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.  

Ravi Kunju, Chief Product and Strategy Officer, AltairMay 16, 20254 Min ReadZoonar GmbH via Alamy StockCIOs looking to propel digital transformation face a daunting task. They need to harness the power of data analytics and artificial intelligence. They need to empower their employees and serve their customers with the best software tools, compute resources, data infrastructure, and more. Yet to achieve this, CIOs need to navigate a ballooning budget and technology partners who might be hiking prices without giving you more features. A recent Forrester report found that nearly 80% of US organizations reported increases in software costs over the past year. Moreover, 4 in 5 tech leaders said they anticipated their organization’s adoption of generative AI will increase software costs. Prices are going up.  Instead of cutting the technology offered, CIO should explore changing their software licensing to improve their bottom line. Though the board might not get excited about licensing changes, they should. Complex agreements, the wrong licensing models cost an organization dearly -- both financially and technologically.  At the enterprise level, new types of models are emerging that could improve a company’s bottom line, including one that mimics a library system. They’re challenging the traditional per-seat model and could be the future of software licensing.  Related:Traditional Per-Seat Software Licensing for the Right Tools The per seat model, or named user licensing, has its benefits. For instance, when you have a limited set of people who need specific tools, or where there can be individualized attributes or access controls, like an enterprise resource planning system or customer relationship management software. However, there is risk in extending similar models into other domains like engineering simulation. An engineer and their team solving complex problems and running virtual simulations on computers are using several tools, all for different purposes, stages of design, and use cases. The Office of the CFO isn’t using one spreadsheet app -- they’re using CRMs, databases, accounting, and budgeting tools, etc.  And the company’s needs go beyond software. Your organization needs hardware: cloud resources, high-performance computing (HPC) power, mainframes, and beyond.  For the wrong tools, named user licensing can be like owning a car that’s always left running, or it can cause traffic jams for projects if only one person has access to a specific software.  Token-Based Systems Make It Easier to Track Usage Consumption licensing models -- where everyone draws from a shared, but finite “tank” of resources (“fuel,” such as tokens or credits) -- can be an improvement. They house resources under a single licensing framework and allow different user personas to navigate between tools as needed. They also give organizations more insight into costs and usage (since they can see when the tank is getting low). This is a popular cloud licensing model, though the technology is also seeing continued inflation costs.    Related:But the tank for consumption models can run dry very fast. When it’s empty, you have to pay for more fuel. Plus, having that tank isn’t always helpful for controlling costs. What if someone accidentally runs a compute job overnight that uses all your fuel? You can’t get it back -- you have to buy more and hope it doesn’t happen again. There’s never a guarantee you won’t overshoot your budget. Value-Based Models are Interesting, but Subjective Value-based licensing is a relatively newer software licensing concept aligned with business outcomes. The idea is that the cost of the software is based purely on the benefits to the end customer. These models are well-suited for solutions that can easily quantify business benefits; however, these can be subjective and hard to implement and scale. They can also extend the sales cycle and make every transaction unique (and potentially contentious).  Related:A Library Model Combines Other Emergent Licensing Trends Growing in popularity is the flexible-hybrid model, which combines consumption-based and value-based licensing with a predetermined capacity commitment that can’t be exceeded.  It’s like a community e-library, wherein a variety of books can be checked out when needed and checked back in when not in use. In this example, the flexible-hybrid model would work by making certain books available to a team to check out. The only determination then is how many books each team member will borrow at once.  With flexible-hybrid models, CIOs can often get the best of everything: software/hardware resources in a single, shared environment, seamless access to tools/resources when and how you need them, and a brake that prevents runaway costs.  Research from ITAM found that more than 76% of organizations considered themselves “over-licensed.” These emerging software licensing models could fix that number. However, we’ll only see it take off if CIOs start critically evaluating their licensing models and asking their vendors for the flexible-hybrid approach. While AI tops the list of many business leaders’ priorities right now, making sure to secure AI tools that everyone can use, and within budget, should be up there, too.  About the AuthorRavi Kunju Chief Product and Strategy Officer, AltairRavi Kunju is responsible for the strategy and vision of Altair products, which includes facilitating the development, sales, pricing, and marketing of Altair’s solutions for multiple industry verticals, across all business lines. Previously, Kunju held several leadership roles at Altair including vice president of business strategy for Altair’s manufacturing solutions, vice president of strategy for enterprise computing, managing director of enterprise computing for the Americas, and managing director of the U.S. North Central region. Prior to joining Altair, Kunju was a project engineer at Ford Motor Company and a structural analyst at Chrysler Corporation.See more from Ravi KunjuWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

Ravi Kunju, Chief Product and Strategy Officer, AltairMay 16, 20254 Min ReadZoonar GmbH via Alamy StockCIOs looking to propel digital transformation face a daunting task. They need to harness the power of data analytics and artificial intelligence. They need to empower their employees and serve their customers with the best software tools, compute resources, data infrastructure, and more. Yet to achieve this, CIOs need to navigate a ballooning budget and technology partners who might be hiking prices without giving you more features. A recent Forrester report found that nearly 80% of US organizations reported increases in software costs over the past year. Moreover, 4 in 5 tech leaders said they anticipated their organization’s adoption of generative AI will increase software costs. Prices are going up.  Instead of cutting the technology offered, CIO should explore changing their software licensing to improve their bottom line. Though the board might not get excited about licensing changes, they should. Complex agreements, the wrong licensing models cost an organization dearly -- both financially and technologically.  At the enterprise level, new types of models are emerging that could improve a company’s bottom line, including one that mimics a library system. They’re challenging the traditional per-seat model and could be the future of software licensing.  Related:Traditional Per-Seat Software Licensing for the Right Tools The per seat model, or named user licensing, has its benefits. For instance, when you have a limited set of people who need specific tools, or where there can be individualized attributes or access controls, like an enterprise resource planning system or customer relationship management software. However, there is risk in extending similar models into other domains like engineering simulation. An engineer and their team solving complex problems and running virtual simulations on computers are using several tools, all for different purposes, stages of design, and use cases. The Office of the CFO isn’t using one spreadsheet app -- they’re using CRMs, databases, accounting, and budgeting tools, etc.  And the company’s needs go beyond software. Your organization needs hardware: cloud resources, high-performance computing (HPC) power, mainframes, and beyond.  For the wrong tools, named user licensing can be like owning a car that’s always left running, or it can cause traffic jams for projects if only one person has access to a specific software.  Token-Based Systems Make It Easier to Track Usage Consumption licensing models -- where everyone draws from a shared, but finite “tank” of resources (“fuel,” such as tokens or credits) -- can be an improvement. They house resources under a single licensing framework and allow different user personas to navigate between tools as needed. They also give organizations more insight into costs and usage (since they can see when the tank is getting low). This is a popular cloud licensing model, though the technology is also seeing continued inflation costs.    Related:But the tank for consumption models can run dry very fast. When it’s empty, you have to pay for more fuel. Plus, having that tank isn’t always helpful for controlling costs. What if someone accidentally runs a compute job overnight that uses all your fuel? You can’t get it back -- you have to buy more and hope it doesn’t happen again. There’s never a guarantee you won’t overshoot your budget. Value-Based Models are Interesting, but Subjective Value-based licensing is a relatively newer software licensing concept aligned with business outcomes. The idea is that the cost of the software is based purely on the benefits to the end customer. These models are well-suited for solutions that can easily quantify business benefits; however, these can be subjective and hard to implement and scale. They can also extend the sales cycle and make every transaction unique (and potentially contentious).  Related:A Library Model Combines Other Emergent Licensing Trends Growing in popularity is the flexible-hybrid model, which combines consumption-based and value-based licensing with a predetermined capacity commitment that can’t be exceeded.  It’s like a community e-library, wherein a variety of books can be checked out when needed and checked back in when not in use. In this example, the flexible-hybrid model would work by making certain books available to a team to check out. The only determination then is how many books each team member will borrow at once.  With flexible-hybrid models, CIOs can often get the best of everything: software/hardware resources in a single, shared environment, seamless access to tools/resources when and how you need them, and a brake that prevents runaway costs.  Research from ITAM found that more than 76% of organizations considered themselves “over-licensed.” These emerging software licensing models could fix that number. However, we’ll only see it take off if CIOs start critically evaluating their licensing models and asking their vendors for the flexible-hybrid approach. While AI tops the list of many business leaders’ priorities right now, making sure to secure AI tools that everyone can use, and within budget, should be up there, too.  About the AuthorRavi Kunju Chief Product and Strategy Officer, AltairRavi Kunju is responsible for the strategy and vision of Altair products, which includes facilitating the development, sales, pricing, and marketing of Altair’s solutions for multiple industry verticals, across all business lines. Previously, Kunju held several leadership roles at Altair including vice president of business strategy for Altair’s manufacturing solutions, vice president of strategy for enterprise computing, managing director of enterprise computing for the Americas, and managing director of the U.S. North Central region. Prior to joining Altair, Kunju was a project engineer at Ford Motor Company and a structural analyst at Chrysler Corporation.See more from Ravi KunjuWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

Author(s): S Aishwarya Originally published on Towards AI. Strong data storytelling goes beyond simply visualizing numbers it uncovers the meaning behind the patterns, bringing clarity to what would otherwise be just a spreadsheet of values. Photo by Carlos Muza on Unsplash While visualization libraries like matplotlib, Plotly, and Seaborn can produce beautiful charts, they often lack one crucial feature: narrative. They leave it up to the viewer to interpret the story behind the lines and bars. That’s where Altair and the pynarrative library shine. Together, they help us not only visualize data — but actually explain it. 🔍What is Altair? Altair is a Python library for declarative data visualization that allows users to create clean, concise, and interactive charts based on the Vega-Lite grammar of graphics. You only need to provide: your data (typically a pandas DataFrame or Vega datasets) chart type (e.g., bar, line, scatter) encoding (x/y axes, color, size, etc.) optional interactivity, filtering, and tooltips Altair then renders the visualization using a JSON specification — ready for use in dashboards, notebooks, web applications, or reports. The Altair library directly integrates with pandas (for data handling) and Vega-Lite (for rendering and interactivity), making it easy for Python users to create powerful data stories without writing complex plotting code. 🔍 What is pynarrative? pynarrative is a Python library designed to automatically craft clear, insightful narrative summaries from pandas DataFrames and Altair charts. With just a few inputs: A dataset (often a time series or structured data in a DataFrame) A visualization (created using Altair) Axis labels, optional context, and your intended message pynarrative generates a well-structured textual explanation — ideal for embedding in dashboards, reports, presentations, or interactive data stories. Built to work seamlessly with pandas (for data handling) and Altair (for visual rendering), pynarrative helps bridge the gap between raw data and human-readable insights — turning visualizations into compelling narratives with minimal effort. Data Description: We’re using the cars dataset, which contains information about different car models. The main features we’ll focus on are: Horsepower: The power of the car’s engine. Miles_per_Gallon (MPG): How fuel-efficient the car is. Origin: Where the car was made (USA, Europe, or Japan). Name: The model name of the car. These features help us explore the relationship between a car’s power and fuel efficiency, and how that varies by origin. Data Cleaning & Preparation We’ll begin by automatically loading the dataset using Seaborn, then clean it for our visualizations. import pandas as pdimport seaborn as snsimport altair as altimport pynarrative as pndf = sns.load_dataset('mpg')print(df[['name', 'mpg', 'horsepower', 'origin']].head()) Output: Image by Author Cleaning Steps: Convert horsepower to numeric to handle any potential issues. Drop rows with missing values in critical fields. df['horsepower'] = pd.to_numeric(df['horsepower'], errors='coerce')df_clean = df.dropna(subset=['horsepower', 'mpg', 'origin'])print(df_clean[['name', 'mpg', 'horsepower', 'origin']].head()) Output: Image by Author Story 1: Power vs. Fuel Efficiency Let’s explore the relationship between a car’s engine power (horsepower) and its fuel efficiency (miles per gallon). By color-coding the data points based on the car’s region of origin, we gain insight into how different countries approach automotive design. chart = pn.Story(df_clean).mark_circle(size=60).encode( x='horsepower:Q', y='mpg:Q', color='origin:N', tooltip=['name', 'horsepower', 'mpg', 'origin']).add_title( "Horsepower vs MPG by Origin", "Higher horsepower often leads to lower fuel efficiency", title_color="#1a1a1a", subtitle_color="#4a4a4a").add_context( text=[ "Cars with more horsepower generally consume more fuel.", "Japanese and European models show a clear emphasis on fuel efficiency.", "This trend reveals differing consumer needs and manufacturer strategies." ], position="bottom", dx=0, color="black").render()chart Output: Image by Author This visualization reveals that American cars tend to have higher horsepower but lower fuel economy, whereas Japanese and European cars show more balance. Story 2: Regional Efficiency Trends Over Time Let’s observe how fuel efficiency (MPG) has changed over time across different regions. # Estimate year from model_year columndf_clean['year'] = df_clean['model_year'] + 1900# Compute average MPG by region and yearregional_avg = df_clean.groupby(['year', 'origin'])['mpg'].mean().reset_index()chart = pn.Story(regional_avg).mark_line(point=True).encode( x=alt.X('year:O', axis=alt.Axis(title='Year')), y=alt.Y('mpg:Q', title='Average MPG'), color='origin:N').add_title( "Average Fuel Efficiency by Region Over Time", "Trends in MPG from 1970s to 1980s", title_color="#1a1a1a", subtitle_color="#4a4a4a").add_context( text=[ "Japanese cars consistently lead in fuel efficiency.", "U.S. manufacturers ramped up efficiency post-1975.", "European models maintain a steady middle ground." ], position="bottom", dx=0, color="black").render()chart Output: Image by Author We see how regulatory changes and fuel crises influenced fuel efficiency, especially in the U.S. Story 3: Impact of the 1973 Oil Crisis Let’s annotate our chart with the 1973 Oil Crisis, a pivotal moment for car design. chart = pn.Story(regional_avg).mark_line().encode( x='year:O', y='mpg:Q', color='origin:N').add_title( "Impact of the 1973 Oil Crisis on MPG", "Shift in design philosophy after fuel shortages", title_color="#1a1a1a", subtitle_color="#4a4a4a").add_context( text=[ "The 1973 Oil Crisis increased focus on fuel efficiency worldwide.", "U.S. automakers shifted designs to improve MPG post-crisis.", "Japanese models were already MPG leaders at the time." ], position="bottom", dx=0, color="black").add_annotation( 1973, 15.5, "1973 Oil Crisis", arrow_direction='up', arrow_dx=0, arrow_dy=-1, arrow_color='red', arrow_size=50, label_color='black', label_size=14, show_point=True).render()chart Output: Image by Author This annotated visualization adds historical context, showing how global events shape industry trends. In Summary… Using pynarrative and Altair, we seamlessly transformed car performance data into engaging visual stories by: Highlighting the inverse relationship between horsepower and fuel efficiency Exploring how regional design philosophies shape fuel economy over time Annotating major historical events like the 1973 Oil Crisis to show their industry impact All of this was done using a single, intuitive interface combining pandas, Altair, and pynarrative. Once this storytelling pipeline is in place, it can be adapted to any dataset rendered through Altair from automotive to healthcare and beyond. This approach is quicker, more scalable, and more intuitive than conventional manual charting methods. Whether you’re building technical reports, dynamic dashboards, or insight-driven narratives, this serves as a reliable foundation for effective data storytelling. I would love to read your comments! Join thousands of data leaders on the AI newsletter. Join over 80,000 subscribers and keep up to date with the latest developments in AI. From research to projects and ideas. If you are building an AI startup, an AI-related product, or a service, we invite you to consider becoming a sponsor. Published via Towards AI

Editor’s note: This post is part of Into the Omniverse, a series focused on how developers, 3D practitioners and enterprises can transform their workflows using the latest advances in OpenUSD and NVIDIA Omniverse. Computer-aided engineering (CAE) is at the forefront of modern product development, enabling engineers to virtually test and refine designs before building physical prototypes. Among the powerful CAE methods, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation plays a critical role in understanding and optimizing fluid flow for use cases, such as aerodynamic testing in aerospace and automotive engineering or thermal management for electronics. The NVIDIA Omniverse Blueprint for real-time digital twins provides a powerful framework for developers to build complex CFD simulation solutions with the combined power of NVIDIA CUDA-X acceleration libraries, NVIDIA PhysicsNeMo AI framework and NVIDIA Omniverse, and Universal Scene Description (OpenUSD). Multiphysics simulation generates a high diversity of data with optical, thermal, electromagnetic and mechanical applications, all requiring different inputs and outputs. OpenUSD provides a unified data model that connects the CAE ecosystem so digital twins can operate in real time with diverse data inputs. This seamless interoperability between tools is crucial for engineering efforts that rely on accurate, consistent CFD simulations. Industry Leaders Deliver 50x Faster Simulation  At NVIDIA GTC in March, NVIDIA announced that leading CAE software providers, including Ansys, Altair, Cadence, Siemens and Synopsys, are accelerating their simulation tools, including for CFD, by up to 50x with the NVIDIA Blackwell platform. Thanks to accelerated software, NVIDIA CUDA-X libraries and performance-optimization blueprints, industries like automotive, aerospace, energy, manufacturing and life sciences can greatly reduce product development time and costs while increasing design accuracy and remaining energy efficient. Ansys, a leader in simulation software, is harnessing the power of NVIDIA technologies for real-time physics and accelerated simulation with AI-driven digital twins. By integrating NVIDIA GPUs and tapping into Blackwell’s advanced accelerated computing capabilities, Ansys software enables engineers to run complex CFD simulations at unprecedented speed and scale. Real-Time Digital Twins for CFD Ansys is also adopting Omniverse and OpenUSD to create more connected, collaborative simulation environments for CFD. Ansys users can build real-time digital twins that integrate data from multiple sources, and now those multidisciplinary CFD simulations can be integrated into the visually rich Omniverse environment. Learn more about how Ansys is using NVIDIA technologies and OpenUSD to advance its CFD workflows in this livestream replay: Get Plugged Into the World of OpenUSD Join NVIDIA GTC Taipei at COMPUTEX, running May 19-23, to see how accelerated computing, Omniverse and OpenUSD advance 3D workflows. Watch NVIDIA founder and CEO Jensen Huang’s COMPUTEX keynote on Monday, May 19, at 11 a.m. Taiwan Time. Ansys Simulation World is a virtual and in-person global simulation experience. The virtual event takes place July 16-17, and includes a keynote from Huang that will provide a closer look at the transformative power of accelerated computing and AI to enable computational engineering breakthroughs – including CFD – across all industries. Until then, watch Ansys GTC sessions on demand to learn more. Discover why developers and 3D practitioners are using OpenUSD and learn how to optimize 3D workflows with the new self-paced “Learn OpenUSD” curriculum for 3D developers and practitioners, available for free through the NVIDIA Deep Learning Institute. For more resources on OpenUSD, explore the Alliance for OpenUSD forum and the AOUSD website. Stay up to date by subscribing to NVIDIA Omniverse news, joining the community and following NVIDIA Omniverse on Instagram, LinkedIn, Medium and X. Featured image courtesy of Ansys.