article continues belowI could write about Split Fiction for another few thousand words and still not cover everything that made me smile. As with 2024's Astro Bot, it's bursting at the seams with a Nintendo-like playfulness, an excited child opening a toybox to show you everything it can, and yet with a more measured pacing that stops it running out of breath.It's a poignant and timely reminder that for all of technology's advances, art is still made my artists, and that might just make it one of 2025's most important games as well as one of its best.Reviewed on PS5 Pro. Review code provided by the publisher.

Vin Diesel had much more to say besides I am Groot on his Instagram Tuesday. The star of The Fast and the Furious franchise took to the social media platform to tease a slew of upcoming projects with one in particular catching our eye: a hypothetical Groot movie from Marvel Studios. Disney wants their Planet X! Diesel wrote. Which some say is Marvels most anticipated movie, haha. The film where Groot returns to his home planet. When you consider how secretive Marvel is about everything, and that the Guardians of the Galaxy have taken a break post-Vol. 3, thats a bold statement. Not something to be announced in passing on Instagram. So, is this something that really could happen? If so, would it fit into the current Multiverse Saga? io9 reached out to Marvel about Diesels post but it did not provide a comment. So, with no official word on this, lets dig a little deeper. The obvious first thought is Groot did already get his own Marvel project. I Am Groot is on Disney+ and is, frankly, delightful. Its not quite a crucial chapter in the Marvel Cinematic Universe but it speaks to something Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn has acknowledged in the past: Groot is probably the most popular character to come out of the Guardians of the Galaxy. So a Groot-centric story that takes the character back to his home planet doesnt seem out of the realm of possibility. Especially if thats just the jumping-off point for a larger Guardians adventure. We know that Chris Pratts Star Lord will return at some point. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 told us that. And would he really return and not meet up with his old buddies Rocket, Groot, and everyone else? Maybe he comes back to help Groot. Wed watch that movie. But is it real? Maybe the biggest note here is that Diesel loves to stir up shit. He loves to make news and tease things on his social media, so an out-of-the-blue Planet X Groot movie could be anything from a) something he really wants to do but has never been brought up, b) a project tangentially mentioned in passing at a meeting, or c) an actual idea someone at Marvel is developing. We dont know for sure but were leaning toward the first one. More than anything else, this throwaway comment seems like Diesel is just putting this out into the world to see what happens.Beyond the Groot project, Diesel talked about Fast X2, Rock Em Sock Em Robots, Riddick, xXx, even The Last Witch Hunter. He seems to be a busy guy. But how much of his busy schedule will take him to Marvel Studios? Time will tell. 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.

By Matt Novak Published March 4, 2025 | Comments (2) | U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh laugh at the conclusion of the inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the US Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Photo by Chip Somodevilla / POOL / AFP via Getty Images The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling on Tuesday that strikes down some rule that allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to limit the amount of pollution discharged into Americas waterways. The ruling was 5-4, with Amy Coney Barrett joining the courts more liberal justices in dissenting. The case was brought by the city of San Francisco after the EPA told it to stop discharging so much human sewage into the Pacific Ocean back in 2019. The city of San Francisco sued, joining forces with groups like the National Mining Association and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers to fight against the EPA, arguing the rules were too broad. The case centered on the Clean Water Act of 1972 and whether the EPAs rules on the amount of human waste allowed into large bodies of water were specific enough. The city of San Francisco was facing about $313 million in fines and about $10.6 billion in upgrades to its treatment facilities to comply with EPA standards, according to the Washington Post. San Francisco has an outdated style of water treatment facility that combines sewage and stormwater, which causes the discharged water to be filled with human shit. The Clean Water Act doesnt specifically lay out what needs to be done to make water clean, only making the city directly responsible for the water quality being good, according to Bloomberg Law. And the city argued that was too vague, with the Supreme Court agreeing. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, explained that it wasnt fair for the EPA to impose crushing penalties if the quality of the water in its receiving waters falls below the applicable standards, according to a copy of the ruling posted online. Conservative justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch joined in the opinion.Amy Coney Barrett wrote the dissent, pointing out that while the majority opinion argues the EPAs language is too vague, the court does not explain what other course of action EPA could take. Barrett also pointed out the water discharge had led to discoloration, scum, and floating material, including toilet paper, in Mission Creek. The more liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, sided with the typically conservative Barrett. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had previously sided with the EPA. But this new Supreme Court ruling is now the law of the land, as long as everyone just agrees to follow it. The tricky thing about Supreme Court rulings is that these nine justices have no way to actually enforce their rulings. And weve seen with President Donald Trumps decisions to ignore court orders lately that laws only work if everybody just decides to follow along with a given courts decisions.Daily NewsletterYou May Also Like By Ed Cara Published March 4, 2025 By Matt Novak Published January 21, 2025 By Matthew Gault Published January 17, 2025 By Todd Feathers Published January 15, 2025 By Todd Feathers Published January 10, 2025 By AJ Dellinger Published December 31, 2024

Nin Hao Restaurant / Plan PlanSave this picture! Sean DavidsonBrooklyn, United StatesInterior Designers: Plan PLanAreaArea of this architecture projectArea:1800 ftYearCompletion year of this architecture project Year: 2024 PhotographsPhotographs:Sean DavidsonManufacturersBrands with products used in this architecture project Manufacturers: Artaic, Cle, DURLUM, Juniper Design, MUTTO, Mattiazzi, Noguchi, Rose Brand, Wastberg More SpecsLess SpecsSave this picture!Text description provided by the architects. Located in Prospect Heights of Brooklyn, the Fujianese restaurant Nin Hao has a given space that is 16 feet tall with abundant sunlight coming from its south and east-facing curtain walls. Therefore, the sense of transparency is omnipresent in this space. Two materials that interact with light differently were implemented surrounding the dining space -translucent Austrian curtains along the windows soften the sunlight, creating a gentle interplay between light and shadow. This filtered light, in turn, reflects off the polycarbonate-paneled wall on the opposite side, diffusing throughout the space and contributing to an atmosphere that feels airy, bright, and ever-changing.Save this picture!Save this picture!As the sun sets, the tall polycarbonate-paneled wall transforms into a glowing lantern, illuminating the space and the curtains, which creates an intimate and cozy lounge ambiance. Pendant light fixtures, along with a series of floating elements glimmering with warm lights, greet guests and passersby on Dean Street.Save this picture!Save this picture!Underneath the translucent curtain and transparent walls, cement tiles with different shades of warm grays, which were informed by Chinese gray bricks, become the dominant surfaces in different forms that guests can touch, lean on, or sit in, and linear planters along the curtain wall to house the succulent greens. Opaque and translucent, rough and sleek, traditional and contemporary, a series of contrasting pairs in dialogue echoes Nin Hao's ethos, which embraces its cultural roots while embodying a contemporary spirit and a well-adventure.Save this picture!The two themed bathrooms are adorned with customized mosaic tiles representing two iconic paintings"Spring Morning in the Han Palace (1494-1552)" by Qiu Ying and "Hudson River Valley from Fort Putnam (1855)" by George Henry Boughton. Additionally, one of the bathrooms features a two-way mirror that offers a view of the dining space while maintaining privacyfurther heightening the sense of surprise and adventure in the restaurant. Nin Hao wants to be a welcoming place for the local communities and people with different cultural backgrounds. With this spirit in mind, the dining space is also a canvas that invites engagement. A green round table with a rotating tray can be converted to a Mahjong table; a 12-foot-long dining table in vibrant red invites exchanges between guests.Save this picture!Save this picture!The design incorporates a flexible framework that allows the restaurant to evolve with seasonal themes and curated artwork. The 17-foot-wide west wall left intentionally minimal, serves as a platform for rotating art installations, while a flexible ceiling grid system supports sculptures and lighting that can change with the seasons, offering new perspectives on the space over time. Here, the interplay of materials, cultures, and art fosters a sense of ongoing transformationboth in the space itself and in the minds of those who gather within it. Save this picture!Project gallerySee allShow lessProject locationAddress:Location to be used only as a reference. It could indicate city/country but not exact address.About this officePublished on March 04, 2025Cite: "Nin Hao Restaurant / Plan Plan" 04 Mar 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1027517/nin-hao-restaurant-plan-plan&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

Get The Playbook at 50% off: https://boundless-resource.com/playbook

Get The Virtual Filmmakers Playbook & watch the film: https://boundless-resource.com/playbook Now 50% off for the first 500 sign-ups!Are you the filmmaker you want to be? In this video, we talk about some of the realities of being a filmmaker and some new and exciting ways to make the films youve always dreamed of making.Comment any questions you have, and thanks for watching!

watch it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idQbOJLpUO0 That Alien Friend That Won't Let You Get A Word In.Animation by SageWritten by Sage and JacksonCharacters modeled by Santelmo 

SUBSCRIBE to CGMeetup for more inspiring content! http://bit.ly/Sub2CGMeetup&amp ;#13;Watch More CGI & VFX Animated Short Films: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc6NCp8iAPDa4dBRHY4E5uvuqNcYe8AXX&amp ;#13;VFX Breakdowns, Making of & Behind the Scene: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc6NCp8iAPDYMZcYBcEBQRoGidvdi0iPN 

FOLLOW US:
Website: http://www.cgmeetup.com 
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/CGMeetUp&amp ;#13;Facebook https://www.facebook.com/CGMeetup&amp ;#13;Twitter https://twitter.com/cgmeetup&amp ;#13;Google+ https://plus.google.com/+Cgmeetup&amp ;#13;Dailymotion http://www.dailymotion.com/user/CGMeetup&amp ;#13;Pinterest https://www.pinterest.com/cgmeetup/&amp ;#13;Instagram https://instagram.com/cgmeetup/&amp ;#13;
WANT TO GET FEATURED?
All CGI artists, studios or schools who would like their work featured or
published on CGMeetup please apply below. Were looking for short films, commercial spots, breakdowns, showreels etc.
Submit here https://www.cgmeetup.com/gallery&amp ;#13;Contact us here info@cgmeetup.com or info@cgmeetup.net

Please Note: All videos are uploaded after written copyright permission from respected Artists, Studios or Schools Or part of the Creative Commons license.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode&amp ;#13;For more details or to dispute please contact us at info@cgmeetup.com or info@cgmeetup.net

ABOUT CGMeetup:
CGMeetup is the #1 inspiration resource for all CGI, VFX, 3D and Digital artists. We feature a wide variety of CGI content including behind-the-
scenes, vfx breakdowns, short films & showreels.

CGMeetup also serves as networking resource for CGI Professionals.
Professionals use CGMeetup to exchange ideas, knowledge & job
opportunities.

CGMeetup
https://www.youtube.com/CGMeetup 

#cgi #animation #animated #3d #shortfilm #short #animatedshortfilm