It used to be simple: users had a local account on the PC that they used or they had a network account in Active Directory that could be used to login to their assigned computer or others  in the network.  Adding Macs to the

Where others have become obsessed with speed and trends, Sergio Membrillas has built a career on slowing down and staying true to his craft. Over 13 years as a professional illustrator, he's evolved a distinct style – bold, graphic, and quietly playful – that feels both timeless and entirely his own. But this evolution, as he's quick to point out, wasn't something he forced. "I believe evolution is essential for every artist," Sergio reflects. "Change is not something I resist; it's something I enjoy and welcome as part of the creative journey." His work, initially influenced by a love of Mid-Century graphic design, has gradually absorbed references as diverse as Etruscan art, Mesopotamian motifs, and early 20th-century traditional tattoos. It's a portfolio built on curiosity, not conformity. Despite his stylistic clarity, Sergio's process remains refreshingly analogue at its core. He still begins each project with pencil and paper, leaning into the tactility of drawing by hand. "I've always valued having a physical relationship with art," he says. "There's something essential about feeling the wood of the pencil, manually erasing mistakes, rather than simply double-tapping a screen." His philosophy of working slowly, attentively, and with purpose shows in the balanced compositions and confident use of negative space that has become his signature. Sergio credits his background in graphic design for this instinctive sense of structure. "There has always been a strong graphic sensibility within me," he says, noting that the discipline of design continues to inform his illustration practice, particularly in editorial and poster work where clarity and storytelling must co-exist. Yet, like many creative careers, his path into illustration wasn't plotted from the start. Initially, Sergio imagined illustration would complement his design projects, not become the main event. "At first, I thought I would incorporate my illustrations into my graphic design projects – but in the end, it turned out to be the other way around." A commission for EasyJet's in-flight magazine marked a pivotal moment that reframed illustration from a hobby to a profession. "It made me realize that being an illustrator is a real profession, just like any other." Fast-forward to today, and Sergio's client list reads like a who's who of publishing and design, from The New Yorker to Pentagram. While the calibre of collaborators has changed, what matters most remains the same: trust. "When a client trusts your work and approaches projects with an open mind, collaboration flourishes," he says. It's in these open, trusting relationships that Sergio finds the space to experiment and further develop his ideas. Unsurprisingly, editorial work holds a special place for him. "Editorial projects offer wider creative margins, allowing for greater flexibility and innovation," he explains. Compared to the tighter confines of advertising, editorial illustration offers the opportunity to tell nuanced stories, and Sergio is clear that he views every assignment, regardless of format, as a collaborative effort. If one thing is clear, though, it's that he's not that he's afraid to say no when needed. Maintaining a strong personal voice is non-negotiable. "I always strive to stay true to myself and ensure that every project I undertake reflects a clear personal signature," he says. For Sergio, authenticity isn't just a matter of artistic pride; it's what differentiates an illustrator in a saturated, increasingly automated industry. Valencia is home for Sergio, a city he credits with much of his creative energy. "Oh, Valencia! It's a beautiful city that inspires me and brings me joy," he says, describing it as a European cousin to Los Angeles with its sun-soaked streets and vibrant cultural scene. The blend of tradition and modernity fuels his practice, offering constant inspiration without the sensory overload that often accompanies larger creative hubs. Given the pressure many creatives feel to keep pace with shifting trends, Sergio's approach feels almost radical. "I'm not particularly interested in trends," he says. "What truly matters to me is the feeling of having done something meaningful and fulfilling by the end of the day." Instead of chasing what's fashionable, he draws inspiration from a surprisingly eclectic bookshelf, mixing everything from Wim Crouwel's graphic design classics to studies on Scandinavian tattoos and Alec Soth's photography. It's a reminder that fresh ideas rarely come from looking where everyone else is looking. In the era of AI and content overload, the role of the illustrator is changing, but Sergio remains optimistic. While machine learning might churn out images at record speed, it can't replicate the nuance and emotional intelligence that underpin great illustration. "Illustrators can tell stories, evoke emotions, and create meaningful connections that machines simply cannot replicate," he says. "Our role is shifting, but the value of authentic, thoughtful illustration remains indispensable." That insistence on authenticity carries through to the advice he offers younger illustrators navigating a commercial landscape. "Create work that makes you happy when you go to sleep at night," Sergio advises. "It's important to find projects that align with your values and passions so your artistic voice remains authentic." It's an ethos that has carried him through more than a decade of creative highs and industry shifts. Perhaps it's the real secret behind the clarity of his practice, which he has built not on chasing trends or algorithms but on careful craft, deliberate evolution, and the simple, enduring joy of a well-made pencil and a blank piece of paper.

Email authentication protocols like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC play a critical role in protecting domains from spoofing and phishing. However, when SEGs are introduced into the email path, the interaction with these protocols becomes more complex. Security gateways(SEGs) are a core part of many organizations’ email infrastructure. They act as intermediaries between the public internet and internal mail systems, inspecting, filtering, and routing messages. This blog examines how security gateways handle SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, with real-world examples from popular gateways such as Proofpoint, Mimecast, and Avanan. We’ll also cover best practices for maintaining authentication integrity and avoiding misconfigurations that can compromise email authentication or lead to false DMARC failures. Security gateways often sit at the boundary between your organization and the internet, managing both inbound and outbound email traffic. Their role affects how email authentication protocols behave. An inbound SEG examines emails coming into your organization. It checks SPF, DKIM, and DMARC to determine if the message is authentic and safe before passing it to your internal mail servers. An outbound SEG handles emails sent from your domain. It may modify headers, rewrite envelope addresses, or even apply DKIM signing. All of these can impact SPF,  DKIM, or DMARC validation on the recipient’s side. Understanding how SEGs influence these flows is crucial to maintaining proper authentication and avoiding unexpected DMARC failures. Inbound Handling of SPF, DKIM, and DMARC by Common Security Gateways When an email comes into your organization, your security gateway is the first to inspect it. It checks whether the message is real, trustworthy, and properly authenticated. Let’s look at how different SEGs handle these checks. Avanan (by Check Point) SPF: Avanan verifies whether the sending server is authorized to send emails for the domain by checking the SPF record. DKIM: It verifies if the message was signed by the sending domain and if that signature is valid. DMARC: It uses the results of the SPF and DKIM check to evaluate DMARC. However, final enforcement usually depends on how DMARC is handled by Microsoft 365 or Gmail, as Avanan integrates directly with them. Avanan offers two methods of integration:1. API integration: Avanan connects via APIs, no change in MX, usually Monitor or Detect modes.2. Inline integration: Avanan is placed inline in the mail flow (MX records changed), actively blocking or remediating threats. Proofpoint Email Protection SPF: Proofpoint checks SPF to confirm the sender’s IP is authorized to send on behalf of the domain. You can set custom rules (e.g. treat “softfail” as “fail”). DKIM: It verifies DKIM signatures and shows clear pass/fail results in logs. DMARC: It fully evaluates DMARC by combining SPF and DKIM results with alignment checks. Administrators can configure how to handle messages that fail DMARC, such as rejecting, quarantining, or delivering them. Additionally, Proofpoint allows whitelisting specific senders you trust, even if their emails fail authentication checks. Integration Methods Inline Mode: In this traditional deployment, Proofpoint is positioned directly in the email flow by modifying MX records. Emails are routed through Proofpoint’s infrastructure, allowing it to inspect and filter messages before they reach the recipient’s inbox. This mode provides pre-delivery protection and is commonly used in on-premises or hybrid environments. API-Based (Integrated Cloud Email Security – ICES) Mode: Proofpoint offers API-based integration, particularly with cloud email platforms like Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace. In this mode, Proofpoint connects to the email platform via APIs, enabling it to monitor and remediate threats post-delivery without altering the email flow. This approach allows for rapid deployment and seamless integration with existing cloud email services. Mimecast SPF: Mimecast performs SPF checks to verify whether the sending server is authorized by the domain’s SPF record. Administrators can configure actions for SPF failures, including block, quarantine, permit, or tag with a warning. This gives flexibility in balancing security with business needs. DKIM: It validates DKIM signatures by checking that the message was correctly signed by the sending domain and that the content hasn’t been tampered with. If the signature fails, Mimecast can take actions based on your configured policies. DMARC: It fully evaluates DMARC by combining the results of SPF and DKIM with domain alignment checks. You can choose to honor the sending domain’s DMARC policy (none, quarantine, reject) or apply custom rules, for example, quarantining or tagging messages that fail DMARC regardless of the published policy. This allows more granular control for businesses that want to override external domain policies based on specific contexts. Integration Methods Inline Deployment: Mimecast is typically deployed as a cloud-based secure email gateway. Organizations update their domain’s MX records to point to Mimecast, so all inbound (and optionally outbound) emails pass through it first. This allows Mimecast to inspect, filter, and process emails before delivery, providing robust protection. API Integrations: Mimecast also offers API-based services through its Mimecast API platform, primarily for management, archival, continuity, and threat intelligence purposes. However, API-only email protection is not Mimecast’s core model. Instead, the APIs are used to enhance the inline deployment, not replace it. Barracuda Email Security Gateway SPF: Barracuda checks the sender’s IP against the domain’s published SPF record. If the check fails, you can configure the system to block, quarantine, tag, or allow the message, depending on your policy preferences. DKIM: It validates whether the incoming message includes a valid DKIM signature. The outcome is logged and used to inform further policy decisions or DMARC evaluations. DMARC: It combines SPF and DKIM results, checks for domain alignment, and applies the DMARC policy defined by the sender. Administrators can also choose to override the DMARC policy, allowing messages to pass or be treated differently based on organizational needs (e.g., trusted senders or internal exceptions). Integration Methods Inline mode (more common and straightforward): Barracuda Email Security Gateway is commonly deployed inline by updating your domain’s MX records to point to Barracuda’s cloud or on-premises gateway. This ensures that all inbound emails pass through Barracuda first for filtering and SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation before being delivered to your mail servers. Deployment Behind the Corporate Firewall: Alternatively, Barracuda can be deployed in transparent or bridge mode without modifying MX records. In this setup, the gateway is placed inline at the network level, such as behind a firewall, and intercepts mail traffic transparently. This method is typically used in complex on-premises environments where changing DNS records is not feasible. Cisco Secure Email (formerly IronPort) Cisco Secure Email acts as an inline gateway for inbound email, usually requiring your domain’s MX records to point to the Cisco Email Security Appliance or cloud service. SPF: Cisco Secure Email verifies whether the sending server is authorized in the sender domain’s SPF record. Administrators can set detailed policies on how to handle SPF failures. DKIM: It validates the DKIM signature on incoming emails and logs whether the signature is valid or has failed. DMARC: It evaluates DMARC by combining SPF and DKIM results along with domain alignment checks. Admins can configure specific actions, such as quarantine, reject, or tag, based on different failure scenarios or trusted sender exceptions. Integration methods On-premises Email Security Appliance (ESA): You deploy Cisco’s hardware or virtual appliance inline, updating MX records to route mail through it for filtering. Cisco Cloud Email Security: Cisco offers a cloud-based email security service where MX records are pointed to Cisco’s cloud infrastructure, which filters and processes inbound mail. Cisco Secure Email also offers advanced, rule-based filtering capabilities and integrates with Cisco’s broader threat protection ecosystem, enabling comprehensive inbound email security. Outbound Handling of SPF, DKIM, and DMARC by Common Security Gateways When your organization sends emails, security gateways can play an active role in processing and authenticating those messages. Depending on the configuration, a gateway might rewrite headers, re-sign messages, or route them through different IPs – all actions that can help or hurt the authentication process. Let’s look at how major SEGs handle outbound email flow. Avanan – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Avanan analyzes outbound emails primarily to detect data loss, malware, and policy violations. In API-based integration, emails are sent directly by the original mail server (e.g., Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace), so SPF and DKIM signatures remain intact. Avanan does not alter the message or reroute traffic, which helps maintain full DMARC alignment and domain reputation. Integration Methods 1. API Integration: Connects to Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace via API. No MX changes are needed. Emails are scanned after they are sent, with no modification to SPF, DKIM, or the delivery path.  How it works: Microsoft Graph API or Google Workspace APIs are used to monitor and intervene in outbound emails. Protection level: Despite no MX changes, it can offer inline-like protection, meaning it can block, quarantine, or encrypt emails before they are delivered externally. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Preserves original headers and signatures since mail is sent directly from Microsoft/Google servers. 2. Inline Integration: Requires changing MX records to route email through Avanan. In this mode, Avanan can intercept and inspect outbound emails before delivery. Depending on the configuration, this may affect SPF or DKIM if not properly handled. How it works: Requires adding Avanan’s Protection level: Traditional inline security with full visibility and control, including encryption, DLP, policy enforcement, and advanced threat protection. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: SPF configuration is needed by adding Avanan’s include mechanism to the sending domain’s SPF record. The DKIM record of the original sending source is preserved. For configurations, you can refer to the steps in this blog. Proofpoint – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Proofpoint analyzes outbound emails to detect and prevent data loss (DLP), to identify advanced threats (malware, phishing, BEC) originating from compromised internal accounts, and to ensure compliance. Their API integration provides crucial visibility and powerful remediation capabilities, while their traditional gateway (MX record) deployment delivers true inline, pre-delivery blocking for outbound traffic. Integration methods 1. API Integration: No MX record changes are required for this deployment method. Integration is done with Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace. How it works: Through its API integration, Proofpoint gains deep visibility into outbound emails and provides layered security and response features, including: Detect and alert: Identifies sensitive content (Data Loss Prevention violations), malicious attachments, or suspicious links in outbound emails. Post-delivery remediation (TRAP): A key capability of the API model is Threat Response Auto-Pull (TRAP), which enables Proofpoint to automatically recall, quarantine, or delete emails after delivery. This is particularly useful for internally sent messages or those forwarded to other users. Enhanced visibility: Aggregates message metadata and logs into Proofpoint’s threat intelligence platform, giving security teams a centralized view of outbound risks and user behavior. Protection level: API-based integration provides strong post-delivery detection and response, as well as visibility into DLP incidents and suspicious behavior.  SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Proofpoint does not alter SPF, DKIM, or DMARC because emails are sent directly through Microsoft or Google servers. Since Proofpoint’s servers are not involved in the actual sending process, the original authentication headers remain intact. 2. Gateway Integration (MX Record/Smart Host): This method requires updating MX records or routing outbound mail through Proofpoint via a smart host. How it works: Proofpoint acts as an inline gateway, inspecting emails before delivery. Inbound mail is filtered via MX changes; outbound mail is relayed through Proofpoint’s servers. Threat and DLP filtering: Scans outbound messages for sensitive content, malware, and policy violations. Real-time enforcement: Blocks, encrypts, or quarantines emails before they’re delivered. Policy controls: Applies rules based on content, recipient, or behavior. Protection level: Provides strong, real-time protection for outbound traffic with pre-delivery enforcement, DLP, and encryption. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Proofpoint becomes the sending server: SPF: You need to configure ProofPoint’s SPF. DKIM: Can sign messages; requires DKIM setup. DMARC: DMARC passes if SPF and DKIM are set up properly. Please refer to this article to configure SPF and DKIM for ProofPoint. Mimecast – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Mimecast inspects outbound emails to prevent data loss (DLP), detect internal threats such as malware and impersonation, and ensure regulatory compliance. It primarily functions as a Secure Email Gateway (SEG), meaning it sits directly in the outbound email flow. While Mimecast offers APIs, its core outbound protection is built around this inline gateway model. Integration Methods 1. Gateway Integration (MX Record change required) This is Mimecast’s primary method for outbound email protection. Organizations route their outbound traffic through Mimecast by configuring their email server (e.g., Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, etc.) to use Mimecast as a smart host. This enables Mimecast to inspect and enforce policies on all outgoing emails in real time. How it works: Updating outbound routing in your email system (smart host settings), or Using Mimecast SMTP relay to direct messages through their infrastructure. Mimecast then scans, filters, and applies policies before the email reaches the final recipient. Protection level: Advanced DLP: Identifies and prevents sensitive data leaks. Impersonation and Threat Protection: Blocks malware, phishing, and abuse from compromised internal accounts. Email Encryption and Secure Messaging: Applies encryption policies or routes messages via secure portals. Regulatory Compliance: Enforces outbound compliance rules based on content, recipient, or metadata. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: SPF: Your SPF record must include Mimecast’s SPF mechanism based on your region to avoid SPF failures. DKIM: A new DKIM record should be configured to make sure your emails are DKIM signed when routing through Mimecast. DMARC: With correct SPF and DKIM setup, Mimecast ensures DMARC alignment, maintaining your domain’s sending reputation. Please refer to the steps in this detailed article to set up SPF and DKIM for Mimecast. 2. API Integration (Complementary to Gateway) Mimecast’s APIs complement the main gateway by providing automation, reporting, and management tools rather than handling live outbound mail flow. They allow you to manage policies, export logs, search archived emails, and sync users. APIs enhance visibility and operational tasks but do not provide real-time filtering or blocking of outbound messages. Since APIs don’t process live mail, they have no direct effect on SPF, DKIM, or DMARC; those depend on your gateway (smart host) setup. Barracuda – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Barracuda analyzes outbound emails to prevent data loss (DLP), block malware, stop phishing/impersonation attempts from compromised internal accounts, and ensure compliance. Barracuda offers flexible deployment options, including both traditional gateway (MX record) and API-based integrations. While both contribute to outbound security, their roles are distinct. Integration Methods 1. Gateway Integration (MX Record / Smart Host) — Primary Inline Security How it works: All outbound emails pass through Barracuda’s security stack for real-time inspection, threat blocking, and policy enforcement before delivery. Protection level: Comprehensive DLP (blocking, encrypting, or quarantining sensitive content)  Outbound spam and virus filtering  Enforcement of compliance and content policies This approach offers a high level of control and immediate threat mitigation on outbound mail flow. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: SPF: Update SPF records to include Barracuda’s sending IPs or SPF include mechanism. DKIM: Currently, no explicit setup is needed; DKIM of the main sending source is preserved. Refer to this article for more comprehensive guidance on Barracuda SEG configuration. 2. API Integration (Complementary & Advanced Threat Focus) How it works: The API accesses cloud email environments to analyze historical and real-time data, learning normal communication patterns to detect anomalies in outbound emails. It also supports post-delivery remediation, enabling the removal of malicious emails from internal mailboxes after sending. Protection level: Advanced AI-driven detection and near real-time blocking of outbound threats, plus strong post-delivery cleanup capabilities. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Since mail is sent directly by the original mail server (e.g., Microsoft 365), SPF and DKIM signatures remain intact, preserving DMARC alignment and domain reputation. Cisco Secure Email (formerly IronPort) – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Cisco Secure Email protects outbound email by preventing data loss (DLP), blocking spam and malware from internal accounts, stopping business email compromise (BEC) and impersonation attacks, and ensuring compliance. Cisco provides both traditional gateway appliances/cloud gateways and modern API-based solutions for layered outbound security. Integration Methods 1. Gateway Integration (MX Record / Smart Host) – Cisco Secure Email Gateway (ESA) How it works: Organizations update MX records to route mail through the Cisco Secure Email Gateway or configure their mail server (e.g., Microsoft 365, Exchange) to smart host outbound email via the gateway. All outbound mail is inspected and policies enforced before delivery. Protection level: Granular DLP (blocking, encrypting, quarantining sensitive content) Outbound spam and malware filtering to protect IP reputation Email encryption for sensitive outbound messages Comprehensive content and attachment policy enforcement SPF: Check this article for comprehensive guidance on Cisco SPF settings. DKIM: Refer to this article for detailed guidance on Cisco DKIM settings. 2. API Integration – Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense How it works: Integrates directly via API with Microsoft 365 (and potentially Google Workspace), continuously monitoring email metadata, content, and user behavior across inbound, outbound, and internal messages. Leverages Cisco’s threat intelligence and AI to detect anomalous outbound activity linked to BEC, account takeover, and phishing. Post-Delivery Remediation: Automates the removal or quarantine of malicious or policy-violating emails from mailboxes even after sending. Protection level: Advanced, AI-driven detection of sophisticated outbound threats with real-time monitoring and automated remediation. Complements gateway filtering by adding cloud-native visibility and swift post-send action. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Since emails are sent directly by the original mail server, SPF and DKIM signatures remain intact, preserving DMARC alignment and domain reputation. If you have any questions or need assistance, feel free to reach out to EasyDMARC technical support.

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

Image of the Archbishop of Canterbury's letters to the Bishop of Winchester on the subject of Ela Fitzpayne, from the register of John de Stratford. Reproduced with permission of Hampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council. (Image Credit: Register of John de Stratford. Reproduced with permission of Hampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council.)NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsEspionage, sex, public humiliation, murder — these may sound like tropes straight out of Game of Thrones, but they’re actually all elements of a nearly 700-year-old cold case in England. After analyzing Medieval letters and records, a research team from the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology’s Medieval Murder Maps project may have found the killer of a priest. However, this priest may not have been so innocent. A new paper published in Criminal Law Forum takes a deeper look at this 14th-century cold case.Tracing a Medieval MurderThe Medieval Murder Maps project uses interactive maps of three English cities, London, Oxford, and York, during the Medieval period. Throughout the cities are the locations of various deaths and murders. Each location has a story associated with it, directly from written records and coroners' reports at the time. Some of these stories are full of intriguing twists and turns.The Cambridge research team analyzed over 100 murders from texts, translated from Latin, from that period, and used a coding method to separate the deaths into different categories, including time (day, week, month), motivation, weapon used, victim, and location. From this information, one of the deaths the team found most interesting was the murder of John Forde in 1337.A Medieval Lover to Murderer From the letters and texts the team analyzed, they pieced together the events that led up to Forde’s death. Forde was a priest living in London when he was murdered on a busy street. But what possible reason would someone have to want to murder a priest? The motive, according to the research team, was likely revenge. According to Manuel Eisner, one of the study’s authors, the murder may have been an act of revenge by noblewoman Ela Fitzpayne. According to the records, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon Mepham, had enacted penance on Fitzpayne after it was discovered that Forde had been her lover. A letter written by Archbishop Mepham accused Fitzpayne of adultery with Forde and possibly others. Her penance was to take a barefoot walk of shame across Salisbury Cathedral. Eisner also found a document that suggested Fitzpayne, her husband, and John Forde sent a gang to rob a church priory and took the livestock for ransom. It’s possible that during this time, Forde found himself in bed with Fitzpayne, before betraying her to the Archbishop Mepham. Commissioned Murder Possibly betrayed by her former lover and sentenced to walks of shame that were to take place once a year for seven years,  Fitzpayne would have none of it. On an early evening on a busy London street, near St. Paul’s Cathedral, three men attacked Forde. One slit his throat while the others stabbed him in the gut. Witnesses claim that the murderers were Fitzpayne’s brother and two of her former servants. “We are looking at a murder commissioned by a leading figure of the English aristocracy. It is planned and cold-blooded, with a family member and close associates carrying it out, all of which suggests a revenge motive,” said Eisner in a press release.Cold Case RevealedAccording to letters from Archbishop Mepham, Fitzpayne was led by the devil and a “spirit of pride.”“The archbishop imposed heavy, shameful public penance on Ela, which she seems not to have complied with, but may have sparked a thirst for vengeance,” said Eisner in a press release. “Not least as John Forde appears to have escaped punishment by the church.” When Archbishop Mepham died in 1333, Fitzpayne waited four years before enacting her revenge, and in 1337, Forde was killed. Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:A graduate of UW-Whitewater, Monica Cull wrote for several organizations, including one that focused on bees and the natural world, before coming to Discover Magazine. Her current work also appears on her travel blog and Common State Magazine. Her love of science came from watching PBS shows as a kid with her mom and spending too much time binging Doctor Who.1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as $1.99!SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In

Max Towers / Max DudlerSave this picture!© Stefan MüllerResidential Architecture, Residential•Aesch, Switzerland Architects: Max Dudler Area Area of this architecture project Area:  26500 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project Year:  2024 Photographs Photographs:Stefan MüllerMore SpecsLess Specs Save this picture! Text description provided by the architects. The two Max Towers are the centerpiece of the residential and commercial quarter Aere, taking shape in the former industrial district of Stöcklin, which spreads between Reinach and Aesch south of Basel. The tower volumes, roughly 40 meters high, are striking for the continuous balconies that surround each level over a recessed ground floor. The girdle of balconies merges the urban flair of high-rise living with the qualities of generous garden space associated with a family house.Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!The tectonic arrangement is completed on the outside by a mantle of solid columns with cornices integrated into monolithic ceilings. The inner façade behind these constitutes a second skin, benefiting from greater liberty as it steps forward and back to generate an efficient footprint. This meandering balcony zone enlivens the relationship between indoors and outdoors while serving as a filter and as a layer of flexible space.Save this picture!Save this picture!The entrance hallways in Tower 2 create an arrival zone and link the public space outside with the central garden that forms an open yet shielded hub for the new quarter.Save this picture! Project gallerySee allShow less Project locationAddress:Aesch, SwitzerlandLocation to be used only as a reference. It could indicate city/country but not exact address.About this officeMax DudlerOffice••• MaterialsMaterials and TagsPublished on June 06, 2025Cite: "Max Towers / Max Dudler" 06 Jun 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1030845/max-towers-max-dudler&gt ISSN 0719-8884Save世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?是否 You've started following your first account!Did you know?You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream

Science & technology | ScrollytellingHow old are the Dead Sea Scrolls? An AI model can help Scientists are using it to estimate the age of ancient handwriting Sensitive subjectPhotograph: Israel Antiquities Authority/Shai Halevi Jun 5th 2025EVER SINCE the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered by Bedouin shepherds in the 1940s, debate has raged over their exact age. The scrolls, which contain the earliest surviving copies of books from the Hebrew Bible and other religious texts, mostly written in Aramaic and Hebrew, are thought to have been compiled sometime between 300BC and 200AD. Dating each of the 1,000-odd individual scrolls would help historians understand how literacy spread among ancient Jewish populations and the first Christians, and offer a valuable window into the genesis of the sacred texts. But scholars hoping to do so have had little but their own intuition to rely on.Explore moreThis article appeared in the Science & technology section of the print edition under the headline “Scrollytelling”From the June 7th 2025 editionDiscover stories from this section and more in the list of contents⇒Explore the editionReuse this content

Last year, China saw a boom in foundation models, the do-everything large language models that underpin the AI revolution. This year, the focus has shifted to AI agents—systems that are less about responding to users’ queries and more about autonomously accomplishing things for them.  There are now a host of Chinese startups building these general-purpose digital tools, which can answer emails, browse the internet to plan vacations, and even design an interactive website. Many of these have emerged in just the last two months, following in the footsteps of Manus—a general AI agent that sparked weeks of social media frenzy for invite codes after its limited-release launch in early March.  These emerging AI agents aren’t large language models themselves. Instead, they’re built on top of them, using a workflow-based structure designed to get things done. A lot of these systems also introduce a different way of interacting with AI. Rather than just chatting back and forth with users, they are optimized for managing and executing multistep tasks—booking flights, managing schedules, conducting research—by using external tools and remembering instructions.  China could take the lead on building these kinds of agents. The country’s tightly integrated app ecosystems, rapid product cycles, and digitally fluent user base could provide a favorable environment for embedding AI into daily life.  For now, its leading AI agent startups are focusing their attention on the global market, because the best Western models don’t operate inside China’s firewalls. But that could change soon: Tech giants like ByteDance and Tencent are preparing their own AI agents that could bake automation directly into their native super-apps, pulling data from their vast ecosystem of programs that dominate many aspects of daily life in the country.  As the race to define what a useful AI agent looks like unfolds, a mix of ambitious startups and entrenched tech giants are now testing how these tools might actually work in practice—and for whom. Set the standard It’s been a whirlwind few months for Manus, which was developed by the Wuhan-based startup Butterfly Effect. The company raised $75 million in a funding round led by the US venture capital firm Benchmark, took the product on an ambitious global roadshow, and hired dozens of new employees.  Even before registration opened to the public in May, Manus had become a reference point for what a broad, consumer‑oriented AI agent should accomplish. Rather than handling narrow chores for businesses, this “general” agent is designed to be able to help with everyday tasks like trip planning, stock comparison, or your kid’s school project.  Unlike previous AI agents, Manus uses a browser-based sandbox that lets users supervise the agent like an intern, watching in real time as it scrolls through web pages, reads articles, or codes actions. It also proactively asks clarifying questions, supports long-term memory that would serve as context for future tasks. "Manus represents a promising product experience for AI agents," says Ang Li, cofounder and CEO of Simular, a startup based in Palo Alto, California, that’s building computer use agents, AI agents that control a virtual computer. “I believe Chinese startups have a huge advantage when it comes to designing consumer products, thanks to cutthroat domestic competition that leads to fast execution and greater attention to product details.” In the case of Manus, the competition is moving fast. Two of the most buzzy follow‑ups, Genspark and Flowith, for example, are already boasting benchmark scores that match or edge past Manus’s.  Genspark, led by former Baidu executives Eric Jing and Kay Zhu, links many small “super agents” through what it calls multi‑component prompting. The agent can switch among several large language models, accepts both images and text, and carries out tasks from making slide decks to placing phone calls. Whereas Manus relies heavily on Browser Use, a popular open-source product that lets agents operate a web browser in a virtual window like a human, Genspark directly integrates with a wide array of tools and APIs. Launched in April, the company says that it already has over 5 million users and over $36 million in yearly revenue. Flowith, the work of a young team that first grabbed public attention in April 2025 at a developer event hosted by the popular social media app Xiaohongshu, takes a different tack. Marketed as an “infinite agent,” it opens on a blank canvas where each question becomes a node on a branching map. Users can backtrack, take new branches, and store results in personal or sharable “knowledge gardens”—a design that feels more like project management software (think Notion) than a typical chat interface. Every inquiry or task builds its own mind-map-like graph, encouraging a more nonlinear and creative interaction with AI. Flowith’s core agent, NEO, runs in the cloud and can perform scheduled tasks like sending emails and compiling files. The founders want the app to be a “knowledge marketbase”, and aims to tap into the social aspect of AI with the aspiration of becoming “the OnlyFans of AI knowledge creators”. What they also share with Manus is the global ambition. Both Genspark and Flowith have stated that their primary focus is the international market. A global address Startups like Manus, Genspark, and Flowith—though founded by Chinese entrepreneurs—could blend seamlessly into the global tech scene and compete effectively abroad. Founders, investors, and analysts that MIT Technology Review has spoken to believe Chinese companies are moving fast, executing well, and quickly coming up with new products.  Money reinforces the pull to launch overseas. Customers there pay more, and there are plenty to go around. “You can price in USD, and with the exchange rate that’s a sevenfold multiplier,” Manus cofounder Xiao Hong quipped on a podcast. “Even if we’re only operating at 10% power because of cultural differences overseas, we’ll still make more than in China.” But creating the same functionality in China is a challenge. Major US AI companies including OpenAI and Anthropic have opted out of mainland China because of geopolitical risks and challenges with regulatory compliance. Their absence initially created a black market as users resorted to VPNs and third-party mirrors to access tools like ChatGPT and Claude. That vacuum has since been filled by a new wave of Chinese chatbots—DeepSeek, Doubao, Kimi—but the appetite for foreign models hasn’t gone away.  Manus, for example, uses Anthropic’s Claude Sonnet—widely considered the top model for agentic tasks. Manus cofounder Zhang Tao has repeatedly praised Claude’s ability to juggle tools, remember contexts, and hold multi‑round conversations—all crucial for turning chatty software into an effective executive assistant. But the company’s use of Sonnet has made its agent functionally unusable inside China without a VPN. If you open Manus from a mainland IP address, you’ll see a notice explaining that the team is “working on integrating Qwen’s model,” a special local version that is built on top of Alibaba’s open-source model.  An engineer overseeing ByteDance’s work on developing an agent, who spoke to MIT Technology Review anonymously to avoid sanction, said that the absence of Claude Sonnet models “limits everything we do in China.” DeepSeek’s open models, he added, still hallucinate too often and lack training on real‑world workflows. Developers we spoke with rank Alibaba’s Qwen series as the best domestic alternative, yet most say that switching to Qwen knocks performance down a notch. Jiaxin Pei, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford’s Institute for Human‑Centered AI, thinks that gap will close: “Building agentic capabilities in base LLMs has become a key focus for many LLM builders, and once people realize the value of this, it will only be a matter of time." For now, Manus is doubling down on audiences it can already serve. In a written response, the company said its “primary focus is overseas expansion,” noting that new offices in San Francisco, Singapore, and Tokyo have opened in the past month. A super‑app approach Although the concept of AI agents is still relatively new, the consumer-facing AI app market in China is already crowded with major tech players. DeepSeek remains the most widely used, while ByteDance’s Doubao and Moonshot’s Kimi have also become household names. However, most of these apps are still optimized for chat and entertainment rather than task execution. This gap in the local market has pushed China’s big tech firms to roll out their own user-facing agents, though early versions remain uneven in quality and rough around the edges.  ByteDance is testing Coze Space, an AI agent based on its own Doubao model family that lets users toggle between “plan” and “execute” modes, so they can either directly guide the agent’s actions or step back and watch it work autonomously. It connects up to 14 popular apps, including GitHub, Notion, and the company’s own Lark office suite. Early reviews say the tool can feel clunky and has a high failure rate, but it clearly aims to match what Manus offers. Meanwhile, Zhipu AI has released a free agent called AutoGLM Rumination, built on its proprietary ChatGLM models. Shanghai‑based Minimax has launched Minimax Agent. Both products look almost identical to Manus and demo basic tasks such as building a simple website, planning a trip, making a small Flash game, or running quick data analysis. Despite the limited usability of most general AI agents launched within China, big companies have plans to change that. During a May 15 earnings call, Tencent president Liu Zhiping teased an agent that would weave automation directly into China’s most ubiquitous app, WeChat.  Considered the original super-app, WeChat already handles messaging, mobile payments, news, and millions of mini‑programs that act like embedded apps. These programs give Tencent, its developer, access to data from millions of services that pervade everyday life in China, an advantage most competitors can only envy. Historically, China’s consumer internet has splintered into competing walled gardens—share a Taobao link in WeChat and it resolves as plaintext, not a preview card. Unlike the more interoperable Western internet, China’s tech giants have long resisted integration with one another, choosing to wage platform war at the expense of a seamless user experience. But the use of mini‑programs has given WeChat unprecedented reach across services that once resisted interoperability, from gym bookings to grocery orders. An agent able to roam that ecosystem could bypass the integration headaches dogging independent startups. Alibaba, the e-commerce giant behind the Qwen model series, has been a front-runner in China's AI race but has been slower to release consumer-facing products. Even though Qwen was the most downloaded open-source model on Hugging Face in 2024, it didn’t power a dedicated chatbot app until early 2025. In March, Alibaba rebranded its cloud storage and search app Quark into an all-in-one AI search tool. By June, Quark had introduced DeepResearch—a new mode that marks its most agent-like effort to date.  ByteDance and Alibaba did not reply to MIT Technology Review’s request for comments. “Historically, Chinese tech products tend to pursue the all-in-one, super-app approach, and the latest Chinese AI agents reflect just that,” says Li of Simular, who previously worked at Google DeepMind on AI-enabled work automation. “In contrast, AI agents in the US are more focused on serving specific verticals.” Pei, the researcher at Stanford, says that existing tech giants could have a huge advantage in bringing the vision of general AI agents to life—especially those with built-in integration across services. “The customer-facing AI agent market is still very early, with tons of problems like authentication and liability,” he says. “But companies that already operate across a wide range of services have a natural advantage in deploying agents at scale.”

John Edwards, Technology Journalist & AuthorJune 5, 20254 Min ReadSailGP Australia, USA, and Great Britain racing on San Francisco Bay, CaliforniaDannaphotos via Alamy StockWarren Jones is CTO at SailGP, the organizer of what he describes as the world's most exciting race on water. The event features high-tech F50 boats that speed across the waves at 100 kilometers-per-hour (62 miles-per-hour).  Working in cooperation with Oracle, Jones focuses on innovative solutions for remote broadcast production, data management and distribution, and a newly introduced fan engagement platform. He also leads the team that has won an IBC Innovation Awards for its ambitious and ground-breaking remote production strategy. Among the races Jones organizes is the Rolex SailGP Championship, a global competition featuring national teams battling each other in identical high-tech, high-speed 50-foot foiling catamarans at celebrated venues around the world. The event attracts the sport's top athletes, with national pride, personal glory, and bonus prize money of $12.8 million at stake. Jones also supports event and office infrastructures in London and New York, and at each of the global grand prix events over the course of the season. Prior to joining SailGP, he was IT leader at the America's Cup Event Authority and Oracle Racing. In an online interview, Jones discusses the challenges he faces in bringing reliable data services to event vessels, as well as onshore officials and fans. Related:Warren JonesWhat's the biggest challenge you've faced during your tenure? One of the biggest challenges I faced was ensuring real-time data transmission from our high-performance F50 foiling catamarans to teams, broadcasters, and fans worldwide. SailGP relies heavily on technology to deliver high-speed racing insights, but ensuring seamless connectivity across different venues with variable conditions was a significant hurdle. What caused the problem? The challenge arose due to a combination of factors. The high speeds and dynamic nature of the boats made data capture and transmission difficult. Varying network infrastructure at different race locations created connectivity issues. The need to process and visualize massive amounts of data in real time placed immense pressure on our systems. How did you resolve the problem? We tackled the issue by working with T-Mobile and Ericsson in a robust and adaptive telemetry system capable of transmitting data with minimal latency over 5G. Deploying custom-built race management software that could process and distribute data efficiently [was also important]. Working closely with our global partner Oracle, we optimized Cloud Compute with the Oracle Cloud.  Related:What would have happened if the problem wasn't quickly resolved? Spectator experience would have suffered. Teams rely on real-time analytics for performance optimization, and broadcasters need accurate telemetry for storytelling. A failure here could have resulted in delays, miscommunication, and a diminished fan experience. How long did it take to resolve the problem? It was an ongoing challenge that required continuous innovation. The initial solution took several months to implement, but we’ve refined and improved it over multiple seasons as technology advances and new challenges emerge. Who supported you during this challenge? This was a team effort -- with our partners Oracle, T-Mobile, and Ericsson with our in-house engineers, data scientists, and IT specialists all working closely. The support from SailGP's leadership was also crucial in securing the necessary resources. Did anyone let you down? Rather than seeing it as being let down, I'd say there were unexpected challenges with some technology providers who underestimated the complexity of what we needed. However, we adapted by seeking alternative solutions and working collaboratively to overcome the hurdles. What advice do you have for other leaders who may face a similar challenge? Related:Embrace adaptability. No matter how well you plan, unforeseen challenges will arise, so build flexible solutions. Leverage partnerships. Collaborate with the best in the industry to ensure you have the expertise needed. Stay ahead of technology trends. The landscape is constantly evolving; being proactive rather than reactive is key. Prioritize resilience. Build redundancy into critical systems to ensure continuity even in the face of disruptions. Is there anything else you would like to add? SailGP is as much a technology company as it is a sports league. The intersection of innovation and competition drives us forward and solving challenges like these is what makes this role both demanding and incredibly rewarding. About the AuthorJohn EdwardsTechnology Journalist & AuthorJohn Edwards is a veteran business technology journalist. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and numerous business and technology publications, including Computerworld, CFO Magazine, IBM Data Management Magazine, RFID Journal, and Electronic Design. He has also written columns for The Economist's Business Intelligence Unit and PricewaterhouseCoopers' Communications Direct. John has authored several books on business technology topics. His work began appearing online as early as 1983. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, he wrote daily news and feature articles for both the CompuServe and Prodigy online services. His "Behind the Screens" commentaries made him the world's first known professional blogger.See more from John EdwardsWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

Congress loves SLS Senate response to White House budget for NASA: Keep SLS, nix science Gateway is back, baby. Eric Berger – Jun 5, 2025 7:55 pm | 77 Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a hearing on Tuesday, January 28, 2025. Credit: Getty Images | Tom Williams Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a hearing on Tuesday, January 28, 2025. Credit: Getty Images | Tom Williams Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Negotiations over the US federal budget for fiscal year 2026 are in the beginning stages, but when it comes to space, the fault lines are already solidifying in the Senate. The Trump White House released its budget request last Friday, and this included detailed information about its plans for NASA. On Thursday, just days later, the US Senate shot back with its own budget priorities for the space agency. The US budget process is complicated and somewhat broken in recent years, as Congress has failed to pass a budget on time. So, we are probably at least several months away from seeing a final fiscal year 2026 budget from Congress. But we got our first glimpse of the Senate's thinking when the chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) released his "legislative directives" for NASA on Thursday These specific directives concern "reconciliation" for the current budget year, which are supplemental appropriations for NASA and other federal agencies under the purview of Cruz's committee. And this committee does not actually write the budget; that's left to appropriations committees in the House and Senate. Senate space priorities However, Cruz is one of the most important voices in the US Senate on space policy, and the directives released Thursday indicate where he intends to line up on NASA during the upcoming budget fights. Here is how his budget ideas align with the White House priorities in three key areas: Science: The Trump White House budget sought to significantly cut the space agency's science budget, from $7.33 billion to $3.91 billion, including the cancellation of some major missions. Cruz makes no comment on most of the science budget, but in calling for a Mars Telecommunications Orbiter, he is signaling support for a Mars Sample Return Mission. Lunar Gateway: The Trump administration called for the cancellation of a small space station to be built in an elongated lunar orbit. There is very uneven support for this in the space community, but it is being led at Johnson Space Center, in Cruz's home state. Cruz says Congress should "fully fund" the Gateway as "critical" infrastructure. Space Launch System and Orion: The Trump administration sought to cancel the large expensive rocket and spacecraft after Artemis III, the first lunar landing. Cruz calls for additional funding for at least Artemis IV and Artemis V. This legislation, the committee said in a messaging document, "Dedicates almost $10 billion to win the new space race with China and ensure America dominates space. Makes targeted, critical investments in Mars-forward technology, Artemis Missions and Moon to Mars program, and the International Space Station." The reality is that it signals that Republicans in the US Senate are not particularly interested in sending humans to Mars, probably are OK with the majority of cuts to science programs at NASA, and want to keep the status quo on Artemis, including the Space Launch System rocket. Where things go from here It is difficult to forecast where US space policy will go from here. The very public breakup between President Trump and SpaceX founder Elon Musk on Thursday significantly complicates the equation. At one point, Trump and Musk were both championing sending humans to Mars, but Musk is gone from the administration, and Trump may abandon that idea due to their rift. For what it's worth, a political appointee in NASA Communications said on Thursday that the president's vision for space—Trump spoke of landing humans on Mars frequently during his campaign speeches—will continue to be implemented. "NASA will continue to execute upon the President’s vision for the future of space," NASA's press secretary, Bethany Stevens, said on X. "We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President’s objectives in space are met." Congress, it seems, may be heading in a different direction. Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston. 77 Comments