Sento Member Nov 1, 2017 6,395   nsilvias Member Oct 25, 2017 30,019 WB i beg of you let Netherealm work on something new new   Moebius Member Oct 28, 2017 6,259 Give me a single player or coop mortal kombat action game instead.   Spine_Ripper Member Oct 25, 2017 984 SHAOLIN MONKS ALREADY HOLY FUCK   ultracal31 Member Oct 25, 2017 4,922 nsilvias said: WB i beg of you let Netherealm work on something new new Click to expand... Click to shrink... Be careful for wishing that as you could get this: WB "we heard you and here's something new! A NEW live service game!"  shadow_shogun Fallen Guardian Member Oct 25, 2017 18,643 Spine_Ripper said: SHAOLIN MONKS ALREADY HOLY FUCK Click to expand... Click to shrink... Seriously…   Ishaan Member Oct 27, 2017 1,771 Make Bruce the bad guy this time around, and put either Dick or Terry McGinnis in the suit. Nobody makes for a bettter villain than the guy who's always prepared for everything you could possibly conceive of. I want to see NRS write themselves into a corner and then write themselves back out of it.   Vagabond Member Oct 26, 2017 4,249 United States I'm actually okay with this. I'd me more excited for an Injustice game than another Mortal Kombat right now.   Mandos Member Nov 27, 2017 39,167 nsilvias said: WB i beg of you let Netherealm work on something new new Click to expand... Click to shrink... New War Gods announced   HockeyBird Member Oct 27, 2017 13,779 Probably a good idea to give MK a break for a bit and WB is probably hoping that the Gunn DC movie universe can help elevate the sales of their DC games.   nsilvias Member Oct 25, 2017 30,019 Mandos said: New War Gods announced Click to expand... Click to shrink... Stranglehold 2   Lord Vatek Avenger Jan 18, 2018 24,692 Eh... I'm okay with a new DC fighting game but I fucking hate the Injustice universe so much.   Saturday One Winged Slayer - Shinra Employee The Fallen Oct 27, 2017 7,738 Ishaan said: Make Bruce the bad guy this time around, and put either Dick or Terry McGinnis in the suit. Nobody makes for a bettter villain than the guy who's always prepared for everything you could possibly conceive of. I want to see NRS write themselves into a corner and then write themselves back out of it. Click to expand... Click to shrink... yeah i've said this is the only way to spin it, injustice but the timeline where bats loses it and not supes but also nah injustice 3 is so super unnecessary, i'd only like the potential comics made out of it because the injustice comics were surprisingly good  Dance Inferno Member Oct 29, 2017 2,727 Down. Loved Injustice 2 and was disappointed when they announced MK1 as the follow up to MK11.   Jus Do It ▲ Legend ▲ Member Oct 25, 2017 43,676 South Central hard to get excited for it if WB gonna cut support 18 months after launch   Galactic Specter Member Oct 28, 2017 6,534 NRS better change up the gameplay because if it's just Injustice 2 with more characters, it's gonna die real quick.   Mediking Final Fantasy Best Boy (Grip) Member Oct 25, 2017 22,443 St. Louis City, Missouri aka Persona 3's Dorm lol Injustice 3 will be great for the culture lol   Roliq ▲ Legend ▲ Member Sep 23, 2018 7,284 I can't take the story of Injustice seriously when the prequel comic had Batman act indignant at Superman from killing Parademons who were seconds from killing him and the heroes he was with at the time Like dude, they are mindless monsters, why the hell are you pissed about that?  Foolhardy Member May 4, 2024 3,315 nsilvias said: WB i beg of you let Netherealm work on something new new Click to expand... Click to shrink... Gremlins RTS  GTOAkira Member Sep 1, 2018 13,330 I just hope it does better than injustice 2 did in the fgc. Balance wise, it's probably nrs worst game.   Star-Lord Member Oct 25, 2017 7,951 Injustice 2 came out in 2017… by the time the 3rd game comes out I'll over ten years god damn!   LiK Member Oct 25, 2017 34,494 I'll watch the story mode on YT   Neo Ankh Member Oct 12, 2019 975 I doubt it's happening this year but it'd be wild if they're back to releasing a new game every 2 years.   Mandos Member Nov 27, 2017 39,167 Lord Vatek said: Eh... I'm okay with a new DC fighting game but I fucking hate the Injustice universe so much. Click to expand... Click to shrink... They should go really wild and start in like the Kingdom Come universe   Televoid Uncle Works at Nintendo Member Nov 28, 2024 1,417 Injustice, 3 Months of Support.   Tavernade Tavernade Moderator Sep 18, 2018 11,626 I'd be happy with another DC fighting game but I have very little interest in the Injustice universe anymore. Just give me a 'normal' DC universe to have people punch each other in.   NexusCell Member Nov 2, 2017 909 maximillian dood punching the air right now   GlitchyDegree Prophet of Truth The Fallen Dec 4, 2017 6,822 Lord Vatek said: Eh... I'm okay with a new DC fighting game but I fucking hate the Injustice universe so much. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Tavernade said: I'd be happy with another DC fighting game but I have very little interest in the Injustice universe anymore. Just give me a 'normal' DC universe to have people punch each other in. Click to expand... Click to shrink... These.   E-bite Member Oct 24, 2018 1,384 I'll only believe this if Ed Boon out of nowhere tweets "Johnny Cage and Kitana" like a few weeks before the game's official announcement. lmao.   MissedArrows Member Feb 6, 2025 220 Don't give me hope   Incubuster Member Oct 30, 2017 2,608 Mmm I feel like this was the game everybody didn't want. Oh well, another pass from me.   LossAversion The Merchant of ERA Member Oct 28, 2017 11,675 Honestly, I'm pretty over NRS right now. They make fun story modes but every single game since MKX has had some major issues that held the games back and post-launch support has been promised and pulled over and over again. Fool me thrice.   VoidPlot Member Nov 1, 2017 902 Give me shaolin monks.. please 🧎‍♂️   Rob Member Oct 25, 2017 5,469 SATX Ishaan said: Make Bruce the bad guy this time around, and put either Dick or Terry McGinnis in the suit. Nobody makes for a bettter villain than the guy who's always prepared for everything you could possibly conceive of. I want to see NRS write themselves into a corner and then write themselves back out of it. Click to expand... Click to shrink... If Bruce is the bad guy then they are 100% going to use The Batman Who Laughs as the actual villain. DC can't help themselves with the most boring character ever.   Commander Shepherd Member Jan 27, 2023 93 I hope to the high heavens that it's true. I'd be really happy Injustice 2 was amazing  Platy Member Oct 25, 2017 30,810 Brazil +1 to "do anything EXCEPT the injustice universe" they already used everything they could of that world  maze001 Member Sep 18, 2024 613 Give it to me. Always love me some Injustice.   JCal Member Oct 27, 2017 9,631 Los Alfheim Been waiting so fkn long. I'm there no matter what 😭   secretanchitman One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 9,881 Chicago, IL Great news! I enjoyed the first two games so bring on IJ3!   VariantX Member Oct 25, 2017 18,008 Columbia, SC Lord Vatek said: Eh... I'm okay with a new DC fighting game but I fucking hate the Injustice universe so much. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Agreed. Playing the second one just re affirmed my feelings that ive had my fill of that universe. I would take an MK vs DC 2 over IJ3 at this point.  Strings Member Oct 27, 2017 34,483 Will be a bummer not getting Conroy in this. Part of the appeal of Injustice (and DC games in general) for me is getting the DCAU band back together. Also young Steve Martin-looking Superman again or I riot.   KDC720 Member Oct 25, 2017 4,028 I'd be down for Injustice 3, especially with Gunn's DCU about to take off I think there's going to be more of a demand for it. But I'd also like to see Netherrealm work on something that isn't MK or IJ as well.  AnimeJesus Member Oct 27, 2017 5,454 nsilvias said: WB i beg of you let Netherealm work on something new new Click to expand... Click to shrink... Nah…something new is too risky. I'm sure Netherealm likes making money too. Besides, you assume they don't want to make an injustice 3. I suppose they could make a Hogwarts Fighter though, that would be pretty dope.  LongDongJunon Member Nov 13, 2017 1,993 nsilvias said: WB i beg of you let Netherealm work on something new new Click to expand... Click to shrink... WB: View: https://giphy.com/gifs/no-bugs-bunny-fXnRObM8Q0RkOmR5nf  Neoxon Spotlighting Black Excellence - Diversity Analyst Member Oct 25, 2017 93,396 Houston, TX Assuming this is true, I'd honestly prefer a DC fighting game completely divorced from the Injustice continuity.   ThatMeanScene The Fallen Oct 25, 2017 10,728 Miami, FL Sento said: I like that they feared people wouldn't get it so their follow-up tweet is just '3'. 🤣  Neonep Member Oct 25, 2017 6,286 I just want them to make whatever will be the most successful.   MinerArcaniner Uncle Works at Nintendo Member Oct 29, 2017 7,434 Neoxon said: Assuming this is true, I'd honestly prefer a DC fighting game completely divorced from the Injustice continuity. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Same. The whole "Superheroes but EEEEEEVIL" routine is old hat.  Graven Member Oct 30, 2018 4,547 I don't mind Injustice 3, but I wish they had the opportunity to work on something else (another genre), but it's not up to them.   TheKupoxBooper Member Apr 5, 2022 2,014 I love me some Injustice but I will stand and die on this hill that Injustice ruined the gameplay n Mortal Kombat games going forward. Also a sidenote, I think Max didn't like MK11's gameplay cause it felt like Injustice and the gameplay is kinda slow but ALWAYS praised MKX/MK9's gameplay due to how in your face it is, I still calling this leak BS with all due respect, WB said MK is a priority, then I'm sure it'll be just that. As much as I'd like a Injustice 3 as I still think Injustice 2 is a beautiful game, I doubt we will get one unless MK fully goes on a big break.  

ZDNET's key takeaways The RingConn Gen 2 Air is a $200 smart ring, one of the first subscription-free and affordable smart rings I've tested. The battery life can survive up to eight or nine days of use, and the sleep data collection rivals Oura. The AI health partner feature is lackluster, and it's essential to view the brand's privacy policy, given the affordable nature of a health wearable. more buying choices Smart rings are rising in popularity, but the big names -- the Ouras, Samsungs, and Ultrahumans -- can run $300 to $400. That's not counting the subscription fee, which some customers pay for full access to all the data that the smart ring aggregates. With all these murmurs of an impending recession causing pennies to be pinched and wallets to be watched, who has the money for a $400 smart ring right now? Also: How we test smart rings at ZDNET in 2025I hadn't yet tested a high-quality and affordable smart ring from a notable brand, but the newest smart ring from RingConn, the RingConn Gen 2 Air, could change that. It's the first ring I've tested that retails for a price as low as $200, without any sale or special deal. I've worn RingConn's newest smart ring over the past few weeks to see how the brand's budget ring fares as a sleep and activity tracker. Keep reading to learn how it compares to the RingConn Gen 2, which costs $100 more, and the Oura Ring 4, which costs double.  details View at RingConn The smart ring looks and feels almost exactly the same as the RingConn Gen 2, with the main difference being the charging case and battery size. The Gen 2's charging case has enough power to boost the smart ring for over 150 days, and the ring has a battery life of up to 12 days. The Gen 2 Air, on the other hand, does not come with a charging case equipped with extra juice, and it advertises a 10-day battery life (though, in my testing, I got around eight days). Even though the Gen 2 Air's battery is lower than the Gen 2, both RingConn rings match or outcompete the battery life of the Oura Ring, the Ultrahuman Ring Air, and the Samsung Galaxy Ring. The Gen 2 Air is made of stainless steel, a more affordable material compared to the Gen 2's aerospace-grade titanium. Regardless of the material, the Gen 2 Air is comfortable to wear and feels unnoticeable around my finger. It comes in a silver and gold finish, and available sizes range from six to 14.Both rings are connected to the same app experience, so whether you're using the $300 ring or the $200 ring, you'll get your data and insights presented to you in exactly the same manner. Much like the Gen 2, the Gen 2 Air tracks sleep, stress, vitals, and activity. It takes all those factors and daily scores to deliver a Wellness Balance score. The Wellness Balance is displayed like a petal on a four-petal flower, and each biometric is ranked out of 100. At the start of the day, the activity petal is nonexistent, but the activity score increases as I exercise or walk. At the end of the day, I can view my aggregate Wellness Balance, and this score provides a holistic picture of my health. As I said in my spotlight of the RingConn Gen 2, the downside to this Wellness Balance is the absence of a readiness or recovery score that other wearables have calculated and provided to users at the start of their day to understand how their body bounced back from activity and how much activity or rest they should take on for the day. This recovery score provides insights into a user's overall health and resilience, and it's helpful for those who are following a training regime to know how to treat their bodies each day.I tested the RingConn Gen 2 Air hand in hand with my Oura Ring 4, and both devices gathered fairly similar health metrics. One night, Oura gave me an 87 Sleep Score, and RingConn gave me an 86. Oura said my resting heart rate overnight was 48 beats per minute, while RingConn said 49 beats per minute. Oura said my average heart rate was 55 beats per minute, and RingConn said it was 52. While not identical, these numbers are close. Activity data is a different story. One day, Oura said I walked 7,454 steps, while RingConn said I walked 5,706. This was on a moderately active day when I took a 25-minute walk. On an intensely active day, when I went to the gym for two hours and was out and about, Oura calculated that I walked 16,291 steps, and RingConn calculated that I walked 15,454 steps. Nina Raemont/ZDNETRingConn advertises an "AI health partner" as a function of its app experience. Every day, the AI partner tells you information, like how you slept or whether you hit your step count, and then asks questions based on your behaviors. These summaries aren't available on the main page where sleep, activity, and stress data are displayed -- they're only available on the AI tab. But unlike other AI assistants, you can't type out a personalized answer to these questions.Instead, you pick from the choices of responses. It didn't feel like AI to me because it wasn't as personalized, and the responses you could choose were simple; rather, it felt like a multiple-choice health summary. This is a classic case of a brand slapping AI onto a feature that isn't actually AI. What I like about RingConn smart rings is they will tell you exactly when the ring will die and notify the user to charge it ahead of time. This is a helpful feature I hope other smart ring brands adopt. Also: Oura Ring 3 vs Oura Ring 4: Opt for the older, discounted smart ring or the newest?One concern about a smart ring this affordable is whether the brand is keeping the user's data safe and protected. Health data is valuable, and in the wrong hands, it can be sent to advertisers or health insurance agencies. Smart ring brands pay a lot of money to keep such data safe, which is why they cost as much as they do. A RingConn representative did not immediately answer my questions about why the smart ring can be so cheap, if user data is secure and protected, or if it is being compromised for the sake of a lower-cost smart ring. I did, however, review RingConn's privacy policy which relays what user data is collected, used, and stored. I recommend looking over a health wearables privacy policy before purchasing a ring, so you understand how a company keeps your information safe and secure. ZDNET's buying advice So, should you buy this $200 smart ring? If you're looking for an alternative to some of the big names that won't cost you as much but will collect nearly the same level of health data, I'd suggest the RingConn Gen 2 Air.Also: The best smart rings: Expert tested and reviewedWith competitive battery life, data display that matches its $300 sibling, and data collection that gets close to the Oura Ring 4, the RingConn Gen 2 Air is one of the first $200 smart rings I've tested that I can confidently recommend for the budget-friendly and smart ring-curious shopper. Looking for the next best product? Get expert reviews and editor favorites with ZDNET Recommends.Featured reviews

In the beginning, building Machine Learning models was a skill only data scientists with knowledge of Python could master. However, low-code AI platforms have made things much easier now. Anyone can now directly make a model, link it to data, and publish it as a web service with just a few clicks. Marketers can now develop customer segmentation models, user support teams can implement chatbots, and product managers can automate the process of predicting sales without having to write code. Even so, this simplicity has its downsides. A False Start at Scale When a mid-sized e-commerce company introduced its first machine learning model, it went for the quickest route: a low-code platform. The data team quickly built a product recommendation model with Microsoft Azure ML Designer. There was no need for coding or a complicated setup, and the model was up and running in only a few days. When staged, it did well, recommending relevant products and maintaining user interest. However, when 100,000 people used the app, it faced problems. Response times tripled. Recommendations were only shown twice, or they did not appear at all. Eventually, the system crashed. The issue wasn’t the model that was being used. It was the platform. Azure ML Designer and AWS SageMaker Canvas are designed to operate fast. Thanks to their easy-to-use drag-and-drop tools, anyone can use machine learning. However, the simplicity that makes them easy to work with also covers their weaknesses. Tools that start as simple prototypes fail when they are put into high-traffic production, and this happens due to their structure. The Illusion of Simplicity Low-code AI tools are promoted to people who are not technology experts. They take care of the complex parts of data preparation, feature creation, training the model, and using it. Azure ML Designer makes it very quickly possible for users to import data, build a model pipeline, and deploy the pipeline as a web service. However, having an abstract idea is both positive and negative. Resource Management: Limited and Invisible Most low-code platforms run models on pre-set compute environments. The amount of CPU, GPU, and memory that users can access is not adjustable. These limits work well in most cases, but they become a problem when there is a surge in traffic. An educational technology platform using AWS SageMaker Canvas created a model that could classify student responses as they were submitted. During testing, it performed perfectly. Yet, as the number of users reached 50,000, the model’s API endpoint failed. It was found that the model was being run on a basic compute instance, and the only solution to upgrade it was to rebuild all the workflows. State Management: Hidden but Dangerous Because low-code platforms keep the model state between sessions, they are fast for testing but can be risky in real-life use. A chatbot for retail was created in Azure ML Designer so that user data would be maintained during each session. While testing, I felt that the experience was made just for me. However, in the production environment, users started receiving messages that were meant for someone else. The issue? It stored information about the user’s session, so each user would be treated as a continuation of the one before. Limited Monitoring: Blindfolded at Scale Low-code systems give basic results, such as accuracy, AUC, or F1 score, but these are measures for testing, not for running the system. It is only after incidents that teams discover that they cannot track what is essential in the production environment. A logistics startup implemented a demand forecasting model using Azure ML Designer to help with route optimization. All was good until the holidays arrived, and the requests increased. Customers complained of slow responses, but the team could not see how long the API took to respond or find the cause of the errors. The model could not be opened up to see how it worked. Scalable vs. Non-Scalable Low-Code Pipeline (Image by author) Why Low-Code Models Have Trouble Handling Large Projects Low-code AI systems cannot be scaled, as they lack the key components of strong machine learning systems. They are popular because they are fast, but this comes with a price: the loss of control. 1. Resource Limits Become Bottlenecks Low-code models are used in environments that have set limits on computing resources. As time passes and more people use them, the system slows down or even crashes. If a model has to deal with a lot of traffic, these constraints will likely cause significant problems. 2. Hidden State Creates Unpredictability State management is usually not something you must consider in low-code platforms. The values of variables are not lost from one session to another for the user. It is suitable for testing, but it becomes disorganised once multiple users employ the system simultaneously. 3. Poor Observability Blocks Debugging Low-code platforms give basic information (such as accuracy and F1 score) but do not support monitoring the production environment. Teams cannot see API latency, how resources are used, or how the data is input. It is not possible to detect the issues that arise. Low-Code AI Scaling Risks – A Layered View (Image by author) A list of factors to consider when making low-code models scalable Low-code does not automatically mean the work is easy, especially if you want to grow. It is essential to remember Scalability from the beginning when making an ML system with low-code tools. 1. Think about scalability when you first start designing the system. You can use services that provide auto-scaling, such as Azure Kubernetes Service in Azure ML and SageMaker Pipelines in AWS. Avoid default compute environments. Go for instances that can handle more memory and CPU as needed. 2. Isolate State Management To use session-based models like chatbots, ensure user data is cleared after every session. Ensure that web services handle each request independently, so they do not pass on information accidentally. 3. Watch production numbers as well as model numbers. Monitor your API’s response time, the number of requests that fail, and the resources the application uses. Use PSI and KS-Score to find out when the inputs to your system are not standard. Focus on the business’s results, not only on the technical numbers (conversion rates and sales impact). 4. Implement Load Balancing and Auto-Scaling Place your models as managed endpoints with the help of load balancers (Azure Kubernetes or AWS ELB). You can set auto-scaling guidelines depending on CPU load, number of requests, or latency. 5. Version and Test Models Continuously Make sure that every model is given a new version every time it is changed. Before releasing a new version to the public, it should be checked in staging. Perform A/B testing to check how the model works without upsetting the users. When Low-Code Models Work Well Low-code tools do not have any significant flaws. They are powerful for: Rapid prototyping means giving priority to speed over stable results. Analytics that are done inside the system, where the potential for failure is minimal. Simple software is valuable in schools since it speeds up the learning process. A group of people at a healthcare startup built a model using AWS SageMaker Canvas to catch medical billing errors. The model was created just for internal reporting, so it didn’t need to scale up and could easily be used. It was a perfect case for using low-code. Conclusion Low-code AI platforms provide instant intelligence, as they do not require any coding. However, when the business grows, its faults are revealed. Some issues are insufficient resources, information seeping out, and limited visibility. These issues cannot be solved just by making a few clicks. They are architectural issues. When beginning a low-code AI project, consider whether it will be used as a prototype or a marketable product. If the latter, low-code should only be your initial tool, not the final solution. The post The Automation Trap: Why Low-Code AI Models Fail When You Scale appeared first on Towards Data Science.

May 16, 20257 min readWhat RFK, Jr. Got Wrong about Autism, according to ScientistsA coalition of autism scientists has formed to counter RFK, Jr.’s misrepresentations of science and of autism spectrum disorderBy Allison Parshall Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during a news conference at the Department of Health and Human Services on April 16, 2025 in Washington, DC. Alex Wong/Getty ImagesScientific research over the past 30 years has revealed a patchwork of potential causes of autism. Most of them are genetic—the condition is between 60 and 90 percent heritable—and some involve nongenetic risk factors that might impact development during pregnancy.“We’ve found a great deal of the underlying [causes],” says Helen Tager-Flusberg, an autism researcher and a professor emerita at Boston University. But how these different risk factors come together as the brain develops remains a challenge to piece together. “Autism is not a simple disorder,” she says. “There are no simple answers. There are no so-called smoking guns.”Even so, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the U.S. secretary of health and human services, talks about autism in a way that suggests he thinks there are simple and direct causes. He often refers to the steady rise in autism prevalence (which is likely due to improved screening and diagnosis) as an indicator that we’re in the middle of an “autism epidemic” driven by “environmental toxins.” He has also refused to disavow the long-debunked idea that vaccines cause autism. This month, as part of Kennedy’s effort to find “the root causes of autism,” the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that they will create a “data platform” to study the condition. In April NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya had described plans for “national disease registries, including a new one for autism." The plan involved collecting “comprehensive” private health data on autism that would represent “broad coverage” of the U.S. population, leading autism advocacy organizations, civil rights groups and research scientists to warn of medical privacy concerns. (Shortly after outlets reported on Bhattacharya’s statements in April, HHS denied that it planned to create an “autism registry.”)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.In a budget hearing on Wednesday, Kennedy called for an end to genetic research into autism. “I don’t think we should be funding that genetic work anymore,” he said. “What we really need to do now is to identify the environmental toxins.”In response to this dismissal of well-established science, Tager-Flusberg has organized a coalition of scientists to push back. The Coalition of Autism Scientists now has 258 members and is still growing.Scientific American spoke with Tager-Flusberg about Kennedy’s statements this week and how the autism community is responding.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]In a Congressional budget hearing Wednesday afternoon, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said: “Autism is an epidemic, and the genes do not cause epidemics. They can contribute a vulnerability, but you need an environmental toxin. It’s like cigarettes and smoking.” What was your reaction to that? There is no reason that we need to refer to the increased prevalence rates, which have been rising steadily for many years now, as an epidemic. This is not the definition of an epidemic, so I take issue with highlighting that.Second of all, genetics are the primary contributing factor to autism. We know specific genes and variants confer increased risk, even in cases where there aren’t any clear environmental contributions. If anything, it’s the other way around—it’s the environmental factors that add to or interact with the genetic risk for autism.Take one of the very well-regulated nongenetic factors: parental age, particularly paternal age. What we think is going on is that, as parents age, their germ cells [which develop into eggs or sperm] are changing, and so this is leading to alterations in the DNA that then confer risk for autism.Are there other nongenetic factors that might be playing a role?[Studies have shown] that [pregnant] mothers who take an antiseizure medication, particularly valproic acid, can have an increased risk of having a child with autism. But here, again, we have to think about this in a more complex way. [In such cases], the mother herself has a seizure disorder, and seizure disorders are a very common co-occurrence with autism. So then [the parent and the child] well may have some shared genetic risk factors that are interacting with the effects of the medication itself.When RFK, Jr., said “environmental toxins” are causing autism, do you think he was talking about vaccines?Well, I listened very carefully to his testimony [on Wednesday]. And he will not rule out adverse effects of vaccines. And so, yes, I think he is probably still keeping that on his agenda. And you have the NIH director [Jay Bhattacharya] saying that we should look at everything because we want to gain the trust of people. To me, that’s not the way of gaining people’s trust. You don’t gain trust by saying that we can just toss out all the research that we’ve done so far and start again.Why did you decide to form a coalition of autism scientists?Colleagues of mine were becoming increasingly concerned, and we were thinking about what we could do as scientists. It came to a head for me when I saw all the advocacy groups—self-advocates, the parent advocacy groups, nonprofit organizations—come together and issue a very strongly worded and clear statement of concern about what they were hearing from the administration. And I felt that it was really important for the voice of scientists to be heard, too.So I just contacted a small group of my colleagues and said, “I think we need to issue a press release.” I set up the Zoom call that afternoon, at five o'clock on a Friday. And it took off so rapidly. Clearly, there was a need for the voices of scientists to be heard. We have something very important to contribute because that's where we have devoted our careers.What has concerned you and your colleagues the most?I would say there are probably four things. One is dismissing all the prior science that has been accomplished and everything that we do know. That, I think, is very disturbing.A second [concern] is that, at no point over the past several months of this administration, has the secretary of health and human services or, [since he took office on April 1], the NIH director reached out to anyone we know in the external autism science community. They have not reached out to us at all, and I think that is very disturbing.A third thing is that the one person that was named early on [by the administration to lead research into autism] was David Geier, who is not a trained scientist. [Editor’s Note: Geier is a long-time vaccine skeptic. He is not a physician and was sanctioned in 2011 for practicing medicine without a license.]The fourth thing is that now, we heard last week, the administration plans to use Medicare and Medicaid data as the foundation of the research plan to uncover the “roots” of autism. These are not databases that are suited to that kind of research because they capture only a subset of children diagnosed with autism. And there are serious concerns about whether this administration would put into place and commit to the kind of ethical privacy and confidentiality attempts that are needed to conduct this.Many autistic people push back on this focus on finding the “roots” of autism or a “cure.” How does that pushback fit in here?Autism is an enormously heterogenous disorder. People who, while needing some support, still can function and flourish individually represent one end of the spectrum. They can speak for themselves, and for at least some of them, autism is part of their identity. And understandably, they are not interested in a cure—and parenthetically, it’s unlikely that one could even identify a potential cure.But autism also involves the other end of the spectrum. A quarter to a third [of people with the diagnosis] are far more severely impaired. They may have limited daily living skills; they cannot be left alone; they have extremely limited communication abilities. This is the end of the [spectrum] that we now call profound autism. It is such a challenge for them and their families, especially some of them who engage in self-injury or very aggressive behavior. Yes, I think there is hope that we might find maybe not a complete cure but something that would significantly change their developmental course. I think we should be able to hold both ideas in our head at the same time because this is the reality of what autism is.Kennedy’s approach seems to step right on that fissure in the autism community. Is there a way to prevent this rift from developing further?I don't think I have the answer to that. It’s a big question in the community because people are looking at the agendas in very different ways. But I will say one thing. I have been really impressed, over the past couple of weeks, since beginning this coalition, with how [autistic] folks who are self-advocates have joined the coalition. I think the one thing that unifies us is a belief in the importance of scientific research. Maybe we define the scope of that science in different ways, but that’s always true. That’s something that we all hold to.And I think we all, at this moment, believe that the direction that’s been described so far by the administration is not the way we should go. We should not be opening up the question of vaccines again. We should be very cautious about using “registries” and make sure the research that’s done is ethical and maintains the confidentiality of individuals in those databases. We all agree about that.We also all agree that, so far, we’re not hearing from the administration that they have a very deep understanding of autism. They have failed to engage most of us, whether scientists or advocates or nonprofit organizations. None of us have been involved in these discussions. So I think we actually have a moment in time where there is some agreement, and I think it behooves the administration to think about why that is and whether they need to change their course.

We have obviously had quite a bit of Grand Theft Auto 5 over the last decade-plus, from multiple re-releases of the game to, of course, continued and consistent updates what many might call the meat and potatoes of the experience for the vast majority of its lifetime- GTA Online. But go back further in the series’ timeline by just one game, and you arrive at the completely contrasting circumstances of Grand Theft Auto 4. The 2008 open world title was obviously highly acclaimed as well – to the extent that, just like GTA 5, it still stands as one of the best reviewed game of all tine – while it’s also safe to say that it sold a ton of copies as well, even though it could obviously never hope to even come close to GTA 5’s commercial accomplishments. And yet, for all of its critical and commercial successes, once Rockstar Games was done with GTA 4 – which was after two post launch single player expansions, which of course is something that GTA 5 itself never got – Rockstar never looked back at the game again. Interestingly enough, however, recent rumblings have suggested that that could change at some point in the not too distant future. Known Rockstar Games insider Tez2 recently claimed on the GTA forums that a PS5 and Xbox Series X/S port of Grand Theft Auto 4 has been in the works for roughly a year at this point, and that Rockstar likely intends to release it at some point later this year- which of course means that it will release before Grand Theft Auto 6, which was recently officially delayed to May 2026 (and might not necessarily be done with delays, for all we know). Admittedly, this isn’t the first time we have had rumours or speculation about a re-release of GTA 4, and obviously none of them have ever amounted to anything up to this point- but given Rockstar’s recent history, there is precedent to suggest that GTA 4 could once again see the light of day. Rockstar has long been in the habit of outright ignoring its past releases, refusing to offer remasters or remakes or anything resembling a re-release even in the face of overwhelming demand. Until not too long ago, the original Red Dead Redemption was a similar case, but with the acclaimed 2010 Wild West epic having been brought to PC, PS4, and Nintendo Switch over the last couple of years, it now does feel likelier than it ever has that Rockstar might be looking to do something similar with Grand Theft Auto 4 as well. After all, that is another beloved title from that same era of Rockstar games that hasn’t seen the light of day in ages, which in turn has really ratcheted up the demand for the game to come back that much more. But if Rockstar does indeed decide to do a GTA 4 re-release, our hope is it’ll be much more than a simple port. One thing most will likely agree on is that the aforementioned Red Dead Redemption re-release should not serve as a yardstick for Rockstar to measure against, because the bar should really be significantly higher. The Red Dead Redemption port really was in almost all ways just a simply and straightforward port. It offered few upgrades, and the ones that it did were negligible at best. The resolution was upscaled, there were some light improvements to the picture quality, the UI saw some minor adjustments here and there- and that was pretty much it. There were no upgrades to the lighting, to the assets or the textures, or anything of note, really. Hell, there wasn’t even a performance mode- even when played on PS4 Pro or on PS5 via backward compatibility, the game remains locked at 30 FPS, which is just a crying shame, to put it mildly. To top it all off, Rockstar decided to price this re-release – which was deemed by many to be a low effort port of a game over a decade old – at a $50 point, which felt unreasonable, to say the least. Thankfully, the package did include the Undead Nightmare expansion for that price, so at least there was no additional fleecing being done on that front. The point being, of course, that Grand Theft Auto 4’s re-release, if it is indeed on the way, cannot take a similar approach. Looking at what the standard is for a number of high profile remastered releases in the current market, it’s impossible not to have higher expectations from a GTA 4 re-release. Just take a look at something like Ninja Gaiden 2 Black or The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion Remastered, both of which are remasters that released this year and ended up impressing many with just how significantly upgraded and overhauled they were over the original experiences in spite of only being remasters on paper. Go back a little further, and look at, say, Metroid Prime Remastered, or Mass Effect Legendary Edition, or The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD, all of which offered meaningful upgrades and improvements that you didn’t have to squint to even be able to notice. While a Grand Theft Auto 4 re-release doesn’t have to be quite on that same level as far as its upgrades are concerned, with standards and expectations for remasters being higher in general, a low effort port for GTA 4 will be quite a hard pill to swallow by many- as evidenced by the disappointment many felt with the Red Dead port. Rockstar has tried its hand at actual remastered releases in recent years as well, of course, though that sadly didn’t work too well. Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition launched a handful of years ago on modern platforms and, as most would tell you, did an awful job of remastering and modernizing three gaming masterpieces. Though GTA: The Definitive Edition did definitely put in much more of an effort than the Red Dead port did, the effort that it did put in was lackluster, to put it mildly- and our hope is that Grand Theft Auto 4’s purported release for modern platforms will sidestep those errors as well. The thing with GTA 4 is, of course, that it remains a spectacular game with incredible impressive tech and visuals even today, a ridiculously immersive and authentic urban open world map to lose yourself in, one of the most gripping stories that GTA has ever told, told through who may very well be the series’ best protagonist ever. Grand Theft Auto 4 was an unabashed classic in every sense of the word, so to see it modernized and updated with the right amount of effort and thought put in could be incredibly exciting, not only for returning fans looking to experience Liberty City again, but also for new ones who never played the game when it first came out. Grand Theft Auto 6 will obviously likely up the ante in all those areas by quite some margin when it releases next year, but until then, an enhanced GTA 4 on modern consoles should serve as an excellent appetizer. Here’s hoping that actually does end up happening this time. Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.

Just Why UPDATE: Fortnite's now letting people squad up with a Darth Vader AI chatbot for, sigh, reasons, so of course streamers have already made it swear and talk about boobs Heads up: if you're under 13 (this varies by region), you'll need to get your parents' permission to ask this thing why it exists. Image credit: Epic News by Mark Warren Senior Staff Writer Updated on May 16, 2025 UPDATE (16/05/25, 5:20 PM BST): Kotaku's Ethan Gach reports that Epic Games has already pushed an update to try and stop people being able to make AI Vader say the F word. "We pushed a hot fix within 30 minutes of this happening in-game, so this shouldn’t happen again," the publisher said. I'm so tired. Here we go. It's 2025, so Fortnite now includes a Darth Vader chatbot you can have stilted AI-powered conversations with after recruiting him into your squad. Naturally, a streamer has already managed to get it to say a bad word and talk about boobs. I shouldn't be surprised. This game already has Tesla's shitty Cybertruck in it. At least people in the US who only game on their Iphones are being spared for now. To see this content please enable targeting cookies. "Strategize with the ultimate Sith Lord. With your voice. And he’ll respond back using conversational AI," reads Epic's announcement that this - which uses Google’s Gemini 2.0 Flash model and ElevenLabs’ Flash v2.5 model to deliver AI-generated chatter using James Earl Jones' actual voice - is a thing. Perhaps the one silver lining, though it's not really a silver lining because it helps normalise this kind of thing, is that the late actor's estate has given its permission to let Epic do this. "James Earl felt that the voice of Darth Vader was inseparable from the story of Star Wars, and he always wanted fans of all ages to continue to experience it," reads a statement from Jones' family, "We hope that this collaboration with Fortnite will allow both longtime fans of Darth Vader and newer generations to share in the enjoyment of this iconic character." "Ask him all your pressing questions about the Force, the Galactic Empire... or you know, a good strat for the last Storm circle. The Sith Lord has opinions," Epic says. So, what are people asking him? Well, Australian streamer Loserfruit has already managed to get the Vader chatbot to swear, call them "Mummy", and talk about breasts, the latter of which you can see in the clip below. To see this content please enable targeting cookies. It's also enquired if a Rebel Alliance of Skibidi Toilets exists in a chat with another player. To see this content please enable targeting cookies. It's still early days too, and you can only imagine the kinds of things certain people are and will be trying to get it to say. Oh, it's also worth noting that because laws exist, Epic's Vader chatbot FAQ makes it clear that "players under 13 or their country’s age of digital consent, whichever is higher" will need to get their parents' permission to be able to talk to AI Vader. It's like a depressingly 2025 version of getting your mum to approve you hopping on Club Penguin, except this time they're saying yes to a parental control to “allow voice and written communication with AI Features” Epic's added to the game's settings and some other places detailed in the FAQ. That's it. This is a thing.

The Ontario Science Centre was shuttered on June 21, 2024, with the Ontario government claiming that a structural roof issue made it unsafe. New documents suggest that the engineers inspecting the roof didn’t agree. Photo by Canmenwalker via Wikimedia Commons New documents, obtained by Canadian Architect through a freedom of information request, appear to indicate that Rimkus—the structural engineers hired to assess the Ontario Science Centre’s roof before its closure—did not support closing the Centre for public safety reasons. The draft versions of the report instead recommend regular, routine maintenance to the roofs over the course of the coming 20 years. When read in conjunction with correspondence preceding the closure obtained by Global News, it seems likely that the engineers were pressured by the government to produce a report that would support the shuttering of the Ontario Science Centre. However, such a recommendation was not supported by their research and expertise. Canadian Architect obtained draft versions of parts of the Rimkus report from March, April, and May of 2024. The report, whose final version is dated June 18, 2024, was commissioned to assess the condition of the Science Centre’s reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) roof panels, an outdated form of construction that can pose problems over time if not properly maintained. It was based on on-site investigations conducted by Rimkus from December 2023 to March 2024. In a key section on RAAC Panel Recommendations, the March and April versions of the report clearly recommend to proceed with repairs to a set of panels identified as “high risk”—less than 2.5% of the Science Centre’s roofs—over the summer. It reads: “It is Rimkus’ recommendation to address all 2024 RAAC panel repair (amber risk) locations as a single project. As such, it is our opinion that the most cost effective strategy would be a consistent repair approach. Panel replacement rather than reinforcement is feasible at all areas, and presented in Table 7.” The government seems to have pushed the engineers to go further, asking how the RAAC risk could be entirely eliminated. The May version adds the sentences: “It is recommended that RAAC panels should be replaced at the time of the next scheduled roof replacement, to completely eliminate the RAAC panel risk. Recommended timelines for complete roof assembly and RAAC panel (where applicable) replacements, and budgetary costs, by roof area are shown in Table 8.” In the March, April, and May versions of the report, there is no provision for declining to do the repairs—simply because roof repairs are a relatively routine, straightforward undertaking. RAAC panels at the Science Centre had been routinely replaced in the past. At the time of the inspection, a half dozen panels were identified as being in critical condition, and were already being replaced while the report was completed. A building permit was in progress to repair a section of the roof over the rainforest room. The cost of the immediate repairs needed would amount to around $500,000—or just over $7 million, if coupled with replacing, repairing, and maintaining larger sections of the Science Centre’s roofs that year. And yet, the language apparently wasn’t strong enough for the Ontario government, whose communications staffers aimed to justify the closure as a public safety issue. For the final version of the report, government officials seem to have pressed the engineers to answer the question: what if we just don’t do the repairs? Wouldn’t the only totally safe option, in that case, be to close the building? As a result, the final version of the report included the following passage: “Where replacement or reinforcement cannot be completed within the recommended time frame, then one of the following supplemental risk mitigation options is recommended and should be implemented in conjunction with the snow/load monitoring program: Option 1: Restricted access or full closure to prevent any persons from walking in areas where high risk panels are present. Option 2: Installation of temporary shoring (reinforcement) supporting the underside of RAAC panels. Options 3: If shoring is not possible, installation of horizontal hoarding near the underside of hard ceiling levels, or other building interferences (sprinkler mains/process piping etc.) The above three recommended options are listed in order of preference, with option 1 completing [sic] eliminating the risk to public or staff.” As I have written before, while a quick reading of this passage may seem to suggest “full closure” of the Science Centre, a closer look shows that access would only need to be restricted at the areas “where high risk panels are present.” The high-risk panels represent a miniscule portion of the Science Centre’s roof, almost entirely in non-exhibition areas. Texts between Infrastructure Ontario minister Michael Lindsey and a top communications staffer, obtained by Global News, point to the Ministry’s communications with structural engineers Rimkus in the lead-up to the announcement of the Ontario Science Centre’s closure. The texts also show that the Ministry of Infrastructure was in tight communication with the Premier’s Office (PO) about the closure.   Text messages between Infrastructure Ontario CEO Michael Lindsay and the agency’s top communications staffer, from the run-up to the closure announcement, suggest that the agency was working closely with Rimkus and pressing executives to tailor its language before the report was submitted. “The executives at Rimkus look like survivors of the apocalypse. [laugh/cry emoji],” one of the texts reads. The presence of a typo in the report’s added section also suggests a rushed addition. When the final report was sent, a member of Rimkus’s team seems to have also referenced conversations that took place between the two parties. “Please refer to revised final summary report (R2) attached, with updated notes/paragraphs, as discussed,” they wrote on June 18. While some back-and-forth between consultants and public clients is expected, it is unusual that this contact would be with the Ministry’s top brass—particularly for a routine, technical report. Also notable is that while the Rimkus report released to the public by Infrastructure Ontario was signed by the engineers, it was not stamped—an indication that the engineers may not have felt entirely comfortable with how the report landed, and were unwilling to be professionally liable for it. In an email to top Ministry of Infrastructure and Infrastructure Ontario officials after the closure announcement, an Ontario Ministry director of communications shares a few questions that may arise. One is: “Q: Is this [closure] just a convenient excuse to move [the Ontario Science Centre] to Ont Place?” He suggests the reply: “This is a health and safety issue. Full stop.” But for the engineers that actually inspected the roof, closure should never have been on the table: the roof issue could—and should—have been addressed with routine repairs. The post New documents reinforce that Science Centre closure was not supported by engineers appeared first on Canadian Architect.

Launched in partnership with SANDOW DESIGN GROUP, the inaugural CDW Product Awards debuted at Clerkenwell Design Week in London, spotlighting standout products that represent the best of today’s design thinking and tomorrow’s possibilities. Winners were selected for their bold vision, thoughtful execution, and impact across disciplines—from sustainability and accessibility to technology integration and modular design. This year’s distinguished jury brought a wealth of expertise across architecture, design, and editorial leadership: • Linda Morey-Burrows, founder of MoreySmith Architects • Daniel MacInnes, director at PriestmanGoode • Shawn Adams, architect, writer, and founder of POoR Collective • Valeria Segovia, principal and design director, Gensler • AJ Paron, EVP and design futurist, Sandow Design Group • Avinash Rajagopal, editor in chief, *Metropolis* Magazine Click here to view all of the 2025 finalists. Accessories Manufacturer: Spacestor   |   Product: Valet Photo Credit: Thom Pitt   |   Visit Website Acoustics Manufacturer: Acoufelt   |   Product: Flow Ceiling Baffles Photo Credit: Grace Iguis   |   Visit Website Bath Fixtures Manufacturer: C.P. Hart Bathrooms   |   Product: Park Lane Photo Credit: Fima   |   Visit Website Best Craftsmanship Manufacturer: Woodesign di Primiceri Roberto e c sas   |   Product: VIVA by Roberto Primiceri Photo Credit: G. Surdo   |   Visit Website Best for the Planet Manufacturer: Arper   |   Product: Catifa Carta Photo Credit: Salva Lopez   |   Visit Website Best Material Innovation Manufacturer: Camira Fabrics   |   Product: ReSKU 2.0 Photo Credit: Camira   |   Visit Website Best of Clerkenwell Manufacturer: Camira Fabrics   |   Product: ReSKU 2.0 Photo Credit: Camira   |   Visit Website Best Product for Healthcare Manufacturer: Shaw Contract   |   Product: EcoWorx Resilient PVC free/ Art+Science Collection Photo Credit: Shaw Contract   |   Visit Website Best Product for Homes Manufacturer: Gaze Burvill   |   Product: Levity Photo Credit: Julie Skelton   |   Visit Website Best Product for Workplaces Manufacturer: Teknion   |   Product: Jotta Photo Credit: Teknion   |   Visit Website Carpet and Rugs Manufacturer: Milliken   |   Product: Pattern Play Carpet Tile Collection Photo Credit: Milliken Floor Covering   |   Visit Website Commercial Furniture Manufacturer: Humanscale   |   Product: Freedom 25 Photo Credit: Humanscale   |   Visit Website Hard Flooring Manufacturer: Bolon   |   Product: Elements Collection Photo Credit: Bolon, Elements, Wool   |   Visit Website Lighting Manufacturer: Nordlux (uk & Eire) Limited   |   Product: Glossy Mini Photo Credit: Andreas From   |   Visit Website Most Inclusive Design Manufacturer: Mikomax Sp. z o.o. / Hushoffice brand   |   Product: hushFree line of acoustic pods Photo Credit: company materials   |   Visit Website Residential Furniture Manufacturer: Woodesign di Primiceri Roberto e c sas   |   Product: VIVA by Roberto Primiceri Photo Credit: G. Surdo   |   Visit Website Technology (Hardware) / Power and IT Solutions Manufacturer: Blocks   |   Product: Blocks | smart lockers Photo Credit: company materials   |   Visit Website Textiles Manufacturer: Camira Fabrics   |   Product: ReSKU 2.0 Photo Credit: ReSKU 2.0 essentials shot : Camira   |   Visit Website Tile and Surfaces Manufacturer: Albion Stone   |   Product: Stone Brick ‘Specials’ Photo Credit: Will Pryce   |   Visit Website Wall Coverings Manufacturer: Orac   |   Product: WX210 Reed Photo Credit: Orac   |   Visit Website Manufacturer: Orac   |   Product: WX211 Flute Photo Credit: Orac   |   Visit Website