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.

Donald Trump’s military parade in Washington this weekend — a show of force in the capital that just happens to take place on the president’s birthday — smacks of authoritarian Dear Leader-style politics (even though Trump actually got the idea after attending the 2017 Bastille Day parade in Paris).Yet as disconcerting as the imagery of tanks rolling down Constitution Avenue will be, it’s not even close to Trump’s most insidious assault on the US military’s historic and democratically essential nonpartisan ethos.In fact, it’s not even the most worrying thing he’s done this week.On Tuesday, the president gave a speech at Fort Bragg, an Army base home to Special Operations Command. While presidential speeches to soldiers are not uncommon — rows of uniformed troops make a great backdrop for a foreign policy speech — they generally avoid overt partisan attacks and campaign-style rhetoric. The soldiers, for their part, are expected to be studiously neutral, laughing at jokes and such, but remaining fully impassive during any policy conversation.That’s not what happened at Fort Bragg. Trump’s speech was a partisan tirade that targeted “radical left” opponents ranging from Joe Biden to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. He celebrated his deployment of Marines to Los Angeles, proposed jailing people for burning the American flag, and called on soldiers to be “aggressive” toward the protesters they encountered.The soldiers, for their part, cheered Trump and booed his enemies — as they were seemingly expected to. Reporters at Military.com, a military news service, uncovered internal communications from 82nd Airborne leadership suggesting that the crowd was screened for their political opinions.“If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don’t want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out,” one note read.To call this unusual is an understatement. I spoke with four different experts on civil-military relations, two of whom teach at the Naval War College, about the speech and its implications. To a person, they said it was a step towards politicizing the military with no real precedent in modern American history.“That is, I think, a really big red flag because it means the military’s professional ethic is breaking down internally,” says Risa Brooks, a professor at Marquette University. “Its capacity to maintain that firewall against civilian politicization may be faltering.”This may sound alarmist — like an overreading of a one-off incident — but it’s part of a bigger pattern. The totality of Trump administration policies, ranging from the parade in Washington to the LA troop deployment to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s firing of high-ranking women and officers of color, suggests a concerted effort to erode the military’s professional ethos and turn it into an institution subservient to the Trump administration’s whims. This is a signal policy aim of would-be dictators, who wish to head off the risk of a coup and ensure the armed forces’ political reliability if they are needed to repress dissent in a crisis.Steve Saideman, a professor at Carleton University, put together a list of eight different signs that a military is being politicized in this fashion. The Trump administration has exhibited six out of the eight.“The biggest theme is that we are seeing a number of checks on the executive fail at the same time — and that’s what’s making individual events seem more alarming than they might otherwise,” says Jessica Blankshain, a professor at the Naval War College (speaking not for the military but in a personal capacity).That Trump is trying to politicize the military does not mean he has succeeded. There are several signs, including Trump’s handpicked chair of the Joint Chiefs repudiating the president’s claims of a migrant invasion during congressional testimony, that the US military is resisting Trump’s politicization.But the events in Fort Bragg and Washington suggest that we are in the midst of a quiet crisis in civil-military relations in the United States — one whose implications for American democracy’s future could well be profound.The Trump crisis in civil-military relations, explainedA military is, by sheer fact of its existence, a threat to any civilian government. If you have an institution that controls the overwhelming bulk of weaponry in a society, it always has the physical capacity to seize control of the government at gunpoint. A key question for any government is how to convince the armed forces that they cannot or should not take power for themselves.Democracies typically do this through a process called “professionalization.” Soldiers are rigorously taught to think of themselves as a class of public servants, people trained to perform a specific job within defined parameters. Their ultimate loyalty is not to their generals or even individual presidents, but rather to the people and the constitutional order.Samuel Huntington, the late Harvard political scientist, is the canonical theorist of a professional military. In his book The Soldier and the State, he described optimal professionalization as a system of “objective control”: one in which the military retains autonomy in how they fight and plan for wars while deferring to politicians on whether and why to fight in the first place. In effect, they stay out of the politicians’ affairs while the politicians stay out of theirs.The idea of such a system is to emphasize to the military that they are professionals: Their responsibility isn’t deciding when to use force, but only to conduct operations as effectively as possible once ordered to engage in them. There is thus a strict firewall between military affairs, on the one hand, and policy-political affairs on the other.Typically, the chief worry is that the military breaches this bargain: that, for example, a general starts speaking out against elected officials’ policies in ways that undermine civilian control. This is not a hypothetical fear in the United States, with the most famous such example being Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s insubordination during the Korean War. Thankfully, not even MacArthur attempted the worst-case version of military overstep — a coup.But in backsliding democracies like the modern United States, where the chief executive is attempting an anti-democratic power grab, the military poses a very different kind of threat to democracy — in fact, something akin to the exact opposite of the typical scenario.In such cases, the issue isn’t the military inserting itself into politics but rather the civilians dragging them into it in ways that upset the democratic political order. The worst-case scenario is that the military acts on presidential directives to use force against domestic dissenters, destroying democracy not by ignoring civilian orders, but by following them.There are two ways to arrive at such a worst-case scenario, both of which are in evidence in the early days of Trump 2.0.First is politicization: an intentional attack on the constraints against partisan activity inside the professional ranks.Many of Pete Hegseth’s major moves as secretary of defense fit this bill, including his decisions to fire nonwhite and female generals seen as politically unreliable and his effort to undermine the independence of the military’s lawyers. The breaches in protocol at Fort Bragg are both consequences and causes of politicization: They could only happen in an environment of loosened constraint, and they might encourage more overt political action if gone unpunished.The second pathway to breakdown is the weaponization of professionalism against itself. Here, Trump exploits the military’s deference to politicians by ordering it to engage in undemocratic (and even questionably legal) activities. In practice, this looks a lot like the LA deployments, and, more specifically, the lack of any visible military pushback. While the military readily agreeing to deployments is normally a good sign — that civilian control is holding — these aren’t normal times. And this isn’t a normal deployment, but rather one that comes uncomfortably close to the military being ordered to assist in repressing overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations against executive abuses of power.“It’s really been pretty uncommon to use the military for law enforcement,” says David Burbach, another Naval War College professor (also speaking personally). “This is really bringing the military into frontline law enforcement when. … these are really not huge disturbances.”This, then, is the crisis: an incremental and slow-rolling effort by the Trump administration to erode the norms and procedures designed to prevent the military from being used as a tool of domestic repression. Is it time to panic?Among the experts I spoke with, there was consensus that the military’s professional and nonpartisan ethos was weakening. This isn’t just because of Trump, but his terms — the first to a degree, and now the second acutely — are major stressors.Yet there was no consensus on just how much military nonpartisanship has eroded — that is, how close we are to a moment when the US military might be willing to follow obviously authoritarian orders.For all its faults, the US military’s professional ethos is a really important part of its identity and self-conception. While few soldiers may actually read Sam Huntington or similar scholars, the general idea that they serve the people and the republic is a bedrock principle among the ranks. There is a reason why the United States has never, in over 250 years of governance, experienced a military coup — or even come particularly close to one.In theory, this ethos should also galvanize resistance to Trump’s efforts at politicization. Soldiers are not unthinking automatons: While they are trained to follow commands, they are explicitly obligated to refuse illegal orders, even coming from the president. The more aggressive Trump’s efforts to use the military as a tool of repression gets, the more likely there is to be resistance.Or, at least theoretically.The truth is that we don’t really know how the US military will respond to a situation like this. Like so many of Trump’s second-term policies, their efforts to bend the military to their will are unprecedented — actions with no real parallel in the modern history of the American military. Experts can only make informed guesses, based on their sense of US military culture as well as comparisons to historical and foreign cases.For this reason, there are probably only two things we can say with confidence.First, what we’ve seen so far is not yet sufficient evidence to declare that the military is in Trump’s thrall. The signs of decay are too limited to ground any conclusions that the longstanding professional norm is entirely gone.“We have seen a few things that are potentially alarming about erosion of the military’s non-partisan norm. But not in a way that’s definitive at this point,” Blankshain says.Second, the stressors on this tradition are going to keep piling on. Trump’s record makes it exceptionally clear that he wants the military to serve him personally — and that he, and Hegseth, will keep working to make it so. This means we really are in the midst of a quiet crisis, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.“The fact that he’s getting the troops to cheer for booing Democratic leaders at a time when there’s actually [a deployment to] a blue city and a blue state…he is ordering the troops to take a side,” Saideman says. “There may not be a coherent plan behind this. But there are a lot of things going on that are all in the same direction.”See More: Politics

If you’ve ever flown through outer space, at least while watching a documentary or a science fiction film, you’ve seen how artists turn astronomical findings into stunning visuals. But in the process of visualizing data for their latest planetarium show, a production team at New York’s American Museum of Natural History made a surprising discovery of their own: a trillion-and-a-half mile long spiral of material drifting along the edge of our solar system. “So this is a really fun thing that happened,” says Jackie Faherty, the museum’s senior scientist. Last winter, Faherty and her colleagues were beneath the dome of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, fine-tuning a scene that featured the Oort cloud, the big, thick bubble surrounding our Sun and planets that’s filled with ice and rock and other remnants from the solar system’s infancy. The Oort cloud begins far beyond Neptune, around one and a half light years from the Sun. It has never been directly observed; its existence is inferred from the behavior of long-period comets entering the inner solar system. The cloud is so expansive that the Voyager spacecraft, our most distant probes, would need another 250 years just to reach its inner boundary; to reach the other side, they would need about 30,000 years.  The 30-minute show, Encounters in the Milky Way, narrated by Pedro Pascal, guides audiences on a trip through the galaxy across billions of years. For a section about our nascent solar system, the writing team decided “there’s going to be a fly-by” of the Oort cloud, Faherty says. “But what does our Oort cloud look like?”  To find out, the museum consulted astronomers and turned to David Nesvorný, a scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio. He provided his model of the millions of particles believed to make up the Oort cloud, based on extensive observational data. “Everybody said, go talk to Nesvorný. He’s got the best model,” says Faherty. And “everybody told us, ‘There’s structure in the model,’ so we were kind of set up to look for stuff,” she says.  The museum’s technical team began using Nesvorný’s model to simulate how the cloud evolved over time. Later, as the team projected versions of the fly-by scene into the dome, with the camera looking back at the Oort cloud, they saw a familiar shape, one that appears in galaxies, Saturn’s rings, and disks around young stars. “We’re flying away from the Oort cloud and out pops this spiral, a spiral shape to the outside of our solar system,” Faherty marveled. “A huge structure, millions and millions of particles.” She emailed Nesvorný to ask for “more particles,” with a render of the scene attached. “We noticed the spiral of course,” she wrote. “And then he writes me back: ‘what are you talking about, a spiral?’”  While fine-tuning a simulation of the Oort cloud, a vast expanse of ice material leftover from the birth of our Sun, the ‘Encounters in the Milky Way’ production team noticed a very clear shape: a structure made of billions of comets and shaped like a spiral-armed galaxy, seen here in a scene from the final Space Show (curving, dusty S-shape behind the Sun) [Image: © AMNH] More simulations ensued, this time on Pleiades, a powerful NASA supercomputer. In high-performance computer simulations spanning 4.6 billion years, starting from the Solar System’s earliest days, the researchers visualized how the initial icy and rocky ingredients of the Oort cloud began circling the Sun, in the elliptical orbits that are thought to give the cloud its rough disc shape. The simulations also incorporated the physics of the Sun’s gravitational pull, the influences from our Milky Way galaxy, and the movements of the comets themselves.  In each simulation, the spiral persisted. “No one has ever seen the Oort structure like that before,” says Faherty. Nesvorný “has a great quote about this: ‘The math was all there. We just needed the visuals.’”  An illustration of the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud in relation to our solar system. [Image: NASA] As the Oort cloud grew with the early solar system, Nesvorný and his colleagues hypothesize that the galactic tide, or the gravitational force from the Milky Way, disrupted the orbits of some comets. Although the Sun pulls these objects inward, the galaxy’s gravity appears to have twisted part of the Oort cloud outward, forming a spiral tilted roughly 30 degrees from the plane of the solar system. “As the galactic tide acts to decouple bodies from the scattered disk it creates a spiral structure in physical space that is roughly 15,000 astronomical units in length,” or around 1.4 trillion miles from one end to the other, the researchers write in a paper that was published in March in the Astrophysical Journal. “The spiral is long-lived and persists in the inner Oort Cloud to the present time.” “The physics makes sense,” says Faherty. “Scientists, we’re amazing at what we do, but it doesn’t mean we can see everything right away.” It helped that the team behind the space show was primed to look for something, says Carter Emmart, the museum’s director of astrovisualization and director of Encounters. Astronomers had described Nesvorný’s model as having “a structure,” which intrigued the team’s artists. “We were also looking for structure so that it wouldn’t just be sort of like a big blob,” he says. “Other models were also revealing this—but they just hadn’t been visualized.” The museum’s attempts to simulate nature date back to its first habitat dioramas in the early 1900s, which brought visitors to places that hadn’t yet been captured by color photos, TV, or the web. The planetarium, a night sky simulator for generations of would-be scientists and astronauts, got its start after financier Charles Hayden bought the museum its first Zeiss projector. The planetarium now boasts one of the world’s few Zeiss Mark IX systems. Still, these days the star projector is rarely used, Emmart says, now that fulldome laser projectors can turn the old static starfield into 3D video running at 60 frames per second. The Hayden boasts six custom-built Christie projectors, part of what the museum’s former president called “the most advanced planetarium ever attempted.”  In about 1.3 million years, the star system Gliese 710 is set to pass directly through our Oort Cloud, an event visualized in a dramatic scene in ‘Encounters in the Milky Way.’ During its flyby, our systems will swap icy comets, flinging some out on new paths. [Image: © AMNH] Emmart recalls how in 1998, when he and other museum leaders were imagining the future of space shows at the Hayden—now with the help of digital projectors and computer graphics—there were questions over how much space they could try to show. “We’re talking about these astronomical data sets we could plot to make the galaxy and the stars,” he says. “Of course, we knew that we would have this star projector, but we really wanted to emphasize astrophysics with this dome video system. I was drawing pictures of this just to get our heads around it and noting the tip of the solar system to the Milky Way is about 60 degrees. And I said, what are we gonna do when we get outside the Milky Way?’ “Then [planetarium’s director] Neil Degrasse Tyson “goes, ‘whoa, whoa, whoa, Carter, we have enough to do. And just plotting the Milky Way, that’s hard enough.’ And I said, ‘well, when we exit the Milky Way and we don’t see any other galaxies, that’s sort of like astronomy in 1920—we thought maybe the entire universe is just a Milky Way.'” “And that kind of led to a chaotic discussion about, well, what other data sets are there for this?” Emmart adds. The museum worked with astronomer Brent Tully, who had mapped 3500 galaxies beyond the Milky Way, in collaboration with the National Center for Super Computing Applications. “That was it,” he says, “and that seemed fantastical.” By the time the first planetarium show opened at the museum’s new Rose Center for Earth and Space in 2000, Tully had broadened his survey “to an amazing” 30,000 galaxies. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey followed—it’s now at data release 18—with six million galaxies. To build the map of the universe that underlies Encounters, the team also relied on data from the European Space Agency’s space observatory, Gaia. Launched in 2013 and powered down in March of this year, Gaia brought an unprecedented precision to our astronomical map, plotting the distance between 1.7 billion stars. To visualize and render the simulated data, Jon Parker, the museum’s lead technical director, relied on Houdini, a 3D animation tool by Toronto-based SideFX. The goal is immersion, “whether it’s in front of the buffalo downstairs, and seeing what those herds were like before we decimated them, to coming in this room and being teleported to space, with an accurate foundation in the science,” Emmart says. “But the art is important, because the art is the way to the soul.”  The museum, he adds, is “a testament to wonder. And I think wonder is a gateway to inspiration, and inspiration is a gateway to motivation.” Three-D visuals aren’t just powerful tools for communicating science, but increasingly crucial for science itself. Software like OpenSpace, an open source simulation tool developed by the museum, along with the growing availability of high-performance computing, are making it easier to build highly detailed visuals of ever larger and more complex collections of data. “Anytime we look, literally, from a different angle at catalogs of astronomical positions, simulations, or exploring the phase space of a complex data set, there is great potential to discover something new,” says Brian R. Kent, an astronomer and director of science communications at National Radio Astronomy Observatory. “There is also a wealth of astronomics tatical data in archives that can be reanalyzed in new ways, leading to new discoveries.” As the instruments grow in size and sophistication, so does the data, and the challenge of understanding it. Like all scientists, astronomers are facing a deluge of data, ranging from gamma rays and X-rays to ultraviolet, optical, infrared, and radio bands. Our Oort cloud (center), a shell of icy bodies that surrounds the solar system and extends one-and-a-half light years in every direction, is shown in this scene from ‘Encounters in the Milky Way’ along with the Oort clouds of neighboring stars. The more massive the star, the larger its Oort cloud [Image: © AMNH ] “New facilities like the Next Generation Very Large Array here at NRAO or the Vera Rubin Observatory and LSST survey project will generate large volumes of data, so astronomers have to get creative with how to analyze it,” says Kent.  More data—and new instruments—will also be needed to prove the spiral itself is actually there: there’s still no known way to even observe the Oort cloud.  Instead, the paper notes, the structure will have to be measured from “detection of a large number of objects” in the radius of the inner Oort cloud or from “thermal emission from small particles in the Oort spiral.”  The Vera C. Rubin Observatory, a powerful, U.S.-funded telescope that recently began operation in Chile, could possibly observe individual icy bodies within the cloud. But researchers expect the telescope will likely discover only dozens of these objects, maybe hundreds, not enough to meaningfully visualize any shapes in the Oort cloud.  For us, here and now, the 1.4 trillion mile-long spiral will remain confined to the inside of a dark dome across the street from Central Park.

Three former executives at the French video game company Ubisoft used their position to bully or sexually harass staff, leaving women terrified and feeling like pieces of meat, a French court has heard.The state prosecutor Antoine Haushalter said the trial of three senior game creators for alleged bullying, sexual harassment and, in one case, attempted sexual assault was a “turning point” for the gaming world. It is the first big trial to result from the #MeToo movement in the video games industry, and Haushalter said the case had revealed “overwhelming” evidence of harassment.In four days of hearings, female former staff members variously described being tied to a chair, forced to do handstands, subjected to constant comments about sex and their bodies, having to endure sexist and homophobic jokes, drawings of penises being stuck to computers, a manager who farted in workers’ faces or scribbled on women with marker pens, gave unsolicited shoulder massages, played pornographic films in an open-plan office, and another executive who cracked a whip near people’s heads. The three men deny all charges.Haushalter said “the world of video games and its subculture” had an element of “systemic” sexism and potential abuse. He said the #MeToo movement in the gaming industry had allowed people to speak out.“It’s not that these actions were not punished by the law before. It’s just that they were silenced, and from now on they will not be silenced,” he said.Ubisoft is a French family business that rose to become one of the biggest video game creators in the world. It has been behind several blockbusters including Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry and the children’s favourite Just Dance.The court in Bobigny, in Seine-Saint-Denis, heard that between 2010 and 2020 at Ubisoft’s offices in Montreuil, east of Paris, the three executives created an atmosphere of bullying and sexism that one member of staff likened to a “boys’ club”. One alleged victim told the court: “The sexual remarks and sexual jokes were almost daily.”Tommy François, 52, a former vice-president of editorial and creative services, is accused of sexual harassment, bullying and attempted sexual assault. He was alleged once to have tied a female member of staff to a chair with tape, pushed the chair into a lift and pressed a button at random. He was also accused of forcing one woman wearing a skirt to do handstands.“He was my superior and I was afraid of him. He made me do handstands. I did it to get it over with and get rid of him,” one woman told the court.At a 2015 office Christmas party with a Back to the Future theme, François allegedly told a member of staff that he liked her 1950s dress. He then allegedly stepped towards her to kiss her on the mouth as his colleagues restrained her by the arms and back. She shouted and broke free. François denied all allegations.Another witness told the court that during a video games fair in the US, François “grabbed me by the hair and kissed me by force”. She said no one reacted, and that when she reported it to her human resources manager she was told “don’t make a big thing of it”.The woman said that later, in a key meeting, another unnamed senior figure told staff he had seen her “snogging” François, “even though he knew it had been an assault”.She said François called her into his office to show her pictures of his naked backside on his computers and on a phone. “Once he drew a penis on my arm when I was in a video call with top management,” she said.The woman said these incidents made her feel “stupefied, humiliated and professionally discredited”.François told the court he denied all charges. He said there had been a “culture of joking around”. He said: “I never tried to harm anyone.”Serge Hascoët told the court: ‘I have never wanted to harass anyone and I don’t think I have.’ Photograph: Xavier Galiana/AFP/Getty ImagesSerge Hascoët, 59, Ubisoft’s former chief creative officer and second-in-command, was accused of bullying and sexual harassment. The court heard how at a meeting of staff on an away day he complained about a senior female employee, saying she clearly did not have enough sex and that he would “show how to calm her” by having sex with her in a meeting room in front of everyone.He was alleged to have handed a young female member of staff a tissue in which he had blown his nose, saying: “You can resell it, it’s worth gold at Ubisoft.”The court heard he made guttural noises in the office and talked about sex. Hascoët was also alleged to have bullied assistants by making them carry out personal tasks for him such as going to his home to wait for parcel deliveries.Hascoët denied all the charges. He said: “I have never wanted to harass anyone and I don’t think I have.”The former game director Guillaume Patrux, 41, is accused of sexual harassment and bullying. He was alleged to have punched walls, mimed hitting staff, cracked a whip near colleagues’ faces, threatened to carry out an office shooting and played with a cigarette lighter near workers’ faces, setting alight a man’s beard. He denied the charges.The panel of judges retired to consider their verdict, which will be handed down at a later date.

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback. President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) Friday that scratched or revised several of his Democratic predecessors’ major cybersecurity initiatives. “Just days before President Trump took office, the Biden Administration attempted to sneak problematic and distracting issues into cybersecurity policy,” the White House said in a fact sheet about Trump’s new directive, referring to projects that Biden launched with his Jan. 15 executive order. Trump’s new EO eliminates those projects, which would have required software vendors to prove their compliance with new federal security standards, prioritized research and testing of artificial intelligence for cyber defense and accelerated the rollout of encryption that withstands the future code-cracking powers of quantum computers. “President Trump has made it clear that this Administration will do what it takes to make America cyber secure,” the White House said in its fact sheet, “including focusing relentlessly on technical and organizational professionalism to improve the security and resilience of the nation’s information systems and networks.” Major cyber regulation shift Trump’s elimination of Biden’s software security requirements for federal contractors represents a significant government reversal on cyber regulation. Following years of major cyberattacks linked to insecure software, the Biden administration sought to use federal procurement power to improve the software industry’s practices. That effort began with Biden’s 2021 cyber order and gained strength in 2024, and then Biden officials tried to add teeth to the initiative before leaving office in January. But as it eliminated that project on Friday, the Trump administration castigated Biden’s efforts as “imposing unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance checklists over genuine security investments.” Trump’s order eliminates provisions from Biden’s directive that would have required federal contractors to submit “secure software development attestations,” along with technical data to back up those attestations. Also now eradicated are provisions that would have required the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to verify vendors’ attestations, required the Office of the National Cyber Director to publish the results of those reviews and encouraged ONCD to refer companies whose attestations fail a review to the Justice Department “for action as appropriate.” Trump’s order leaves in place a National Institute of Standards and Technology collaboration with industry to update NIST’s Software Software Development Framework, but it eliminates parts of Biden’s order that would have incorporated those SSDF updates into security requirements for federal vendors. In a related move, Trump eliminated provisions of his predecessor’s order that would have required NIST to “issue guidance identifying minimum cybersecurity practices” (based on a review of globally accepted standards) and required federal contractors to follow those practices. AI security cut Trump also took an axe to Biden requirements related to AI and its ability to help repel cyberattacks. He scrapped a Biden initiative to test AI’s power to “enhance cyber defense of critical infrastructure in the energy sector,” as well as one that would have directed federal research programs to prioritize topics like the security of AI-powered coding and “methods for designing secure AI systems.” The EO also killed a provision would have required the Pentagon to “use advanced AI models for cyber defense.” On quantum computing, Trump’s directive significantly pares back Biden’s attempts to accelerate the government’s adoption of post-quantum cryptography. Biden told agencies to start using quantum-resistant encryption “as soon as practicable” and to start requiring vendors to use it when technologically possible. Trump eliminated those requirements, leaving only a Biden requirement that CISA maintain “a list of product categories in which products that support post-quantum cryptography … are widely available.” Trump also eliminated instructions for the departments of State and Commerce to encourage key foreign allies and overseas industries to adopt NIST’s PQC algorithms. The EO dropped many other provisions of Biden’s January directive, including one requiring agencies to start testing phishing-resistant authentication technologies, one requiring NIST to advise other agencies on internet routing security and one requiring agencies to use strong email encryption. Trump also cut language directing the Office of Management and Budget to advise agencies on addressing risks related to IT vendor concentration. In his January order, Biden ordered agencies to explore and encourage the use of digital identity documents to prevent fraud, including in public benefits programs. Trump eliminated those initiatives, calling them “inappropriate.”  Trump also tweaked the language of Obama-era sanctions authorities targeting people involved in cyberattacks on the U.S., specifying that the Treasury Department can only sanction foreigners for these activities. The White House said Trump’s change would prevent the power’s “misuse against domestic political opponents.” Amid the whirlwind of changes, Trump left one major Biden-era cyber program intact: a Federal Communications Commission project, modeled on the Energy Star program, that will apply government seals of approval to technology products that undergo security testing by federally accredited labs. Trump preserved the language in Biden’s order that requires companies selling internet-of-things devices to the federal government to go through the FCC program by January 2027.

June 5, 20254 min readThe Trump-Musk Fight Could Have Huge Consequences for U.S. Space ProgramsA vitriolic war of words between President Donald Trump and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk could have profound repercussions for the nation’s civil and military space programsBy Lee Billings edited by Dean VisserElon Musk (left) and President Donald Trump (right) seemed to be on good terms during a press briefing in the Oval Office at the White House on May 30, 2025, but the event proved to be the calm before a social media storm. Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesFor several hours yesterday, an explosively escalating social media confrontation between arguably the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, and the world’s most powerful, President Donald Trump, shook U.S. spaceflight to its core.The pair had been bosom-buddy allies ever since Musk’s fateful endorsement of Trump last July—an event that helped propel Trump to an electoral victory and his second presidential term. But on May 28 Musk announced his departure from his official role overseeing the U.S. DOGE Service. And on May 31 the White House announced that it was withdrawing Trump’s nomination of Musk’s close associate Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. Musk abruptly went on the attack against the Trump administration, criticizing the budget-busting One Big Beautiful Bill Act, now navigating through Congress, as “a disgusting abomination.”Things got worse from there as the blowup descended deeper into threats and insults. On June 5 Trump suggested on his own social-media platform, Truth Social, that he could terminate U.S. government contracts with Musk’s companies, such as SpaceX and Tesla. Less than an hour later, the conflict suddenly grew more personal, with Musk taking to X, the social media platform he owns, to accuse Trump—without evidence—of being incriminated by as-yet-unreleased government documents related to the illegal activities of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Musk upped the ante further in follow-up posts in which he endorsed a suggestion for impeaching Trump and, separately, declared in a now deleted post that because of the president’s threat, SpaceX “will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately.” (Some five hours after his decommissioning comment, tempers had apparently cooled enough for Musk to walk back the remark in another X post: “Ok, we won’t decommission Dragon.”)Dragon is a crucial workhorse of U.S. human spaceflight. It’s the main way NASA’s astronauts get to and from the International Space Station (ISS) and also a key component of a contract between NASA and SpaceX to safely deorbit the ISS in 2031. If Dragon were to be no longer be available, NASA would, in the near term, have to rely on either Russian Soyuz vehicles or on Boeing’s glitch-plagued Starliner spacecraft for its crew transport—and the space agency’s plans for deorbiting the ISS would essentially go back to the drawing board. More broadly, NASA uses SpaceX rockets to launch many of its science missions, and the company is contracted to ferry astronauts to and from the surface of the moon as part of the space agency’s Artemis III mission.Trump’s and Musk’s retaliatory tit for tat also raises the disconcerting possibility of disrupting other SpaceX-centric parts of U.S. space plans, many of which are seen as critical for national security. Thanks to its wildly successful reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, the company presently provides the vast majority of space launches for the Department of Defense. And SpaceX’s constellation of more than 7,000 Starlink communications satellites has become vitally important to war fighters in the ongoing conflict between Russia and U.S.-allied Ukraine. SpaceX is also contracted to build a massive constellation of spy satellites for the DOD and is considered a leading candidate for launching space-based interceptors envisioned as part of Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile-defense plan.Among the avalanche of reactions to the incendiary spectacle unfolding in real time, one of the most extreme was from Trump’s influential former adviser Steve Bannon, who called on the president to seize and nationalize SpaceX. And in an interview with the New York Times, Bannon, without evidence, accused Musk, a naturalized U.S. citizen, of being an “illegal alien” who “should be deported from the country immediately.”NASA, for its part, attempted to stay above the fray via a carefully worded late-afternoon statement from the space agency’s press secretary Bethany Stevens: “NASA will continue to execute upon the President’s vision for the future of space,” Stevens wrote. “We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President’s objectives in space are met.”The response from the stock market was, in its own way, much less muted. SpaceX is not a publicly traded company. But Musk’s electric car company Tesla is. And it experienced a massive sell-off at the end of June 5’s trading day: Tesla’s share price fell down by 14 percent, losing the company a whopping $152 billion of its market value.Today a rumored détente phone conversation between the two men has apparently been called off, and Trump has reportedly said he now intends to sell the Tesla he purchased in March in what was then a gesture of support for Musk. But there are some signs the rift may yet heal: Musk has yet to be deported; SpaceX has not been shut down; Tesla’s stock price is surging back from its momentary heavy losses; and it seems NASA astronauts won’t be stranded on Earth or on the ISS for the time being.Even so, the entire sordid episode—and the possibility of further messy clashes between Trump and Musk unfolding in public—highlights a fundamental vulnerability at the heart of the nation’s deep reliance on SpaceX for access to space. Outsourcing huge swaths of civil and military space programs to a disruptively innovative private company effectively controlled by a single individual certainly has its rewards—but no shortage of risks, too.

Who Could Buy Unity? / News / June 7, 2025 / Business, Unity Earlier this week 80.lv ran the incredibly misleading (some could say click-baity) article Analyst Suggests Apple Might be Considering Buying Unity After Legal Defeat to Epic Games. Might is doing some heavy lifting there as there is no actual evidence that Apple or any other company are currently looking to purchase Unity Technologies. That said, it is an interesting topic as a pure thought exercise. So today we are going to discuss the companies that could be potential suitors for Unity. Unity The obvious place to start is with Unity Technologies, which is to say they can simply stay an independent organization. While they are not profitable, their financial situation has been trending in a positive direction of late and they have sufficient cash and resources to stay independent for the foreseeable future. Should things get bad at Unity, it is possible one of their largest investors (Silver Lake Group, Vanguard Group, Sequoia Capital, Black Rock, etc) could take the company private again. Put simply, Unity does not need to be purchased and things can be kept as they are. Apple The original premise of this article is that Apple should buy Unity. Reasons why Apple should buy Unity: Apple and Unity have a long history, with Unity having been originally a Mac exclusive application and it has always supported Apple platforms Unity is by far the most used application for creating games on the Apple App Store Unity Grow products (ads, user acquisitions, analytics, etc) could have good synergy with Apples products Apple could prevent a potential future rival, especially around 3rd party app stores Reasons why Apple won’t buy Unity: Apple has never made a purchase anywhere near the size of Unity. Their largest acquisition to date (Beats) would be 1/4 to 1/5 the size of acquiring Unity Apple has never really gotten involved in gaming beyond small initiatives in the past Apple mostly grows in-house over acquisition and more acquisitions are subsumed into other Apple products, Unity is not a good fit here Amazon Amazon have heaps of cash and aren’t afraid to use it such as acquiring MGM, Whole Foods, Twitch and many more companies over the years. They also have several gaming-oriented interests and have made an attempt (that failed badly) to become a major game developer in the past. Reasons why Amazon should buy Unity: Amazon tried to enter gaming in a big way once already with the licensing of CryEngine to create Lumberyard (now O3DE) and buying up or forming several game studios. Unity would provide a much larger and more established foothold should they wish to buy their way in Amazon web services could be a good compliment to Unity’s server side offerings, while Unity’s Grow division could be a good fit for Amazon platforms Integration with their gaming platforms (Twitch, Luna, etc) Reasons why Amazon won’t buy Unity: Their last attempt into game development was a massive failure and much of it was rumored to be a culture problem Tencent Tencent have invested HEAVILY into the world of gaming (Ubisoft, Epic Games, Riot Games, Supercell, Snap, Funcom, Activision Blizzard, From Software, etc) and aren’t afraid of throwing money around, so Unity could be a good fit in that portfolio. That said recent political climate changes would render this acquisition very unlikely. Reasons why Tencent should buy Unity: Tencent have a presence across the entire gaming industry and already have a minority stake in Epic Games (Unreal Engine). This would more or less give them a controlling influence over two of the biggest players in the space Access to or ownership of Unity’s recently created China Joint Venture Integration with Tencents other holdings like WeChat or Snap might provide some synergies Reasons why Tencent won’t buy Unity: Not a snowballs chance in hell that regulators allow this acquisition to happen, from antitrust issues of owning stakes in both Unity and Unreal Engine, to just more broad geopolitical issues in the modern world Microsoft Microsoft are heavily invested in two areas that overlap with Unity, gaming and software development tools. On paper they might appear to be the perfect suitor for Unity and they have the cash hoard to make such a purchase with ease. Reasons why Microsoft should buy Unity: Unlike Apple, Microsoft has long been a proponent of growth via acquisition with some of their pillar products coming in the form of acquisitions. They also do not shy away from huge dollar purchases such as Activision Blizzard (69B), LinkedIn (26B), Nuance (20B), Skype (8.5B), ZeniMax (7.5B), GitHub (7.5B), Nokia (7B), Mojang[Minecraft] (2.5B) Microsoft have a long history of leveraging their development tools to grow their platforms Microsoft gaming studios/relationships/holdings such as XBox, Game Pass/PC Gaming, DirectX, Havok, etc. could benefit from a tighter relationship with Unity Like Amazon, Microsoft server-side services (Azure) could be used to power Unity Grow services Reasons why Microsoft won’t buy Unity: Microsoft only just finished their acquisition of Activision and it was an arduous and nearly doomed process. Buying another company in the gaming space might be a step too far for regulators While Microsoft doesn’t mind spending huge money on acquisitions, they also don’t mind killing those companies off after (Nokia? Skype?), especially if there is a market downturn like we are experiencing now AppLovin If there is a company that is most likely to buy Unity, and that would synergize best with Unity products, it’s AppLovin. In broad strokes, AppLovin, IronSource and Unity (Grow) are all in the same business. On top of that many of AppLovin’s biggest customers and products are directly tied to the Unity ecosystem. In fact, Unity and AppLovin are such a good fit that AppLovin attempted to buy Unity for nearly $20B back in 2022, when Unity instead pursued it’s doomed merger with IronSource. So, why would it make sense for AppLovin to buy Unity now? Well, these two 5 year stock performance charts more or less tell the entire story: It becomes crystal clear from that fateful date in August of 2022 which company has performed better and right now AppLovin is absolutely flush with cash. If there is a company that makes sense to acquire Unity, it’s AppLovin. Of course now that Unity owns IronSource, there are certainly questions of regulatory approval if this would even be allowed. Once again, this entire exercise is simply a thought exercise, just for fun. There is no public available news that ANYONE are looking to acquire Unity, nor that Unity is looking to be acquired. You can learn more about my thoughts on the matter in the video below.

News Space A private Japanese spacecraft failed on its way to the moon’s surface  A lost signal marks the second imperfect attempt at a lunar landing for Tokyo-based company ispace The Resilience lunar lander (illustrated, left), owned by Tokyo-based company ispace, attempted to touch down on the moon’s surface on June 5. The spacecraft contains several payloads, including a micro rover called Tenacious (right). ispace By McKenzie Prillaman 6 hours ago A Japanese lunar lander called Resilience failed to softly touch down on the moon’s surface on June 5. The spacecraft’s status is currently unknown after Tokyo-based company ispace lost communication with it, but the lander was unable to decelerate properly. The company is calling it quits on the current mission. “This is our second failure, and by these results, we have to really take it seriously,” ispace founder and CEO Takeshi Hakamada said during a June 5 press briefing. “We have to do some analysis to find out what caused” the problems. Sign up for our newsletter We summarize the week's scientific breakthroughs every Thursday.

Billionaire Elon Musk has countered president Donald Trump's threat to "terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," in spectacular fashion: by threatening to cut off the United States' access to outer space."In light of the President’s statement about cancellation of my government contracts, SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately," Musk tweeted.But it didn't take him long to blink. A few hours later — and after the publication of this story — Musk reversed course, agreeing to "cool off" and saying that "we won't decommission Dragon."That's not surprising. As executives at SpaceX no doubt desperately tried to explain to him after the dustup, the company would be in terrible danger without all the money it gets from NASA.And if Musk were to make good on his threat, the United States' space program could experience a setback of epic proportions. SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft has quickly become the de facto method for NASA astronauts to travel to the International Space Station.In other words, the threat could prevent American astronauts from visiting the space station — especially considering that the only other American option, Boeing's Starliner, is likely still years away from becoming a viable alternative, if ever.It was a significant escalation in a major falling out between the world's most powerful man and its richest one. The pair have been openly feuding about Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill," culminating in threats and personal attacks.The collateral damage of the feud could be enormous, particularly for the US space program.Ars Technica's Eric Berger suggested that Trump ripping up Musk's government contracts "would both end the International Space Station and simultaneously provide no way to safely deorbit it.""This just gets better and better," Musk replied in a laughing emoji-laden tweet. "Go ahead, make my day…"The news comes after the Trump administration abruptly pulled its nominee for the NASA administrator role, Jared Isaacman.Isaacman, who was hand-picked by Musk, has been to space twice with the help of SpaceX.The news greatly angered Musk, causing him to go on a crusade against Trump's tax bill.Musk's latest threats to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft could put the Trump administration and NASA in an extremely unfortunate position. Apart from Boeing's much-maligned Starliner, which has yet to complete a successful crewed mission to the ISS, the only alternative to send astronauts to the space station is Russia's Soyuz spacecraft.While the station's days are already numbered — NASA recently awarded SpaceX a contract to decommission the orbital lab in 2030 — continuing operations could prove extremely difficult without Dragon.But whether Musk will make good on his threat remains to be seen, especially considering the billionaire has a lengthy track record of making empty promises.Apart from vowing to decommission Dragon, Musk also attempted to smear Trump's name by arguing that he's "in the Epstein files.""This is the real reason they have not been made public," he tweeted. "Have a nice day, DJT!"Musk is clearly out for blood, even officially calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced by his vice president JD Vance.Who will emerge victorious is anybody's guess. If there's one certainty, it won't be NASA. The agency is expected to be hit by brutal cuts that could lay waste to dozens of space missions.Share This Article