How deep is Sony's commitment to live-service? | Opinion Sony's live service ambitions have steadily scaled back, but questions remain about Bungie – and how much the overall PlayStation strategy hinges on live service Image credit: Sony Interactive Entertainment Feature by Rob Fahey Contributing Editor Published on May 23, 2025 In many regards, things are going very well for Sony right now. The PlayStation 5 has sold strongly, generally slightly outpacing the performance of the PS4 at equivalent points in its lifecycle despite cost pressures that have kept its retail prices high. Its biggest direct competitor, Microsoft, started the generation with a great hardware line-up but has ultimately pivoted away from console exclusive software and become one of the biggest third-party publishers on PlayStation. Sony has an enviable line-up of studios and premium first-party game franchises, has started to find success with movie and TV adaptations of some of its game IP, and is gradually building up a solid sideline business in PC versions of its blockbuster titles – not to mention that next year GTA 6 will turn up and presumably sell absolute truckloads of PS5s in the process. It's not all quite so rosy, of course. With a view to the longer term, for example, it's not unreasonable to point out that while the console business has stubbornly defied all the predictions of collapse over the past decade or two, it has certainly found itself smacking off a glass ceiling somewhere around the installed base mark achieved by the PS2, and additional growth seems elusive despite rising costs across the board. Still, within the confines of that market reality, Sony has been performing extremely well – with the arguable exception of one specific part of the company, over which hovers a question mark so big that it casts a shadow over a lot of this success. This strategic enigma is Bungie – or to be more specific, it's the entire content strategy that was meant to be anchored around the $3.6 billion dollar acquisition of Bungie back in 2022. While this is chickenfeed compared to the money Microsoft was splashing around on gaming acquisitions during the same era, it was an enormous purchase for Sony, and it was meant to kick-start a major change in how the company would make games. Image credit: Bungie Sony got live services religion, and it got it bad; the company, or at least some influential people within the company, believed that the way to achieve the kind of break-out growth that its success in hardware and premium games was failing to deliver had to come through finding the next Fortnite. Bungie, with its experience of running the Destiny franchise and supposedly with multiple unannounced live service titles being incubated at that point, would be the lynchpin of that strategy, not only building its own live service games but also providing expertise and guidance to Sony's other studios as they worked on live service titles based on their own core IPs. In the years that have followed, that strategy has foundered somewhat – not least because rather than being the jewel in the crown of the live service effort, Sony's acquisition of Bungie appears to have resulted in constantly having to put out new fires at the company. I wonder how different Sony's strategic positioning might sound now if the release dates of Concord and Helldivers 2 had been swapped around While insight into the internal workings of the relationship is very unreliable given that most people leaking information undoubtedly have an axe to grind, one does speculate that there's a weird, destructive tug-of-war going on between Bungie's leadership and their new owners at Sony. What we can say with certainty is that revenues from Destiny 2 fluctuated wildly (as did the quality of the game and players' sentiments towards it), drawing into question just how much Sony's other studios might want to take direction on live service strategy from Bungie. Major layoffs were conducted, raising some even bigger questions about what Sony had paid all that money for, if not for acquiring a wellspring of talent and experience in the form of Bungie's now-fired employees. Despite this, however, Sony's determination that its future lies with live service releases doesn't seem to have faltered – well, at least not much. The ambitious initial plans for a dozen live service games to launch by early 2026 were scaled back to six a couple of years ago. Depending on how you're counting (bear in mind that titles like MLB The Show are considered live service, even if they may not be what jumps to mind when you think of this category), it seems pretty likely that this halved forecast will be missed by a fair bit, especially given the ignominious failure and rapid shutdown of one of the few live service games to actually launch, Concord. Image credit: PlayStation / Arrowhead Game Studios There was also a widespread suspicion that the retirement of former Sony Interactive Entertainment boss Jim Ryan a year ago might see the company quietly water down its commitment to live service. Despite this, however, Sony's messaging continues to suggest a strong focus on this sector. SIE co-CEO Hermen Hulst announced a new live-service oriented studio in the PlayStation Studios group, teamLFG, just this week. Back in 2022, the Bungie acquisition seemed to make a sort of sense. The climate around live service was extremely positive; this was long before we'd seen gigantic, costly failures like Warner's catastrophic Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, or indeed Sony's own Concord. Sony lacked expertise in this sector, and the Bungie deal could plug that gap. It was nonetheless risky – not least because it flew in the face of Sony's de facto policy of only buying out large studios with which they had built extremely close working relationships on successful titles over several years, despite that policy being central to building up PlayStation Studios in the first place. Today, the climate is very different around live service games, not least because of the aforementioned failures, but also because of what seems to be a fairly strong turn in consumer sentiment around these kinds of services. Sony, however, still has a multi-billion dollar studio that really only does live services attached to it, and one does have to wonder about the extent to which that creates path dependency. The new live service studio, teamLFG, is a good example in that it appears to be a direct spin-off from Bungie, so that acquisition is still very much driving Sony's engagement with this whole market sector. It's worth noting, though, that Sony did also have some beginner's luck in live services, with its first real dip into this water being the excellent and well-received Helldivers 2. In any high-risk gambling, beginner's luck is a curse, because you'll end up throwing far more of your money at the casino than the person who had a run of bad luck on their first visit and never caught the bug or tried to chase the winning feeling. I wonder how different Sony's strategic positioning might sound now if the release dates of Concord and Helldivers 2 had been swapped around. Even were it not for the need to do something with Bungie, and the sense that Helldivers 2 shows that this market sector can work for Sony, there's another logic that might underpin a continuing commitment to live service games – even despite what is now much more widely understood to be a near-suicidal risk profile for launching them. It's the logic of venture capital, which can often look quite crazy from the perspective of an ordinary investor with a regular risk appetite, but which is all about high risks and high rewards. Venture capitalists are generally not too interested in solid businesses with sober risk profiles and a decent profit margin. They're interested in crazy, fast-growing businesses that, while being incredibly likely to flare out and die, will return a hundred-fold, a thousand-fold, or an even higher upside ratio in the unlikely event that they do succeed. The logic of a venture portfolio is that losing a big chunk of money on each of 99 bankrupt companies you back is worthwhile if the 100th company in the pack strikes the jackpot for you and returns your investment a thousand-fold. Since games don't really do that – they're risky, but almost never have upside rewards on that scale – the venture capital model doesn't work terribly well for them, and that kind of VC activity has been very limited in this space over the years. Live service games, however, turn this on its head. It's extremely, vanishingly unlikely that your game will be the next Fortnite, but if it is, it will deliver exactly the kind of immense return that venture capital funds are interested in. This, I think, is a sort of thinking that's taken root in some quarters within Sony. Who cares if they back dozens of failures, if one of them becomes a new title whose recurring revenue is big enough on its own to be a whole new pillar of the business? We'll see in the coming years whether that's really the approach Sony intends to take – if it's happy to absorb more and more Concord-style failures (or, perhaps more likely, a bunch of commercially mediocre performers that stick around for a year or two before being shut down, which seems to be the general life cycle of live service games at the moment) in pursuit of that one, elusive, incredible hit. If so, it's a strategy which carries an especially extraordinary degree of risk for Sony, because while a venture capital fund can back dozens of losers without anyone really noticing or caring – that's just part of the business – it's definitely going to be noticed by Sony's consumers if PlayStation starts releasing dozens of dud live services games under its banner. Money is only one of the currencies that needs to be considered in this equation, and it's arguably the easiest one to gamble with. The prestige and reputation of the platform and the brand is a much more valuable currency, and one that would be a lot harder to earn back once lost.

On Thursday evening, the Supreme Court handed down a brief order, which temporarily permits President Donald Trump to fire two federal officials who, by law, are shielded from being summarily terminated. That, in itself, is not particularly significant because, on April 9, Chief Justice John Roberts acted on his own authority to temporarily permit Trump to fire the same two officials. So the practical effect of Thursday’s order in Trump v. Wilcox is simply to maintain the status quo.That said, the Thursday order does contain some important new information from the Court’s Republican majority. While the Republican justices have signaled for quite some time that they are eager to give the president broad authority to fire officials that Congress intended to insulate from presidential control, the order includes a paragraph signaling that they will not allow Trump to fire members of the Federal Reserve.From a legal perspective, the paragraph is difficult to parse. And, as Justice Elena Kagan writes in a dissenting opinion, is not supported by the legal authority it cites. But it is likely to reassure investors that, while the Supreme Court does appear eager to expand Trump’s authority over previously independent parts of the federal government, it won’t permit him to disrupt the Fed’s ability to make technocratic decisions about interest rates. The immediate stakes in Wilcox involve a former member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which enforces labor laws and adjudicates union-related disputes, along with a former member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which hears disputes claiming that a civil servant’s employment protections were violated. Trump fired both shortly after taking office, despite the fact that federal law only permits them to be fired for some sort of neglect or malfeasance.The NLRB and the MSPB, moreover, are just two of an array of “independent” agencies led by multi-member boards, whose members all enjoy similar employment protections – agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Reserve.For at least 15 years, when the Court handed down Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Board (2010), a majority of the justices have signaled that they are eager to strip Congress of its authority to create such independent agencies, and give the president full authority to fire these agencies’ leaders at will. Many economists and investors, meanwhile, have warned that it would be particularly dangerous to strip the Federal Reserve — which is supposed to set interest rates based on delicate economic calculations and not based on what will benefit the sitting president — of its independence, as doing so could throw the US economy into chaos.Thursday’s order is a clear signal that the Court has heard these concerns and does not intend to eliminate the Fed’s independence. It is unlikely to satisfy many constitutional scholars, as its explanation for why Federal Reserve leaders should be treated differently than the leaders of any other independent agency is so baffling that it appears contrived. Regardless of the underlying reasoning, however, the order does strongly suggest that this Court will not give Trump full control over the Fed.The “unitary executive,” briefly explainedTrump v. Wilcox is the culmination of a longstanding grudge many Republican legal elites hold against Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court case establishing that Congress may create independent agencies whose members may only be fired for cause. Though the leaders of these agencies are typically nominated by the president for a term of several years, and confirmed by the Senate, Humphrey’s Executor explained that laws protecting them from being fired while in office are supposed to ensure that they “act with entire impartiality,” and “exercise the trained judgment of a body of experts.”All six of the Court’s Republicans, however, have made it clear they believe in a theory known as the “unitary executive,” which is incompatible with Humphrey’s Executor.The Constitution provides that “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” In a 1988 dissenting opinion, which many legal conservatives now treat as if it were a holy text, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that “this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power.” And thus, if a federal official is charged with executing federal laws in some way, they must be fully subject to presidential control.If you take this unitary executive theory seriously, then there should be no doubt that Federal Reserve governors may be fired at will by the president. The Fed’s authority over interest rates, after all, derives from federal statutes instructing it to pursue the dual goals of “maximum employment” and “stable prices.” So the Fed is charged with executing federal laws.But the consequences of stripping the Fed of its independence could be catastrophic. In 1971, President Richard Nixon pressured Fed chair Arthur Burns to lower interest rates in advance of Nixon’s reelection race — the idea was to juice the economy right while voters were weighing Nixon’s record — and Burns complied. In the short term, this worked out great for Nixon. The economy boomed in 1972, and Nixon won reelection by a historic landslide. But Burns’s action is often blamed for years of “stagflation,” slow economic growth combined with high inflation, in the 1970s.The Fed, in other words, has the power to effectively inject cocaine into the US economy – giving it a temporary boost that can be timed to benefit incumbent presidents, at the cost of much greater economic turmoil down the road. It’s not hard to see how presidents could abuse their power if they can fire members of the Federal Reserve who refuse to give the economy such a temporary and costly high.One might think that these risks would be enough to caution the justices against overruling Humphrey’s Executor. But the Republican justices appear quite committed to the unitary executive theory, and they have been that way for quite some time. (If you want to know more about why they feel this way, I can refer you to three separate explainers I’ve written on this subject.)And so those justices spend the bulk of Thursday’s Wilcox order laying out the process they are likely to use to formally overrule Humphrey’s Executor. The order announces that the Trump administration is “likely” to prevail in its bid to fire NLRB and MSPB officials, and it temporarily blocks lower court decisions that reinstated the two officials at issue in this case. But the Court puts off the question of whether to formally repudiate Humphrey’s Executor until after the ordinary appeals process plays out and the justices receive full briefing and oral argument on whether to do so — which could happen as soon as the Court’s next term.The Wilcox order’s language protecting the Fed is gobbledygookEmbedded within all this language laying out the process to challenge Humphrey’s Executor is the paragraph indicating that the Fed is safe. While the two fired officials “contend that arguments in this case necessarily implicate the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors or other members of the Federal Open Market Committee,” the order states, “we disagree.”The justices who joined the order then offer a single sentence explaining why: “The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”It’s certainly possible to parse the components of this sentence. The description of the Fed as a “quasi-private entity,” for example, may refer to the fact that much of the Fed’s authority is wielded through regional entities, which are themselves controlled by board members who are mostly selected by commercial banks. But it is hardly unusual for members of the private sector to be given a formal role within government — just ask Elon Musk. Indeed, the Supreme Court heard at least two cases this spring involving the role experts from the private sector may play in setting government policy.The “First and Second Banks of the United States” are 18th- and early 19th-century predecessors to the Fed. The Supreme Court upheld Congress’s power to create national banks in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), but the nation abandoned national banking under President Andrew Jackson, setting off a period of economic turmoil, including an economic depression shortly after Jackson left office.But it’s unclear what any of this has to do with the president’s powers as outlined in the Constitution. If the theory of the unitary executive is correct, then no entity — regardless of whether it is “quasi-private” or is part of a “distinct historical tradition” involving banks — may execute federal laws, unless that entity is controlled by people who are themselves under presidential control. As a legal matter, the Court’s explanation of why the Fed is special is nothing more than word salad.The only legal authority that the Wilcox order cites to support its claim that the Fed is special is a footnote in its pro-unitary executive decision in Seila Law v. CFPB (2020). But nothing in that footnote provides any support for this claim.As Kagan points out in her dissent in Wilcox, the only relevant language in that footnote is a throwaway line responding to her partial dissent in Seila Law. Kagan had argued that “federal regulators” historically have enjoyed some insulation from the president. The footnote dismisses this argument, stating that even “assuming financial institutions like the Second Bank and the Federal Reserve can claim a special historical status,” the agency at issue in Seila Law does not qualify.The Court, in other words, waved away Kagan’s argument that institutions like the Fed should be shielded from presidential control in Seila Law. Now, however, the justices in the majority appear to be signaling they believe there is some merit to Kagan’s argument.If the Court does formally overrule Humphrey’s Executor in the coming months, the justices in the majority will likely elaborate on why a different rule should apply to the Fed. The best reading of the Wilcox order’s one paragraph about the Fed is that a majority of the justices have already decided that they want to protect it, and they would now like some smart lawyers to file briefs coming up with an argument for that position — one that uses terms like “quasi-private” and that refers to the early history of national banking.Of course, this is not how the law is supposed to work — judges are not supposed to start with the outcome that they want and then invite members of the bar to explain how to get there. But this also will hardly be the first time that the Roberts Court started with its intended outcome and reasoned backward to get there. It’s just being more transparent this time around.See More:

May 23, 20257 min readWhat FDA’s Planned Limits on COVID Vaccinations Mean for HealthDespite the fact that vaccines against COVID have already undergone strict safety reviews and that people continue to die from the disease, Trump’s FDA is moving to reduce access to annual COVID boosters for healthy AmericansBy Stephanie Armour & KFF Health News aire images/Getty ImagesLarry Saltzman has blood cancer. He’s also a retired doctor, so he knows getting covid-19 could be dangerous for him — his underlying illness puts him at high risk of serious complications and death. To avoid getting sick, he stays away from large gatherings, and he’s comforted knowing healthy people who get boosters protect him by reducing his exposure to the virus.Until now, that is.Vaccine opponents and skeptics in charge of federal health agencies — starting at the top with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — are restricting access to covid shots that were a signature accomplishment of President Donald Trump’s first term and cost taxpayers about $13 billion to develop, produce, and distribute. The agencies are narrowing vaccination recommendations, pushing drugmakers to perform costly clinical studies, and taking other steps that will result in fewer people getting protection from a virus that still kills hundreds each week in the U.S.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“There are hundreds of thousands of people who rely on these vaccines,” said Saltzman, 71, of Sacramento, California. “For people who are immunocompromised, if there aren’t enough people vaccinated, we lose the ring that’s protecting us. We’re totally vulnerable.”The Trump administration on May 20 rolled out tougher approval requirements for covid shots, described as a covid-19 “vaccination regulatory framework,” that could leave millions of Americans who want boosters unable to get them.The FDA will encourage new clinical trials on the widely used vaccines before approving them for children and healthy adults. The requirements could cost drugmakers tens of millions of dollars and are likely to leave boosters largely out of reach for hundreds of millions of Americans this fall.Under the new guidance, vaccines will be available for high-risk individuals and seniors. But the FDA will encourage drugmakers to commit to conducting post-marketing clinical trials in healthy adults when the agency approves covid vaccines for those populations.For the past five years, the shots have been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for everyone 6 months and older. They have been available each fall after being updated to reflect circulating strains of the virus, and the vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials.Vinay Prasad, who leads the FDA’s division overseeing vaccines, cited “distrust of the American public” as he announced the new guidelines at a May 20 briefing.“We have launched down this multiyear campaign of booster after booster after booster,” he said, adding that “we do not have gold-standard science to support this for average-risk, low-risk Americans.”The details were outlined in a May 20 article in The New England Journal of Medicine, written by FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. He and Prasad later followed up with the briefing, which appeared the same day on YouTube.The added limits on access aren’t the result of any recent data showing there are new health risks from the covid vaccines. Instead, they reflect a different regulatory stance from Kennedy, who has a history of anti-vaccine activism, and Makary, who has questioned the safety data on covid mRNA shots.Announcing a major regulatory change in a medical journal and YouTube video is a highly unusual approach that still leaves many questions about implementation unanswered. It remains unclear when the changes will go into effect or whether there will be any public comment period. The changes were announced by the administration before an FDA advisory committee meeting on May 22 to consider the 2026 covid vaccine formula.It’s a sharp reversal from the first Trump administration, which launched Operation Warp Speed — the effort that led to the development of the covid shots. Trump called the vaccines the “gold standard” and a “monumental national achievement.”Concerns About Higher TransmissionThe announcement is rattling some patient advocacy groups, doctors, nursing home leaders, and researchers who worry about the ramifications. They say higher-risk individuals will be more likely to get covid if people who aren’t at risk don’t get boosters that can help reduce transmission. And they say the FDA’s restrictions go too far, because they don’t provide exceptions for healthy individuals who work in high-risk settings, such as hospitals, who may want a covid booster for protection.The limits will also make it harder to get insurance coverage for the vaccines. And the FDA’s new stance could also increase vaccine hesitancy by undermining confidence in covid vaccines that have already been subject to rigorous safety review, said Kate Broderick, chief innovation officer at Maravai Life Sciences, which makes mRNA products for use in vaccine development.“For the public, it raises questions,” she said. “If someone has concerns, I’d like them to know that of all the vaccines, the ones with the most understood safety profile are probably covid-19 vaccines. There is an incredible body of data and over 10 billion doses given.”Some doctors and epidemiologists say it could leave healthy people especially vulnerable if more virulent strains of covid emerge and they can’t access covid shots.“It’s not based on science,” said Rob Davidson, an emergency room doctor in Michigan and executive director of the Committee to Protect Health Care, which works to expand health care access. “It’s what we were all worried would happen. It risks peoples’ lives.”Current federal regulators say there is no high-quality evidence showing that vaccinating healthy people, including health workers who are near or around immunocompromised people, provides an additional benefit.“It is possible, actually, that such approvals and strategies provide false reassurance and lead to increased harms,” Prasad said.The covid vaccines underwent clinical trials to assess safety, and they have been subject to ongoing surveillance and monitoring since they obtained emergency use authorization from the FDA amid the pandemic. Heart issues and allergic reactions can occur but are rare, according to the CDC.On a separate track, the FDA on May 21 posted letters sent in April to makers of the mRNA covid vaccines to add information about possible heart injury on warning labels, a move that one former agency official described as overkill. The action came after the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, a panel of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, held a hearing on alleged adverse events associated with covid vaccines.Limiting boosters to healthy people goes against guidance from some medical groups.“The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, and the best way to protect children,” Sean O’Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases at the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in an email. “Young children under 5 continue to be at the highest risk, with that risk decreasing as they get older.”Unsupported Claims About mRNA VaccinesThe covid booster clampdown is supported by many adherents of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, which casts suspicion on traditional medicine. Some opponents of covid mRNA vaccines say without evidence that the shots cause “turbo” cancer, are genetic bioweapons, and cause more heart damage than the covid virus.There is no evidence the shots lead to rapid and aggressive cancers. Cancer rates decreased an average of 1.7% per year for men and 1.3% for women from 2018 to 2022, according to the National Institutes of Health. The covid vaccines debuted in 2021.Federal regulators say narrowing who can get the boosters will align the U.S. with policies of European nations. But other countries have vastly different economic structures for health care and approaches to preventive care. Many European countries, for example, don’t recommend flu shots for the entire population. The U.S. does in part because of the financial drain attributed to lost productivity when people are sick.They also want more information. “I think there’s a void of data,” Makary told CBS News on April 29. “And I think rather than allow that void to be filled with opinions, I’d like to see some good data.”A massive five-year study on covid vaccine safety by the Global Vaccine Data Network, involving millions of people, was underway, with about a year left before completion. The Trump administration terminated funding for the project as part of cuts directed by the president’s Department of Government Efficiency, and work on the study has stopped for now.There are a multitude of studies, however, on the vaccines’ effectiveness in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death.Limiting boosters for healthy people can be risky, some doctors say, because people don’t always know when they fall into higher-risk categories, such as individuals who are prediabetic or have high blood pressure. The covid vaccine restrictions could deter them from getting boosted, and they might experience worse complications from the virus as a result. For example, about 40% of people with hepatitis C are unaware of their condition, according to a study published in 2023.The number of people getting covid vaccines has already dropped significantly since the height of the crisis. More than half of the more than 258 million adults in the U.S. had gotten a covid vaccination as of May 2021, according to the CDC. In each of the past two seasons, less than 25% of Americans received boosters, CDC data shows.While deaths from the virus have dropped, covid remains a risk, especially when cases peak in December and January. Weekly covid deaths topped 2,580 as recently as January 2024, according to CDC data.Some high-risk individuals are worried that the new restrictions are just the first salvo in halting all access to mRNA shots. “The HHS motivation really is hidden, and it’s to dismiss all mRNA technology,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota.Officials at the NIH have told scientists to remove references to mRNA in grant applications. HHS also announced plans in May to develop new vaccines without mRNA technology, which uses messenger RNA to instruct cells to make proteins that trigger an immune response.Rose Keller, 23, is concerned about future access to covid shots. She would be eligible under the current announcement — she has cystic fibrosis, a progressive genetic condition that makes the mucus in her lungs thick and sticky, so covid could land her in the hospital. But she is concerned the Trump administration may go further and restrict access to the vaccines as part of a broader opposition to mRNA technology.“I’ve had every booster that’s available to me,” said Keller, a government employee in Augusta, Maine. “It’s a real worry if I don’t have the protection of a covid booster.”KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) is looking at taking a “firmer approach” by rejecting more gateway 2 applications outright as it seeks to decrease delays in building control approval, the organisation’s chief has said. Since taking over the building control for higher-risk buildings, the regulator has been subject to a stream of criticism from the housing development sector over delays of up to 11 months to approval at the ‘gateway 2’ pre-construction stage. Source: Shutterstock In a statement published on the government’s website, Philip White, chief inspector of buildings at BSR, he stressed that “industry needs to step up and comply with the process” in providing good quality applications. White indicated that the regulator could begin taking a different approach in how it handles poor quality applications in order to ensure more complete submissions are not delayed.  > Also read: Homes England boss calls on government to fix ‘unacceptably slow’ gateway 2 approvals He said that the regulator’s attempts to engage with applicants rather than simply rejecting submissions had meant that applications “take longer and appear to be delayed”. “Of course, the time we spend on those incomplete applications is time we can’t spend on others, some of which would be perfectly good to go,” he said. He said a shift in method could mean the regulator takes a “firmer approach to rejecting those applications that aren’t making the bar straight away”. He explained that a backlog of cases which built up last summer was “almost cleared”, but the regulator was still struggling with poor quality applications. White explained that application volumes had been “steady” when it first took on building control for higher-risk buildings, but that things changed in Spring 2024 when transitional arrangements from the pre-Building Safety Act regime came to an end and private building control suffered a collapse. He said the “temporary backlog of cases” that subsequently built up before July 2024 had nearly been dealt with by the regulator. While White said there were “a small set of applications from the pre-July backlog that have been in the system for a long time”, approval times had otherwise come down. He said that for other applications, the average Gateway 2 handling time was now around 16 to 18 weeks. However, he stressed that “industry needs to step up and comply with the process” in providing good quality applications. The most recent data showed 44% of applications were still being rejected at the validation stage, which is a simple administration check that all the required documents have been supplied. He emphasised that the process was not “red tape for the sake of it”, but that it was “preventing risks and problems from being designed into the built environment”. “It’s about making sure residents have safe and quality homes and avoiding costly works at a later date. Or homeowners not being able to secure lending and insurance,” he said. He also outlined some of the most common and serious failures in applications. These included missing details on how key structural components connect, inadequate information on fire resistance of cladding, walls or barriers, corridors that don’t meet evacuation width requirements and poorly designed or unproven smoke extraction systems.  “These aren’t minor omissions – they present significant safety risks and lead to delays in the approval process,” he said.

Microsoft Build 2025 is almost at an end. Microsoft’s annual developer conference might be aimed at software engineers and cloud devs, but realistically, there’s plenty in there to dig into even if you don’t work as a programmer. Unsurprisingly, the theme throughout the conference this year (and for some years previous now) has been AI. In his opening keynote, Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella highlighted the importance of AI and the company’s plan of “building the open, agentic web at scale.” The idea is to hand over the reins to Copilot and let the AI agents take over repetitive, costly tasks. Here are some of the most important announcements from this year’s Microsoft Build. Recommended Videos Windows File Explorer gets an AI-powered boost By the sound of it, this is a tool we might all benefit from and not something strictly aimed at devs. Windows File Explorer will now receive something Microsoft refers to as “AI actions.” Available in Windows 11, AI actions (or shortcuts, if you will) will let you right-click on a file of your choosing and use AI to get things done easier. Some of the highlights here include the ability to get Copilot to summarize an Office document for you, right from the File Explorer menu. You can also erase unwanted objects from photos, again, thanks to AI, or blur or remove the background with Paint (via Copilot, that is). As reported by The Verge, there might be more coming than what Microsoft specifically spoke about; four new image-related AI actions are currently in the Dev Channel builds of Windows 11. This includes the ability to find similar images on the web with the help of Bing. GitHub gets an AI coding agent The big announcement here is that GitHub Copilot will now be available to all Copilot Enterprise and Copilot Pro+ users, but also that Copilot’s coding agent will save devs a lot of time — which could reduce the time it takes for new features to come out and be available to us all. Although many developers aren’t huge fans of the use of AI in their daily work, many others find the benefits in automating simpler tasks, which frees them up to work on more complex code. For the latter, Microsoft has just introduced a new coding agent, now available on GitHub. The agent was made to help programmers with one of the most annoying parts of their jobs — bug fixes. It’ll also take care of adding features and refactoring code. “GitHub continues to be the home for developers. […] We’re doubling down for developers building any applications. Trust, security, compliance, auditability, data residency are even more critical today. Open-source is at the core of GitHub, and we’re taking this next big step,” said Nadella. You can now translate PDFs directly in Edge If you deal with a lot of PDFs, you’ll love this one: You’ll soon be able to translate them directly in the Microsoft Edge browser. Simply clicking “translate” in the address bar will let you leverage AI to translate the entire document into one of over 70 languages supplied by Microsoft. This appears to only be a feature in Edge for Business, though. Right now, it’s rolling out to Windows Canary users and is said to be available next month. Microsoft 365 gets a major AI boost with new agents As reported by PCMag, the new update to Copilot is said to be huge. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella himself referred to it as the biggest update since the launch of Teams — and whether you love it or not, it’s hard to deny that Teams turned out to be a pretty big thing worldwide. Copilot’s current arsenal of AI-powered goodies includes Chat, which is essentially Microsoft’s version of ChatGPT. Search lets Copilot dig through your files and help you find what you’re asking for. The results of both those tools can be summarized in Notebook. Of course, you can also generate images, PowerPoints, and videos with Create. Microsoft is now taking AI a few steps further by adding Agents. Agentic AI is a big topic these days, so it’s not a surprise to see Microsoft jumping on the bandwagon. Microsoft’s AI agents now include Researcher and Analyst. Researcher relies on deep reasoning to help you create comprehensive reports. Copilot’s Researcher will be able to search the web and your own files, giving it a solid overview of various sources. Analyst fills in the gaps by being able to analyze data, including massive spreadsheets, to help you analyze (well, duh) various data points and draw accurate comparisons. Although exciting, these new AI agents will be available to large enterprises. The company needs to be included in Microsoft’s Frontier program to benefit. Perhaps with time, Microsoft will bring AI agents to Copilot at large. AI, AI everywhere At this point, no one is surprised when an event such as Microsoft Build focuses solely on the use of AI. Many hoped to hear more about things like the Xbox handheld, but alas, that did not happen. A lot of the new features and improvements announced during Build weren’t consumer-centric, but I recommend watching the full video if you’re curious about what else is new. Remember to also check out our Best of Computex 2025 roundup to give you a better overview of the exciting tech that made a debut in the last week.

Posted on : May 23, 2025 By Tech World Times Fintech  Rate this post In the fast-paced world of stock trading and investment, information is everything. For both novice and experienced investors, the ability to analyze data, spot trends, and make informed decisions can be the difference between gains and losses. One platform that has been gaining traction among investors is 5StarsStocks.com, a comprehensive stock analysis and research tool designed to empower users with the insights needed to outperform the market. This article delves into the top 10 investment insights provided by 5StarsStocks com and how they can transform your investment strategy. 1. Comprehensive Stock Ratings One of the core features of 5StarsStocks dot com is its proprietary stock rating system. Each stock is given a rating from one to five stars based on various factors such as financial health, growth potential, valuation, and analyst sentiment. This simplified yet powerful metric helps investors quickly assess the attractiveness of a stock, saving time and effort during the decision-making process. The rating system aggregates multiple data points into a digestible format, making it easier for investors to compare different stocks at a glance. For those new to investing, this can serve as a useful guide, while seasoned investors can use it as a tool to validate their own research. 2. Real-Time Market Data and Alerts Timing is crucial in investing, and 5StarsStocks.com excels by offering real-time market data and alerts. Whether it’s a price movement, breaking news, or a shift in analyst ratings, the platform ensures that users stay updated instantly. This feature is particularly beneficial for active traders who need to respond quickly to market changes. Users can customize alerts based on their watchlist, ensuring they only receive relevant updates. This minimizes distractions while maximizing timely opportunities. 3. In-Depth Fundamental Analysis Fundamental analysis is at the heart of long-term investing, and 5StarsStocks.com provides a robust suite of tools for evaluating a company’s intrinsic value. Key metrics such as price-to-earnings ratio (P/E), debt-to-equity, return on equity (ROE), and earnings growth are clearly presented and accompanied by visual aids for better comprehension. The platform also includes historical financial statements and earnings reports, allowing users to track a company’s performance over time. This kind of depth helps investors determine whether a stock is overvalued or undervalued based on its fundamentals. 4. Technical Analysis Tools For those who rely on charts and indicators, 5StarsStocks.com offers a robust technical analysis toolkit. This includes interactive charts with customizable timeframes, moving averages, MACD, RSI, Bollinger Bands, and other technical indicators. These tools help traders identify patterns and signals that can inform entry and exit points. Whether you’re a swing trader, day trader, or long-term investor, these tools enhance your ability to time the market effectively. 5. Sector and Industry Breakdown Diversification is a fundamental principle in portfolio management. 5StarsStocks.com helps investors achieve this by providing detailed sector and industry breakdowns. Users can analyze which sectors are currently performing well and identify the best-performing stocks within each category. This insight helps investors build balanced portfolios and identify sector rotation trends—where capital flows from one sector to another, offering new opportunities. 6. Customizable Watchlists and Portfolios The ability to track selected stocks over time is essential for monitoring investment performance. 5StarsStocks.com allows users to create and manage multiple watchlists and virtual portfolios. This feature enables investors to simulate investment strategies or monitor actual holdings. You can tag stocks, write notes, and set performance benchmarks. These tools are particularly helpful for users managing diverse portfolios or exploring new investment ideas. 7. Earnings Calendar and Forecasts Earnings season is often a volatile period in the stock market. 5StarsStocks.com provides an up-to-date earnings calendar and detailed forecasts, including EPS estimates and expected revenue. These insights help investors prepare for potential price movements and adjust their strategies accordingly. The platform also provides post-earnings analysis, showing how stocks reacted to earnings reports in the past. This data can be used to predict future behavior and avoid costly surprises. 8. Expert Analyst Opinions and Ratings 5StarsStocks.com aggregates analyst ratings from major investment banks and brokerage firms. It compiles buy, hold, and sell recommendations, along with price targets and analyst comments. This collective insight allows users to gauge market sentiment and assess whether a stock is aligned with consensus expectations. Moreover, users can filter analysts based on their historical accuracy, ensuring that the most credible opinions are given priority. 9. Educational Resources and Investment Guides Investing is a continuous learning process. To support investors at all levels, 5StarsStocks.com offers a range of educational materials, including tutorials, webinars, investment guides, and market commentary. These resources cover topics such as risk management, portfolio diversification, and technical analysis. This commitment to investor education makes the platform not only a tool but also a learning environment, which is particularly valuable for beginners. 10. Data-Driven Stock Screeners Finding the right stocks can be like finding a needle in a haystack. 5StarsStocks.com simplifies this with powerful stock screeners that allow users to filter stocks based on specific criteria. Whether you’re looking for high-growth tech stocks, undervalued blue chips, or dividend aristocrats, the screener can help narrow down your choices. Users can create custom screening templates or use pre-built ones curated by experts. This enables precise, data-driven investing rather than relying on guesswork or hype. Final Thoughts In a time when information overload is a real challenge, 5StarsStocks.com stands out by delivering relevant, organized, and actionable investment insights. From stock ratings and technical indicators to real-time alerts and educational resources, the platform offers a comprehensive solution for modern investors. Whether you’re building your first portfolio or fine-tuning an existing strategy, these ten insights from 5StarsStocks.com can help you make smarter, more confident investment decisions. Its blend of simplicity, depth, and customization makes it a valuable asset for anyone serious about growing their wealth through the stock market. FAQs Q1: Is 5StarsStocks.com suitable for beginners? Yes, it offers user-friendly tools, educational resources, and simplified ratings that are ideal for those new to investing.Q2: Can I use 5StarsStocks.com for day trading? Absolutely. The platform provides real-time data, alerts, and technical analysis tools suitable for active traders.Q3: Is the stock rating system on 5StarsStocks.com reliable? The rating system is based on a multi-factor model and is widely appreciated for its consistency and accuracy.Q4: Does 5StarsStocks.com offer a free trial? Many users report that the platform offers a trial period or demo version. It’s best to visit the official site for the latest offers.Q5: Can I track my investments on 5StarsStocks.com? Yes, you can create watchlists and virtual portfolios to monitor and simulate your investment performance.Tech World TimesTech World Times (TWT), a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com

May 21, 202510 min readWhy Some Experts Call Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ Missile Shield a Dangerous FantasyThe White House’s $175-billion plan to protect the U.S. from nuclear annihilation will probably cost much more—and deliver far less—than has been claimed, says nuclear arms expert Jeffrey LewisBy Lee Billings U.S. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House on May 20, 2025, during a briefing announcing his administration’s plan for the “Golden Dome” missile defense shield. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty ImagesDuring a briefing from the Oval Office this week, President Donald Trump revealed his administration’s plan for “Golden Dome”—an ambitious high-tech system meant to shield the U.S. from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missile attacks launched by foreign adversaries. Flanked by senior officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the project’s newly selected leader, Gen. Michael Guetlein of the U.S. Space Force, Trump announced that Golden Dome will be completed within three years at a cost of $175 billion.The program, which was among Trump’s campaign promises, derives its name from the Iron Dome missile defense system of Israel—a nation that’s geographically 400 times smaller than the U.S. Protecting the vastness of the U.S. demands very different capabilities than those of Iron Dome, which has successfully shot down rockets and missiles using ground-based interceptors. Most notably, Trump’s Golden Dome would need to expand into space—making it a successor to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) pursued by the Reagan administration in the 1980s. Better known by the mocking nickname “Star Wars,” SDI sought to neutralize the threat from the Soviet Union’s nuclear-warhead-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles by using space-based interceptors that could shoot them down midflight. But fearsome technical challenges kept SDI from getting anywhere close to that goal, despite tens of billions of dollars of federal expenditures.“We will truly be completing the job that President Reagan started 40 years ago, forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,” Trump said during the briefing. Although the announcement was short on technical details, Trump also said Golden Dome “will deploy next-generation technologies across the land, sea and space, including space-based sensors and interceptors.” The program, which Guetlein has compared to the scale of the Manhattan Project in past remarks, has been allotted $25 billion in a Republican spending bill that has yet to pass in Congress. But Golden Dome may ultimately cost much more than Trump’s staggering $175-billion sum. An independent assessment by the Congressional Budget Office estimates its price tag could be as high as $542 billion, and the program has drawn domestic and international outcries that it risks sparking a new, globe-destabilizing arms race and weaponizing Earth’s fragile orbital environment.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.To get a better sense of what’s at stake—and whether Golden Dome has a better chance of success than its failed forebears—Scientific American spoke with Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on the geopolitics of nuclear weaponry at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]It’s been a while, but when last I checked, most experts considered this sort of plan a nonstarter because the U.S. is simply too big of a target. Has something changed?Well, yes and no. The killer argument against space-based interceptors in the 1980s was that it would take thousands of them, and there was just no way to put up that many satellites. Today that’s no longer true. SpaceX alone has put up more than 7,000 Starlink satellites. Launch costs are much cheaper now, and there are more launch vehicles available. So, for the first time, you can say, “Oh, well, I could have a 7,000-satellite constellation. Do I want to do that?” Whereas, when the Reagan administration was talking about this, it was just la-la land.But let’s be clear: this does not solve all the other problems with the general idea—or the Golden Dome version in particular.What are some of those other problems?Just talking about space-based interceptors, there are a couple [of issues that] my colleagues and I have pointed out. We ran some numbers using the old SDI-era calculation from [SDI physicists] Ed Teller and Greg Canavan—so we couldn’t be accused of using some hippie version of the calculation, right? And what this and other independent assessments show is that the number of interceptors you need is super-duper sensitive to lots of things. For instance, it’s not like this is a “one satellite to one missile” situation—because the physics demands that these satellites ... have to be in low-Earth orbit, and that means they’re going to be constantly moving over different parts of the planet.So if you want to defend against just one missile, you still need a whole constellation. And if you want to defend against two missiles, then you basically need twice as many interceptors, and so on.You probably have to shoot down missiles during the boost phase, when the warheads are still attached. For SDI, the U.S. was dealing with Soviet liquid-fueled missiles that would boost, or burn, for about four minutes. Well, modern ones burn for less than three—that’s a whole minute that you no longer have. This is actually much worse than it sounds because you’re probably unable to shoot for the first minute or so. Even with modern detectors [that are] much better than [those] we had in the 1980s, you may not see the missile until it rises above the clouds. And once it does, your sensors, your computers, still have to say, “Aha! That is a missile!” And then you have to ensure that you’re not shooting down some ordinary space launch—so the system says, “I see a missile. May I shoot at it, please?” And someone or something has to give the go-ahead. So let’s just say you’ll have a good minute to shoot it down; this means your space-based interceptor has to be right there, ready to go, right? But by the time you’re getting permission to shoot, the satellite that was overhead to do that is now too far away, and so the next satellite has to be coming there. This scales up really, really fast.Presumably artificial intelligence and other technologies could be leveraged to make that sort of command and control more agile and responsive. But clearly there are still limits here—AI can’t be some sort of panacea.Sure, that’s right. But technological progress overall hasn’t made the threat environment better. Instead it’s gotten much worse.Let’s get back to the sheer physics-induced numbers for a moment, which AI can’t really do much about. That daunting scaling I mentioned also depends on the quality of your interceptors, your kill vehicles—which, by the way, are still going to be grotesquely expensive even if launch costs are low. If your interceptors can rapidly accelerate to eight or 10 kilometers per second (km/s), your constellation can be smaller. If they only reach 4 km/s, your constellation has to be huge.The point is: any claim that you can do this with relatively low numbers—let’s say 2,000 interceptors—assumes a series of improbable miracles occurring in quick succession to deliver the very best outcome that could possibly happen. So it’s not going to happen that way, even if, in principle, it could.So you’re telling me there’s a chance! No, seriously, I see what you mean. The arguments in favor of this working seem rather contrived. No system is perfect, and just one missile getting through can still have catastrophic results. And we haven’t even talked about adversarial countermeasures yet.There’s a joke that’s sometimes made about this: “We play chess, and they don’t move their pieces.” That seems to be the operative assumption here: that other nations will sit idly by as we build a complex, vulnerable system to nullify any strategic nuclear capability they have. And of course, it’s not valid at all. Why do you think the Chinese are building massive fields of missile silos? It’s to counteract or overwhelm this sort of thing. Why do you think the Russians are making moves to put a nuclear weapon in orbit? It’s to mass kill any satellite constellation that would shoot down their missiles.Golden Dome proponents may say, “Oh, we’ll shoot that down, too, before it goes off.” Well, good luck. You put a high-yield nuclear weapon on a booster, and the split second it gets above the clouds, sure, you might see it—but now it sees you, too, before you can shoot. All it has to do at that point is detonate to blow a giant hole in your defenses, and that’s game over. And by the way, this rosy scenario assumes your adversaries don’t interfere with all your satellites passing over their territory in peacetime. We know that won’t be the case—they’ll light them up with sensor-dazzling lasers, at minimum!You’ve compared any feasible space-based system to Starlink and noted that, similar to Starlink, these interceptors will need to be in low-Earth orbit. That means their orbits will rapidly decay from atmospheric drag, so just like Starlink’s satellites, they’d need to be constantly replaced, too, right?Ha, yes, that’s right. With Starlink, you’re looking at a three-to-five-year life cycle, which means annually replacing one third to one fifth of a constellation.So let’s say Golden Dome is 10,000 satellites; this would mean the best-case scenario is that you’re replacing 2,000 per year. Now, let’s just go along with what the Trump administration is saying, that they can get these things really cheap. I’m going to guess a “really cheap” mass-produced kill vehicle would still run you $20 million a pop, easily. Just multiply $20 million by 2,000, and your answer is $40 billion. So under these assumptions, we’d be spending $40 billion per year just to maintain the constellation. That’s not even factoring in operations.And that’s not to mention associated indirect costs from potentially nasty effects on the upper atmosphere and the orbital environment from all the launches and reentries.That, yes—among many other costly things.I have to ask: If fundamental physics makes this extremely expensive idea blatantly incapable of delivering on its promises, what’s really going on when the U.S. president and the secretary of defense announce their intention to pump $175 billion into it for a three-year crash program? Some critics claim this kind of thing is really about transferring taxpayer dollars to a few big aerospace companies and other defense contractors.Well, I wouldn’t say it’s quite that simple.Ballistic missile defense is incredibly appealing to some people for reasons besides money. In technical terms, it’s an elegant solution to the problem of nuclear annihilation—even though it’s not really feasible. For some people, it’s just cool, right? And at a deeper level, many people just don’t like the concept of deterrence—mutual assured destruction and all that—because, remember, the status quo is this: If Russia launches 1,000 nuclear weapons at us—or 100 or 10 or even just one—then we are going to murder every single person in Russia with an immediate nuclear counterattack. That’s how deterrence works. We’re not going to wait for those missiles to land so we can count up our dead to calibrate a more nuanced response. That’s official U.S. policy, and I don’t think anyone wants it to be this way forever. But it’s arguably what’s prevented any nuclear exchange from occurring to date.But not everyone believes in the power of deterrence, and so they’re looking for some kind of technological escape. I don’t think this fantasy is that different from Elon Musk thinking he’s going to go live on Mars when climate change ruins Earth: In both cases, instead of doing the really hard things that seem necessary to actually make this planet better, we’re talking about people who think they can just buy their way out of the problem. A lot of people—a lot of men, especially—really hate vulnerability, and this idea that you can just tech your way out of it is very appealing to them. You know, “Oh, what vulnerability? Yeah, there’s an app for that.”You’re saying this isn’t about money?Well, I imagine this is going to be good for at least a couple of SpaceX Falcon Heavy or Starship launches per year for Elon Musk. And you don’t have to do too many of those launches for the value proposition to work out: You build and run Starlink, you put up another constellation of space-based missile defense interceptors, and suddenly you’ve got a viable business model for these fancy huge rockets that can also take you to Mars, right?Given your knowledge of science history—of how dispassionate physics keeps showing space-based ballistic missile defense is essentially unworkable, yet the idea just keeps coming back—how does this latest resurgence make you feel?When I was younger, I would have been frustrated, but now I just accept human beings don’t learn. We make the same mistakes over and over again. You have to laugh at human folly because I do think most of these people are sincere, you know. They’re trying to get rich, sure, but they’re also trying to protect the country, and they’re doing it through ways they think about the world—which admittedly are stupid. But, hey, they’re trying. It’s very disappointing, but if you just laugh at them, they’re quite amusing.I think most people would have trouble laughing about something as devastating as nuclear war—or about an ultraexpensive plan to protect against it that’s doomed to failure and could spark a new arms race.I guess if you’re looking for a hopeful thought, it’s that we’ve tried this before, and it didn’t really work, and that’s likely to happen again.So how do you think it will actually play out this time around?I think this will be a gigantic waste of money that collapses under its own weight.They’ll put up a couple of interceptors, and they’ll test those against a boosting ballistic missile, and they’ll eventually get a hit. And they’ll use that to justify putting up more, and they’ll probably even manage to make a thin constellation—with the downside, of course, being that the Russians and the Chinese and the North Koreans and everybody else will make corresponding investments in ways to kill this system.And then it will start to really feel expensive, in part because it will be complicating and compromising things like Starlink and other commercial satellite constellations—which, I’d like to point out, are almost certainly uninsured in orbit because you can’t insure against acts of war. So think about that: if the Russians or anyone else detonate a nuclear weapon in orbit because of something like Golden Dome, Elon Musk’s entire constellation is dead, and he’s probably just out the cash.The fact is: these days we rely on space-based assets much more than most people realize, yet Earth orbit is such a fragile environment that we could muck it up in many different ways that carry really nasty long-term consequences. I worry about that a lot. Space used to be a benign environment, even throughout the entire cold war, but having an arms race there will make it malign. So Golden Dome is probably going to make everyone’s life a little bit more dangerous—at least until we, hopefully, come to our senses and decide to try something different.

Menu Home News Hardware Gaming Mobile Finance Deals Reviews How To Wccftech Mobile Xiaomi’s XRING 01 Has The Smallest Die Size For Any Current-Generation 3nm Chipset, Barely Beating Apple’s A18 Pro With Its 109mm² Dimensions; Dimensity 9400 The Largest SoC Omar Sohail • May 22, 2025 at 04:57pm EDT The choice to stick with TSMC’s second-generation 3nm process, also known as N3E, for the XRING 01 has allowed Xiaomi to cram in 19 billion transistors while also maintaining a smaller die size, making it an impressive feat when it comes to chip engineering. However, if we compare the latest SoC with the competition that utilize the same lithography, Xiaomi’s latest solution is smaller than the A18 Pro, Dimensity 9400, and the Snapdragon 8 Elite. We now take a closer look at the four chipsets. Apple’s A18 Pro is barely bigger than the XRING 01, measuring 110mm², but sticking with a smaller die is a decent cost-effective strategy A die size comparison was posted by notable content creator Geekerwan, showing that the only SoC larger than the XRING 01 is the Apple A18 Pro, measuring 110mm². The Snapdragon 8 Elite comes in at number three, measuring 124mm², with the Dimensity 9400 being the largest of the four at 126mm². For those wondering why Xiaomi did not proceed to make the XRING 01 slightly larger in dimensions, the reason is primarily related to costs. Increasing the die size will increase the production bill, and seeing as how the XRING 01 will already be manufactured in fewer quantities, Xiaomi likely followed the approach of purposely reducing the die size, but not too much so as to compromise on its performance. A bigger die size will be costly to produce, but it offers a multitude of benefits, such as allowing chipset manufacturers to allocate larger cache sizes and increase performance accordingly. This might be one reason why the XRING 01 relies on a 10-core CPU and a 16-core GPU, as reducing its die size likely meant that Xiaomi would have to introduce compensation elsewhere to offset the potentially lowered performance. Whether the increase in the number of cores will have an adverse effect on the power draw is something that we will touch on in a later topic. For now, take a look at the die size comparison above and let us know in the comments on what you think. News Source: Geekerwan Deal of the Day Subscribe to get an everyday digest of the latest technology news in your inbox Follow us on Topics Sections Company Some posts on wccftech.com may contain affiliate links. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com © 2025 WCCF TECH INC. 700 - 401 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada

For many organizations, identity security appears to be under control. On paper, everything checks out. But new research from Cerby, based on insights from over 500 IT and security leaders, reveals a different reality: too much still depends on people—not systems—to function. In fact, fewer than 4% of security teams have fully automated their core identity workflows. Core workflows, like enrolling in Multi Factor Authentication (MFA), keeping credentials secure and up to date, and revoking access the moment someone leaves—are often manual, inconsistent, and vulnerable to error. And when security execution relies on memory or follow-up, gaps appear fast. Human error remains one of the biggest threats to enterprise security. Verizon's 2025 Data Breach report found that the human element was involved in 60% of breaches. The same manual missteps that led to breaches a decade ago still expose identity systems today. Cerby's 2025 Identity Automation Gap research report shows just how widespread the issue is—and how far automation still has to go. The last mile still runs on human error The data reveals a persistent reliance on human action for tasks that should be automated across the identity security lifecycle. 41% of end users still share or update passwords manually, using insecure methods like spreadsheets, emails, or chat tools. They are rarely updated or monitored, increasing the likelihood of credential misuse or compromise. Nearly 89% of organizations rely on users to manually enable MFA in applications, despite MFA being one of the most effective security controls. Without enforcement, protection becomes optional, and attackers know how to exploit that inconsistency. 59% of IT teams handle user provisioning and deprovisioning manually, relying on ticketing systems or informal follow-ups to grant and remove access. These workflows are slow, inconsistent, and easy to overlook—leaving organizations exposed to unauthorized access and compliance failures. Organizations can't afford to wait The consequences are no longer hypothetical. According to the Ponemon Institute, 52% of enterprises have experienced a security breach caused by manual identity work in disconnected applications. Most of them had four or more. The downstream impact was tangible: 43% reported customer loss, and 36% lost partners. These failures are predictable and preventable, but only if organizations stop relying on humans to carry out what should be automated. Identity is no longer a background system. It's one of the primary control planes in enterprise security. As attack surfaces expand and threat actors become more sophisticated, the automation gap becomes harder—and riskier—to ignore. Why the automation gap persists Why do these manual gaps still exist if automation is so critical to identity security? They've emerged as a byproduct of rapid growth, application sprawl, and fragmented infrastructure. Disconnected applications are everywhere, and they don't support the common identity standards required for integration into existing providers. A majority of enterprise applications fall into this category, and that number continues to grow. They span every business function and are packed with sensitive data. IT & security teams assume tools = coverage. Environments today stretch across SaaS, mobile, cloud, and on-prem systems. Shadow IT continues to grow faster than anyone can track, as each business unit brings its own stack. Achieving full control across all applications remains highly elusive. Stopgap solutions don't scale. Password managers, manual scripts, and other vaulting tools are difficult to maintain and often create fragmented infrastructure. When integrations don't exist, they're frequently patched together—but these fixes are costly to build and fragile to sustain. What starts as a workaround quickly becomes an ongoing operational burden. Closing the automation gap The good news: closing the automation gap doesn't require rebuilding or replacing your identity stack. It means completing it. Forward-thinking organizations are bringing automation to every corner of their application ecosystem without waiting for native integrations. Some teams are also exploring AI agents to help close this gap. But trust is still evolving: 78% of security leaders say they don't trust AI to fully automate core identity tasks—yet 45% support a collaborative human-in-the-loop model. Cerby provides organizations with the flexibility to support both approaches—meeting teams where they are and delivering automation where it's needed most. Cerby's research report, The 2025 Identity Automation Gap, includes findings from 500+ IT and security leaders and practical steps for closing one of the most overlooked risks in enterprise security. Download the full report or schedule a 15-minute demo to see how Cerby brings automation across your entire identity surface. Found this article interesting? This article is a contributed piece from one of our valued partners. Follow us on Twitter  and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post.

On May 20, 2025, the Food and Drug Administration announced a new stance on who should receive the COVID-19 vaccine. The agency said it would approve new versions of the vaccine only for adults 65 years of age and older as well as for people with one or more risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes. These risk factors include medical conditions such as asthma, cancer, chronic kidney disease, heart disease and diabetes. However, healthy younger adults and children who fall outside of these groups may not be eligible to receive the COVID-19 shot this fall. Vaccine manufacturers will have to conduct clinical trials to demonstrate that the vaccine benefits low-risk groups. FDA Commissioner Martin Makary and the agency’s head of vaccines, Vinay Prasad, described the new framework in an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine and in a public webcast. The Conversation U.S. asked Libby Richards, a nursing professor involved in public health promotion, to explain why the changes were made and what they mean for the general public. Why did the FDA diverge from past practice? Until the May 20 announcement, getting a yearly COVID-19 vaccine was recommended for everyone ages 6 months and older, regardless of their health risk. According to Makary and Prasad, the Food and Drug Administration is moving away from these universal recommendations and instead taking a risk-based approach based on its interpretation of public health trends – specifically, the declining COVID-19 booster uptake, a lack of strong evidence that repeated boosters improve health outcomes for healthy people and the fact that natural immunity from past COVID-19 infections is widespread. The FDA states it wants to ensure the vaccine is backed by solid clinical trial data, especially for low-risk groups. Was this a controversial decision or a clear consensus? The FDA’s decision to adopt a risk-based framework for the COVID-19 vaccine aligns with the expected recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an advisory group of vaccine experts offering expert guidance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine policy, which is scheduled to meet in June 2025. But while this advisory committee was also expected to recommend allowing low-risk people to get annual COVID-19 vaccines if they want to, the FDA’s policy will likely make that difficult. Although the FDA states that its new policy aims to promote greater transparency and evidenced-based decision-making, the change is controversial – in part because it circumvents the usual process for evaluating vaccine recommendations. The FDA is enacting this policy change by limiting its approval of the vaccine to high-risk groups, and it is doing so without any new data supporting its decision. Usually, however, the FDA broadly approves a vaccine based on whether it is safe and effective, and decisions on who should be eligible to receive it are left to the CDC, which receives research-based guidance from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Additionally, FDA officials point to Canada, Australia and some European countries that limit vaccine recommendations to older adults and other high-risk people as a model for its revised framework. But vaccine strategies vary widely, and this more conservative approach has not necessarily proven superior. Also, those countries have universal health care systems and have a track record of more equitable access to COVID-19 care and better COVID-19 outcomes. Another question is how health officials’ positions on COVID-19 vaccines affect public perception. Makary and Prasad noted that COVID-19 vaccination campaigns may have actually eroded public trust in vaccination. But some vaccine experts have expressed concerns that limiting COVID-19 vaccine access might further fuel vaccine hesitancy because any barrier to vaccine access can reduce uptake and hinder efforts to achieve widespread immunity. What conditions count as risk factors? The New England Journal of Medicine article includes a lengthy list of conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 and notes that about 100 million to 200 million people will fall into this category and will thus be eligible to get the vaccine. Pregnancy is included. Some items on the list, however, are unclear. For example, the list includes asthma, but the data that asthma is a risk factor for severe COVID-19 is scant. Also on the list is physical inactivity, which likely applies to a vast swath of Americans and is difficult to define. Studies have found links between regular physical activity and reduced risk of severe COVID-19 infection, but it’s unclear how health care providers will define and measure physical inactivity when assessing a patient’s eligibility for COVID-19 vaccines. Most importantly, the list leaves out an important group – caregivers and household members of people at high risk of severe illness from COVID-19 infection. This omission leaves high-risk people more vulnerable to exposure to COVID-19 from healthy people they regularly interact with. Multiple countries the new framework refers to do include this group. Why is the FDA requiring new clinical trials? According to the FDA, the benefits of multiple doses of COVID-19 vaccines for healthy adults are currently unproven. It’s true that studies beyond the fourth vaccine dose are scarce. However, multiple studies have demonstrated that the vaccine is effective at preventing the risk of severe COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and death in low-risk adults and children. Receiving multiple doses of COVID-19 vaccines has also been shown to reduce the risk of long COVID. The FDA is requiring vaccine manufactures to conduct additional large randomized clinical trials to further evaluate the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 boosters for healthy adults and children. These trials will primarily test whether the vaccines prevent symptomatic infections, and secondarily whether they prevent hospitalization and death. Such trials are more complex, costly and time-consuming than the more common approach of testing for immunological response. This requirement will likely delay both the timeliness and the availability of COVID-19 vaccine boosters and slow public health decision-making. Will low-risk people be able to get a COVID-19 shot? Not automatically. Under the new FDA framework, healthy adults who wish to receive the fall COVID-19 vaccine will face obstacles. Health care providers can administer vaccines “off-label”, but insurance coverage is widely based on FDA recommendations. The new, narrower FDA approval will likely reduce both access to COVID-19 vaccines for the general public and insurance coverage for COVID-19 vaccines. The FDA’s focus on individual risks and benefits may overlook broader public health benefits. Communities with higher vaccination rates have fewer opportunities to spread the virus. What about vaccines for children? High-risk children age 6 months and older who have conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 are still eligible for the vaccine under the new framework. As of now, healthy children age 6 months and older without underlying medical conditions will not have routine access to COVID-19 vaccines until further clinical trial data is available. Existing vaccines already on the market will remain available, but it is unclear how long they will stay authorized and how the change will affect childhood vaccination overall. Libby Richards is a professor of nursing at Purdue University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.