Geoff Keighley has promised a record-breaking number of publishers at Summer Game Fest this year, so we’ve rounded up what we think we’ll be playing in the coming monthsTech23:00, 05 Jun 2025We're so ready to step into Samus' boots againE3 might be long gone, but Summer Game Fest has replaced it. While Nintendo Switch 2 has just launched, and Sony has held its own State of Play event, tonight’s show is about as unpredictable as you can get. So, naturally, we’re trying to predict what we’ll be seeing.With everyone from PlayStation to SEGA, Xbox and even Nintendo making an appearance, we’re expecting big things from the showcase, which will be packed with titles for 2025 and beyond.‌While some are known quantities, like Borderlands 4, Little Nightmares 3, and the upcoming Bond game from Hitman developer IO Interactive, we’re still expecting plenty of surprises. Here’s everything we’re predicting for Summer Game Fest 2025.‌There are plenty of big namesWith Geoff Keighley’s events in both the Summer and December being key fixtures on the gaming events calendar, he’s able to pull off plenty of surprises. The Game Awards 2023 revealed Monster Hunter Wilds, while the following year showcased the first gameplay of Slay The Spire 2 and Split Fiction, as well as Elden Ring Nightreign and Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet.As for Summer Game Fest itself, the show last year featured Dragon Ball: Sparking Zero, Kingdom Come: Deliverance II and Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2 - all games which were released since then.Article continues belowWe’ve heard rumblings that Capcom’s Pragmata, revealed alongside the PS5 in June 2020, could be shown at the event following an indefinite delay in 2023. It’s just as well, since we have no idea what the game really is yet.We’re also very curious about what Nintendo could show. The Switch 2 is out, but only as of yesterday, so we’d expect a sizzle reel to show what the console is capable of, as well as another look at Donkey Kong Bananza.‌PlayStation is probably easier to predict since the company is launching Hideo Kojima’s Death Stranding 2: On The Beach in just a few short weeks, and Geoff Keighley will likely find some way of getting the man himself on stage.SEGA has plenty to show, too. Sonic Racing CrossWorlds is still due this year, while the company has an ambitious plan to resurrect classic titles starting with Shinobi: Art of Vengeance and leading into Streets of Rage and Crazy Taxi.We tipped a Final Fantasy 7 Remake Part 3 announcement for Sony’s State of Play, but we’re still waiting for more news on Kingdom Hearts 4.‌Pearl Abyss is still aiming to launch Crimson Desert this year (supposedly), but we’re without a release date as yet, while the company is also working on its colourful DokeV which has been MIA for years at this point.While Microsoft is expected to appear, the company has its own showcase just two days later with a big focus on The Outer Worlds 2. As a result, we might just get a sneak peek at this year’s Call of Duty with more to come on Sunday.With Bungie’s Marathon hit by plagiarism accusations, Embark Studios has a great chance to get players onto Arc Raiders as an alternative. Speaking of Bungie, expect a gameplay trailer for Destiny 2: Edge of Fate.‌Elden Ring is coming to Switch 2(Image: FromSoftware, Inc.)Call us crazy, but we want a bunch of Switch 2 news. We want to see From Software’s Duskbloods, get a release date for Elden Ring: Tarnished Edition, and maybe even a Metroid Prime 4 release date from Nintendo itself.Given the history of Monster Hunter on portable consoles, we’ve got everything crossed for the series to come to Switch 2, but coming off of the excellent Wilds, it’s perhaps unlikely.‌Naturally, we’ve always got our fingers crossed that we’ll see Silksong, but rumours have suggested that Team Cherry’s long-awaited Hollow Knight follow-up would be announced at Microsoft’s event if at all.As we said in our State of Play predictions, we’re also expecting to hear more about Resident Evil 9 by the end of this week, in some way, shape, or form.With The Division 2 getting what’s likely its final DLC recently, here’s hoping for The Division 3, which has been rumoured for a while. Or, maybe Ubisoft will finally share something about the Splinter Cell title it has in development.Article continues belowDid we get any correct? Find out with us, with the show kicking off at 10PM BST on Friday night.For the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.‌‌‌

Larry Fabbroni is an architect, strategic advisor, and Chief Innovation Officer for Practice of Architecture. Throughout his career, he has led efforts to reform studio culture and innovate practice. He earned his MBA from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. In 2017, as leaders in the AIA’s Young Architects Forum (YAF), we led the launch of the Practice Innovation Lab (PIL) and hosted a symposium that imagined new architectural practice models. At that time, we already felt that practice innovation was overdue in a profession that has not seen scaled disruption to its business model in over a century. Today, we are confident that there has never been a more critical time for the profession to embrace innovation. Redefining Innovation Henley Hall: Institute for Energy Efficiency by KieranTimberlake, Santa Barbara, California | KieranTimberlake’s research expertise creates value beyond a baseline labor model.  Currently, artificial intelligence dominates strategy conversations, but just as we saw back in 2017, larger patterns prompt calls for innovation. Talent attraction is increasingly challenging, disruptive technology continues to emerge, and actors from outside our industry show growing interest in the space. While incremental innovation has long been a part of the profession, relatively few firms have adopted new practices that create value beyond a baseline labor model. Firms such as KieranTimberlake have shown that research expertise can do this. MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach. BIG has taken on the role of architect-as-developer. Snøhetta houses a product design division. We could continue to list great firms that have pushed the boundaries of practice, but they represent exceptions that have yet to be recognized as new standards. Indeed, the confluence of those factors that led to the original PIL continues to make the case that the time for scaled innovation is now. A Melting Iceberg: Incremental Changes Depleting the Profession Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway | Photo by Ivar Kvaal | Snøhetta houses a product design division, innovatively presenting a alternative business model for firms.  One of the dangers of operating in a slow-moving industry is that change is difficult to detect and even more challenging to comprehend. If an iceberg loses 1% of mass per year, it’s tough to take notice, but the end result is catastrophic. This is what is happening to our profession. For newcomers, if it feels like there are increasingly more attractive opportunities elsewhere, that’s because there are. For seasoned professionals, if it feels like it’s become more challenging to maintain the same levels of prosperity, that’s because it has. Less(er) Talent In some ways, the shift towards companies recognizing “talent” as their most excellent resource has bewildered architects: we have always relied on talent. However, the patterns of talent leaving our profession are concerning. We say “feel” because there is no significant data. We spoke to Kendall A. Nicholson, Senior Director of Research at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), who confirmed that aggregated data on graduate placement does not exist. So we inquired about what placement looks like at several programs around the country. Omar Khan, Head of the Carnegie Mellon University School of Architecture, informed us that approximately 90% of students pursue a minor to expand their horizons, and that in 2022, nearly one in three graduates entered the tech sector. Khan stated that these opportunities aren’t just student-driven — large innovative companies increasingly seek the value that graduates of architecture schools will provide. This increasing difficulty in capturing the talent that architecture schools are producing results in a shrinking and diluted talent pool. For a profession so reliant on human resources, this presents extreme risk. Pay Gaps In an increasingly expensive world, we are not able to compete for the best talent with emerging industries. It’s easy to understand why a popular career pivot for architects has become UX design. Designing user experience for websites pays significantly better than designing the same for the built environment. According to Glassdoor, 2023 entry-level UX designers earned an average of $78K, while the AIA salary calculator suggests architecture grads can expect to earn an average of $59 K. The talent we do attract into the profession often loses interest when they experience low pay and long hours, all while most firms lack clear paths and criteria for advancement or compensation increases. A Smaller Piece of the Pie Examining data in isolation, one might conclude that the profession continues to grow; the number of architects has increased substantially over the last century, and this trend has persisted in recent years. The problem with this growth is that the estimated share of the US GDP for Architectural Services has shrunk over time. This is not a manageable number to measure before 1999, when NCARB first aggregated local jurisdictional data. Due to limitations in industry economic data, we’re only showing data since 2011 for the purposes of this article. In that time, the number of architects has grown, the market size for services has grown, but the share those services represent as a portion of the US GDP has declined — by 15% if we use US Census data to almost 30% if we use industry research data (we used IbisWorld.com, however we found data that suggested a worse and others that offered a slightly better picture). To put it another way, architecture is a stagnant industry with a shrinking share of the economy. It’s challenging to examine this data and emerge feeling confident about the profession, but there is a silver lining. The biggest impediment to innovation for architects is not a lack of talent, but rather the business model. Design thinking has been widely adopted throughout the world as a key component of innovation processes; however, the problem is that we operate in the realm of professional services, which inherently is not well-suited to promoting innovation. Reliance on that formula is causing our iceberg to melt. The Tsunami: The AI Tidal Wave is Here The Rwanda Institute for Conservation Agriculture by MASS Design Group, Rwanda | MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach that creates value beyond a baseline labor model.  As we confront the exodus of talent, it is easy for both firm owners and clients to imagine AI bringing efficiencies and replacing “CAD-monkeys” with machines. However, any firm that wants to operate — and win — as anything more than a low-cost provider will need a strategy to increase value, not just cut costs. AI is merely part of the toolbox required to confront a perfect storm of forces. Jobs will Disappear Goldman Sachs predicts that as much as 37% of our industry tasks will be replaced by AI. Many see this as a pathway to lower costs and increased profits. However, that is short-sighted. Markets will adjust quickly and demand lower costs for services; additional new value will need to be articulated and proven, and this will only happen through innovation. New Jobs will Emerge (but fewer of them) AI prophets often emphasize that technological innovation has historically led to net employment gains. Previous World Economic Forum estimates predicted losses of up to 85 million existing jobs worldwide, with parallel gains of as many as 97 million new jobs. However, these estimates were revised in the WEF 2023 Economic Outlook, which now anticipates a net loss of 14 million jobs. This stark outlook signals an even greater need for architects to become more innovative. The 2024 RIBA AI Report indicates that 41% of architecture firms were already utilizing AI, though current tools are indeed just the beginning. Marketing, business development and content creation will be standard areas of AI deployment moving forward. Still, revolutionary changes will come in how we learn, not only to use new tools, but also to collaborate with digital agents. How will this happen? We can theorize, but it is not possible to know for sure until it arrives, so we need to have a plan before we can see the tidal wave from land. The Alien Invasion: Outsiders Are Entering Our Orbit VIA 57 West by BIG – Bjarke Ingels Group, New York City, New York | BIG has pioneered a new model for practice by taking on the role of architect-as-developer. For years, we’ve heard cries that “architects gave away the role of master builder.” But how much did architects actually give, and how much was taken by innovative competition? This distinction is critical because the wagons are circling, and the AEC space has become ever more attractive to investors. Venture Capital and Private Equity Investment The numbers are often difficult to parse because architecture can impact so many verticals and does not operate as its own sector in the investment realm; however, the trends suggest a groundswell is underway. A 2023 McKinsey report shows that construction tech deals nearly doubled from 2019 to 2022, growing by 85%. At the same period, the number of deals increased by 30%, indicating that interest continues to grow. An increasing size of deals also suggests a maturity of the market. As interest in infrastructure investments has declined from its high in 2020, and along with real estate, has been blunted by high interest rates, institutional investors continue to see opportunities in the AEC space. Firm Acquisitions AEC firms that deliver predictable returns have proven to be attractive targets for PE firms. In the second quarter of 2024, private equity firms accounted for over one-third of AEC firm mergers and acquisitions. For M&A deals, the industry has seen an increase in attractiveness with expanded infrastructure spending as a catalyst. However, this interest can also be tied to the lack of innovation that has resulted in an industry ripe for consolidation. M&A orchestrators generate large amounts of profit by streamlining operations, eliminating redundancies, and then stamping out competition. An entire community has been built around this, with AEC Advisors hosting an annual “Private Equity Summit” that brings together CEOs of AEC firms with PE investors. Startups As an extension of the growing interest from venture capital in the space, there is an upward trend in the AEC space being targeted for disruption by entrepreneurs who see an industry that represents a significant portion of the global GDP. AEC Works, a project of e-verse that catalogs AEC startups and investors, lists nearly 800 startups from around the world, with almost 200 identified as “architecture-focused.” The signal is clear: startups are looking to figure out how to do what you do cheaper, better, or perhaps both. Combining this environment with depleted talent pools, a declining share of GDP, and revolutionary technology, it is a correct response to be alarmed. Significant change is inevitable. It is time for architects to see the same opportunities that investors and entrepreneurs see, and learn to navigate within these spaces. The Great Opportunity Throughout history, new actors have enjoyed a “leap-frog” effect and been able to surpass established incumbents to reshape industries, markets and economies. From climate change to pandemic ripple effects, to the housing crisis, to generational shifts in the workforce, there are many forces that directly impact the work of architects and call for innovation. The need for new ways of designing and delivering different components of the built environment is ever-present and will be solved by teams that either include — and might be led by — architects, or those that do not. Most end users will only care if the resulting product is superior. This time of tension is indeed a time of great opportunity. Architects who embrace innovation in pursuing new iterations of our dated business models may actually achieve what many of us have dreamed of from the start: to leave a positive mark on the world. We think the future of the profession depends on it. Top image: Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway The post Architects, Your Real Competition Isn’t AI — It’s Business Complacency appeared first on Journal.

In a Bloomberg interview Wednesday night in downtown San Francisco, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai pushed back against concerns that AI could eventually make half the company’s 180,000-person workforce redundant. Instead, Pichai stressed the company’s commitment to growth through at least next year. “I expect we will grow from our current engineering phase even into next year, because it allows us to do more,” Pichai said, adding that AI is making engineers more productive by eliminating tedious tasks and enabling them to focus on more impactful work. Rather than replacing workers, he referred to AI as “an accelerator” that will drive new product development, thereby creating demand for more employees. Alphabet has staged numerous layoffs in recent years, though so far, cuts in 2025 appear to be more targeted than in previous years. It reportedly parted ways with less than 100 people in Google’s cloud division earlier this year and, more recently, hundreds more in its platforms and devices unit. In 2024 and 2023, the cuts were far more severe, with 12,000 people dropped from the company in 2023 and at least another 1,000 employees laid off last year. Looking forward, Pichai pointed to Alphabet’s expanding ventures like Waymo autonomous vehicles, quantum computing initiatives, and YouTube’s explosive growth as evidence of innovation opportunities that continually bubble up. He noted YouTube’s scale in India alone, with 100 million channels and 15,000 channels boasting over one million subscribers. At one point, Pichai said trying to think too far ahead is “pointless.” But he also acknowledged the legitimacy of fears about job displacement, saying when asked about Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s recent comments that AI could erode half of entry-level white collar jobs within five years, “I respect that . . .I think it’s important to voice those concerns and debate them.” As the interview wrapped up, Pichai was asked about the limits of AI, and whether it’s possible that the world might never achieve artificial general intelligence, meaning AI that’s as smart as humans at everything. He quickly paused before answering. “There’s a lot of forward progress ahead with the paths we are on, not only the set of ideas we are working on today, [but] some of the newer ideas we are experimenting with,” he said. “I’m very optimistic on seeing a lot of progress. But you know,” he added, “you’ve always had these technology curves where you may hit a temporary plateau. So are we currently on an absolute path to AGI? I don’t think anyone can say for sure.” Techcrunch event Save now through June 4 for TechCrunch Sessions: AI Save $300 on your ticket to TC Sessions: AI—and get 50% off a second. Hear from leaders at OpenAI, Anthropic, Khosla Ventures, and more during a full day of expert insights, hands-on workshops, and high-impact networking. These low-rate deals disappear when the doors open on June 5. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW

Menu Home News Hardware Gaming Mobile Finance Deals Reviews How To Wccftech Xiaomi Cannot Develop A Future In-House XRING Chipset Using TSMC’s 2nm Process Because Of The U.S. Crackdown On Specialized EDA Tools, Company Will Be Limited To The ‘N3E’ Node Omar Sohail • Jun 5, 2025 at 04:28am EDT The XRING 01 is a technological milestone, not just for Xiaomi, but it is also regarded as an achievement for China, and one that would make the U.S. government very nervous, because, like current-generation chipsets, the in-house solution has been mass produced on TSMC’s 3nm ‘N3E’ process. Unfortunately, Xiaomi’s progress might not scale past this threshold because the Trump administration has banned the export of EDA tools that are necessary to successfully fabricate a 2nm SoC. Tipster claims that EDA tools are mandatory in designing GAAFET structures, meaning that Xiaomi and its XRING division will be limited to TSMC’s ‘N3E’ node Since TSMC’s 2nm technology has a GAAFET structure, Weibo tipster Digital Chat Station states that it is imperative that Xiaomi gets hold of those EDA, or Electronic Design Automation tools. The Taiwanese semiconductor giant was reported to have begun accepting orders for 2nm wafers from April 1, with each unit estimated to cost $30,000. Among the regular trio of Apple, Qualcomm, and MediaTek, Xiaomi would count itself as one of TSMC’s customers. Sadly, with the recent development, the Chinese firm will be limited to the 3nm N3E node, facing a similar fate to Huawei. The latest claim also suggests that to possess the latest and greatest hardware in smartphone chipset technology, Xiaomi will have little choice but to continue relying on Qualcomm and MediaTek, which will unveil the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 2 and Dimensity 9500 later this year. Fortunately, restricting exports of cutting-edge machinery to China will only boost its resolve to continue the production of local EDA tools, but will this hardware be developed fast enough for the Xiaomi XRING 02 to be fabricated on TSMC’s 2nm process? We will have the answer to this question in the future. Readers should note that there is also the risk that the Trump administration enforces a massive ban on Xiaomi, preventing the latter from doing business with TSMC or Samsung in any way, shape, or form. While China is pursuing the manufacturing of custom EUV machinery to eliminate any overseas trade involvement, it may take several years for the country to achieve autonomy. News Source: Digital Chat Station 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

Missing the big picture US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war Facing an extreme budget, the National Academies hosted an event that ignored it. John Timmer – Jun 4, 2025 6:00 pm | 16 Credit: JHVE Photo Credit: JHVE Photo Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more WASHINGTON, DC—The general outline of the Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget was released a few weeks back, and it included massive cuts for most agencies, including every one that funds scientific research. Late last week, those agencies began releasing details of what the cuts would mean for the actual projects and people they support. And the results are as bad as the initial budget had suggested: one-of-a-kind scientific experiment facilities and hardware retired, massive cuts in supported scientists, and entire areas of research halted. And this comes in an environment where previously funded grants are being terminated, funding is being held up for ideological screening, and universities have been subject to arbitrary funding freezes. Collectively, things are heading for damage to US science that will take decades to recover from. It's a radical break from the trajectory science had been on. That's the environment that the US's National Academies of Science found itself in yesterday while hosting the State of the Science event in Washington, DC. It was an obvious opportunity for the nation's leading scientific organization to warn the nation of the consequences of the path that the current administration has been traveling. Instead, the event largely ignored the present to worry about a future that may never exist. The proposed cuts The top-line budget numbers proposed earlier indicated things would be bad: nearly 40 percent taken off the National Institutes of Health's budget, the National Science Foundation down by over half. But now, many of the details of what those cuts mean are becoming apparent. NASA's budget includes sharp cuts for planetary science, which would be cut in half and then stay flat for the rest of the decade, with the Mars Sample Return mission canceled. All other science budgets, including Earth Science and Astrophysics, take similar hits; one astronomer posted a graphic showing how many present and future missions that would mean. Active missions that have returned unprecedented data, like Juno and New Horizons, would go, as would two Mars orbiters. As described by Science magazine's news team, "The plans would also kill off nearly every major science mission the agency has not yet begun to build." A chart prepared by astronomer Laura Lopez showing just how many astrophysics missions will be cancelled. Credit: Laura Lopez The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the US's fundamental research, is also set for brutal cuts. Biology, engineering, and education will all be slashed by over 70 percent; computer science, math and physical science, and social and behavioral science will all see cuts of over 60 percent. International programs will take an 80 percent cut. The funding rate of grant proposals is expected to drop from 26 percent to just 7 percent, meaning the vast majority of grants submitted to the NSF will be a waste of time. The number of people involved in NSF-funded activities will drop from over 300,000 to just 90,000. Almost every program to broaden participation in science will be eliminated. As for specifics, they're equally grim. The fleet of research ships will essentially become someone else's problem: "The FY 2026 Budget Request will enable partial support of some ships." We've been able to better pin down the nature and location of gravitational wave events as detectors in Japan and Italy joined the original two LIGO detectors; the NSF will reverse that progress by shutting one of the LIGOs. The NSF's contributions to detectors at the Large Hadron Collider will be cut by over half, and one of the two very large telescopes it was helping fund will be cancelled (say goodbye to the Thirty Meter Telescope). "Access to the telescopes at Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo will be phased out," and the NSF will transfer the facilities to other organizations. The Department of Health and Human Services has been less detailed about the specific cuts its divisions will see, largely focusing on the overall numbers, which are down considerably. The NIH, which is facing a cut of over 40 percent, will be reorganized, with its 19 institutes pared down to just eight. This will result in some odd pairings, such as the dental and eye institutes ending up in the same place; genomics and biomedical imaging will likewise end up under the same roof. Other groups like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration will also face major cuts. Issues go well beyond the core science agencies, as well. In the Department of Energy, funding for wind, solar, and renewable grid integration has been zeroed out, essentially ending all programs in this area. Hydrogen and fuel cells face a similar fate. Collectively, these had gotten over $600 billion dollars in 2024's budget. Other areas of science at the DOE, such as high-energy physics, fusion, and biology, receive relatively minor cuts that are largely in line with the ones faced by administration priorities like fossil and nuclear energy. Will this happen? It goes without saying that this would amount to an abandonment of US scientific leadership at a time when most estimates of China's research spending show it approaching US-like levels of support. Not only would it eliminate many key facilities, instruments, and institutions that have helped make the US a scientific powerhouse, but it would also block the development of newer and additional ones. The harms are so widespread that even topics that the administration claims are priorities would see severe cuts. And the damage is likely to last for generations, as support is cut at every stage of the educational pipeline that prepares people for STEM careers. This includes careers in high-tech industries, which may require relocation overseas due to a combination of staffing concerns and heightened immigration controls. That said, we've been here before in the first Trump administration, when budgets were proposed with potentially catastrophic implications for US science. But Congress limited the damage and maintained reasonably consistent budgets for most agencies. Can we expect that to happen again? So far, the signs are not especially promising. The House has largely adopted the Trump administration's budget priorities, despite the fact that the budget they pass turns its back on decades of supposed concerns about deficit spending. While the Senate has yet to take up the budget, it has also been very pliant during the second Trump administration, approving grossly unqualified cabinet picks such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. All of which would seem to call for the leadership of US science organizations to press the case for the importance of science funding to the US, and highlight the damage that these cuts would cause. But, if yesterday's National Academies event is anything to judge by, the leadership is not especially interested. Altered states As the nation's premier science organization, and one that performs lots of analyses for the government, the National Academies would seem to be in a position to have its concerns taken seriously by members of Congress. And, given that the present and future of science in the US is being set by policy choices, a meeting entitled the State of the Science would seem like the obvious place to address those concerns. If so, it was not obvious to Marcia McNutt, the president of the NAS, who gave the presentation. She made some oblique references to current problems, saying, that “We are embarking on a radical new experiment in what conditions promote science leadership, with the US being the treatment group, and China as the control," and acknowledged that "uncertainties over the science budgets for next year, coupled with cancellations of billions of dollars of already hard-won research grants, is causing an exodus of researchers." But her primary focus was on the trends that have been operative in science funding and policy leading up to but excluding the second Trump administration. McNutt suggested this was needed to look beyond the next four years. However, that ignores the obvious fact that US science will be fundamentally different if the Trump administration can follow through on its plans and policies; the trends that have been present for the last two decades will be irrelevant. She was also remarkably selective about her avoidance of discussing Trump administration priorities. After noting that faculty surveys have suggested they spend roughly 40 percent of their time handling regulatory requirements, she twice mentioned that the administration's anti-regulatory stance could be a net positive here (once calling it "an opportunity to help"). Yet she neglected to note that many of the abandoned regulations represent a retreat from science-driven policy. McNutt also acknowledged the problem of science losing the bipartisan support it has enjoyed, as trust in scientists among US conservatives has been on a downward trend. But she suggested it was scientists' responsibility to fix the problem, even though it's largely the product of one party deciding it can gain partisan advantage by raising doubts about scientific findings in fields like climate change and vaccine safety. The panel discussion that came after largely followed McNutt's lead in avoiding any mention of the current threats to science. The lone exception was Heather Wilson, president of the University of Texas at El Paso and a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Air Force during the first Trump administration. Wilson took direct aim at Trump's cuts to funding for underrepresented groups, arguing, "Talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not." After arguing that "the moral authority of science depends on the pursuit of truth," she highlighted the cancellation of grants that had been used to study diseases that are more prevalent in some ethnic groups, saying "that's not woke science—that's genetics." Wilson was clearly the exception, however, as the rest of the panel largely avoided direct mention of either the damage already done to US science funding or the impending catastrophe on the horizon. We've asked the National Academies' leadership a number of questions about how it perceives its role at a time when US science is clearly under threat. As of this article's publication, however, we have not received a response. At yesterday's event, however, only one person showed a clear sense of what they thought that role should be—Wilson again, whose strongest words were directed at the National Academies themselves, which she said should "do what you've done since Lincoln was president," and stand up for the truth. John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 16 Comments

“Pillars” (2024), oil on linen, 84 x 96 inches. All images courtesy of Mario Moore and Library Street Collective, shared with permission Mario Moore’s Oil Paintings Bridge Past and Present to Spotlight Black Resilience and Style June 4, 2025 Kate Mothes In large-scale works in oil, Detroit-based artist Mario Moore taps into the legacy of European painting traditions to create bold portraits exploring the nature of veneration, self-determination, and the continuum of history. Moore’s work is currently on view in Beneath Our Feet at Library Street Collective alongside fellow Detroiter LaKela Brown. His new pieces nod to the Dutch and Flemish tradition of devotional painting, particularly religious garland paintings. Within elegant arrangements of flowers and foliage, he highlights Black figures relaxing or tending to gardens. “The Patron Saint of Urban Farming” (2025), oil on linen, 72 x 48 inches In “Watermelon Man,” a stone altar is surrounded by hibiscus and watermelons, both symbols of resilience. Historically, the latter represented self-sufficiency and freedom for Southern African Americans following Emancipation, but whites flipped the narrative into a stereotypical exemplar of poverty. Moore reclaims the fruit in the spirit of refined 17th-century still-lifes. The artist has long drawn on the culture and legacies of both Detroit and the U.S. more broadly through the lens of the Black diaspora. Earlier works like “Pillars” position Black figures in elegant dress within the vast wildernesses of the American frontier, bridging the past to explore how racial divisions continue to shape the present. An exhibition last summer at Grand Rapids Art Museum titled Revolutionary Times took his series A New Republic as a starting point, revisiting the history of Black Union soldiers during the Civil War. Moore learned that one of his ancestors, who had been enslaved as a child, later enlisted in the Union Army, spurring the artist’s exploration of the seminal mid-19th-century period of conflict and Western colonization. He positions present-day figures in contemporary dress within historical contexts, interrogating political and racial segregations. “Watermelon Man” (2025), oil on linen, 51 1/2 x 42 inches Through tropes of European painting like a self-portrait of the artist in mirrored reflections and poses in three-quarter profile, Moore renders individuals whose direct, confident gazes and elegant dress invoke Detroit style and pride. For Beneath Our Feet, Brown and Moore collaborated on a five-foot-wide bas-relief bronze coin. Each artist completed one side, with Mario’s contribution taking the form of a portrait of Brown. “Her profile echoes the conventional format of traditional American coinage, confronting the historic absence of Black women in national symbolism and positions of authority,” the gallery says. On the opposite side, Brown depicts a bouquet of collard greens symbolic of nourishment and community. For this exhibition, Brown and Moore “reflect on the wealth held in the earth beneath us—and the enduring question of who holds the rights to till, own, and shape that land,” says an exhibition statement. Detroit is home to ambitious urban gardening initiatives that aim for local food sovereignty, mirroring the resourcefulness of Black farmers throughout history. The artists “consider land not just as property but as history, inheritance, and possibility,” the gallery says. Beneath Our Feet continues through July 30 in Detroit. See more on Moore’s website and Instagram. “International Detroit Playa: Sheefy” (2022), oil on linen, 108 x 96 inches “These Are Not Yams But They Are Damn Good” (2025), oil on linen, 51 1/2 x 42 inches “Creation of a Revolutionary (Helen Moore)” (2023), oil on linen, 76 x 52 inches “Black” (2023), oil on linen, 48 x 48 inches “Garland of Resilience” (2025), oil on linen, 51 1/2 x 42 inches “Birth of Cool” (2023), oil on linen, 72 x 48 inches Installation view of ‘LaKela Brown and Mario Moore: Beneath Our Feet’ at Library Street Collective, Detroit Previous articleNext article

© Henrique Ferreira via Unsplash Finding property lines can be tricky, especially for individuals who are looking to purchase or list a home for sale. Conventional techniques, including engaging surveyors, are costly and labor-intensive. As an alternate solution, technology provides apps that profess to show property lines. This raises the question: How precise are these digital resources at demarcating boundary lines? The emergence of an app that shows property lines has revolutionized how property owners, buyers, and real estate professionals interact with land boundaries. These digital tools leverage advanced mapping technologies to provide visual representations of property boundaries, offering a more accessible alternative to traditional surveying methods while raising important questions about their accuracy and reliability. What Are Property Line Apps? Apps that display property lines use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and satellite imagery. They offer users a visual display of land boundaries, most commonly available on smartphones or tablets. These apps are meant to help make property borders easier to identify and are a helpful tool for property owners, real estate agents, and buyers. These applications typically draw information from public records, county assessor data, and other official sources to create digital representations of property boundaries. Many also incorporate user-friendly features like measurement tools, parcel information displays, and the ability to save or share property data with others. How Various Factors Affect Accuracy Several factors impact the reliability of property line apps. First, the source of the data is significant. Apps usually have access to government databases and public records that vary in accuracy based on when the data was last refreshed. Second, GPS technology limitations impact accuracy. Although GPS technology is becoming more advanced, apps might still have discrepancies where tree cover or high buildings block signals from satellites and influence tracking accuracy. The resolution of satellite imagery also plays a crucial role in determining how precisely property lines can be displayed. Higher-resolution images allow for more detailed and accurate boundary placements, while lower-quality imagery may result in less precise representations. Additionally, the frequency of data updates affects whether the app reflects recent property divisions, consolidations, or boundary adjustments. Comparing Traditional Surveying and Apps Professional surveyors approach property line determination using high-precision equipment and established methodologies. This traditional approach yields highly accurate results with precise and legally enforceable boundaries. Apps offer more general information on property lines compared to professional surveys. While they are fast and convenient, they provide no substitute for the precision of a professional survey. App-generated boundaries should not be relied upon as definitive indications of legal property lines. Traditional surveys involve physical measurements taken directly on the property, considering historical markers, neighboring properties, and legal descriptions. In contrast, apps rely on digital interpretations of existing records, which may not account for all the nuances that a professional surveyor would observe in person. Advantages of property line applications App-Generated Property Lines Property line apps may have their limitations, but they do have valuable uses. They are useful for general assessments where an immediate overview of boundaries may be required. The applications also have user-friendly interfaces that allow a wider audience to use these applications and learn technical skills. Additionally, they are often enhanced with more functionalities, such as calculating areas and providing land parcel information, thus expanding their usefulness for users. According to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, these digital tools have significantly increased public access to property information that was previously difficult to obtain without professional assistance. This democratization of property data allows property owners to be more informed about their land assets and helps potential buyers better understand properties of interest before making major decisions. Potential Limitations and Risks Property line apps may be convenient, but they have clear limitations. Since the data relies heavily on public records, data errors are common. It can be outdated or incomplete, which can lead to misunderstandings or disputes. In addition, these apps are incapable of recognizing legal nuances, such as easements or encroachments, which can significantly impact property rights and boundaries. There is also a risk that users might place too much confidence in app-generated boundaries when making important decisions. While these tools can provide helpful guidance, they should not be the sole basis for resolving boundary disputes, building structures near property lines, or making purchase decisions without professional verification. Best Practices for Users Users should follow a few best practices to make the best and most effective use of a property line app. Cross-referencing results with official records verifies data accuracy, minimizing potential inaccuracies. Moreover, when app data is paired with physical inspections, it provides a fuller picture of property lines. Advice from professionals, including surveyors or real estate agents, can also be beneficial, especially for legal transactions. For important matters such as property purchases, boundary disputes, or construction projects near property lines, it’s advisable to use apps as preliminary tools only, following up with professional surveys before making final decisions. Understanding the limitations of these digital tools helps users utilize them appropriately within a broader strategy for property boundary determination. Conclusion Instead, property line apps provide a convenient and accessible way to determine where your land ends and where your neighbor’s begins. Yet, the precision of these tools is contingent on multiple factors such as data sources and technological limitations. Although useful as an initial step, these tools should not be used, and they should not be used for legal purposes, instead of professional surveys. Users can properly contextualize property boundary information by understanding what these applications can and cannot do. Technology continues to shape how we deal with real estate by digitalizing and providing easy access to tools that simplify complex processes. These apps will likely improve accuracy over time and become increasingly integral to property transactions. Until then, users must balance convenience with reliability, ensuring that the information they obtain is helpful and accurate. Smart Technologytechnology by ArchEyes Team Leave a comment

For the past two years, it’s been a ghost in the machine of American tech. Between 2022 and today, a little-noticed tweak to the U.S. tax code has quietly rewired the financial logic of how American companies invest in research and development. Outside of CFO and accounting circles, almost no one knew it existed. “I work on these tax write-offs and still hadn’t heard about this,” a chief operating officer at a private-equity-backed tech company told Quartz. “It’s just been so weirdly silent.”AdvertisementStill, the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That’s the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a “niche issue with broad impact,” echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters.Since the start of 2023, more than half-a-million tech workers have been laid off, according to industry tallies. Headlines have blamed over-hiring during the pandemic and, more recently, AI. But beneath the surface was a hidden accelerant: a change to what’s known as Section 174 that helped gut in-house software and product development teams everywhere from tech giants such as Microsoft (MSFT) and Meta (META) to much smaller, private, direct-to-consumer and other internet-first companies.Now, as a bipartisan effort to repeal the Section 174 change moves through Congress, bigger questions are surfacing: How did a single line in the tax code help trigger a tsunami of mass layoffs? And why did no one see it coming? For almost 70 years, American companies could deduct 100% of qualified research and development spending in the year they incurred the costs. Salaries, software, contractor payments — if it contributed to creating or improving a product, it came off the top of a firm’s taxable income.AdvertisementThe deduction was guaranteed by Section 174 of the IRS Code of 1954, and under the provision, R&D flourished in the U.S.Microsoft was founded in 1975. Apple (AAPL) launched its first computer in 1976. Google (GOOGL) incorporated in 1998. Facebook opened to the general public in 2006. All these companies, now among the most valuable in the world, developed their earliest products — programming tools, hardware, search engines — under a tax system that rewarded building now, not later.The subsequent rise of smartphones, cloud computing, and mobile apps also happened in an America where companies could immediately write off their investments in engineering, infrastructure, and experimentation. It was a baseline assumption — innovation and risk-taking subsidized by the tax code — that shaped how founders operated and how investors made decisions.In turn, tech companies largely built their products in the U.S. AdvertisementMicrosoft’s operating systems were coded in Washington state. Apple’s early hardware and software teams were in California. Google’s search engine was born at Stanford and scaled from Mountain View. Facebook’s entire social architecture was developed in Menlo Park. The deduction directly incentivized keeping R&D close to home, rewarding companies for investing in American workers, engineers, and infrastructure.That’s what makes the politics of Section 174 so revealing. For all the rhetoric about bringing jobs back and making things in America, the first Trump administration’s major tax bill arguably helped accomplish the opposite.When Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the signature legislative achievement of President Donald Trump’s first term, it slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — a massive revenue loss on paper for the federal government.To make the 2017 bill comply with Senate budget rules, lawmakers needed to offset the cost. So they added future tax hikes that wouldn’t kick in right away, wouldn’t provoke immediate backlash from businesses, and could, in theory, be quietly repealed later.AdvertisementThe delayed change to Section 174 — from immediate expensing of R&D to mandatory amortization, meaning that companies must spread the deduction out in smaller chunks over five or even 15-year periods — was that kind of provision. It didn’t start affecting the budget until 2022, but it helped the TCJA appear “deficit neutral” over the 10-year window used for legislative scoring.The delay wasn’t a technical necessity. It was a political tactic. Such moves are common in tax legislation. Phase-ins and delayed provisions let lawmakers game how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — Congress’ nonpartisan analyst of how bills impact budgets and deficits — scores legislation, pushing costs or revenue losses outside official forecasting windows.And so, on schedule in 2022, the change to Section 174 went into effect. Companies filed their 2022 tax returns under the new rules in early 2023. And suddenly, R&D wasn’t a full, immediate write-off anymore. The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. To understand the impact, imagine a personal tax code change that allowed you to deduct 100% of your biggest source of expenses, and that becoming a 20% deduction. For cash-strapped companies, especially those not yet profitable, the result was a painful tax bill just as venture funding dried up and interest rates soared.AdvertisementSalesforce office buildings in San Francisco.Photo: Jason Henry/Bloomberg (Getty Images)It’s no coincidence that Meta announced its “Year of Efficiency” immediately after the Section 174 change took effect. Ditto Microsoft laying off 10,000 employees in January 2023 despite strong earnings, or Google parent Alphabet cutting 12,000 jobs around the same time.Amazon (AMZN) also laid off almost 30,000 people, with cuts focused not just on logistics but on Alexa and internal cloud tools — precisely the kinds of projects that would have once qualified as immediately deductible R&D. Salesforce (CRM) eliminated 10% of its staff, or 8,000 people, including entire product teams.In public, companies blamed bloat and AI. But inside boardrooms, spreadsheets were telling a quieter story. And MD&A notes — management’s notes on the numbers — buried deep in 10-K filings recorded the change, too. R&D had become more expensive to carry. Headcount, the leading R&D expense across the tech industry, was the easiest thing to cut.AdvertisementIn its 2023 annual report, Meta described salaries as its single biggest R&D expense. Between the first and second years that the Section 174 change began affecting tax returns, Meta cut its total workforce by almost 25%. Over the same period, Microsoft reduced its global headcount by about 7%, with cuts concentrated in product-facing, engineering-heavy roles.Smaller companies without the fortress-like balance sheets of Big Tech have arguably been hit even harder. Twilio (TWLO) slashed 22% of its workforce in 2023 alone. Shopify (SHOP) (headquartered in Canada but with much of its R&D teams in the U.S.) cut almost 30% of staff in 2022 and 2023. Coinbase (COIN) reduced headcount by 36% across a pair of brutal restructuring waves.Since going into effect, the provision has hit at the very heart of America’s economic growth engine: the tech sector.By market cap, tech giants dominate the S&P 500, with the “Magnificent 7” alone accounting for more than a third of the index’s total value. Workforce numbers tell a similar story, with tech employing millions of Americans directly and supporting the employment of tens of millions more. As measured by GDP, capital-T tech contributes about 10% of national output.AdvertisementIt’s not just that tech layoffs were large, it’s that they were massively disproportionate. Across the broader U.S. economy, job cuts hovered around in low single digits across most sectors. But in tech, entire divisions vanished, with a whopping 60% jump in layoffs between 2022 and 2023. Some cuts reflected real inefficiencies — a response to over-hiring during the zero-interest rate boom. At the same time, many of the roles eliminated were in R&D, product, and engineering, precisely the kind of functions that had once benefitted from generous tax treatment under Section 174.Throughout the 2010s, a broad swath of startups, direct-to-consumer brands, and internet-first firms — basically every company you recognize from Instagram or Facebook ads — built their growth models around a kind of engineered break-even.The tax code allowed them to spend aggressively on product and engineering, then write it all off as R&D, keeping their taxable income close to zero by design. It worked because taxable income and actual cash flow were often notGAAP accounting practices. Basically, as long as spending counted as R&D, companies could report losses to investors while owing almost nothing to the IRS.But the Section 174 change broke that model. Once those same expenses had to be spread out, or amortized, over multiple years, the tax shield vanished. Companies that were still burning cash suddenly looked profitable on paper, triggering real tax bills on imaginary gains.AdvertisementThe logic that once fueled a generation of digital-first growth collapsed overnight.So it wasn’t just tech experiencing effects. From 1954 until 2022, the U.S. tax code had encouraged businesses of all stripes to behave like tech companies. From retail to logistics, healthcare to media, if firms built internal tools, customized a software stack, or invested in business intelligence and data-driven product development, they could expense those costs. The write-off incentivized in-house builds and fast growth well outside the capital-T tech sector. This lines up with OECD research showing that immediate deductions foster innovation more than spread-out ones.And American companies ran with that logic. According to government data, U.S. businesses reported about $500 billion in R&D expenditures in 2019 alone, and almost half of that came from industries outside traditional tech. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that this sector, the broader digital economy, accounts for another 10% of GDP.Add that to core tech’s contribution, and the Section 174 shift has likely touched at least 20% of the U.S. economy.AdvertisementThe result? A tax policy aimed at raising short-term revenue effectively hid a time bomb inside the growth engines of thousands of companies. And when it detonated, it kneecapped the incentive for hiring American engineers or investing in American-made tech and digital products.It made building tech companies in America look irrational on a spreadsheet.A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to repeal the Section 174 change, with business groups, CFOs, crypto executives, and venture capitalists lobbying hard for retroactive relief. But the politics are messy. Fixing 174 would mean handing a tax break to the same companies many voters in both parties see as symbols of corporate excess. Any repeal would also come too late for the hundreds of thousands of workers already laid off.And of course, the losses don’t stop at Meta’s or Google’s campus gates. They ripple out. When high-paid tech workers disappear, so do the lunch orders. The house tours. The contract gigs. The spending habits that sustain entire urban economies and thousands of other jobs. Sandwich artists. Rideshare drivers. Realtors. Personal trainers. House cleaners. In tech-heavy cities, the fallout runs deep — and it’s still unfolding.AdvertisementWashington is now poised to pass a second Trump tax bill — one packed with more obscure provisions, more delayed impacts, more quiet redistribution. And it comes as analysts are only just beginning to understand the real-world effects of the last round.The Section 174 change “significantly increased the tax burden on companies investing in innovation, potentially stifling economic growth and reducing the United States’ competitiveness on the global stage,” according to the tax consulting firm KBKG. Whether the U.S. will reverse course — or simply adapt to a new normal — remains to be seen.

Conflux Technology, an Australian company specializing in heat transfer solutions and additive manufacturing, has announced a collaboration with Italian hypercar manufacturer Pagani to address thermal management challenges in the Pagani Utopia’s transmission. The Utopia, Pagani’s latest hypercar, uses a 6-liter twin-turbo V12 engine designed by Mercedes-AMG. Its powertrain integrates a custom seven-speed transmission developed by Xtrac, available in both automated and manual configurations, to deliver the high levels of control and responsiveness required in extreme driving conditions. The Australian-based firm developed a cartridge heat exchanger specifically for the Utopia’s transmission oil system to improve heat rejection. According to the company, this solution achieves a 30% increase in heat rejection compared to the previous heat exchanger design. This enhancement is critical to maintain optimal thermal performance during high-load operations and ensures the vehicle meets global emissions standards, including those in California. Pagani’s Utopia hypercar, powered by a 6-liter twin-turbo V12 engine. Photo via Conflux Technology. Pagani subjected the Utopia’s transmission system to extensive testing, including track and road validation as well as thermal shock trials. These tests confirmed the durability and thermal resilience of the new heat exchanger under demanding operational conditions, aligning with the vehicle’s performance requirements. Michael Fuller, Founder and CEO of Conflux Technology, said: “Our advanced heat exchangers are designed to enable new levels of effectiveness, perfectly complementing the engineering craftsmanship that Pagani is celebrated for. This collaboration showcases the synergy of precision, innovation, and excellence.” Francesco Perini, Head of the Technical Department at Pagani, emphasized: “Conflux’s advanced heat transfer technology empowers the Pagani Utopia to achieve superior heat rejection ensuring optimal thermal balance, even in severe driving conditions. In our relentless pursuit of perfection, every detail matters. Conflux’s cartridge heat exchangers are a testament to precision and innovation, playing a vital role in ensuring that the Utopia can be enjoyed for a romantic drive on the French Riviera as well as on the most demanding tracks.” Oliver Nixon, Head of High Performance Automotive at Xtrac, stated: “The innovation of Conflux’s technology has allowed Xtrac to continue to push the boundaries of transmission performance, whilst maintaining the lightweight, motorsport derived ethos of our transmission solutions.” Conflux Technology’s additive-manufactured cartridge heat exchangers. Photo via Conflux Technology. Conflux is developing its Conflux Production Systems (CPS) to scale the production of its heat exchangers, supported by an AUD 11 million Series B funding round. The company’s technology is applied across multiple sectors, including aerospace, motorsports, high-powered industrial equipment, and defense, where effective thermal management is essential. The cartridge design leverages additive manufacturing to produce complex geometries that enhance heat transfer while reducing weight, supporting the requirements of high-performance automotive applications. Xtrac, headquartered in Berkshire, UK, with additional facilities in Indiana and North Carolina, specializes in engineering transmission and driveline systems for both motorsport and automotive sectors. Engine bay featuring Xtrac’s seven-speed gearbox. Photo via Conflux Technology. Additive Manufacturing in High-Performance Automotive Design Bentley Motors recent limited-run Batur grand tourer, The Black Rose, integrates additive manufacturing into its design through 18-karat recycled rose gold components. Developed by the Mulliner division in collaboration with precious metal supplier Cooksongold, the project uses up to 210 grams of printed gold in elements such as the Drive Mode Selector, air vent controls, and steering wheel insert. These components are hallmarked in Birmingham’s Jewellery Quarter, with some also bearing the hallmark commemorating Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee. Bentley’s investment in additive manufacturing capacity since 2022 amounts to £3 million. This focus on additive manufacturing extends to high-performance vehicle engineering, as seen in McLaren Automotive’s W1 hypercar. The W1 incorporates titanium 3D printing in the production of front uprights and wishbones for its suspension system, contributing to significant weight savings and enhanced dynamic performance. McLaren reports that the W1 achieves a vehicle weight of 1,399kg, enabling a power-to-weight ratio of 911PS/tonne and supporting acceleration from 0 to 200km/h in 5.8 seconds. Central to this development is the company’s collaboration with Divergent Technologies, whose DAPS platform supports rapid design iteration and manufacturing flexibility.s. Front view of the McLaren W1 hypercar. Image via McLaren. Take the 3DPI Reader Survey — shape the future of AM reporting in under 5 minutes. Ready to discover who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards? Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to stay updated with the latest news and insights. Featured photo shows Pagani’s Utopia hypercar, powered by a 6-liter twin-turbo V12 engine. Photo via Conflux Technology. Anyer Tenorio Lara Anyer Tenorio Lara is an emerging tech journalist passionate about uncovering the latest advances in technology and innovation. With a sharp eye for detail and a talent for storytelling, Anyer has quickly made a name for himself in the tech community. Anyer's articles aim to make complex subjects accessible and engaging for a broad audience. In addition to his writing, Anyer enjoys participating in industry events and discussions, eager to learn and share knowledge in the dynamic world of technology.

If you’re in the homebuying market, you’ve probably come to realize that the grass is always greener in the listing description—both literally and figuratively. Real estate agents sometimes get creative with Photoshop edits on listing photos, often brightening up the grass and editing out unsightly objects, like a neighbor’s clunker car or wires cluttering a bedroom. They also use some descriptive language that can be, well, deceptive. Adjectives like cozy and charming may evoke good feelings in potential buyers, but they’re high on the list of frequently used adjectives that probably don’t mean what you think they do. Photos and descriptions give you a teaser, but nothing beats an in-person tour for catching any potential sneaky details. Still, there are certain phrases to keep an eye out for as you're browsing for your next dream home online. Below, we're rounding up 10 common words or phrases often found in real estate listings should raise red flags, according to real estate pros. Related Stories“Charming”DreamPictures//Getty ImagesOr, similarly, unique. “Often, this means the property has some quirks that might not appeal to everyone,” real estate expert Yawar Charlie, director of the luxury estates division at Aaron Kirman Group, says. “It could be anything from a funky floor plan to unconventional finishes.” Think about resale value and whether any of these quirks might be a dealbreaker for future buyers, should you choose to sell“Cozy”Cozy is most likely a code word for lacking square footage, Charlie says. “When they call it cozy, they’re hinting that it might be a bit cramped,” he says. “Check for square footage and layout specifics.”“Home Being Sold As Is”"As is" is perhaps one of the biggest red flags in real estate. “It often signals that the property may have significant issues the seller is trying to offload,” says Nikki Bernstein, a global real estate advisor with Engel & Völkers Scottsdale.According to Bernstein, an "as is" condition indicates that the seller is likely emotionally detached and unwilling to negotiate on price or concessions. It also suggests they may be withholding information, indicating there could be hidden problems waiting to be uncovered during inspection, she says. “As is might as well be a warning: ‘Buyer beware,’” Bernstein says. “Fixer Upper”Mableen//Getty ImagesIf you’ve got a design-build background or are looking for homes that are worth renovating, a property advertised as a fixer-upper might make for a fun challenge. But this phrase usually means the property has seen better days and needs some TLC, which is not what most buyers are looking for. Charlie's advice? Bring a contractor or a handyman to the home inspection with you. “You’re not just checking for cosmetic issues; you want to get the lowdown on structural problems, electrical updates, and plumbing repairs,” Charlie says. “A fixer-upper can quickly turn into a money pit.”If you choose to pursue a home that needs a fair amount of love, make sure you’ve got the right loan, Virginia Realtor and real estate broker Michelle Brown cautions. For example, a FHA 203K loan lets buyers roll home improvement costs into their mortgage.“Investors’ Dream”This phrase typically signals the property is in poor condition but priced low for potential profit through renovations or redevelopment, Brown says. This is another instance where you’ll want to have a contractor with you to get a full picture of all the repairs that may be needed.“Make This Home Your Own”This phrase signals the home is likely outdated and in need of cosmetic updates at the very least, New Jersey Realtor Larry Devardo says. Listings that advertise “potential” or say “home has endless possibilities” are also indicators that repairs and updates are needed, he says. “Great Bones”DreamPictures//Getty ImagesOn the upside, “great bones” means the home is structurally sound with strong infrastructure, Maryland Realtor Ellie Hitt says. On the downside, it likely needs a lot of cosmetic updates to bring it up to date with modern conveniences and aesthetics.“Needs TLC”Often, when a home requires cosmetic work, “TLC” is noted, indicating the property needs someone who is willing to put in a little bit of elbow grease, agent Karen Kostiw of Coldwell Banker Warburg says. You may be thinking of new carpet, updated cabinets, and a few other touch-ups, but in some cases, TLC could actually mean the property requires a gut renovation.“Motivated Seller”Translation: The seller is eager to sell, possibly due to financial issues, a pending foreclosure, or a property that has been on the market for a while, says Jeffrey Borham, owner of Tampa Bay, Florida Team Borham. “This could be an opportunity for negotiation,” he adds. “However, investigate why the seller is motivated; there could be hidden issues that have deterred other buyers.”Similarly, “priced to sell” could mean a whole host of things, ranging from the property needs some work or the seller wants to start a bidding war, New York City Broker Sean Adu-Gyamfi of Coldwell Banker Warburg says.“Hot Listing”Some agents advertise “hot listings” on the MLS to create urgency, even if there are no other offers, Misty Spittler, a licensed public insurance adjuster and certified roof inspector, says. Don’t feel pressured, though. She recently had a client bid $20,000 over asking on a listing advertised as hot. Spittler’s inspection found $30,000 of necessary repairs, so the client was able to renegotiate.Follow House Beautiful on Instagram and TikTok.