The post تعرف على أدوات Adobe Firefly الجديدة لإنتاج الفيديو بالذكاء الاصطناعي appeared first on عرب هاردوير.

The collaborative moodboarding app is now out of beta.

Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility — your central hub for news and insights on the future of transportation. Sign up here for free — just click TechCrunch Mobility! It might have been a short week, but there was still plenty of news, including another Zoox recall, an update on the Stellantis-Amazon partnership, and a few startup-funding deals.  One item of note: This week, I wrote about Carma Technology and its patent infringement lawsuit against Uber. This isn’t a patent troll situation, and the IP attorneys I have spoken with say it will be a challenging case for Uber.  The gist? Carma, which was formed in 2007 by serial entrepreneur and SOSV Ventures founder Sean O’Sullivan, filed a lawsuit earlier this year against Uber, alleging the company infringed on five of its patents that are related to the system of matching riders (or packages) with capacity in vehicles. In other words, ride-sharing. IP attorney Larry Ashery provided the money quote that explains why this is such a complicated and challenging case.  “What’s important to understand here is, Carma isn’t just asserting five patents. They have had a very sophisticated strategy of patent procurement that they’ve been working on for the past 18 years.” Carma’s five patents are part of a 30-patent family that are all related and connected to the original filing date. That matters because each of the five asserted patents contains multiple patent claims, which define the legal boundaries of the invention. These individual claims — not just the patents as a whole — are what Carma is asserting against Uber.That means Uber will have to address and defend against each asserted claim, making the litigation more complex and difficult to defeat, Ashery noted.  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 Let’s get into the rest of the news.  A little bird Image Credits:Bryce Durbin A few little birds have been chirping at us for months now about a new autonomous vehicle technology startup that has been quietly plugging along for a year. The interesting nugget about this startup — which is called Bedrock Robotics — is who is behind it: Boris Sofman, who led Waymo’s self-driving trucks program and previously co-founded and led the popular consumer robotics company Anki.  The San Francisco-based startup is still in stealth, but my sources tell me it has raised considerable venture funds. Bedrock Robotics is working on a self-driving kit that retrofits onto construction equipment and other heavy machinery, according to a filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Got a tip for us? Email Kirsten Korosec at kirsten.korosec@techcrunch.com or my Signal at kkorosec.07, Sean O’Kane at sean.okane@techcrunch.com, or Rebecca Bellan at rebecca.bellan@techcrunch.com. Or check out these instructions to learn how to contact us via encrypted messaging apps or SecureDrop. Deals! Image Credits:Bryce Durbin Firefly Aerospace received a $50 million investment from Northrop Grumman as part of its Series D round. This investment will further advance production of the startup’s  co-developed medium launch vehicle, now known as Eclipse. Pallet, a warehouse logistics software startup based in Fremont, California, raised $27 million in a Series B funding round led by General Catalyst. Bain Capital Ventures, Activant Capital, and Bessemer Venture Partners also participated. Volteras, a London-based startup building virtual connective tissue that will allow plugged-in EVs to offer their batteries to support the grid, closed an $11.1 million Series A led by Union Square Ventures, with participation from Edenred, Exor, Long Journey Ventures, and Wex. Way Data Technologies, a fleet management startup founded by veterans of Lucid Motors and Wolt, raised €2.6 million ($2.95 million) in pre-seed funding led by Pale Blue Dot, with participation from 10x Founders and Greens Ventures.  Notable reads and other tidbits Image Credits:Bryce Durbin Autonomous vehicles Rivr’s four-wheeled, stair-climbing delivery robot — which its CEO and founder, Marko Bjelonic, describes as a dog on roller skates — will ferry packages from Veho vans directly to customers’ front doors as part of a pilot program in Austin, Texas. Both companies see this small pilot as a critical step toward solving a unique slice of the end-to-end autonomous delivery journey.   TuSimple (now CreateAI) sent a trove of sensitive data — effectively the blueprint of an American-made autonomous vehicle system — to a Beijing-owned firm after committing to the U.S. government that it would cease such transfers under a national security agreement. The revelation, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, prompted numerous “not surprised” responses from several readers and sources within the industry. Zoox issued its second voluntary software recall in a month, following a collision between one of its robotaxis and an e-scooter rider in San Francisco on May 8. The incident is notable, largely for what happened after the unoccupied Zoox vehicle operating at low speed was struck by the e-scooter after braking to yield at an intersection.  According to Zoox, the e-scooterist fell to the ground directly next to the vehicle and the “robotaxi began to move and stopped after completing the turn, but did not make further contact with the e-scooterist.” In other Zoox news, the company announced it was the “official robotaxi partner of Resorts World Las Vegas.” As part of the deal, there will be a dedicated and Zoox-branded robotaxi pickup and drop-off location at Resorts World Las Vegas.  Electric vehicles, charging, & batteries The Tesla Cybertruck is having a rough time. Dozens of unsold Tesla Cybertrucks are piling up at a Detroit shopping center parking lot. And while Cybertruck owners are now allowed by Tesla to trade in their vehicles for the first time since they hit the market, they’ll face a steep depreciation hit. CarGurus recently showed depreciation rates of up to 45%. Meanwhile, Tesla sales in Europe and the U.K. have fallen by nearly half, according to data released by the European Automobile Manufacturers Association.  The Volkswagen emissions cheating scandal of 2015 rippled through the automotive sector and prompted the company (and later followed by others) to shift away from diesel and toward hybrids and electric vehicles. Now, four former Volkswagen executives have received prison sentences for their role. In-car tech Amazon is no longer working with Stellantis to create in-car software for the automaker’s vehicles. The partnership, first announced in January 2022, was part of Stellantis’ plan to generate $22.5 billion annually from software. Stellantis told TechCrunch it would be pivoting to an Android-based system.

The Last of Us season two wraps with episode seven, but was it a satisfying finale? Fun-gal and games. Image credit: HBO Feature by Victoria Phillips Kennedy News Reporter Published on May 26, 2025 The Last of Us' second season has now come to an end, with a gritty episode which delved further into the themes of grief and revenge. Please note, there will be spoilers for The Last of Us - both the show and the game - below. Image credit: HBO I never thought this last episode of The Last of Us season two was going to be easy to pull off. The showrunners delivered a moving episode last week, which, while a great watch, staggered the current day's momentum. And, unfortunately, I don't feel the series gained enough of that momentum back in season two's seventh episode to make for a truly great finale. The finale is not quite 50 minutes long, picking up after the main events of episode five. Jesse is with a wounded Dina in the theatre, where he proceeds to remove the arrow from her leg. Dina tells him she can't die, and also refuses to drink any alcohol, rousing his suspicions that there is something more she isn't telling him. A short time later, Ellie arrives back at the theatre, following her confrontation with Nora. It is clear that this Ellie is a very different person from the Ellie we saw in season one, who after beating David to death was unable to contain her emotions despite her actions in that moment saving her life. She was distressed, crying and shaking. After Ellie beats Nora in Seattle, though, she is almost numb. She does not lash out, but rather stares vacantly as Dina tends to her wounds, calmly saying how she made Nora talk. The Ellie we once knew is fading away. Image credit: HBO The dynamic between Ellie, Dina, and Jesse during the season two finale is a high point of the episode. The three young actors each show an earnestness in their performances. When Ellie tells Isabela Merced's Dina what Joel did at the Firefly hospital, Dina firmly says they need to leave Seattle. They need to go home (this does water down her speach about revenge from earlier in the season, though, it has to be said). Young Mazino's Jesse, meanwhile, serves as the level-headed, parental voice of reason, taking on a role well beyond his years as he rallies the team to find Tommy before they leave Seattle. Lastly, Bella Ramsey continues to deliver a tenacious performance as Ellie. I particularly liked the scene between Ellie and Jesse in the bookshop. Here, Jesse admits that he not only once considered leaving Jackson to be with a woman he had fallen in love with, but that he had voted not to go after Abby during the council meeting several episodes earlier. Jesse does not patronise Ellie here. Instead, he is calm and collected. He explains his reasons, stating that Jackson's community is what's important to him. He acts for the greater good, even if that means sacrificing his personal happiness. He is a natural and capable leader, something that highlights Ellie's increasingly warped sense of reality and scrappiness. Unfortunately though, Jesse's sound words are not enough to get through to Ellie, who sees an opportunity to find Abby, and takes it, even though she promised to go home. And, from here on, the season finale begins to struggle. Image credit: HBO Ellie separates from Dina and Jesse to find Abby, and on her way comes across Seraphites, as well as Mel and Owen. But, while these scenes do pack a punch - seeing Ellie getting hoisted by the neck by the Seraphites is certainly not an easy watch - they don't get enough time to stand on their own and really make an impact on the viewer. The confrontation with the Serphites in the woods is a footnote on Ellie's way to the aquarium. Did it really need to be there? For Ellie's story, I really don't think it did. I appreciate there is the war between the WLF and the Serpaphites ticking along in the background of this episode, but I have played the games. I know what the showrunners are building up to with the WLF and the Seraphites in the background, but if someone doesn't know the source material already, I wonder if these moments - including the one between Isaac and Park at a WLF camp - may fall a little flat due to their lack of clear direction. The Last of Us season two's finale teased events beyond Ellie and Dina, but given viewers will have to wait (potentially) a couple of years to find out what these story scraps all mean, are they actually worth it? | Image credit: HBO Then there is that confrontation between Ellie, Mel and Owen. I say confrontation, but actually the show changes some narrative points here, and I think this is to the detriment of the story. In the show, Ellie shoots Owen in the throat, killing him. Meanwhile, a rogue piece of detritus from the shot lodges itself in Mel's neck, wounding her enough that her death is inevitable. So, Mel's death was accidental. I don't think it should have been. In the game, Ellie knows what she is doing as she kills Mel, and I wish the series had committed to making Ellie's killing spree, which continues to show her downward spiral on her quest for revenge, intentional. I will say this, though. The moment it is revealed that Mel is pregnant is certainly a harrowing one, and Ariela Barer does a brilliant job bringing emotion to Mel's death as she reaches out to Ellie in a bid to save her unborn child. I wish Ellie had been stronger here. Ellie is clearly upset by the accident which led to Mel's death, and is deeply affected at the realisation that Mel is pregnant. Of course, it reflects Dina's pregnancy. And yet, when in her dying moments Mel asks Ellie if her baby is OK, Ellie can't even muster a small lie to ease her passing. She just stays silent. Changes like making Mel's death accidental dilute the impact of The Last of Us Part 2's story. I feel the show made Ellie seem quite infantile here, when really by this moment in the game we are starting to see the real darkness in Ellie, which makes the player further question if her bloody quest for revenge is actually justifiable any more. Meanwhile, although I can not fault the actors who continue to deliver some truly outstanding performances, any impact this moment may have had on viewers is over too quickly. Jesse and Tommy arrive to see Ellie looking distressed, and swiftly remove both her and, by extension, the viewers from the scene. It's uncomfortable, but it would have benefited the story to let us all sit in that moment for longer, to allow the reality of it all to nestle in. Image credit: HBO The rest of the episode continues to happen at breakneck speed, and while she doesn't get much screen time, Kaitlyn Dever steals the scene with Abby's return, making a big impression very quickly. Prior to the season two's debut, there was much chatter about Dever being physically very different from her in-game counterpart. But, while smaller in build, there is no doubting Abby's capabilities in the show. She means business, and while Ellie's kills have often been messy and lacking finesse, it is clear Abby has military training and a steady resolve. The show ends with a cliffhanger, with Jesse dead Abby shoots at Ellie before we cut back to Abby at the WLF base in Seattle. "Day One," the screen teases. Now, we are going to hear Abby's side of the story. It is an interesting set up, for sure. But, again, I worry how those who have not played the games will feel about season two ending this way. Has the show done enough to pull viewers back for season three, which is still potentially several years away, where the focus will be on a character we have actually spent very little time with? Image credit: HBO The second season of The Last of Us has been uneven. There is no doubting the production value behind the season, and the actors have all done a phenomenal job bringing Naughty Dog's characters to life for TV. Merced's Dina has been a particular highlight this season and, along with Mazino, has been a brilliant addition to the cast. But, despite these great performances, the story has felt both too slow and too rushed. Episodes such as the series' second instalment offered plenty of action, but then episodes such as the fifth and today's finale felt more like a patchwork of convenient and sometimes rather dull moments, all dashing to an all-too-quick conclusion. Spores, for example, only showed up once to serve Nora's death. It would have been good to have seen them at least one more during the season to make their introduction feel less contrived. Image credit: HBO Saying that, though, I am genuinely looking forward to season three, which was confirmed earlier this year. Showrunners Craig Mazin and Neil Druckmann have an interesting journey ahead of them, and I am curious to see how they will continue to evolve and adapt The Last of Us Part 2 for TV. Before I go, I will give season two credit for something extra, though - I am so glad we didn't have to see Ellie kill a dog (also, thank you Jesse for confirming Shimmer is actually OK, despite seemingly being forgotten about Ellie and Dina). She lives! | Image credit: HBO And with that, that's a wrap on The Last of Us season two. Thank you for joining me each week to discuss the episodes as they happen. Until next time, keep looking for the light!

Antoo Member May 1, 2019 4,507 Full on spoilers for TLOU1, TLOU2, and both seasons of the show ahead I saw this clip on the TLOU subreddit making the rounds. Neil goes into the viability of the cure, and he says this: "Could the Fireflies make a cure? Our intent was that, yes, they could. Now, is our science a little shaky that now people are questioning it? Yeah, it was a little shaky and now people are questioning that. I can't say anything. All I can say is that our intent is that they would have made a cure. That makes it a more interesting philosophical question for what Joel does." Click to expand... Click to shrink... https://www.reddit.com/r/thelastofus/comments/1krqoz0/neil_debunks_the_cure_viability_debate_once_for/ I can't post the interview due to the interviewer, however, if you are a fan of TLOU, I would suggest maybe looking for articles/posts covering it or finding the interview yourself. Neil goes into A LOT. I'll bullet point some highlights. Show highlights: - Neil says Ellie and Dina's relationship was intentionally static in the game. The same approach wouldn't work for the show because shows need movement. - The series needs constant conflict/progression because story is everything in the medium. In games, you can have nothing of high importance going on for a while and still be invested due to interactivity. - He recognizes the divisiveness of the second season from game fans. He's appreciative of their love for the material and finds it cool how people see a game as standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a HBO show. He thinks it highlights how gaming has elevated as a medium. - Abby's motivation and the porch scene were moved up due to the reality that the second game needed multiple seasons to be fully adapted. Neil and Craig felt these elements wouldn't land if they kept the game's structure due to how long TV viewers would have to wait to get to them. There was a fear that the impact of these elements would have been lost due to people not remembering the previous season clearly enough to draw connections. - Craig is very intrigued by the idea of the prophet and wants to expand on who she is in the future. Game highlights: - There was originally a sequence planned for one of the flashbacks in TLOU2 where we would play through an infected attack on Jackson as Ellie alongside Joel. - There was no intent for the WLF/Seraphite conflict to serve as an allegory for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He took inspiration from the latter but he also took inspiration from other conflicts. Neil feels certain people online were cherry-picking statements to fit a narrative. He views the game conflict as a secular group clashing against a religious group. - He confirms he would be open to TLOU3 like he said in the documentary but wants to ensure he has the right idea for it that lives up to the series' pedigree - Neil's top priority right now is Intergalactic above all else. He claims it has the deepest gameplay they've ever done.  Last edited: Today at 2:57 AM Red Kong XIX Member Oct 11, 2020 13,276 Never understood why people thought they couldn't. That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good.  ConflictResolver Member Jan 1, 2024 4,907 Midgar I thought it was left vague in both the game and the show until the show's latest episode.   Philippo Developer Verified Oct 28, 2017 8,836 Heh, I liked the ambiguity of not knowing if there was a 100% success guarantee out of sacrificing Ellie.   Lotus One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 124,081 I'm still saving her.   FTF Member Oct 28, 2017 33,203 New York Philippo said: Heh, I liked the ambiguity of not knowing if there was a 100% success guarantee out of sacrificing Ellie. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Agreed. It should be left unknown.   Bansai Teyvat Traveler Member Oct 28, 2017 14,176 Maaan Neil really needs to stop, feels like he's stripping away what's left of the nuance with those latest comments on the story. Then again, his story, his right I suppose, my headcannon remains strong and stubborn though. :P btw. interesting interview 🤔  Risev "This guy are sick" Member Oct 27, 2017 3,896 Red Kong XIX said: Never understood why people thought they couldn't. That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I always got the impression the game wanted you to skip through the bullshit and just assume the cure would work, but it's still mediocre writing at best: - the lead doctor was a veterinarian. - the fireflies were desperate, lacking man power, and funds. - literally almost zero testing on Ellie before Just wanting to rip her brain out of her skull - literally zero attention given to the special circumstances that could have led to ellie being immune  The Quentulated Mox Corrupted by Vengeance Member Jun 10, 2022 6,565 hell yeah, next we should ask christopher nolan if the top was gonna fall down   Mauricio_Magus Member Oct 25, 2017 15,827 Death of the author applies here, I don't really care what he has to say if it's not in the original game/text. It's clearly supposed to be ambiguous and it's staying that way for me.  Axiom Member Oct 25, 2017 308 Neil knowing the answer isn't the same as Joel knowing the answer - the only guarantee was that Ellie was going to die.   FTF Member Oct 28, 2017 33,203 New York The Quentulated Mox said: hell yeah, next we should ask christopher nolan if the top was gonna fall down Click to expand... Click to shrink... lol   Threadmarks Clarification on cure New Index OP OP Antoo Member May 1, 2019 4,507 For further context, he also states that if you had a different takeaway on the ending scenario of the first game, that's fully valid as well. He's just clarifying his authorial intent while also acknowledging that a player/viewer may read the situation much differently. I think he finds the philosophical question of saving a loved one versus saving the world more interesting than the specifics of how they got to that point.   New Index harleyvwarren Member Oct 31, 2022 5,299 Illinois I always assumed there was a shot at a cure and that's what Joel denied humanity with his selfish, murderous behavior. There was no ambiguity about it for me playing the second game. It's just not subtle at all.   behOemoth Member Oct 27, 2017 6,687 ConflictResolver said: I thought it was left vague in both the game and the show until the show's latest episode. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I think his answer still keeps it vague, but emphasising that serious possibilities existed   Besiktas Member Sep 2, 2024 914 Why creators their own productruin years after a good product releases. Man just focus on making new stuff instead of clarifying theories.   Risev "This guy are sick" Member Oct 27, 2017 3,896 Antoo said: For further context, he also states that if you had a different takeaway on the ending scenario of the first game, that's fully valid as well. He's just clarifying his authorial intent while also acknowledging that a player/viewer may read the situation much differently. Click to expand... Click to shrink... With all due respect to Niel, but that'a bullshit lmao. He also said the exact same thing about Ellie forgiving Joel / knowing he killed the fireflies at the end of the first game just a month or so before the release of Part 2 which gives a clear answer and renders any other interpretation invalid   Kenzodielocke Member Oct 25, 2017 13,948 It's kind of moot if you make this so technichal Could they make it, could they deliver it, etc.  Lotus One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 124,081 FTF said: Agreed. It should be left unknown. Click to expand... Click to shrink... The game came out over 12 years ago. The idea that a creator/author should just shut up and literally never comment on an ambiguous ending or complicated choice is so weird to me, especially when it's just his opinion at the end of the day.  Shoot Member Oct 25, 2017 5,909 Red Kong XIX said: Never understood why people thought they couldn't. That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good. Click to expand... Click to shrink... This. I was surprised to see people online saying they couldn't make a cure. It also obviously had no bearing on Joel's decision to massacre the hospital either. He just went back to doing what he used to do with Tommy for 20 years. Definitely makes Druckmann's recent comment about doing what Joel did sound sociopathic.  VAD Member Oct 28, 2017 6,099 Philippo said: Heh, I liked the ambiguity of not knowing if there was a 100% success guarantee out of sacrificing Ellie. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Yes, me too. I liked that the Fireflies were acting on the basis of hope rather than hard facts. Maybe Joel was right to save Ellie from pointless sacrifice. Maybe Ellie's savior complex was based on nothing and she was right to just live and enjoy life as it was.  Khanimus Avenger Oct 25, 2017 46,469 Greater Vancouver Woah Woah Woah... You mean Joel is a shitty self-serving asshole??!! Say it ain't so...  Zemoco Member Jan 12, 2021 2,621 Death of the author and all that, he really shouldn't confirm something like that. I suppose it's his right, but it hampers the discussion irrevocably. In either case, it does not make any sense on any level to kill the one girl with immunity milliseconds after making the deduction. Not to mention since the Fireflies are murderous, lying pricks anyway, it doesn't make any sense why Joel should believe them just because an omniscient entity (as far as the universe is concerned) confirmed it.  SirKai Member Dec 28, 2017 10,181 Washington Will never understand why people split hairs over this or claim the supposed "ambiguity" of the vaccine viability adds anything to the story. In BOTH games, every character that matters is confident in the possibility of the vaccine, and that is what is important. People so DESPERATELY want to be morally vindicated that siding with Joel is not just righteous, but also rational even pursuit of a vaccine, even though the most passing glance interpretation of the ending is OBVIOUSLY written to not satisfy that perspective. It's a trolley problem, and the trolley problem is what makes the ending, and Joel's decision, interesting. If it's not actually a trolley problem, the ending and the story lose a lot of their depth and impact.   Last edited: Today at 3:02 AM Risev "This guy are sick" Member Oct 27, 2017 3,896 Khanimus said: Woah Woah Woah... You mean Joel is a shitty self-serving asshole??!! Say it ain't so... Click to expand... Click to shrink... if only he picked up the phone when Neil was calling to tell him the cure works...   SCUMMbag Prophet of Truth - Chicken Chaser Member Oct 25, 2017 7,199 Red Kong XIX said: Never understood why people thought they couldn't. That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good. Click to expand... Click to shrink... This. TLOU isn't a written masterpiece so there's some holes but the intention of those scenes were pretty clear. A lot of the ambiguity comes from things like "they did no testing" and "they decided this far too quick" which are just leaps you'd make to keep the pacing of your game.  Milk Prophet of Truth Avenger Oct 25, 2017 4,292 No shit. People trying to "um achually ☝️🤓" their way out of Joel's choice ruins the entire point of the ending in the first place. If there's no realistic way to create and disperse a vaccine then there's no choice in the first place. At the same time, I get it. Obviously you want to realistically analyze parts of a story you're experiencing. But story intent still applies, in this instance, it's literally just better to accept the Fireflies at their word and assume a cure would work.  Kalentan Member Oct 25, 2017 50,658 I feel like the cure having been likely possible is far more interesting because it means Joel's decision has more around it. Cause yeah, his decision to kill them all means a lot more than if the cure was never possible and they were just a bunch idiots cause then Joel was 100% in the right to stop them.   Glio Member Oct 27, 2017 27,779 Spain Red Kong XIX said: Never understood why people thought they couldn't. That's the whole point of the ending. Joel being selfish, not willing to sacrifice someone he cares about for the greater good. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Because the science behind it was pretty stupid, tbh. But you're right, from a dramatic point of view, it needs to be that way.  bob1001 ▲ Legend ▲ Member May 7, 2020 2,109 If they can make a cure: The ending is a moral dilemma, where Joel is willing to sacrifice humanity to save the person he loves. If they can't make a cure: Joel is saving a child from child murderers. I never understood why anyone would prefer a Mario saves Peach style ending instead of the actual interesting ending we got. When you question their ability to make a cure you are arguing the ending is worse than it is.  Kalentan Member Oct 25, 2017 50,658 bob1001 said: If they can make a cure: The ending is a moral dilemma, where Joel is willing to sacrifice humanity to save the person he loves. If they can't make a cure: Joel is saving a child from child murderers. I never understood why anyone would prefer a Mario saves Peach style ending instead of the actual interesting ending we got. When you question their ability to make a cure you are arguing the ending is worse than it is. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Exactly.  Risev "This guy are sick" Member Oct 27, 2017 3,896 Milk said: No shit. People trying to "um achually ☝️🤓" their way out of Joel's choice ruins the entire point of the ending in the first place. If there's no realistic way to create and disperse a vaccine then there's no choice in the first place. At the same time, I get it. Obviously you want to realistically analyze parts of a story you're experiencing. But story intent still applies, in this instance, it's literally just better to accept the Fireflies at their word and assume a cure would work. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I'd say this is Neil's biggest shortcoming as a writer and is worth criticizing: wanting you to make leaps and just skip through some plot holes for the service of the plot. Uncharted 4 also contains an extremely glaring plot hole that you have to gloss over to enjoy the story  Kenzodielocke Member Oct 25, 2017 13,948 The arguments about if the cure would have worked come usually from people who want to justify hie actions. The justification there actually is, love. Edit: "They didn't even ask her" point is also kind of moot because how often we heard from Ellies mouth that she would have done it.  mbpm Member Oct 25, 2017 29,491 I thought it was more interesting leaving it unknown   psynergyadept Shinra Employee Member Oct 26, 2017 19,044 It was always the case; people just obscured things to make themselves feel better about Joel's decision. The whole point of the games ending was dealing with the "Save many by the cost of one/few" trope we've seen before.  EatChildren Wonder from Down Under Member Oct 27, 2017 7,595 Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo The story is infinitely more interesting and thought provoking, particularly in regards to character motivations, actions, and subsequent consequences, when the climax of the first game is viewed through the lens of the unknown; that people and groups make decisions and take actions, sometimes decisively and recklessly, without knowing for sure what the totality of consequence will be, or being fundamentally unable to know if the risks taken are worth the cost. I don't even care about the science behind it (which is dumb). Knowing the cure would/wouldn't work sucks shit and is a boring lame framing of the narrative. Not knowing adds a hefty ambiguity and weight to the choices made. People making decisions, or committing to causes, without ever fully knowing for sure how subsequent events will transpire, is literally how life works is is the ultimate fuel and weight behind our personal journey through guilt and accountability.  SirKai Member Dec 28, 2017 10,181 Washington Risev said: I'd say this is Neil's biggest shortcoming as a writer and is worth criticizing: wanting you to make leaps and just skip through some plot holes for the service of the plot. Uncharted 4 also contains an extremely glaring plot hole that you have to gloss over to enjoy the story Click to expand... Click to shrink... I'm not a Neil defender, but that's not a shortcoming of a writer; that's just an extremely basic aspect of storytelling to motivate the drama and create interesting circumstances. Pretty much no long-form story that depends on exceptional scenarios is going to be free of contrivance or convenience. Some stories obviously take it too far and it can make the narrative feel too arbitrarily authored and unnatural, and every individual person has their own threshold for how far they can suspend their disbelief, but the willingness to trust writers by suspending our disbelief is what makes stories strong and effective, and a writer depending on their audience to be able to do that, at least to some extent, is not a weakness.  Altairre Member Oct 25, 2017 5,211 Risev said: With all due respect to Niel, but that'a bullshit lmao. He also said the exact same thing about Ellie forgiving Joel / knowing he killed the fireflies at the end of the first game just a month or so before the release of Part 2 which gives a clear answer and renders any other interpretation invalid Click to expand... Click to shrink... It doesn't really matter what he says because within the text there clearly is ambiguity and there is basically no way to retcon that away. Considering their situation, what the audio logs say and the state of the world it's definitely a long shot but it's also THE long shot. Risev said: I'd say this is Neil's biggest shortcoming as a writer and is worth criticizing: wanting you to make leaps and just skip through some plot holes for the service of the plot. Uncharted 4 also contains an extremely glaring plot hole that you have to gloss over to enjoy the story Click to expand... Click to shrink... I'm not sure that the situation in LoU qualifies as a plot hole tbh.   Jubern Member Oct 25, 2017 1,597 Mauricio_Magus said: Death of the author applies here, I don't really care what he has to say if it's not in the original game/text. It's clearly supposed to be ambiguous and it's staying that way for me. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Exactly where I stand. Why he would want to clarify/comment on this so long after the fact leaves me dumbfounded.   FTF Member Oct 28, 2017 33,203 New York EatChildren said: Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo The story is infinitely more interesting and thought provoking, particularly in regards to character motivations, actions, and subsequent consequences, when the climax of the first game is viewed through the lens of the unknown; that people and groups make decisions and take actions, sometimes decisively and recklessly, without knowing for sure what the totality of consequence will be, or being fundamentally unable to know if the risks taken are worth the cost. I don't even care about the science behind it (which is dumb). Knowing the cure would/wouldn't work sucks shit and is a boring lame framing of the narrative. Not knowing adds a hefty ambiguity and weight to the choices made. People making decisions, or committing to causes, without ever fully knowing for sure how subsequent events will transpire, is literally how life works is is the ultimate fuel and weight behind our personal journey through guilt and accountability. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Yeah, this is what I meant and said sooo much better lol.   Cantaim Member Oct 25, 2017 35,072 The Stussining I always thought it would have worked as well. The entire game is building up to Joel facing the Trolley problem but with Ellie on the track. I don't think it really has any teeth if you just say killing Ellie doesn't do anything.   Crossing Eden Member Oct 26, 2017 58,520 Kenzodielocke said: It's kind of moot if you make this so technichal Click to expand... Click to shrink... You aren't supposed to because it's not real life Cantaim said: I always thought it would have worked as well. The entire game is building up to Joel facing the Trolley problem but with Ellie on the track. I don't think it really has any teeth if you just say killing Ellie doesn't do anything. Click to expand... Click to shrink... It's funny because literally nothing about the story ever implies that the cure wouldn't work. For every single thing that gets addressed in a "grounded" way that particular tidbit has never been more than people using it as an excuse to justify/lighten the severity of Joel's actions. "Eh does it really matter that he shot up the hospital at the end of the day? Not like the cure would've worked anyways. I, the player/Joel did nothing wrong."  TacoSupreme Member Jul 26, 2019 2,092 SirKai said: I'm not a Neil defender, but that's not a shortcoming of a writer; that's just an extremely basic aspect of storytelling to motivate the drama and create interesting circumstances. Pretty much no long-form story that depends on exceptional scenarios is going to be free of contrivance or convenience. Some stories obviously take it too far and it can make the narrative feel too arbitrarily authored and unnatural, and every individual person has their own threshold for how far they can suspend their disbelief, but the willingness to trust writers by suspending our disbelief is what makes stories strong and effective, and a writer depending on their audience to be able to do that, at least to some extent, is not a weakness. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with this. It's not about suspending disbelief, it's about the game deliberately making the whole situation with the Fireflies seem sketchy. I genuinely spit out my drink and started laughing when it was revealed that they were going to instantly take the precious immune person and dissect her almost immediately after getting their hands on her. This goes beyond contrivance or convenience and into the realm of deliberately misleading the player into thinking there's ambiguity. All it would have taken is something denoting the passage of time prior to wanting to scoop out her brain and it would have been fine. It's not about suspending disbelief, it's about making unneeded decisions that mislead the player.  GMM Member Oct 27, 2017 5,797 If they really would have made a cure or not kinda doesn't matter in the context of the story, it's about how Joel put himself over the needs of the world. Everyone out there trying to survive would agree that Ellie's sacrifice would be worth restoring some semblance of peace to the world even if it wasn't a safe bet, Ellie herself would have wanted to save the world but Joel made that choice for her. It's all about Joel being the selfish person he is, he chose himself over everyone else.  Terbinator Member Oct 29, 2017 13,379 Honestly don't think the cure being viable or not matters at all. Joel makes the decision to save Ellie to save his second daughter. It's really not that deep and you also have no agency over this in the game. Whether that's the moral thing to do on the promise of a cure is an open question.  MrKlaw Member Oct 25, 2017 36,871 Reality doesn't matter (I disagree - they are barely properly staffed, they've never done this before or seen it before so its a hail mary at best etc etc all the discussion) but from a story perspective it makes sense that at least Joel believes its possible to have a cure - it makes the narrative and his reaction stronger, and the 'my life could have meant something' from Ellie's side stronger to create that necessary tension. But I don't like it.  Sinah Member Jun 2, 2022 1,254 I mean yeah so? Honestly personally i don't think it even really matters at that point world was already in a absolute shit state with literal cannibal and murderers everywhere and the infected can not be cured so you still have millions of monsters running around everywhere ripping ppl apart. There was nothing worth saving even if they did manage to make a cure and actually distribute it which is definitely the bigger problem here considering the state the Fireflys where in and the logistics involved.  Last edited: Today at 3:24 AM Vyse One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 1,641 Joel might have pressed a 100% cure button that kills his daughter but even a 1% chance it was a hail mary by sketchy people guaranteed the slaughter.   Agni Kai Member Nov 2, 2017 10,001 None of you (and I do mean none of you) would let your child die to save other people. This new piece of information changes nothing. Joel could've never know.  Crossing Eden Member Oct 26, 2017 58,520 Agni Kai said: None of you (and I do mean none of you) would let your child die to save other people. This new piece of information changes nothing. Joel could've never know. Click to expand... Click to shrink... He never once doubted that it would work though.  

Adobe will be giving its priciest subscription tier an AI-first rebrand—and adding an even higher price tag. Adobe’s Creative Cloud All Apps subscription, which includes access to more than 20 Adobe apps, will soon be known as “Creative Cloud Pro,” the company announced last week. The renamed subscription plan will give users expanded access to Adobe’s AI-powered tools and apps, but for a price: For subscribers on an annual plan, the cost will increase from $59.99 to $69.99 monthly, or from $659.88 to $779.99 annually. Beginning on June 17, any members of Creative Cloud All Apps will be automatically opted into Creative Cloud Pro. According to Adobe’s announcement of the plan, Creative Cloud Pro pricing will be effective at your next renewal on or after June 17. Currently, these changes are only rolling out in North America. This follows better-than-expected first quarter 2025 financial results for the software company, which reported a record revenue of $5.71 billion, equal to 10% year-over-year growth. Still, Adobe’s shares dropped after the report, as several experts and investors noted concerns that the company might be falling behind competitors with its AI efforts. Creative Cloud Pro appears to be the next step for Adobe to monetize its newly robust suite of AI tools by making them a mandatory investment for the company’s most dedicated users, even as it rolls out “made without generative AI” image labels. Here’s what to know about the new plan. What’s new on Creative Cloud Pro? To start, Creative Cloud Pro comes with all of the features that were included under the Creative Cloud All Apps umbrella. The plan includes a portfolio of more than 30,000 fonts, unlimited Creative Cloud libraries, millions of stock photos and videos, and 100 gigabytes of cloud storage. In addition to these perks, the upgraded plan will include several new AI features. First, users will gain unlimited access to “standard generative tools” like Photoshop’s Generative Fill, which can essentially “deepfake” anything within a composition, and Lightroom’s Generative Remove, which eliminates unwanted details in a photo. Creative Cloud Pro users will also have 4,000 monthly credits to use for Adobe’s class of “premium generative features,” like Premiere Pro’s Generative Extend, which uses AI to add frames to the beginning or end of any video. The rebranded subscription also includes the most recent Firefly app, which Adobe bills as its “one-stop shop for exploration and ideation with creative AI.” The app comes with Adobe’s new text-to-image generator Image Model 4, as well as its Firefly Video Model, which first entered public beta testing last month. Another feature called Firefly Boards allows teams to do some Pinterest-style mood board brainstorming.  For any Creative Cloud Pro users who have a different AI model of choice, they can also choose to import Google Imagen 3 and Veo 2, OpenAI image generation, or Flux 1.1 Pro into Firefly. More details on Creative Cloud Pro features are available here. How much will it cost for different kinds of users? Prices are set to rise across the board for all kinds of Creative Cloud All Apps users.  For rolling subscribers (those not on an annual plan), prices will rise from $89.99 to $104.99. For teams, prices will jump from $89.99 to $99.99 per month. And for student and teacher plans, renewal prices are set to increase from $34.99 to $39.99 monthly. What if I don’t want to join this new plan? If you’re a current Creative Cloud All Apps user but don’t want to be automatically shuffled into Creative Cloud Pro, Adobe has created another subscription tier called Creative Cloud Standard. This tier is the same price as the former Creative Cloud All Apps ($54.99 per month for annual users), but it comes with a bit less value.  Whereas All Apps included 1,000 monthly credits for the aforementioned standard generative features, Creative Cloud Standard only includes 25 credits. It also limits access to premium features on mobile and web apps, and, of course, does not include premium generative features or Firefly.  While Adobe’s web page states that Creative Cloud Standard is “only available to existing customers,” an Adobe spokesperson clarified that new users can actually join this tier by contacting customer support. It’s a trade-off that essentially means you’ll be paying the same amount for a subscription with fewer bonuses, but it might be the option that makes the most sense for users who have no interest in Adobe’s AI features. On Reddit, plenty of users have already expressed displeasure with the new plan. It’s easy to see why. Adobe is automatically upgrading subscriptions to the more expensive Creative Cloud Pro tier, a UX pattern that makes it less likely for users to opt out than if they had to make an active choice and tick a subscribe box, for instance. Both this and the Creative Cloud Standard journey for new users could be seen as dark patterns, which are UX pathways that manipulate users into taking actions that they may not have intended but are in the business interests of the company. The U.S. sued Adobe over its hard-to-cancel subscriptions last year. The goal of the automatic upgrade, in combination with the decreased appeal of the Creative Cloud Standard tier due to its reduced features, seems to be to draw more daily active users into the company’s existing AI products. That would be in close keeping with its recent focus on monetizing generative AI tools following its last earnings report, which was plagued with fears that Adobe isn’t staying ahead in the AI race. An Adobe spokesperson declined to comment on the reasoning behind the subscription tier rebrand and whether users will be personally notified before the change takes place.

Adobe will rebrand its Creative Cloud All Apps subscription to "Creative Cloud Pro" on June 17 for North American users, making significant price increases while bundling AI features. Individual annual subscribers will see monthly rates jump from $59.99 to $69.99, while monthly non-contracted subscribers face a $15 hike to $104.99. The revamped plan includes unlimited generative AI image credits, 4,000 monthly "premium" AI video and audio credits, access to third-party models like OpenAI's GPT, and the beta Firefly Boards collaborative whiteboard. Adobe will also offer a cheaper "Creative Cloud Standard" option at $54.99 monthly with severely reduced AI capabilities, but this plan remains exclusive to existing subscribers -- forcing new customers into the pricier AI-focused tier. Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Some of Adobe’s most expensive Creative Cloud subscriptions are about to get even pricier for users in North America. Starting from June 17th, the Creative Cloud All Apps plan will be renamed Creative Cloud Pro for users in the US, Canada, and Mexico, adding a bunch of generative AI perks in exchange for bumping up subscription costs.The pre-tax monthly price for individual Creative Cloud All Apps subscribers on an annual contract will increase from $59.99 to $69.99, or from $659.88 to $779.99 annually. The monthly price for rolling, non-contracted subscribers will jump from $89.99 to $104.99. Contracted prices for teams start at $99.99 per month, up from $89.99, while student and teacher plans will jump from $34.99 to $39.99 monthly on renewal.The new Creative Cloud Pro plan provides access to the same Adobe apps and features as the previous All Apps plan, alongside some new additions. Users will have unlimited credits for powering generative AI image tools like Photoshop’s Generate Fill, and 4,000 monthly credits for “premium” AI video and audio features like Generative Extend in Premiere Pro. The plan also includes the ability to select third-party generative AI models like OpenAI’s GPT and Google Imagen, and access to Adobe’s in-beta collaborative whiteboard app, Firefly Boards.“We want to empower you with more time to explore ideas and create, so we’re focused on continually upgrading your apps’ performance, delivering innovations to your core workflows, and integrating generative AI-powered capabilities across Creative Cloud and through our new Firefly app that make you more productive,” Adobe said in its announcement. “Today, we’re sharing updates to our Creative Cloud offerings to reflect our continued innovation and commitment to providing you the best tools for bringing your visions to life.”The previous All Apps plan will no longer be available following the switch, and existing subscribers will be charged the increased price on their next renewal date. These changes only apply in North America, and Adobe says it isn’t planning to make name or pricing changes in other regions “at this time.”Adobe is also offering a stripped-back “Creative Cloud Standard” plan for users who don’t need its generative AI offerings. Starting at $54.99 per month for contracted subscribers or $82.49 for rolling users, the Creative Cloud Standard plan is nearly identical to the current All Apps plan, but reduces the previous 1,000 monthly generative credit allowance down to 25. Users also won’t have access to premium web and mobile app features that are unlocked for Creative Cloud Pro subscribers. Not only is Adobe defaulting current All Apps subscribers to the more expensive AI-laden plan, compared to the Standard offering that’s closer in price and features, but this new Creative Cloud Standard offering is only available to existing subscribers, forcing new customers to take the more expensive AI-focused plan.Adobe’s All Apps plan was a poor investment for most individual users anyway, as it’s rare for one person to need more than 20 apps that target such a wide variety of creative industries. Still, some existing All Apps subscribers aren’t too pleased with the changes, if the reactions on Adobe subreddits are any indication. Canva attempted to make similar AI-driven price increases last year, which were later softened due to backlash from its users, so we will have to see if Adobe sticks to its guns.See More: