NVIDIA was today named an Autonomous Grand Challenge winner at the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) conference, held this week in Nashville, Tennessee. The announcement was made at the Embodied Intelligence for Autonomous Systems on the Horizon Workshop. This marks the second consecutive year that NVIDIA’s topped the leaderboard in the End-to-End Driving at Scale category and the third year in a row winning an Autonomous Grand Challenge award at CVPR. The theme of this year’s challenge was “Towards Generalizable Embodied Systems” — based on NAVSIM v2, a data-driven, nonreactive autonomous vehicle (AV) simulation framework. The challenge offered researchers the opportunity to explore ways to handle unexpected situations, beyond using only real-world human driving data, to accelerate the development of smarter, safer AVs. Generating Safe and Adaptive Driving Trajectories Participants of the challenge were tasked with generating driving trajectories from multi-sensor data in a semi-reactive simulation, where the ego vehicle’s plan is fixed at the start, but background traffic changes dynamically. Submissions were evaluated using the Extended Predictive Driver Model Score, which measures safety, comfort, compliance and generalization across real-world and synthetic scenarios — pushing the boundaries of robust and generalizable autonomous driving research. The NVIDIA AV Applied Research Team’s key innovation was the Generalized Trajectory Scoring (GTRS) method, which generates a variety of trajectories and progressively filters out the best one. GTRS model architecture showing a unified system for generating and scoring diverse driving trajectories using diffusion- and vocabulary-based trajectories. GTRS introduces a combination of coarse sets of trajectories covering a wide range of situations and fine-grained trajectories for safety-critical situations, created using a diffusion policy conditioned on the environment. GTRS then uses a transformer decoder distilled from perception-dependent metrics, focusing on safety, comfort and traffic rule compliance. This decoder progressively filters out the most promising trajectory candidates by capturing subtle but critical differences between similar trajectories. This system has proved to generalize well to a wide range of scenarios, achieving state-of-the-art results on challenging benchmarks and enabling robust, adaptive trajectory selection in diverse and challenging driving conditions. NVIDIA Automotive Research at CVPR  More than 60 NVIDIA papers were accepted for CVPR 2025, spanning automotive, healthcare, robotics and more. In automotive, NVIDIA researchers are advancing physical AI with innovation in perception, planning and data generation. This year, three NVIDIA papers were nominated for the Best Paper Award: FoundationStereo, Zero-Shot Monocular Scene Flow and Difix3D+. The NVIDIA papers listed below showcase breakthroughs in stereo depth estimation, monocular motion understanding, 3D reconstruction, closed-loop planning, vision-language modeling and generative simulation — all critical to building safer, more generalizable AVs: Diffusion Renderer: Neural Inverse and Forward Rendering With Video Diffusion Models (Read more in this blog.) FoundationStereo: Zero-Shot Stereo Matching (Best Paper nominee) Zero-Shot Monocular Scene Flow Estimation in the Wild (Best Paper nominee) Difix3D+: Improving 3D Reconstructions With Single-Step Diffusion Models (Best Paper nominee) 3DGUT: Enabling Distorted Cameras and Secondary Rays in Gaussian Splatting Closed-Loop Supervised Fine-Tuning of Tokenized Traffic Models Zero-Shot 4D Lidar Panoptic Segmentation NVILA: Efficient Frontier Visual Language Models RADIO Amplified: Improved Baselines for Agglomerative Vision Foundation Models OmniDrive: A Holistic Vision-Language Dataset for Autonomous Driving With Counterfactual Reasoning Explore automotive workshops and tutorials at CVPR, including: Workshop on Data-Driven Autonomous Driving Simulation, featuring Marco Pavone, senior director of AV research at NVIDIA, and Sanja Fidler, vice president of AI research at NVIDIA Workshop on Autonomous Driving, featuring Laura Leal-Taixe, senior research manager at NVIDIA Workshop on Open-World 3D Scene Understanding with Foundation Models, featuring Leal-Taixe Safe Artificial Intelligence for All Domains, featuring Jose Alvarez, director of AV applied research at NVIDIA Workshop on Foundation Models for V2X-Based Cooperative Autonomous Driving, featuring Pavone and Leal-Taixe Workshop on Multi-Agent Embodied Intelligent Systems Meet Generative AI Era, featuring Pavone LatinX in CV Workshop, featuring Leal-Taixe Workshop on Exploring the Next Generation of Data, featuring Alvarez Full-Stack, GPU-Based Acceleration of Deep Learning and Foundation Models, led by NVIDIA Continuous Data Cycle via Foundation Models, led by NVIDIA Distillation of Foundation Models for Autonomous Driving, led by NVIDIA Explore the NVIDIA research papers to be presented at CVPR and watch the NVIDIA GTC Paris keynote from NVIDIA founder and CEO Jensen Huang. Learn more about NVIDIA Research, a global team of hundreds of scientists and engineers focused on topics including AI, computer graphics, computer vision, self-driving cars and robotics. The featured image above shows how an autonomous vehicle adapts its trajectory to navigate an urban environment with dynamic traffic using the GTRS model.

Take the Speakers, Headphones, and Earphones SurveyTake other PCMag surveys. Each completed survey is a chance to win a $250 Amazon gift card. OFFICIAL SWEEPSTAKES RULESNO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. A PURCHASE WILL NOT INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING. VOID WHERE PROHIBITED. Readers' Choice Sweepstakes (the "Sweepstakes") is governed by these official rules (the "Sweepstakes Rules"). The Sweepstakes begins on May 9, 2025, at 12:00 AM ET and ends on July 27, 2025, at 11:59 PM ET (the "Sweepstakes Period").SPONSOR: Ziff Davis, LLC, with an address of 360 Park Ave South, Floor 17, New York, NY 10010 (the "Sponsor").ELIGIBILITY: This Sweepstakes is open to individuals who are eighteen (18) years of age or older at the time of entry who are legal residents of the fifty (50) United States of America or the District of Columbia. By entering the Sweepstakes as described in these Sweepstakes Rules, entrants represent and warrant that they are complying with these Sweepstakes Rules (including, without limitation, all eligibility requirements), and that they agree to abide by and be bound by all the rules and terms and conditions stated herein and all decisions of Sponsor, which shall be final and binding.All previous winners of any sweepstakes sponsored by Sponsor during the nine (9) month period prior to the Selection Date are not eligible to enter. Any individuals (including, but not limited to, employees, consultants, independent contractors and interns) who have, within the past six (6) months, held employment with or performed services for Sponsor or any organizations affiliated with the sponsorship, fulfillment, administration, prize support, advertisement or promotion of the Sweepstakes ("Employees") are not eligible to enter or win. Immediate Family Members and Household Members are also not eligible to enter or win. "Immediate Family Members" means parents, step-parents, legal guardians, children, step-children, siblings, step-siblings, or spouses of an Employee. "Household Members" means those individuals who share the same residence with an Employee at least three (3) months a year.HOW TO ENTER: There are two methods to enter the Sweepstakes: (1) fill out the online survey, or (2) enter by mail.1. Survey Entry: To enter the Sweepstakes through the online survey, go to the survey page and complete the current survey during the Sweepstakes Period.2. Mail Entry: To enter the Sweepstakes by mail, on a 3" x 5" card, print your first and last name, street address, city, state, zip code, phone number, and email address. Mail your completed entry to:Readers' Choice Sweepstakes - Audio 2025c/o E. Griffith 624 Elm St. Ext.Ithaca, NY 14850-8786Mail Entries must be postmarked by July 28, 2025, and received by Aug. 4, 2025.Only one (1) entry per person is permitted, regardless of the entry method used. Subsequent attempts made by the same individual to submit multiple entries may result in the disqualification of the entrant.Only contributions submitted during the Sweepstakes Period will be eligible for entry into the Sweepstakes. No other methods of entry will be accepted. All entries become the property of Sponsor and will not be returned. Entries are limited to individuals only; commercial enterprises and business entities are not eligible. Use of a false account will disqualify an entry. Sponsor is not responsible for entries not received due to difficulty accessing the internet, service outage or delays, computer difficulties, and other technological problems.Entries are subject to any applicable restrictions or eligibility requirements listed herein. Entries will be deemed to have been made by the authorized account holder of the email or telephone phone number submitted at the time of entry and qualification. Multiple participants are not permitted to share the same email address. Should multiple users of the same e-mail account or mobile phone number, as applicable, enter the Sweepstakes and a dispute thereafter arises regarding the identity of the entrant, the Authorized Account Holder of said e-mail account or mobile phone account at the time of entry will be considered the entrant. "Authorized Account Holder" is defined as the natural person who is assigned an e-mail address or mobile phone number by an Internet access provider, online service provider, telephone service provider or other organization that is responsible for assigned e-mail addresses, phone numbers or the domain associated with the submitted e-mail address. Proof of submission of an entry shall not be deemed proof of receipt by the website administrator for online entries. When applicable, the website administrator's computer will be deemed the official time-keeping device for the Sweepstakes promotion. Entries will be disqualified if found to be incomplete and/or if Sponsor determines, in its sole discretion, that multiple entries were submitted by the same entrant in violation of the Sweepstakes Rules.Entries that are late, lost, stolen, mutilated, tampered with, illegible, incomplete, mechanically reproduced, inaccurate, postage-due, forged, irregular in any way or otherwise not in compliance with these Official Rules will be disqualified. All entries become the property of the Sponsor and will not be acknowledged or returned.WINNER SELECTION AND NOTIFICATION: Sponsor shall select the prize winner(s) (collectively, the "Winner") on or about Aug. 11, 2025, ("Selection Date") by random drawing or from among all eligible entries. The Winner will be notified via email to the contact information provided in the entry. Notification of the Winner shall be deemed to have occurred immediately upon sending of the notification by Sponsor. Selected winner(s) will be required to respond (as directed) to the notification within seven (7) days of attempted notification. The only entries that will be considered eligible entries are entries received by Sponsor within the Sweepstakes Period. The odds of winning depend on the number of eligible entries received. The Sponsor reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to choose an alternative winner in the event that a possible winner has been disqualified or is deemed ineligible for any reason.Recommended by Our EditorsPRIZE: One (1) winner will receive the following prize (collectively, the "Prize"):One (1) $250 Amazon.com gift code via email, valued at approximately two hundred fifty dollars ($250).No more than the stated number of prize(s) will be awarded, and all prize(s) listed above will be awarded. Actual retail value of the Prize may vary due to market conditions. The difference in value of the Prize as stated above and value at time of notification of the Winner, if any, will not be awarded. No cash or prize substitution is permitted, except at the discretion of Sponsor. The Prize is non-transferable. If the Prize cannot be awarded due to circumstances beyond the control of Sponsor, a substitute Prize of equal or greater retail value will be awarded; provided, however, that if a Prize is awarded but remains unclaimed or is forfeited by the Winner, the Prize may not be re-awarded, in Sponsor's sole discretion. In the event that more than the stated number of prize(s) becomes available for any reason, Sponsor reserves the right to award only the stated number of prize(s) by a random drawing among all legitimate, un-awarded, eligible prize claims.ACCEPTANCE AND DELIVERY OF THE PRIZE: The Winner will be required to verify his or her address and may be required to execute the following document(s) before a notary public and return them within seven (7) days (or a shorter time if required by exigencies) of receipt of such documents: an affidavit of eligibility, a liability release, and (where imposing such condition is legal) a publicity release covering eligibility, liability, advertising, publicity and media appearance issues (collectively, the "Prize Claim Documents"). If an entrant is unable to verify the information submitted with their entry, the entrant will automatically be disqualified and their prize, if any, will be forfeited. The Prize will not be awarded until all such properly executed and notarized Prize Claim Documents are returned to Sponsor. Prize(s) won by an eligible entrant who is a minor in his or her state of residence will be awarded to minor's parent or legal guardian, who must sign and return all required Prize Claim Documents. In the event the Prize Claim Documents are not returned within the specified period, an alternate Winner may be selected by Sponsor for such Prize. The Prize will be shipped to the Winner within 7 days of Sponsor's receipt of a signed Affidavit and Release from the Winner. The Winner is responsible for all taxes and fees related to the Prize received, if any.OTHER RULES: This sweepstakes is subject to all applicable laws and is void where prohibited. All submissions by entrants in connection with the sweepstakes become the sole property of the sponsor and will not be acknowledged or returned. Winner assumes all liability for any injuries or damage caused or claimed to be caused by participation in this sweepstakes or by the use or misuse of any prize.By entering the sweepstakes, each winner grants the SPONSOR permission to use his or her name, city, state/province, e-mail address and, to the extent submitted as part of the sweepstakes entry, his or her photograph, voice, and/or likeness for advertising, publicity or other purposes OR ON A WINNER'S LIST, IF APPLICABLE, IN ANY and all MEDIA WHETHER NOW KNOWN OR HEREINAFTER DEVELOPED, worldwide, without additional consent OR compensation, except where prohibited by law. By submitting an entry, entrants also grant the Sponsor a perpetual, fully-paid, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, distribute, display, exhibit, transmit, broadcast, televise, digitize, perform and otherwise use and permit others to use, and throughout the world, their entry materials in any manner, form, or format now known or hereinafter created, including on the internet, and for any purpose, including, but not limited to, advertising or promotion of the Sweepstakes, the Sponsor and/or its products and services, without further consent from or compensation to the entrant. By entering the Sweepstakes, entrants consent to receive notification of future promotions, advertisements or solicitations by or from Sponsor and/or Sponsor's parent companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, and business partners, via email or other means of communication.If, in the Sponsor's opinion, there is any suspected or actual evidence of fraud, electronic or non-electronic tampering or unauthorized intervention with any portion of this Sweepstakes, or if fraud or technical difficulties of any sort (e.g., computer viruses, bugs) compromise the integrity of the Sweepstakes, the Sponsor reserves the right to void suspect entries and/or terminate the Sweepstakes and award the Prize in its sole discretion. Any attempt to deliberately damage the Sponsor's website(s) or undermine the legitimate operation of the Sweepstakes may be in violation of U.S. criminal and civil laws and will result in disqualification from participation in the Sweepstakes. Should such an attempt be made, the Sponsor reserves the right to seek remedies and damages (including attorney's fees) to the fullest extent of the law, including pursuing criminal prosecution.DISCLAIMER: EXCLUDING ONLY APPLICABLE MANUFACTURERS' WARRANTIES, THE PRIZE IS PROVIDED TO THE WINNER ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT FURTHER WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. SPONSOR HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL FURTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO THE PRIZE.LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: BY ENTERING THE SWEEPSTAKES, ENTRANTS, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR HEIRS, EXECUTORS, ASSIGNS AND REPRESENTATIVES, RELEASE AND HOLD THE SPONSOR its PARENT COMPANIES, SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATED COMPANIES, UNITS AND DIVISIONS, AND THE CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, SHAREHOLDERS, AGENTS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OF EACH OF THE FOREGOING, AND ALL THOSE ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE FOREGOING, OR ANY OF THEM (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONAL AGENCIES AND PRIZE SUPPLIERS) (EACH A "RELEASED PARTY"), HARMLESS FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, ACTIONS, INJURY, LOSS, DAMAGES, LIABILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER (COLLECTIVELY, THE "CLAIMS") WHETHER KNOWN OR UNKNOWN, SUSPECTED OR UNSUSPECTED, WHICH ENTRANT EVER HAD, NOW HAVE, OR HEREAFTER CAN, SHALL OR MAY HAVE, AGAINST THE RELEASED PARTIES (OR ANY OF THEM), INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CLAIMS ARISING FROM OR RELATED TO THE SWEEPSTAKES OR ENTRANT'S PARTICIPATION IN THE SWEEPSTAKES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, CLAIMS FOR LIBEL, DEFAMATION, INVASION OF PRIVACY, VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY, COMMERCIAL APPROPRIATION OF NAME AND LIKENESS, INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT OR VIOLATION OF ANY OTHER PERSONAL OR PROPRIETARY RIGHT), AND THE RECEIPT, OWNERSHIP, USE, MISUSE, TRANSFER, SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF THE PRIZE (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL INJURY, DEATH, AND/OR PROPERTY DAMAGE). All matters relating to the interpretation and application of these Sweepstakes Rules shall be decided by Sponsor in its sole discretion.DISPUTES: If, for any reason (including infection by computer virus, bugs, tampering, unauthorized intervention, fraud, technical failures, or any other causes beyond the control of the Sponsor which corrupt or affect the administration, security, fairness, integrity, or proper conduct of this Sweepstakes), the Sweepstakes is not capable of being conducted as described in these Sweepstakes Rules, Sponsor shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to disqualify any individual who tampers with the entry process, and/or to cancel, terminate, modify or suspend the Sweepstakes. The Sponsor assumes no responsibility for any error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, delay in operation or transmission, communications line failure, theft or destruction or unauthorized access to, or alteration of, entries. The Sponsor is not responsible for any problems or technical malfunction of any telephone network or lines, computer online systems, servers, providers, computer equipment, software, or failure of any e-mail or entry to be received by Sponsor on account of technical problems or traffic congestion on the Internet or at any website, or any combination thereof, including, without limitation, any injury or damage to any entrant's or any other person's computer related to or resulting from participating or downloading any materials in this Sweepstakes. Because of the unique nature and scope of the Sweepstakes, Sponsor reserves the right, in addition to those other rights reserved herein, to modify any date(s) or deadline(s) set forth in these Sweepstakes Rules or otherwise governing the Sweepstakes, and any such changes will be posted here in the Sweepstakes Rules. Any attempt by any person to deliberately undermine the legitimate operation of the Sweepstakes may be a violation of criminal and civil law, and, should such an attempt be made, Sponsor reserves the right to seek damages to the fullest extent permitted by law. Sponsor's failure to enforce any term of these Sweepstakes Rules shall not constitute a waiver of any provision.As a condition of participating in the Sweepstakes, entrant agrees that any and all disputes that cannot be resolved between entrant and Sponsor, and causes of action arising out of or connected with the Sweepstakes or these Sweepstakes Rules, shall be resolved individually, without resort to any form of class action, exclusively before a court of competent jurisdiction located in New York, New York, and entrant irrevocably consents to the jurisdiction of the federal and state courts located in New York, New York with respect to any such dispute, cause of action, or other matter. All disputes will be governed and controlled by the laws of the State of New York (without regard for its conflicts-of-laws principles). Further, in any such dispute, under no circumstances will entrant be permitted to obtain awards for, and hereby irrevocably waives all rights to claim, punitive, incidental, or consequential damages, or any other damages, including attorneys' fees, other than entrant's actual out-of-pocket expenses (i.e., costs incurred directly in connection with entrant's participation in the Sweepstakes), and entrant further irrevocably waives all rights to have damages multiplied or increased, if any. EACH PARTY EXPRESSLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY. All federal, state, and local laws and regulations apply.PRIVACY: Information collected from entrants in connection with the Sweepstakes is subject to Sponsor's privacy policy, which may be found here.SOCIAL MEDIA PROMOTION: Although the Sweepstakes may be featured on Twitter, Facebook, and/or other social media platforms, the Sweepstakes is in no way sponsored, endorsed, administered by, or in association with Twitter, Facebook, and/or such other social media platforms and you agree that Twitter, Facebook, and all other social media platforms are not liable in any way for any claims, damages or losses associated with the Sweepstakes.WINNER(S) LIST: For a list of name(s) of prizewinner(s), after the Selection Date, please send a stamped, self-addressed No. 10/standard business envelope to Ziff Davis, LLC, Attn: Legal Department, 360 Park Ave South, Floor 17, New York, NY 10010 (VT residents may omit return postage).BY ENTERING, YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND AGREE TO ALL OF THESE SWEEPSTAKES RULES.

A coiled giant anaconda. They are the largest snake species in Brazil and play a major role in legends including the ‘Boiuna’ and the ‘Cobra Grande.’ CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. South America’s lush Amazon region is a biodiversity hotspot, which means that every living thing must find a way to co-exist. Even some of the most feared snakes on the planet–anacondas. In a paper published June 16 in the journal Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science, conservation biologists Beatriz Cosendey and Juarez Carlos Brito Pezzuti from the Federal University of Pará’s Center for Amazonian Studies in Brazil, analyze the key points behind the interactions between humans and the local anaconda populations. Ahead of the paper’s publication, the team at Frontiers conducted this wide-ranging Q&A with Conesday. It has not been altered. Frontiers: What inspired you to become a researcher? Beatriz Cosendey: As a child, I was fascinated by reports and documentaries about field research and often wondered what it took to be there and what kind of knowledge was being produced. Later, as an ecologist, I felt the need for approaches that better connected scientific research with real-world contexts. I became especially interested in perspectives that viewed humans not as separate from nature, but as part of ecological systems. This led me to explore integrative methods that incorporate local and traditional knowledge, aiming to make research more relevant and accessible to the communities involved. F: Can you tell us about the research you’re currently working on? BC: My research focuses on ethnobiology, an interdisciplinary field intersecting ecology, conservation, and traditional knowledge. We investigate not only the biodiversity of an area but also the relationship local communities have with surrounding species, providing a better understanding of local dynamics and areas needing special attention for conservation. After all, no one knows a place better than those who have lived there for generations. This deep familiarity allows for early detection of changes or environmental shifts. Additionally, developing a collaborative project with residents generates greater engagement, as they recognize themselves as active contributors; and collective participation is essential for effective conservation. Local boating the Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: Could you tell us about one of the legends surrounding anacondas? BC: One of the greatest myths is about the Great Snake—a huge snake that is said to inhabit the Amazon River and sleep beneath the town. According to the dwellers, the Great Snake is an anaconda that has grown too large; its movements can shake the river’s waters, and its eyes look like fire in the darkness of night. People say anacondas can grow so big that they can swallow large animals—including humans or cattle—without difficulty. F: What could be the reasons why the traditional role of anacondas as a spiritual and mythological entity has changed? Do you think the fact that fewer anacondas have been seen in recent years contributes to their diminished importance as an mythological entity? BC: Not exactly. I believe the two are related, but not in a direct way. The mythology still exists, but among Aritapera dwellers, there’s a more practical, everyday concern—mainly the fear of losing their chickens. As a result, anacondas have come to be seen as stealthy thieves. These traits are mostly associated with smaller individuals (up to around 2–2.5 meters), while the larger ones—which may still carry the symbolic weight of the ‘Great Snake’—tend to retreat to more sheltered areas; because of the presence of houses, motorized boats, and general noise, they are now seen much less frequently. A giant anaconda is being measured. Credit: Pedro Calazans. F: Can you share some of the quotes you’ve collected in interviews that show the attitude of community members towards anacondas? How do chickens come into play? BC: When talking about anacondas, one thing always comes up: chickens. “Chicken is her [the anaconda’s] favorite dish. If one clucks, she comes,” said one dweller. This kind of remark helps explain why the conflict is often framed in economic terms. During the interviews and conversations with local dwellers, many emphasized the financial impact of losing their animals: “The biggest loss is that they keep taking chicks and chickens…” or “You raise the chicken—you can’t just let it be eaten for free, right?” For them, it’s a loss of investment, especially since corn, which is used as chicken feed, is expensive. As one person put it: “We spend time feeding and raising the birds, and then the snake comes and takes them.” One dweller shared that, in an attempt to prevent another loss, he killed the anaconda and removed the last chicken it had swallowed from its belly—”it was still fresh,” he said—and used it for his meal, cooking the chicken for lunch so it wouldn’t go to waste. One of the Amazonas communities where the researchers conducted their research. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Some interviewees reported that they had to rebuild their chicken coops and pigsties because too many anacondas were getting in. Participants would point out where the anaconda had entered and explained that they came in through gaps or cracks but couldn’t get out afterwards because they ‘tufavam’ — a local term referring to the snake’s body swelling after ingesting prey. We saw chicken coops made with mesh, with nylon, some that worked and some that didn’t. Guided by the locals’ insights, we concluded that the best solution to compensate for the gaps between the wooden slats is to line the coop with a fine nylon mesh (to block smaller animals), and on the outside, a layer of wire mesh, which protects the inner mesh and prevents the entry of larger animals. F: Are there any common misconceptions about this area of research? How would you address them? BC: Yes, very much. Although ethnobiology is an old science, it’s still underexplored and often misunderstood. In some fields, there are ongoing debates about the robustness and scientific validity of the field and related areas. This is largely because the findings don’t always rely only on hard statistical data. However, like any other scientific field, it follows standardized methodologies, and no result is accepted without proper grounding. What happens is that ethnobiology leans more toward the human sciences, placing human beings and traditional knowledge as key variables within its framework. To address these misconceptions, I believe it’s important to emphasize that ethnobiology produces solid and relevant knowledge—especially in the context of conservation and sustainable development. It offers insights that purely biological approaches might overlook and helps build bridges between science and society. The study focused on the várzea regions of the Lower Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: What are some of the areas of research you’d like to see tackled in the years ahead? BC: I’d like to see more conservation projects that include local communities as active participants rather than as passive observers. Incorporating their voices, perspectives, and needs not only makes initiatives more effective, but also more just. There is also great potential in recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge. Beyond its cultural significance, certain practices—such as the use of natural compounds—could become practical assets for other vulnerable regions. Once properly documented and understood, many of these approaches offer adaptable forms of environmental management and could help inform broader conservation strategies elsewhere. F: How has open science benefited the reach and impact of your research? BC: Open science is crucial for making research more accessible. By eliminating access barriers, it facilitates a broader exchange of knowledge—important especially for interdisciplinary research like mine which draws on multiple knowledge systems and gains value when shared widely. For scientific work, it ensures that knowledge reaches a wider audience, including practitioners and policymakers. This openness fosters dialogue across different sectors, making research more inclusive and encouraging greater collaboration among diverse groups. The Q&A can also be read here.

There has been a new update to the ongoing Stratasys v. Bambu Lab patent infringement lawsuit.  Both parties have agreed to consolidate the lead and member cases (2:24-CV-00644-JRG and 2:24-CV-00645-JRG) into a single case under Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG.  Industrial 3D printing OEM Stratasys filed the request late last month. According to an official court document, Shenzhen-based Bambu Lab did not oppose the motion. Stratasys argued that this non-opposition amounted to the defendants waiving their right to challenge the request under U.S. patent law 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). On June 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, ordered Bambu Lab to confirm in writing whether it agreed to the proposed case consolidation. The court took this step out of an “abundance of caution” to ensure both parties consented to the procedure before moving forward. Bambu Lab submitted its response on June 12, agreeing to the consolidation. The company, along with co-defendants Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., and Tuozhu Technology Limited, waived its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). The court will now decide whether to merge the cases. This followed U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s decision last month to deny Bambu Lab’s motion to dismiss the lawsuits.  The Chinese desktop 3D printer manufacturer filed the motion in February 2025, arguing the cases were invalid because its US-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, was not named in the original litigation. However, it agreed that the lawsuit could continue in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas, where a parallel case was filed last year.  Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, ruling that the cases properly target the named defendants. He concluded that Bambu Lab USA isn’t essential to the dispute, and that any misnaming should be addressed in summary judgment, not dismissal.        A Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry. Another twist in the Stratasys v. Bambu Lab lawsuit  Stratasys filed the two lawsuits against Bambu Lab in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, in August 2024. The company claims that Bambu Lab’s X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini 3D printers violate ten of its patents. These patents cover common 3D printing features, including purge towers, heated build plates, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities. Stratasys has requested a jury trial. It is seeking a ruling that Bambu Lab infringed its patents, along with financial damages and an injunction to stop Bambu from selling the allegedly infringing 3D printers. Last October, Stratasys dropped charges against two of the originally named defendants in the dispute. Court documents showed that Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co., Ltd were removed. Both defendants represent the company Tiertime, China’s first 3D printer manufacturer. The District Court accepted the dismissal, with all claims dropped without prejudice. It’s unclear why Stratasys named Beijing-based Tiertime as a defendant in the first place, given the lack of an obvious connection to Bambu Lab.  Tiertime and Stratasys have a history of legal disputes over patent issues. In 2013, Stratasys sued Afinia, Tiertime’s U.S. distributor and partner, for patent infringement. Afinia responded by suing uCRobotics, the Chinese distributor of MakerBot 3D printers, also alleging patent violations. Stratasys acquired MakerBot in June 2013. The company later merged with Ultimaker in 2022. In February 2025, Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss the original lawsuits. The company argued that Stratasys’ claims, focused on the sale, importation, and distribution of 3D printers in the United States, do not apply to the Shenzhen-based parent company. Bambu Lab contended that the allegations concern its American subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, which was not named in the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the case is invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. It argued that any party considered a “primary participant” in the allegations must be included as a defendant.    The court denied the motion on May 29, 2025. In the ruling, Judge Gilstrap explained that Stratasys’ allegations focus on the actions of the named defendants, not Bambu Lab USA. As a result, the official court document called Bambu Lab’s argument “unavailing.” Additionally, the Judge stated that, since Bambu Lab USA and Bambu Lab are both owned by Shenzhen Tuozhu, “the interest of these two entities align,” meaning the original cases are valid.   In the official court document, Judge Gilstrap emphasized that Stratasys can win or lose the lawsuits based solely on the actions of the current defendants, regardless of Bambu Lab USA’s involvement. He added that any potential risk to Bambu Lab USA’s business is too vague or hypothetical to justify making it a required party. Finally, the court noted that even if Stratasys named the wrong defendant, this does not justify dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7). Instead, the judge stated it would be more appropriate for the defendants to raise that argument in a motion for summary judgment. The Bambu Lab X1C 3D printer. Image via Bambu Lab. 3D printing patent battles  The 3D printing industry has seen its fair share of patent infringement disputes over recent months. In May 2025, 3D printer hotend developer Slice Engineering reached an agreement with Creality over a patent non-infringement lawsuit.  The Chinese 3D printer OEM filed the lawsuit in July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. The company claimed that Slice Engineering had falsely accused it of infringing two hotend patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,875,244 and 11,660,810. These cover mechanical and thermal features of Slice’s Mosquito 3D printer hotend. Creality requested a jury trial and sought a ruling confirming it had not infringed either patent. Court documents show that Slice Engineering filed a countersuit in December 2024. The Gainesville-based company maintained that Creaility “has infringed and continues to infringe” on both patents. In the filing, the company also denied allegations that it had harassed Creality’s partners, distributors, and customers, and claimed that Creality had refused to negotiate a resolution.   The Creality v. Slice Engineering lawsuit has since been dropped following a mutual resolution. Court documents show that both parties have permanently dismissed all claims and counterclaims, agreeing to cover their own legal fees and costs.  In other news, large-format resin 3D printer manufacturer Intrepid Automation sued 3D Systems over alleged patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, accused 3D Systems of using patented technology in its PSLA 270 industrial resin 3D printer. The filing called the PSLA 270 a “blatant knock off” of Intrepid’s DLP multi-projection “Range” 3D printer.   San Diego-based Intrepid Automation called this alleged infringement the “latest chapter of 3DS’s brazen, anticompetitive scheme to drive a smaller competitor with more advanced technology out of the marketplace.” The lawsuit also accused 3D Systems of corporate espionage, claiming one of its employees stole confidential trade secrets that were later used to develop the PSLA 270 printer. 3D Systems denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The company called the lawsuit “a desperate attempt” by Intrepid to distract from its own alleged theft of 3D Systems’ trade secrets. Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards? Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.Featured image shows a Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry.

While it’s now accepted by many that video games are an art form, it still might be hard to believe that one is featured in an exhibit at the same museum that’s home to Leonardo da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa”: The Louvre in Paris. But this week, Xbox and World’s Edge Studio announced a partnership with what is arguably the most prestigious museum in the world for its new exhibition, “Mamluks 1250–1517.” Related Stories For those who are unaware of how the gaming studios connect to this aspect of the Egyptian Syrian empire: The Mamluks cavalry are among the many units featured in Xbox and World’s Edge Studio’s “Age of Empires” video game franchise. The cavalry is a fan favorite choice in the game centered around traversing the ages and competing against rival empires, particularly in “Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition.” Popular on Variety Presented at the Louvre until July 28, the exhibit “Mamluks 1250–1517″ recounts “the glorious and unique history of this Egyptian Syrian empire, which represents a golden age for the Near East during the Islamic era,” per its official description. “Bringing together 260 pieces from international collections, the exhibition explores the richness of this singular and lesser-known society through a spectacular and immersive scenography.” This marks the first time a video game franchise has collaborated with the Louvre Museum, with installations and events that occur both in person at the museum and online through the “Age of Empires” game: Official “Louvre Museum” scenario in Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition Players can embody General Baybars and Sultan Qutuz at the really heart of the Ain Jalut battle(1260), which opposed the Mamluk Sultanate to the Mongol Empire. This scenario, speciallycreated for the occasion, is already available in Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition (see onhttp://www.ageofempire.com/lelouvre for instructions on finding the map in the game) [LiveTuesday 10th at 9am PT/6pm BST].Exclusive Gaming Night on Twitch Live from the Louvre On Thursday, June 12, at 8 PM, streamer and journalist Samuel Etienne (1.1M FrenchStreamer) will replay live from the exhibition “Mamluks 1250-1517” at the Louvre the official“Louvre Museum” scenario to relive the famous Battle of Ain Jalut on the game Age of EmpiresII: Definitive Edition, in the presence of Le Louvre Teams and one of the studio’s developers.This is an opportunity to learn more about the history of the Mamluks and their representationin the various episodes of the saga.Cross-Interview: The Louvre x Age of Empires To discover more, an interview featuring Adam Isgreen, creative director at World’s Edge, thestudio behind the franchise, and Souraya Noujaïm and Carine Juvin, curators of the exhibition,is available on the YouTube channels of the Louvre and Age of Empires.Mediation and Gaming Sessions at the Museum Museum visitors at the Louvre are invited to test the scenario of the Battle of Ain Jalut,specially designed for the Mamluk exhibition, in the presence of a Louvre mediator and anXbox representative during an exceptional series of workshops. The sessions will take place onFridays, June 20, 27, and 4 & 11 of July. All information and registrations are available here:www.louvre.fr “World’s Edge is honoured to collaborate with Le Louvre,” head of World’s Edge studio Michael Mann said. “The ‘Age of Empires’ franchise has been bringing history to life for more than 65 million players around the world for almost 30 years. We’ve always believed in the great potential for our games to spark an interest in history and culture. We often hear of teachers using ‘Age of Empires’ to teach history to their students and stories from our players about how ‘Age of Empires’ has driven them to learn more, or even to pursue history academically or as a career. This opportunity to bring the amazing stories of the Mamluks to new audiences through the Louvre’s exhibition is one we’re excited to be a part of. We hope that through the excellent work of the Louvre’s team, the legacy of the Mamluks can be shared around the world, and that people enjoy their stories as they come to life through ‘Age of Empires.'” “We are delighted to welcome ‘Age of Empires’ as part of the exhibition Mamluks 1250–1517, through a unique partnership that blends the pleasures of gaming with learning and discovery,” Souraya Noujaim, director of the Department of Islamic Arts and chief curator of the exhibition at le Louvre Museum, said. “It is a way for the museum to engage with diverse audiences and offer a new narrative, one that resonates with contemporary sensitivities, allowing for a deeper understanding of artworks and a greater openness to world history. Beyond the game, the museum experience becomes an opportunity to move from the virtual to the real and uncover the true history of the Mamluks and their unique contribution to universal heritage.” See video and images below from the “Age of Empires” in-game event and the in-person exhibit at the Louvre.

Barricades, as we know them today, are thought to date back to the European wars of religion. According to most historians, the first barricade went up in Paris in 1588; the word derives from the French barriques, or barrels, spontaneously put together. They have been assembled from the most diverse materials, from cobblestones, tyres, newspapers, dead horses and bags of ice (during Kyiv’s Euromaidan in 2013–14), to omnibuses and e‑scooters. Their tactical logic is close to that of guerrilla warfare: the authorities have to take the barricades in order to claim victory; all that those manning them have to do to prevail is to hold them.  The 19th century was the golden age for blocking narrow, labyrinthine streets. Paris had seen barricades go up nine times in the period before the Second Empire; during the July 1830 Revolution alone, 4,000 barricades had been erected (roughly one for every 200 Parisians). These barricades would not only stop, but also trap troops; people would then throw stones from windows or pour boiling water onto the streets. Georges‑Eugène Haussmann, Napoleon III’s prefect of Paris, famously created wide boulevards to make blocking by barricade more difficult and moving the military easier, and replaced cobblestones with macadam – a surface of crushed stone. As Flaubert observed in his Dictionary of Accepted Ideas: ‘Macadam: has cancelled revolutions. No more means to make barricades. Nevertheless rather inconvenient.’   Lead image: Barricades, as we know them today, are thought to have originated in early modern France. A colour engraving attributed to Achille‑Louis Martinet depicts the defence of a barricade during the 1830 July Revolution. Credit: Paris Musées / Musée Carnavalet – Histoire de Paris. Above: the socialist political thinker and activist Louis Auguste Blanqui – who was imprisoned by every regime that ruled France between 1815 and 1880 – drew instructions for how to build an effective barricade Under Napoleon III, Baron Haussmann widened Paris’s streets in his 1853–70 renovation of the city, making barricading more difficult Credit: Old Books Images / Alamy ‘On one hand, [the authorities] wanted to favour the circulation of ideas,’ reactionary intellectual Louis Veuillot observed apropos the ambiguous liberalism of the latter period of Napoleon III’s Second Empire. ‘On the other, to ensure the circulation of regiments.’ But ‘anti‑insurgency hardware’, as Justinien Tribillon has called it, also served to chase the working class out of the city centre: Haussmann’s projects amounted to a gigantic form of real-estate speculation, and the 1871 Paris Commune that followed constituted not just a short‑lived anarchist experiment featuring enormous barricades; it also signalled the return of the workers to the centre and, arguably, revenge for their dispossession.    By the mid‑19th century, observers questioned whether barricades still had practical meaning. Gottfried Semper’s barricade, constructed for the 1849 Dresden uprising, had proved unconquerable, but Friedrich Engels, one‑time ‘inspector of barricades’ in the Elberfeld insurrection of the same year, already suggested that the barricades’ primary meaning was now moral rather than military – a point to be echoed by Leon Trotsky in the subsequent century. Barricades symbolised bravery and the will to hold out among insurrectionists, and, not least, determination rather to destroy one’s possessions – and one’s neighbourhood – than put up with further oppression.   Not only self‑declared revolutionaries viewed things this way: the reformist Social Democrat leader Eduard Bernstein observed that ‘the barricade fight as a political weapon of the people has been completely eliminated due to changes in weapon technology and cities’ structures’. Bernstein was also picking up on the fact that, in the era of industrialisation, contention happened at least as much on the factory floor as on the streets. The strike, not the food riot or the defence of workers’ quartiers, became the paradigmatic form of conflict. Joshua Clover has pointed out in his 2016 book Riot. Strike. Riot: The New Era of Uprisings, that the price of labour, rather than the price of goods, caused people to confront the powerful. Blocking production grew more important than blocking the street. ‘The only weapons we have are our bodies, and we need to tuck them in places so wheels don’t turn’ Today, it is again blocking – not just people streaming along the streets in large marches – that is prominently associated with protests. Disrupting circulation is not only an important gesture in the face of climate emergency; blocking transport is a powerful form of protest in an economic system focused on logistics and just‑in‑time distribution. Members of Insulate Britain and Germany’s Last Generation super‑glue themselves to streets to stop car traffic to draw attention to the climate emergency; they have also attached themselves to airport runways. They form a human barricade of sorts, immobilising traffic by making themselves immovable.   Today’s protesters have made themselves consciously vulnerable. They in fact follow the advice of US civil rights’ Bayard Rustin who explained: ‘The only weapons we have are our bodies, and we need to tuck them in places so wheels don’t turn.’ Making oneself vulnerable might increase the chances of a majority of citizens seeing the importance of the cause which those engaged in civil disobedience are pursuing. Demonstrations – even large, unpredictable ones – are no longer sufficient. They draw too little attention and do not compel a reaction. Naomi Klein proposed the term ‘blockadia’ as ‘a roving transnational conflict zone’ in which people block extraction – be it open‑pit mines, fracking sites or tar sands pipelines – with their bodies. More often than not, these blockades are organised by local people opposing the fossil fuel industry, not environmental activists per se. Blockadia came to denote resistance to the Keystone XL pipeline as well as Canada’s First Nations‑led movement Idle No More. In cities, blocking can be accomplished with highly mobile structures. Like the barricade of the 19th century, they can be quickly assembled, yet are difficult to move; unlike old‑style barricades, they can also be quickly disassembled, removed and hidden (by those who have the engineering and architectural know‑how). Think of super tripods, intricate ‘protest beacons’ based on tensegrity principles, as well as inflatable cobblestones, pioneered by the artist‑activists of Tools for Action (and as analysed in Nick Newman’s recent volume Protest Architecture).   As recently as 1991, newly independent Latvia defended itself against Soviet tanks with the popular construction of barricades, in a series of confrontations that became known as the Barikādes Credit: Associated Press / Alamy Inversely, roadblocks can be used by police authorities to stop demonstrations and gatherings from taking place – protesters are seen removing such infrastructure in Dhaka during a general strike in 1999 Credit: REUTERS / Rafiqur Rahman / Bridgeman These inflatable objects are highly flexible, but can also be protective against police batons. They pose an awkward challenge to the authorities, who often end up looking ridiculous when dealing with them, and, as one of the inventors pointed out, they are guaranteed to create a media spectacle. This was also true of the 19th‑century barricade: people posed for pictures in front of them. As Wolfgang Scheppe, a curator of Architecture of the Barricade (currently on display at the Arsenale Institute for Politics of Representation in Venice), explains, these images helped the police to find Communards and mete out punishments after the end of the anarchist experiment. Much simpler structures can also be highly effective. In 2019, protesters in Hong Kong filled streets with little archways made from just three ordinary bricks: two standing upright, one resting on top. When touched, the falling top one would buttress the other two, and effectively block traffic. In line with their imperative of ‘be water’, protesters would retreat when the police appeared, but the ‘mini‑Stonehenges’ would remain and slow down the authorities. Today, elaborate architectures of protest, such as Extinction Rebellion’s ‘tensegrity towers’, are used to blockade roads and distribution networks – in this instance, Rupert Murdoch’s News UK printworks in Broxbourne, for the media group’s failure to report the climate emergency accurately Credit: Extinction Rebellion In June 2025, protests erupted in Los Angeles against the Trump administration’s deportation policies. Demonstrators barricaded downtown streets using various objects, including the pink public furniture designed by design firm Rios for Gloria Molina Grand Park. LAPD are seen advancing through tear gas Credit: Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Roads which radicals might want to target are not just ones in major metropoles and fancy post‑industrial downtowns. Rather, they might block the arteries leading to ‘fulfilment centres’ and harbours with container shipping. The model is not only Occupy Wall Street, which had initially called for the erection of ‘peaceful barricades’, but also the Occupy that led to the Oakland port shutdown in 2011. In short, such roadblocks disrupt what Phil Neel has called a ‘hinterland’ that is often invisible, yet crucial for contemporary capitalism. More recently, Extinction Rebellion targeted Amazon distribution centres in three European countries in November 2021; in the UK, they aimed to disrupt half of all deliveries on a Black Friday.   Will such blockades just anger consumers who, after all, are not present but are impatiently waiting for packages at home? One of the hopes associated with the traditional barricade was always that they might create spaces where protesters, police and previously indifferent citizens get talking; French theorists even expected them to become ‘a machine to produce the people’. That could be why military technology has evolved so that the authorities do not have to get close to the barricade: tear gas was first deployed against those on barricades before it was used in the First World War; so‑called riot control vehicles can ever more easily crush barricades. The challenge, then, for anyone who wishes to block is also how to get in other people’s faces – in order to have a chance to convince them of their cause.        2025-06-11 Kristina Rapacki Share

This is quite a unique type of jam: PlayFusion's team, the developers behind the upcoming squad-based FPS ASCENDANT, is giving free access to their game assets, including 3D models, concept art, and more, to build something amazing or completely unhinged.ASCENDANT takes place in a gritty biopunk future shaped by '80s aesthetics and a deep narrative exploring humanity's relationship with technology and nature. With fast-paced squad combat, unpredictable objectives, and a unique spin on the capture-the-flag genre, the game challenges players to battle against both rival squads and mutant wildlife in pursuit of three biocores to survive.Centered around the theme "The Last Biocore," the ASCENDANT Jam invites you to compete across four unique categories, giving every kind of artist a chance to shine:Best Cinematic: Using the game assets, create an animation set in the world of ASCENDANT. Focus on quality, creativity, and a strong connection to the game's lore;Best Gameplay Video: Make a stream, edit, fan trailer, in-game machinima, etc. It just has to incorporate game footage in some way;Best New Take: Bring ASCENDANT to life in a new medium. Create a game of your own, write a story, draw a webcomic, do whatever, with bonus points for creativity;Best Filth (18+): Just full-on chaos. Shock the devs.ASCENDANTASCENDANTASCENDANTASCENDANTLike many jams, this one offers beginners a great chance to get noticed and build their portfolios, with the added bonus of winning real rewards. PlayFusion is giving away $50,000 in prizes, with each of the four categories awarding three grand prizes:1st place: $7,500 cash prize plus in-game feature and credit;2nd place: $2,500 cash prize;3rd place: $1,000 cash prize.From the four category winners, one Best in Show will be selected and flown to PlayFusion's studio in Cambridge, UK, along with a friend. You'll meet the team, get a behind-the-scenes look at the studio, and celebrate at their very own pub, The Side Quest.While the Best Filth first-place winner might not have their creation fully featured in-game (thanks to legal constraints), the developers will find a way to pay tribute to it. Not one of the 12 grand prize winners? PlayFusion is giving away over $3,000 in cash prizes for a variety of cool achievements, with more to come:Tier 1: $500 eachBest New Idea: Suggest a game feature so smart the devs wish it was theirs. If it's added, you'll get full credit;Best Newcomer: For newcomers showing great potential and heading in a thrilling direction.Tier 2: $250 eachBest Lore: For the submission that shows the deepest understanding of the game's lore;Best Comedy: For the funniest entry;Best Action: For the submission that kicks the most ass;Best BioPunk: For the submission that radiates GreenTech vibes;Best Twist: For the most surprising submission.Tier 3: $100 eachBest '80s Tribute: For the entry with the best throwback style, after all, it's an '80s-infused dystopia;Best Music: For the submission with the catchiest original song or soundtrack;Best Aesthetic: For the most beautiful, high-def, ultra-sexy creation;Best Totally Original: For the submission unlike anything else, no examples, just pure originality;Best Multi-Media: For the entry that spans multiple formats, like a comic with an embedded video or an animation paired with an original song.Tier 4: $50 eachBest Use of Gorlizard: For bringing the might and horror of this bioengineered beast to life;Best Use of Biocore: For the most creative use of those iconic orange, amber-filled jugs;Best Use of Assault Rifle: For the entry that best uses or innovates on this gun;Best Use of Ascendants: For the entry that gives human survivors a bold new look and a unique twist on their lives.Best Use of Environment: For the entry that thoughtfully uses buildings and foliage to create a believable, lived-in world.General rules for the ASCENDANT Jam allow participants to work in teams and submit multiple projects across different categories, though the same project cannot be entered in more than one category. Please tag submissions as "mature" if they contain gore or strong language; more explicit content should be entered in the Best Filth category. Hate speech and discriminatory content are strictly prohibited. Submissions behind a paywall will not be accepted, and copyrighted material from other sources must be avoided.You can submit your entries anytime between May 2, 2025, at 7:00 PM and July 1, 2025, at 7:00 AM.Visit the game's Steam page, find out all about the ASCENDANT Jam, and use this exciting opportunity to show off your style, network with talented artists, get your work featured, and win.

The murder of John Forde was the culmination to years of political, social, and criminal intrigue.   Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. Researchers have uncovered handwritten letters, court documents, and a coroner’s report related to the nearly 700-year-old cold case murder of a medieval priest. Published on June 5 in the journal Criminal Law Forum, the investigation draws on direct archival evidence from Cambridge University that is helping fill in the gaps to a high-profile true crime scandal that would make headlines even today. But despite a mountain of firsthand accounts, the murder’s masterminds never saw justice. The ‘planned and cold-blooded’ crime On Friday, May 3, 1337, Anglican priest John Forde began a walk along downtown London’s Cheapside street after vespers (evening prayers) shortly before sunset. At one point, a clergyman familiar to Forde by the name of Hasculph Neville approached him to begin a “pleasant conversation.” As the pair neared St. Paul’s Cathedral, four men ambushed the priest. One of the attackers then proceeded to slit Forde’s throat using a 12-inch dagger as two other assailants stabbed him in the stomach in front of onlookers. The vicious crime wasn’t a brazen robbery or politically motivated attack. It was likely a premeditated murder orchestrated by Ela Fitzpayne, a noblewoman, London crime syndicate leader—and potentially Forde’s lover. “We are looking at a murder commissioned by a leading figure of the English aristocracy. It is planned and cold-blooded, with a family member and close associates carrying it out, all of which suggests a revenge motive,” Cambridge University criminology professor Manuel Eisner explained in a statement. The location of the murder of John Forde on May 3, 1337. Credit: Medieval Murder Maps / University of Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology / Historic Towns Trust. A longstanding feud To understand how such a brutal killing could take place in daylight on a busy London street, it’s necessary to backtrack at least five years. In January 1332, the Archbishop of Canterbury sent a letter to the Bishop of Winchester that included a number of reputation-ruining claims surrounding Fitzpayne. In particular, Archbishop Simon Mepham described sexual relationships involving “knights and others, single and married, and even with clerics in holy orders.” The wide-ranging punishments for such sinful behavior could include a prohibition on wearing gold and other precious jewelry, as well as large tithes to monastic orders and the poor. But the most humiliating atonement often came in the form of a public walk of shame. The act of contrition involved walking barefoot across Salisbury Cathedral—England’s longest nave—in order to deliver a handcarried, four-pound wax candle to the church altar. What’s more, Archbishop Mepham commanded that Fitzpayne must repeat this penance every autumn for seven years. Fitzpayne was having none of it. According to Mepham’s message, the noblewoman chose to continue listening to a “spirit of pride” (and the devil), and refused to abide by the judgment. A second letter sent by the Archbishop that April also alleged that she had since absconded from her husband, Sir Robert Fitzpayne, and was hiding in London’s Rotherhithe district along the Thames River. Due to this, Archbishop Mepham reported that Ela Fitzpayne had been excommunicated from the church. Image of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letters to the Bishop of Winchester on the subject of Ela Fitzpayne, from the register of John de Stratford. Credit: Hampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council. Raids and rats But who tipped the clergy off to her indiscretions? According to Eisner’s review of original documents as part of the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology’s Medieval Murder Maps project, it was almost certainly her ex-lover, the soon-to-be-murdered John Forde. He was the only alleged lover named in Archbishop Mepham’s letters, and served as a church rector in a village located on the Fitzpayne family’s estate at the time of the suspected affair.  “The archbishop imposed heavy, shameful public penance on Ela, which she seems not to have complied with, but may have sparked a thirst for vengeance,” Eisner said. “Not least as John Forde appears to have escaped punishment by the church.” But Forde’s relationship with the Fitzpaynes seems to have extended even more illicit activities. In another record reviewed by Eisner, both Ela Fitzpayne and John Forde had been indicted by a Royal Commission in 1322. The crime–assisting in the raid of a Benedictine priory alongside Sir Fitzpayne. They and others reportedly assaulted the priory a year earlier, making off with around 18 oxen, 30 pigs, and 200 sheep. The monastery coincidentally served as a French abbey’s outpost amid increasing tensions between France and England in the years leading up to the Hundred Years’ War. Archbishop Mepham was almost certainly displeased after hearing about the indictment of one of his own clergy. A strict administrator himself, Mepham “was keen to enforce moral discipline among the gentry and nobility,” added Eisner. He theorizes that Forde copped to the affair after getting leaned on by superiors, which subsequently led to the campaign to shame Ela Fitzpayne as a means to reassert the Church’s authority over English nobility. Forde, unfortunately, was caught between the two sides. “John Forde may have had split loyalties,” argued Eisner. “One to the Fitzpayne family, who were likely patrons of his church and granted him the position. And the other to the bishops who had authority over him as a clergy member.” Archbishop Mepham ultimately wouldn’t live to see the scandal’s full consequences. Fitzpayne never accepted her walk of shame, and the church elder died a year after sending the incriminating letters. Eisner believes the Fitzpaynes greenlit their hit job on Forde only after the dust had seemingly settled. It doesn’t help their case three bystanders said the man who slit the rector’s throat was none other than Ela Fitzpayne’s own brother, Hugh Lovell. They also named two family servants as Forde’s other assailants. Archbishop Mepham died four years before Forde’s murder. Credit: ampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council Turning a blind eye Anyone waiting for justice in this medieval saga will likely be disappointed. “Despite naming the killers and clear knowledge of the instigator, when it comes to pursuing the perpetrators, the jury turn[ed] a blind eye,” Eisner said. Eisner explained the circumstances surrounding an initial lack of convictions were simply “implausible.” No one supposedly could locate the accused to bring to trial, despite the men belonging to one of England’s highest nobility houses. Meanwhile, the court claimed Hugh Lovell had no belongings available to confiscate. “This was typical of the class-based justice of the day,” said Eisner. In the end, the only charge that ever stuck in the murder case was an indictment against one of the family’s former servants. Five years after the first trial in 1342, Hugh Colne was convicted of being one of the men to stab Forde in the stomach and sentenced to the notorious Newgate Prison. As dark and sordid as the multiyear medieval drama was, it apparently didn’t change much between Ela Fitzpayne and her husband, Sir Robert. She and the baron remained married until his death in 1354—when she subsequently inherited all his property. “Where rule of law is weak, we see killings committed by the highest ranks in society, who will take power into their own hands, whether it’s today or seven centuries ago,” said Eisner. That said, the criminology professor couldn’t help but concede that Ela Fitzpayne was an “extraordinary” individual, regardless of the era. “A woman in 14th century England who raided priories, openly defied the Archbishop of Canterbury, and planned the assassination of a priest,” he said. “Ela Fitzpayne appears to have been many things.”