Nailing cross-channel marketing for your app is crucial in today’s ecosystem. This isn’t just a speculation, it’s a hard fact: the average mobile marketer uses 5 or fewer media sources, but CPIs tend to be much higher for marketers using 6 or more media sources, according to a report by Singular and ironSource Aura.It’s time to start looking elsewhere for users. Something to consider is returning to old-school, tried-and-true strategies that have taken a backseat as the industry has advanced, such as web acquisition campaigns. There are two clicks in these campaigns - the first click directs users from an ad to a web landing page and the second click directs users from the web page to the app store. While the funnel to get to your app is longer, it’s actually an opportunity. Let’s dive into why and how you should be running web-to-app acquisition campaigns.3 benefits of web-to-app campaignsWeb acquisition campaigns became tried-and-true for a reason and many apps are beginning to take advantage of the strategy to reduce costs, get better visibility, and expand their reach.Reduce costsWhile the cost of app acquisition campaigns is increasing as the space becomes more saturated, web campaigns have been underutilized in recent years. This means many advertisers are finding that the cost of web campaigns are less than app store acquisitions. Much of these higher costs comes from high app store fees - Apple takes a 30% cut from large developers and a 15% cut from smaller developers. The web remains a relatively low-cost, accessible channel.Get better visibilityWith the ability to direct users to your owned mobile site before they click to download your app, you get better visibility into new users and where they came from - the app store is a black box where it’s nearly impossible to match the user who clicked an ad to the user who downloaded your app. On top of that, longer funnels give you more control and insight into each step users take to get to your app - allowing you to better optimize your campaigns. For example, you can try out different web landing pages to find the most effective way to increase users’ understanding of your app before they download it. This increases your likelihood of, first, motivating users to download your app, and second, encouraging them to stick around.Expand your reachInternet users worldwide spent 415.5 minutes a day online in 2021 according to Oberlo. App users spend at most 300 mins a day in apps according to TechCrunch. The internet is still more prevalent than apps because, let’s face it, the web predates the app store. Even more so, users have become especially savvy on the web, visiting the search bar to research a brand, fact check a friend, or dive deeper into a news headline. This means that by running web campaigns, you’re reaching a massive audience - nearly the entire world population.Andre Kempe, Founder and CEO of Admiral Media says, “marketers consider web acquisition important because they’re reaching a different type of audience that may convert to becoming an active app user, even though they were surfing on a news website… When you start advertising for the web, you reach an audience you haven’t reached before. This is definitely a growth opportunity." Listen to the full podcast.Web campaigns are a tried and true strategy, which is what makes them so effective in today’s ecosystem. Realizing that you should be considering this acquisition channel, let’s discuss how web onboarding can help you maximize success.Maximize success with web onboardingTypically, users complete onboarding directly on your app. Web onboarding, however, means letting users register, subscribe, and sometimes pay on the web, before heading to your app. This way, users are fully prepared to start using your app before even clicking download, ensuring they can engage at full capacity as soon as download is complete.When users onboard through the app, they may not immediately decide to engage but at least the app is still on their phones reminding them everyday of its value - they’re likely to open it again at some point in time. When a user onboards on the web and decides your app isn’t valuable, they’ll never end up actually downloading it - it’s gone and forgotten before it even started. That said, with web onboarding, the users who end up downloading your app will do so with high-intent to actively engage. Plus, you don’t have to pay for users that download without ever engaging. Whatever category your app is - fitness, food delivery, dating, reading, learning, etc. - you can use the web touchpoint to drive quality users to your app.Ensure the transition is seamlessFirst, ensure the web experience mimics the app experience enough that users don’t feel jipped when they actually start using your app. The transition from the web to the app should be seamless. If you’re offering users a taste of your app, the web touchpoint should look exactly like your app or, at least, include all of the same features. If the buttons to adjust settings are on the right side of the page during onboarding, they should be on the right side in the app as well. To ensure users stick around, you have to give them what they signed up for.Give users a sneak peakYou should also determine your main selling point and give users a sneak peak. For example, if you’re a reading app that allows users to adjust the settings of the page, you could give users premium access to the first chapter of a book allowing them to adjust font size or brightness. Readers will not want to leave the experience behind, encouraging them to set up their subscription and input their credit card information on the web before heading to the app to continue reading the book. The best part - when they open your app for the first time they’ll be able to jump right into the app experience.Learn more about how to improve your app’s onboarding experienceWeb-to-app campaigns should not be ignored in this competitive landscape - lower costs, more visibility, better optimization, and strong reach. Going even further to onboard users through the web, you’re improving the quality of the users entering your app for the first time.

On top of being the upgraded version of the Nintendo Switch, the Switch 2 might be the best way to experience some of the previous generation’s most critically acclaimed titles. Both Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom already stole our hearts with their scale, presentation, and gameplay when they were released in 2017 and 2023, respectively. Whether it’s your first time playing or your 50th, the Switch 2 editions of these titles are an absolute dream experience. Nintendo’s modern masterpieces didn’t suffer despite relatively low resolution and frame rates and slow loading times — one of the most common gripes with the games when they were released. But the Switch 2 Edition of each game feels like the upgrade the titles deserve, especially when it comes to reduced loading times. And I mean significantly reduced. During our testing, we ran five different test cases five times, then calculated an average for each of the five trials. For the original versions of the games, we used a Switch OLED. For the Switch 2 editions of the games, we used a Switch 2. We tested the time it takes to boot up the game from the Switch 2 home screen, a load a save file from the title screen, reload a save file, fast travel across the map, and enter a shrine. I picked these test cases because they are actions you repeat many times in a given play session, and those load times add up. Here are the results: TestBoTW SwitchBoTW Switch 2 EditionToTK Switch ToTK Switch 2 EditionBooting up the game13.15s7.26s18.26s8.51sLoading a save file from the title screen23.40s14.14s11.04s8.19sReloading a save file14.78s9.11s16.31s9.49sFast travel22.62s14.47s12.04s5.08sEntering a shrine9.21s6.87s8.58s4.68s To no one’s surprise, the Switch 2 dominates the performance of the Nintendo Switch. The Switch 2 takes the load times of both Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom and cuts them roughly in half. In some cases, the load time has been reduced by more than half, specifically in Tears of the Kingdom. Overall, Tears of the Kingdom saw bigger performance increases on average compared to Breath of the Wild, probably because the game is just better optimized. The Nintendo Switch 2, paired with the Switch 2 Edition of each title, offers a significant improvement to the modern Zelda experience. You can also play the original versions on Switch 2, in theory, though we have yet to test those load times. Nonetheless, the Switch 2 editions feel more fluid and responsive. If you have yet to lose yourself in the most recent iteration of Hyrule Kingdom, there’s no better time than now — that is, if you’re willing to pay the extra $10 per game, or for a Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion membership, to upgrade to the Switch 2 Edition, which is only available on Switch 2.

One of the key use cases for generative AI involves answering questions over private datasets, with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as the go-to framework. As new RAG techniques emerge, there’s a growing need to benchmark their performance across diverse datasets and metrics.  To meet this need, we’re introducing BenchmarkQED, a new suite of tools that automates RAG benchmarking at scale, available on GitHub (opens in new tab). It includes components for query generation, evaluation, and dataset preparation, each designed to support rigorous, reproducible testing.   BenchmarkQED complements the RAG methods in our open-source GraphRAG library, enabling users to run a GraphRAG-style evaluation across models, metrics, and datasets. GraphRAG uses a large language model (LLM) to generate and summarize entity-based knowledge graphs, producing more comprehensive and diverse answers than standard RAG for large-scale tasks.  In this post, we walk through the core components of BenchmarkQED that contribute to the overall benchmarking process. We also share some of the latest benchmark results comparing our LazyGraphRAG system to competing methods, including a vector-based RAG with a 1M-token context window, where the leading LazyGraphRAG configuration showed significant win rates across all combinations of quality metrics and query classes. In the paper, we distinguish between local queries, where answers are found in a small number of text regions, and sometimes even a single region, and global queries, which require reasoning over large portions of or even the entire dataset.  Conventional vector-based RAG excels at local queries because the regions containing the answer to the query resemble the query itself and can be retrieved as the nearest neighbor in the vector space of text embeddings. However, it struggles with global questions, such as, “What are the main themes of the dataset?” which require understanding dataset qualities not explicitly stated in the text.   AutoQ: Automated query synthesis This limitation motivated the development of GraphRAG a system designed to answer global queries. GraphRAG’s evaluation requirements subsequently led to the creation of AutoQ, a method for synthesizing these global queries for any dataset. AutoQ extends this approach by generating synthetic queries across the spectrum of queries, from local to global. It defines four distinct classes based on the source and scope of the query (Figure 1, top) forming a logical progression along the spectrum (Figure 1, bottom). Figure 1. Construction of a 2×2 design space for synthetic query generation with AutoQ, showing how the four resulting query classes map onto the local-global query spectrum.  AutoQ can be configured to generate any number and distribution of synthetic queries along these classes, enabling consistent benchmarking across datasets without requiring user customization. Figure 2 shows the synthesis process and sample queries from each class, using an AP News dataset. Figure 2. Synthesis process and example query for each of the four AutoQ query classes.  About Microsoft Research Advancing science and technology to benefit humanity View our story Opens in a new tab AutoE: Automated evaluation framework  Our evaluation of GraphRAG focused on analyzing key qualities of answers to global questions. The following qualities were used for the current evaluation: Comprehensiveness: Does the answer address all relevant aspects of the question?  Diversity: Does it present varied perspectives or insights?  Empowerment: Does it help the reader understand and make informed judgments?  Relevance: Does it address what the question is specifically asking?   The AutoE component scales evaluation of these qualities using the LLM-as-a-Judge method. It presents pairs of answers to an LLM, along with the query and target metric, in counterbalanced order. The model determines whether the first answer wins, loses, or ties with the second. Over a set of queries, whether from AutoQ or elsewhere, this produces win rates between competing methods. When ground truth is available, AutoE can also score answers on correctness, completeness, and related metrics. An illustrative evaluation is shown in Figure 3. Using a dataset of 1,397 AP News articles on health and healthcare, AutoQ generated 50 queries per class (200 total). AutoE then compared LazyGraphRAG to a competing RAG method, running six trials per query across four metrics, using GPT-4.1 as a judge. These trial-level results were aggregated using metric-based win rates, where each trial is scored 1 for a win, 0.5 for a tie, and 0 for a loss, and then averaged to calculate the overall win rate for each RAG method. Figure 3. Win rates of four LazyGraphRAG (LGR) configurations across methods, broken down by the AutoQ query class and averaged across AutoE’s four metrics: comprehensiveness, diversity, empowerment, and relevance. LazyGraphRAG outperforms comparison conditions where the bar is above 50%. The four LazyGraphRAG conditions (LGR_b200_c200, LGR_b50_c200, LGR_b50_c600, LGR_b200_c200_mini) differ by query budget (b50, b200) and chunk size (c200, c600). All used GPT-4o mini for relevance tests and GPT-4o for query expansion (to five subqueries) and answer generation, except for LGR_b200_c200_mini, which used GPT-4o mini throughout. Comparison systems were GraphRAG (Local, Global, and Drift Search), Vector RAG with 8k- and 120k-token windows, and three published methods: LightRAG (opens in new tab), RAPTOR (opens in new tab), and TREX (opens in new tab). All methods were limited to the same 8k tokens for answer generation. GraphRAG Global Search used level 2 of the community hierarchy. LazyGraphRAG outperformed every comparison condition using the same generative model (GPT-4o), winning all 96 comparisons, with all but one reaching statistical significance. The best overall performance came from the larger budget, smaller chunk size configuration (LGR_b200_c200). For DataLocal queries, the smaller budget (LGR_b50_c200) performed slightly better, likely because fewer chunks were relevant. For ActivityLocal queries, the larger chunk size (LGR_b50_c600) had a slight edge, likely because longer chunks provide a more coherent context. Competing methods performed relatively better on the query classes for which they were designed: GraphRAG Global for global queries, Vector RAG for local queries, and GraphRAG Drift Search, which combines both strategies, posed the strongest challenge overall. Increasing Vector RAG’s context window from 8k to 120k tokens did not improve its performance compared to LazyGraphRAG. This raised the question of how LazyGraphRAG would perform against Vector RAG with 1-million token context window containing most of the dataset. Figure 4 shows the follow-up experiment comparing LazyGraphRAG to Vector RAG using GPT-4.1 that enabled this comparison. Even against the 1M-token window, LazyGraphRAG achieved higher win rates across all comparisons, failing to reach significance only for the relevance of answers to DataLocal queries. These queries tend to benefit most from Vector RAG’s ranking of directly relevant chunks, making it hard for LazyGraphRAG to generate answers that have greater relevance to the query, even though these answers may be dramatically more comprehensive, diverse, and empowering overall. Figure 4. Win rates of LazyGraphRAG (LGR) over Vector RAG across different context window sizes, broken down by the four AutoQ query classes and four AutoE metrics: comprehensiveness, diversity, empowerment, and relevance. Bars above 50% indicate that LazyGraphRAG outperformed the comparison condition.  AutoD: Automated data sampling and summarization Text datasets have an underlying topical structure, but the depth, breadth, and connectivity of that structure can vary widely. This variability makes it difficult to evaluate RAG systems consistently, as results may reflect the idiosyncrasies of the dataset rather than the system’s general capabilities. The AutoD component addresses this by sampling datasets to meet a target specification, defined by the number of topic clusters (breadth) and the number of samples per cluster (depth). This creates consistency across datasets, enabling more meaningful comparisons, as structurally aligned datasets lead to comparable AutoQ queries, which in turn support consistent AutoE evaluations. AutoD also includes tools for summarizing input or output datasets in a way that reflects their topical coverage. These summaries play an important role in the AutoQ query synthesis process, but they can also be used more broadly, such as in prompts where context space is limited. Since the release of the GraphRAG paper, we’ve received many requests to share the dataset of the Behind the Tech (opens in new tab) podcast transcripts we used in our evaluation. An updated version of this dataset is now available in the BenchmarkQED repository (opens in new tab), alongside the AP News dataset containing 1,397 health-related articles, licensed for open release.   We hope these datasets, together with the BenchmarkQED tools (opens in new tab), help accelerate benchmark-driven development of RAG systems and AI question-answering. We invite the community to try them on GitHub (opens in new tab).  Opens in a new tab

Taurine supplements have been considered promising for delaying ageing, but that may not be the caseShutterstock / Eugeniusz Dudzinski The amino acid taurine was once thought to decline with age, and animal research suggested that taurine supplements could delay ageing. But a new study shows that the decline doesn’t happen consistently. In fact, taurine levels tend to increase in people over time, suggesting that low levels of the nutrient aren’t a driver of ageing. Previous research has shown that taurine concentrations decline in men as they age and that people with higher taurine levels at 60 years old tend to have better health outcomes. This, along with evidence that taurine supplements extend lifespan in mice and monkeys, suggested that low taurine contributes to ageing.Advertisement The trouble is that taurine fluctuates in response to other factors too, such as illness, stress and diet – therefore, declines in this key amino acid may not be due to ageing. Maria Emilia Fernandez at the National Institute on Aging in Maryland and her colleagues analysed taurine levels in 742 people between 26 and 100 years old. The participants, about half of whom were women, didn’t have underlying health conditions and provided three to five blood samples between January 2006 and October 2018. On average, taurine levels were almost 27 per cent higher in women at 100 years old than at 26 years old and rose about 6 per cent in men between the ages of 30 and 97. Similar results were seen in 32 monkeys that underwent three to seven blood draws between 3 and 32 years of age. Between 5 and 30 years of age, taurine levels rose 72 per cent in female monkeys and 27 per cent in male monkeys, on average. Together, these findings indicate that taurine levels are not a reliable indication of ageing. What’s more, taurine levels also varied widely between people and even within individuals over time, suggesting that other environmental factors influence them, says Fernandez. Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday. Sign up to newsletter However, some people may still benefit from taurine supplementation, says Fernandez, pointing to studies that show it helps regulate blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes or obesity. But whether it can delay ageing in otherwise healthy people is an open question. Vijay Yadav at Rutgers University in New Jersey says he and his colleagues are currently conducting a clinical trial of taurine supplementation in middle-aged adults. “We hope to finish the trial by the end of 2025,” he says. “Hopefully it will generate sufficiently rigorous data to show whether or not taurine supplementation delays the pace of ageing in humans or increases health and fitness.” Journal reference:Science DOI: 10.1126/science.adl2116 Article amended on 5 June 2025We corrected Vijay Yadav's affiliationTopics:

June 5, 20253 min readNew Hires Will Still Leave the NWS Dangerously Understaffed, Meteorologists SayNearly 600 employees left the National Weather Service or were fired in recent months. Meteorologists say 125 expected new hires will still leave the agency dangerously understaffedBy Chelsea Harvey & E&E News A tornado struck communities in Somerset and London, Ky., on May 16, 2025, leaving 19 dead and more injured. Michael Swensen/Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | New hiring efforts at the National Weather Service won’t be enough to overcome staffing shortages and potential risks to human lives this summer, meteorologists warned Wednesday at a panel hosted by Democratic Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell.NOAA will hire around 125 new employees at the NWS, the agency said in an announcement first reported Monday by CNN. But nearly 600 employees have departed the NWS over the last few months, after the Trump administration fired probationary federal employees and offered buyouts and early retirements.That means the new hires will account for less than 25 percent of the total losses.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.“A quarter of the staff are not going to do the job when, let’s just say, both hurricane and fire risks are increasing,” Cantwell said during Wednesday’s panel. “[The Trump administration’s] approach in response to this has been a flimsy Band-Aid over a very massive cut.”Cantwell added that the National Hurricane Center is not fully staffed, as NOAA officials suggested last month when announcing their predictions for the upcoming Atlantic hurricane season outlook. The NHC has at least five vacancies, she said, representing meteorologists and technicians who help build forecasts for tropical cyclones in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.Meanwhile, NOAA is predicting above-average activity in the Atlantic this hurricane season. Updated fire maps also suggest that nearly all of Cantwell’s home state of Washington, along with Oregon and large swaths of California, will experience an above-average risk of wildfires by August.Kim Doster, NOAA’s director of communications, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on NOAA’s staffing shortages or the NHC’s vacancies.Three meteorologists speaking on the panel echoed Cantwell’s concerns, suggesting that staffing shortages at weather offices across the country risk forecasting errors and breakdowns in communication between meteorologists and emergency managers.At least eight local weather offices across the country are currently so short-staffed that they can no longer cover their overnight shifts, said Brian LaMarre, a former meteorologist-in-charge at the NWS office in Tampa Bay, Florida. Some of these offices may have to rely on “mutual aid,” or borrowed staff, from other NWS locations to cover their shifts during extreme weather events.But Cantwell and other panelists expressed concern that staff-sharing across the NWS could erode the accuracy of forecasts and warnings for local communities.Cantwell pointed to the meteorologists that specialize in fire weather forecasts. NOAA typically deploys those experts to provide forecasts and recommendations to firefighters on the ground when wildfires strike.“If you think you're gonna substitute somebody that’s gonna be somewhere else — I don’t know where, some other part of the state or some other state — and you think you're gonna give them accurate weather information? It just doesn't work that way,” she said.Washington state-based broadcast meteorologist Jeff Renner echoed her concerns.“The meteorologists that respond to [wildfires] have very specific training and very specific experience that can’t be easily duplicated, particularly from those outside the area,” he said.Meanwhile, LaMarre’s former position in Tampa is vacant, and around 30 other offices across the country are also operating without a permanent meteorologist-in-charge.“That person is the main point of contact when it comes to briefing elected officials, emergency management directors, state governors, city mayors, parish officials,” LaMarre said. “They are the individual that’s gonna be implementing any new change that is needed for hurricane season, blizzards, wildfires, inland flooding.”The NWS suffered from staffing shortages prior to the Trump administration. But LaMarre said he never saw such widespread vacancies, including offices unable to operate overnight, in his 30 years at the agency.He emphasized that NWS meteorologists will do whatever it takes to ensure accurate forecasts when extreme weather strikes. But too many gaps at local offices mean that some services will inevitably suffer, LaMarre added.“Whenever you look at an office that is short-staffed, that means a piece of that larger puzzle is taken away,” he said. “That means some outreach might not be able to occur. Some trainings might not be able to occur. Some briefings to officials might not be able to occur.”Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

Larry Fabbroni is an architect, strategic advisor, and Chief Innovation Officer for Practice of Architecture. Throughout his career, he has led efforts to reform studio culture and innovate practice. He earned his MBA from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. In 2017, as leaders in the AIA’s Young Architects Forum (YAF), we led the launch of the Practice Innovation Lab (PIL) and hosted a symposium that imagined new architectural practice models. At that time, we already felt that practice innovation was overdue in a profession that has not seen scaled disruption to its business model in over a century. Today, we are confident that there has never been a more critical time for the profession to embrace innovation. Redefining Innovation Henley Hall: Institute for Energy Efficiency by KieranTimberlake, Santa Barbara, California | KieranTimberlake’s research expertise creates value beyond a baseline labor model.  Currently, artificial intelligence dominates strategy conversations, but just as we saw back in 2017, larger patterns prompt calls for innovation. Talent attraction is increasingly challenging, disruptive technology continues to emerge, and actors from outside our industry show growing interest in the space. While incremental innovation has long been a part of the profession, relatively few firms have adopted new practices that create value beyond a baseline labor model. Firms such as KieranTimberlake have shown that research expertise can do this. MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach. BIG has taken on the role of architect-as-developer. Snøhetta houses a product design division. We could continue to list great firms that have pushed the boundaries of practice, but they represent exceptions that have yet to be recognized as new standards. Indeed, the confluence of those factors that led to the original PIL continues to make the case that the time for scaled innovation is now. A Melting Iceberg: Incremental Changes Depleting the Profession Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway | Photo by Ivar Kvaal | Snøhetta houses a product design division, innovatively presenting a alternative business model for firms.  One of the dangers of operating in a slow-moving industry is that change is difficult to detect and even more challenging to comprehend. If an iceberg loses 1% of mass per year, it’s tough to take notice, but the end result is catastrophic. This is what is happening to our profession. For newcomers, if it feels like there are increasingly more attractive opportunities elsewhere, that’s because there are. For seasoned professionals, if it feels like it’s become more challenging to maintain the same levels of prosperity, that’s because it has. Less(er) Talent In some ways, the shift towards companies recognizing “talent” as their most excellent resource has bewildered architects: we have always relied on talent. However, the patterns of talent leaving our profession are concerning. We say “feel” because there is no significant data. We spoke to Kendall A. Nicholson, Senior Director of Research at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), who confirmed that aggregated data on graduate placement does not exist. So we inquired about what placement looks like at several programs around the country. Omar Khan, Head of the Carnegie Mellon University School of Architecture, informed us that approximately 90% of students pursue a minor to expand their horizons, and that in 2022, nearly one in three graduates entered the tech sector. Khan stated that these opportunities aren’t just student-driven — large innovative companies increasingly seek the value that graduates of architecture schools will provide. This increasing difficulty in capturing the talent that architecture schools are producing results in a shrinking and diluted talent pool. For a profession so reliant on human resources, this presents extreme risk. Pay Gaps In an increasingly expensive world, we are not able to compete for the best talent with emerging industries. It’s easy to understand why a popular career pivot for architects has become UX design. Designing user experience for websites pays significantly better than designing the same for the built environment. According to Glassdoor, 2023 entry-level UX designers earned an average of $78K, while the AIA salary calculator suggests architecture grads can expect to earn an average of $59 K. The talent we do attract into the profession often loses interest when they experience low pay and long hours, all while most firms lack clear paths and criteria for advancement or compensation increases. A Smaller Piece of the Pie Examining data in isolation, one might conclude that the profession continues to grow; the number of architects has increased substantially over the last century, and this trend has persisted in recent years. The problem with this growth is that the estimated share of the US GDP for Architectural Services has shrunk over time. This is not a manageable number to measure before 1999, when NCARB first aggregated local jurisdictional data. Due to limitations in industry economic data, we’re only showing data since 2011 for the purposes of this article. In that time, the number of architects has grown, the market size for services has grown, but the share those services represent as a portion of the US GDP has declined — by 15% if we use US Census data to almost 30% if we use industry research data (we used IbisWorld.com, however we found data that suggested a worse and others that offered a slightly better picture). To put it another way, architecture is a stagnant industry with a shrinking share of the economy. It’s challenging to examine this data and emerge feeling confident about the profession, but there is a silver lining. The biggest impediment to innovation for architects is not a lack of talent, but rather the business model. Design thinking has been widely adopted throughout the world as a key component of innovation processes; however, the problem is that we operate in the realm of professional services, which inherently is not well-suited to promoting innovation. Reliance on that formula is causing our iceberg to melt. The Tsunami: The AI Tidal Wave is Here The Rwanda Institute for Conservation Agriculture by MASS Design Group, Rwanda | MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach that creates value beyond a baseline labor model.  As we confront the exodus of talent, it is easy for both firm owners and clients to imagine AI bringing efficiencies and replacing “CAD-monkeys” with machines. However, any firm that wants to operate — and win — as anything more than a low-cost provider will need a strategy to increase value, not just cut costs. AI is merely part of the toolbox required to confront a perfect storm of forces. Jobs will Disappear Goldman Sachs predicts that as much as 37% of our industry tasks will be replaced by AI. Many see this as a pathway to lower costs and increased profits. However, that is short-sighted. Markets will adjust quickly and demand lower costs for services; additional new value will need to be articulated and proven, and this will only happen through innovation. New Jobs will Emerge (but fewer of them) AI prophets often emphasize that technological innovation has historically led to net employment gains. Previous World Economic Forum estimates predicted losses of up to 85 million existing jobs worldwide, with parallel gains of as many as 97 million new jobs. However, these estimates were revised in the WEF 2023 Economic Outlook, which now anticipates a net loss of 14 million jobs. This stark outlook signals an even greater need for architects to become more innovative. The 2024 RIBA AI Report indicates that 41% of architecture firms were already utilizing AI, though current tools are indeed just the beginning. Marketing, business development and content creation will be standard areas of AI deployment moving forward. Still, revolutionary changes will come in how we learn, not only to use new tools, but also to collaborate with digital agents. How will this happen? We can theorize, but it is not possible to know for sure until it arrives, so we need to have a plan before we can see the tidal wave from land. The Alien Invasion: Outsiders Are Entering Our Orbit VIA 57 West by BIG – Bjarke Ingels Group, New York City, New York | BIG has pioneered a new model for practice by taking on the role of architect-as-developer. For years, we’ve heard cries that “architects gave away the role of master builder.” But how much did architects actually give, and how much was taken by innovative competition? This distinction is critical because the wagons are circling, and the AEC space has become ever more attractive to investors. Venture Capital and Private Equity Investment The numbers are often difficult to parse because architecture can impact so many verticals and does not operate as its own sector in the investment realm; however, the trends suggest a groundswell is underway. A 2023 McKinsey report shows that construction tech deals nearly doubled from 2019 to 2022, growing by 85%. At the same period, the number of deals increased by 30%, indicating that interest continues to grow. An increasing size of deals also suggests a maturity of the market. As interest in infrastructure investments has declined from its high in 2020, and along with real estate, has been blunted by high interest rates, institutional investors continue to see opportunities in the AEC space. Firm Acquisitions AEC firms that deliver predictable returns have proven to be attractive targets for PE firms. In the second quarter of 2024, private equity firms accounted for over one-third of AEC firm mergers and acquisitions. For M&A deals, the industry has seen an increase in attractiveness with expanded infrastructure spending as a catalyst. However, this interest can also be tied to the lack of innovation that has resulted in an industry ripe for consolidation. M&A orchestrators generate large amounts of profit by streamlining operations, eliminating redundancies, and then stamping out competition. An entire community has been built around this, with AEC Advisors hosting an annual “Private Equity Summit” that brings together CEOs of AEC firms with PE investors. Startups As an extension of the growing interest from venture capital in the space, there is an upward trend in the AEC space being targeted for disruption by entrepreneurs who see an industry that represents a significant portion of the global GDP. AEC Works, a project of e-verse that catalogs AEC startups and investors, lists nearly 800 startups from around the world, with almost 200 identified as “architecture-focused.” The signal is clear: startups are looking to figure out how to do what you do cheaper, better, or perhaps both. Combining this environment with depleted talent pools, a declining share of GDP, and revolutionary technology, it is a correct response to be alarmed. Significant change is inevitable. It is time for architects to see the same opportunities that investors and entrepreneurs see, and learn to navigate within these spaces. The Great Opportunity Throughout history, new actors have enjoyed a “leap-frog” effect and been able to surpass established incumbents to reshape industries, markets and economies. From climate change to pandemic ripple effects, to the housing crisis, to generational shifts in the workforce, there are many forces that directly impact the work of architects and call for innovation. The need for new ways of designing and delivering different components of the built environment is ever-present and will be solved by teams that either include — and might be led by — architects, or those that do not. Most end users will only care if the resulting product is superior. This time of tension is indeed a time of great opportunity. Architects who embrace innovation in pursuing new iterations of our dated business models may actually achieve what many of us have dreamed of from the start: to leave a positive mark on the world. We think the future of the profession depends on it. Top image: Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway The post Architects, Your Real Competition Isn’t AI — It’s Business Complacency appeared first on Journal.

Tapjoy studies have shown that mobile gamers prefer rewarded ads to interstitials 4-to-1. It’s a valuable insight for advertisers and developers alike when it comes maximizing ad revenue, but rewarded ads also have the potential to impact other parts of the user experience and your game’s performance overall.To ensure a healthy portfolio, it’s critical that developers understand the additional impact rewarded ads have beyond ad revenue. This includes their effect on metrics like in-app purchase conversion rate, average user spend, 30-day retention, and daily session count. To find out more, we conducted an in-depth analysis of eight different high-DAU apps across iOS and Android for several varying timeframes to find out how users behave when exposed to rewarded ads compared to those who aren’t.Higher IAP conversion ratesWe studied new app users during a one month period and segmented them into two different groups: Those who engaged with at least one rewarded ad and those who never engaged with an ad. We then compared the IAP conversion rates (or percentage of users that made a first time purchase) for each group.On average, users who engage with rewarded ads are 4.5 times more likely to make in-app purchase versus those who do not.7 out of the 8 of apps studied demonstrated higher conversion rates among those who engaged with ads versus those who did not.In the case of two of the apps studies, we found that users who engaged with an ad were over 9 times more likely to make a purchase.Higher average spend per userWe measured the average spend per user in each app for seven days before and seven days after a user’s first rewarded ad engagement.In all 8 apps studied, user spend increased significantly after they engaged with an ad. The average weighted increase in user spend was 326%. Among the apps studied, the boost in average spend per user ranged from just shy of 200% to over 500%.Increased 30-day retentionWe measured the 30-day retention rates of users who engaged with 1-6 rewarded ads during their first week of using an app. Three types of rewarded ad formats were studied (rewarded video, full-screen interstitial, and offerwall placements) and measured against the average 30-day retention benchmark for all apps.Players who complete just one rewarded ad in the first week — whether a video, full-screen interstitial or an offerwall engagement — have a retention rate of at least 50%, compared to the benchmark of 13%.Rewarded video has the most profound effect on retention of any ad type. 30-day retention steadily increases with each video view, ranging from 53% to 68%, which is 3.5-5 times greater than the benchmark.Higher average daily session countWe measured the average number of user sessions per day — both seven days before and seven days after a user’s first rewarded ad engagement — for each high-DAU app.In all cases, users engaged with apps more frequently after completing a rewarded ad.All 8 apps studied demonstrated a lift in the average number of user sessions among those who completed an ad.The average weighted increase in user sessions across all apps was 34%.What does this mean for developers?4 key monetization strategies became abundantly clear following our research:Make rewarded ads easy to find – To increase visibility, consider adding a button to your app’s home screen or storefront, or utilize in-app messaging or push notifications to promote rewarded offers. Tapjoy’s Native-to-Earn, Message-to-Earn, and Push-to-Earn features make it easy for developers to add and manage these additions right from the dashboard.Explore currency sale promotions – Try running limited-time offers in which your players earn more currency than usual for every rewarded ad they complete. These currency sales can drive serious spikes in revenue. With Tapjoy, it’s easy to personalize your currency sale with custom branding and to control the payout ratio.Introduce ads early – Getting users to interact with ads early in their gameplay increases the chance that they will continue to engage with or make a purchase in your app. Rewarded ads introduce players to the mechanics and benefits of your in-app currency, so it’s important to make ads visible and easy to access during the player’s first few sessions.Integrate multiple rewarded formats – Integrating multiple formats — such as rewarded video and offerwall combined — provides developers with the best opportunity to monetize their users and maximize revenue. Diversifying formats not only unlocks higher eCPMs, but it provides players with the freedom to pick and choose the rewarded offer that appeals most to them.

Sangral Powered by Friendship™ Member Feb 17, 2022 8,649 From one of the biggest and most dedicated HDR analysis channels out there. Thought that's a big enough topic on its own, because of the analysis, for a separate thread. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N637VB4FYxg 450 nits maximum peak brightness (personal comparison, Switch OLED without any HDR has 340 nits, an LG C2 TV in HDR has 800 nits, Steam Deck OLED screen has 1000 nits, Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra 2600 nits.) Games like Zelda Breath of the Wild have raised blacks even in Docked HDR gameplay with a raised black level floor and the game looking washed out HDR docked can be good if games are optimized for it like Cyberpunk, which he refers to being exactly like on PS5 and PC, HDR wise or Fast Fusion as one of the rare games that actually have a good black level floor in HDR   Last edited: 39 minutes ago blueredandgold Member Oct 25, 2017 8,739 Could you please translate for those of us who haven't been able to watch or digest after we saw this posted in the other thread please?   gabdeg Member Oct 26, 2017 7,420 🐝 Sadly what I expected since the moment we learned it was edge-lit LCD. Would've at least expected nigher peak nits though.   Kouriozan Member Oct 25, 2017 25,072 A shame, because Switch 2 is like the first time I'll see HDR, as my old TV isn't compatible :/   Paper Cheese Member Oct 9, 2019 558 I've got to assume this is the sort of thing that most of us hi-fi tech illiterate lot won't notice until they bring out a better screen model in a few years.   Fortinbras Member Oct 27, 2017 2,073 Well that sucks but it's Nintendo...did anyone expect anything different? I'm only going to use it docked so hopefully they can fix the HDR via update.  Universal Acclaim Member Oct 5, 2024 2,482 Not surprised, but not a big issue for me personally.   Antony Member Oct 25, 2017 4,054 Ahhh the obligatory Nintendo Crap Display (Before You Buy a Whole New Model to Get a Decent One) it's positively tradition at this point   Friendly Bear Member Jan 11, 2019 4,162 I Don’t Care Where (Just Far) Even with an edge lit LCD, I was expecting brighter highlights. A lot of the preview event coverage made it sound like the screen was insanely bright, and that's clearly not the case.   NoSpin Member Nov 1, 2017 83 As so often with gaming, I am relieved to have this person to tell me the thing I am enjoying looking at is bad actually. :)   Mivey Member Oct 25, 2017 20,753 Paper Cheese said: I've got to assume this is the sort of thing that most of us hi-fi tech illiterate lot won't notice until they bring out a better screen model in a few years. Click to expand... Click to shrink... the raised blacks on dark content is pretty clear if you play in any kind of darker environment, if you have any kind of OLED screen to compare. Case in point, if you own a Switch 1 OLED, you'll notice the stark differences for certain kinds of content right away. OTOH, if you have been using a launch Switch 1 and never had any issues with how it looks, you'll be fine. Just make sure to stay away from OLED screen, lest you gain the ability to see the differences.   Decarb Member Oct 27, 2017 9,280 HDR on edge-lit LCD is kind of a scam anyway. Kouriozan said: A shame, because Switch 2 is like the first time I'll see HDR, as my old TV isn't compatible :/ Click to expand... Click to shrink... If you have a phone made in last couple of years you've probably seen HDR.   horkrux Member Oct 27, 2017 6,531 Well, kinda expected, so I'm not too bothered by it. Not like you can change it.   Maximo Member Oct 25, 2017 11,041 Nintendo saving that sweet sweet OLED for a refresh.   Buddy Member Oct 25, 2017 1,773 Germany I have mine in my hands right now.... don't know about HDR stuff too much but Mario Kart looks gorgeous on it.   DieH@rd Member Oct 26, 2017 12,083 Decarb said: HDR on edge-lit LCD is kind of a scam anyway. Click to expand... Click to shrink... ^ this.   cw_sasuke Member Oct 27, 2017 30,321 Most of this stuff was clear from the Preview Events, at least DF talked about it. Didn't seem to bother a majority of people playing though. Was pretty much set when it wasn't going to be OLED.  John Frost Member Oct 27, 2017 9,658 Canada Well, that's disappointing..   Milk Prophet of Truth Avenger Oct 25, 2017 4,301 NoSpin said: As so often with gaming, I am relieved to have this person to tell me the thing I am enjoying looking at is bad actually. :) Click to expand... Click to shrink... It's not a personal attack on you. Pointing out objective shortcomings about the technology is a good thing for consumers.   345 Member Oct 30, 2017 10,410 it's about as good as i was expecting. HDR on an LCD basically means "we're actually going to tune content for the screen's color gamut", and it does the job on that level. mario kart does look punchier and more vibrant than it would in SDR while obviously not offering the same contrast as an OLED. dunno who this guy is but if he's really "very disappointed" i'm not sure he knows very much about screens. i'm sure it's just ragebait  JimNastics Member Jan 11, 2018 1,607 345 said: 'm sure it's just ragebait Click to expand... Click to shrink... No way!! :D You could tell just from the thumbnail.  Aleh Member Oct 27, 2017 20,238 "crap display" is a huge exaggeration. Everyone who has actually seen it in person says it looks really good, HDR isn't everything, however disappointing that is.   cw_sasuke Member Oct 27, 2017 30,321 Milk said: It's not a personal attack on you. Pointing out objective shortcomings about the technology is a good thing for consumers. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Seems to be on par what you would get with an LCD. The OG Switch 1 has a bad LCD Screen, the OG Steam Deck has an even worse.....this video is making it seem like Switch 2 Screen is as bad as these screens or even worse. When it seems to be quite solid for an LCD, but in certain areas it can compete with an OLED.  Alex840 Member Oct 31, 2017 5,373 And yet most of the games media doing previews have been like "oh I can barely tell the difference compared to the OLED". Am really sad they took a step back with this, how much more could an OLED screen have cost them?  Universal Acclaim Member Oct 5, 2024 2,482 SDR low brightness in a dark room then   Dranakin Member Oct 27, 2017 2,999 Ooof. Although, I will admit, I probably can't tell between good and bad sceens. I mean, I have the Ayaneo Pocket DMG and everyone says it's an amazing screen. It looks normal to me? Alex840 said: Am really sad they took a step back with this, how much more could an OLED screen have cost them? Click to expand... Click to shrink... An OLED 120hz? The Odin 2 Portal has one (smaller size and without VRR), but I don't have a sense of the component cost.  Kabuki Waq Member Oct 26, 2017 6,034 The screen is a pretty big downgrade from oled but a huge upgrade from the OG. I really miss the perfect blacks. MKW is gorgeous but would have looked so much better on an oled screen  Harmen Member Aug 30, 2023 1,462 The HDR and lifted black should not come as a surprise. But the video doesn't really analyze why it would be below average for an LCD screen? Colours? Pixel response time? For example the original Switch 1 LCD look reaaally bad to me these days, but my Steam Deck LCD screen (similar resolution) looks good to me outside of raised blacks in dark scenes (which I do get used to).   nogoodnamesleft Member Oct 25, 2017 8,605 Yep. I fucking knew it. Knew it was going to be trash. LCD is trash as a standard (yes miniled included with its trash ass pixel response time) Will wait for oled version.  cw_sasuke Member Oct 27, 2017 30,321 Aleh said: "crap display" is a huge exaggeration. Everyone who has actually seen it in person says it looks really good, HDR isn't everything, however disappointing that is. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Focus of the whole channel is HDR. Dude is likely just used to comparing HDR content on very expensive OLED Screens. So HDR bad = everything trash for him. Something that won't be the case for 99% of users out there. Its the single voter issue again, disregarding everything else because of one focus point and expecting every one to feel the same way about it.  Serif Member Oct 31, 2024 410 Alex840 said: Am really sad they took a step back with this, how much more could an OLED screen have cost them? Click to expand... Click to shrink... An OLED 1080p HDR VRR 120 Hz screen does not sound like it would be cost-effective. It makes sense to establish baseline specs like 120 Hz support for developers to target and upgrade to OLED in the future instead of trying to add 120 Hz support later on.  fourfourfun Member Oct 27, 2017 9,149 England Aleh said: "crap display" is a huge exaggeration. Everyone who has actually seen it in person says it looks really good, HDR isn't everything, however disappointing that is. Click to expand... Click to shrink... If you're an enthusiast display platform, you're going to be benchmarking against the absolute best. So comparatively it could not be as good. Obviously it doesn't take into account what the entire platform delivers as a whole and the price it was trying to hit. It's a rather zoomed in look at just one thing.  RailWays One Winged Slayer Avenger Oct 25, 2017 18,449 Still sounds like an upgrade from the launch Switch LCD, though those nits are pretty low   Koklusz Member Oct 27, 2017 3,971 blueredandgold said: Could you please translate for those of us who haven't been able to watch or digest after we saw this posted in the other thread please? Click to expand... Click to shrink... The screen is bad, and the native HDR implementation in the games he tested is shoddy.   NoSpin Member Nov 1, 2017 83 Milk said: It's not a personal attack on you. Pointing out objective shortcomings about the technology is a good thing for consumers. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I didn't see it as a personal attack, I just imagined him reviewing the Game Boy Pocket or the OG DS screes and how disappointed he would have been, whilst we were all busy enjoying video games.  Wasp Member Oct 29, 2017 351 It's a shame they couldn't release an OLED SKU at launch. I would have happily paid an extra $100 for an OLED model and I'm sure many are the same. I know I'll be keeping my box in pristine condition to get maximum value when I trade the console in for a Switch 2 OLED in hopefully a few years.  Last edited: 51 minutes ago pswii60 Member Oct 27, 2017 28,932 The Milky Way This means that for handheld purposes, Switch 2 is actually a downgrade on Switch 1 OLED, for any games that aren't taking advantage of the additional power/resolution. So basically, you might want to hold on to your Switch 1 OLED for all your pixel art indies, and any games not getting a patch/upgrade.  Shadow One Winged Slayer Member Oct 28, 2017 4,837 Kinda what I expected. Being LCD with HDR especially on portable device at that is never a good combo. I'll just play on my OLED TV when I want to get the full experience, which again, is what I expected. I hope it's a bit usable outside at least. I was hoping closer to 600 nits for that alone, as the Deck OLED is JUST usable on a sunny day. But you can't have everything I guess.  UnderJollyRoger Member Jun 16, 2023 648 Germany The screen is also my biggest concern of the unit. The og switch has an absolutely atrocious screen and LCDs just dont cut it anymore for me. The low nits will make it again pretty difficult to properly play outside. I am commuting a lot and sitting on a train with a bit of sun outside was already too much for the og switch. Here is hoping that an OLED variant will come earlier this time.  Milk Prophet of Truth Avenger Oct 25, 2017 4,301 NoSpin said: I didn't see it as a personal attack, I just imagined him reviewing the Game Boy Pocket or the OG DS screes and how disappointed he would have been, whilst we were all busy enjoying video games. Click to expand... Click to shrink... You're implying being critical means you're not also enjoying the video games. I'm critical of tons of my favorite games. I'm still having a fun time with the games 🤷  HandsomeCharles Member Oct 26, 2017 4,717 Disappointing to hear, but as someone who thinks his OG switch's screen is fine, I'm sure it won't really bother me.   OP OP Sangral Powered by Friendship™ Member Feb 17, 2022 8,649 blueredandgold said: Could you please translate for those of us who haven't been able to watch or digest after we saw this posted in the other thread please? Click to expand... Click to shrink... I'm trying to add some bullet points to the OT.  Ghost Slayer Member Oct 30, 2017 1,433 is it like PS Portal LCD screen? Because I think the Portal LCD screen is really good   Decarb Member Oct 27, 2017 9,280 pswii60 said: This means that for handheld purposes, Switch 2 is actually a downgrade on Switch 1 OLED, for any games that aren't taking advantage of the additional power/resolution. So basically, you might want to hold on to your Switch 1 OLED for all your pixel art indies, and any games not getting a patch/upgrade. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Oh I don't think there's any doubt from pure IQ perspective its a downgrade from Switch 1 OLED. Even without HDR support at max brightness that screen pops like nothing else.   Maximo Member Oct 25, 2017 11,041 NoSpin said: I didn't see it as a personal attack, I just imagined him reviewing the Game Boy Pocket or the OG DS screes and how disappointed he would have been, whilst we were all busy enjoying video games. Click to expand... Click to shrink... This is a silly comparison since he's not reviewing a screen from 1996 when it first came out, screen technology has exploded since the first iPhone, seems like a needless jab.  Melhadf Member Dec 25, 2017 2,528 My understanding is that 400nits is the minimum for HDR. So it's technically HDR, but usually dismissed by purists as not "real HDR" such as this vid with his HDR10 testing (1000nits standard). So it's a definite improvement over SDR content, but Nintendo then used an LCD instead of OLED so it most likely looks worse than the OLED switch. Feels like Nintendo is using minimum HDR as a crutch to cheap out on the screen and people are saying it's not "TRUE HDR" even though it's completely within spec.  vegtro Member Oct 25, 2017 808 Aleh said: "crap display" is a huge exaggeration. Everyone who has actually seen it in person says it looks really good, HDR isn't everything, however disappointing that is. Click to expand... Click to shrink... When I first booted the Switch 2, I wanted to believe the screen will be ok from the news. Nope, the screen pretty much is pretty bad compared to OLED.   Alvis Saw the truth behind the copied door Member Oct 25, 2017 12,148 EU A bit of a shame, meh NoSpin said: As so often with gaming, I am relieved to have this person to tell me the thing I am enjoying looking at is bad actually. :) Click to expand... Click to shrink... Yes indeed, this dude is set on a mission to personally ruin your experience, and he's now crying in a corner knowing that he failed.   fourfourfun Member Oct 27, 2017 9,149 England Shadow said: But you can't have everything I guess. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I think that's the thing, they went for resolution and VRR as a priority. I'm sure I also read on here a while ago that it also centres around the availability of appropriate screens. OLED only became viable after a certain point.  Pargon Member Oct 27, 2017 14,110 I thought I had appropriately-low expectations, but I was thinking it would be a 600 nit 1800:1 panel. Not 450 nits and 900:1. The only thing "HDR" about it is probably that content will be authored to make use of a wider color gamut. 

Great star corals in the grip of disease have been saved with probiotics — beneficial bacteria that attack or displace invading pathogens or possibly trigger immune responses to them. What’s causing this deadly disease remains unidentified. But researchers at the Smithsonian Marine Station in Fort Pierce, Fla., were able to successfully halt progression of the disease’s symptoms, the team reports June 5 in Frontiers in Marine Science. The condition is called stony coral tissue loss disease and is characterized by white lesions that lead to the loss of polyps — tiny soft-bodied organisms similar to sea anemones — blanketing coral. Eventually, nothing but the white coral skeleton is left behind. The disease emerged in Florida in 2014 and has spread rampantly throughout the Florida Keys and the Caribbean. A great star coral (M. cavernosa) colony is infected with stony coral tissue loss disease on the coral reef in Fort Lauderdale. The lesion, where the white band of tissue occurs, typically moves across the coral, killing coral tissue along the way. Kelly Pitts/Smithsonian Researchers suspect that the disease is bacterial in nature. Antibiotic treatments can offer a quick fix, but these drugs do not prevent reinfection and carry the risk of the mysterious pathogen building resistance against them. So, in late 2020, the Smithsonian group tried for a more sustainable solution, giving probiotics to 30 infected great star coral colonies. The helpful microbes came from corals tested in the lab that showed resistance to the disease. “We noticed that one of the coral fragments would not get infected … so one of the first things we did was try to culture the microbes that are on this coral,” says microbiologist Blake Ushijima, who developed the probiotic used in the team’s experiment. “These microbes produce antibacterial compounds … and one had a high level of activity against bacteria from diseased corals,” acting as a “pro” biotic, by somehow neutralizing pathogens. The identified microbe, a bacterium called McH1-7, became the active ingredient in a paste delivered by divers to several infected colonies. They covered these colonies with plastic bags to immerse them in the probiotic solution, injecting the paste into the bags using a syringe. They also applied the paste directly to other colonies, slathering lesions caused by the disease. A probiotic paste of McH1-7 is applied to the disease lesion of a great star coral (M. cavernosa) colony infected with stony coral tissue loss disease. The paste was then smoothed flat with a gloved hand so that all apparently infected tissue was covered by the lesion-specific treatment.Kelly Pitts/Smithsonian For two and a half years, the team monitored the corals’ health. The probiotics slowed or stopped the disease from spreading in all eight colonies treated inside bags. On average, the disease’s ugly advance was held to only 7 percent of tissue, compared with an aggressive 30 percent on untreated colonies. The paste put directly on the coral had no beneficial effect. The results are encouraging, but coauthor Valerie Paul cautions against declaring the probiotic a cure. She doubts the practicality of swimming around with heavily weighted plastic bags and putting them on corals. And, she points out, the study was limited to one species of coral, when the disease plagues over 30. Sponsor Message Still, Ushijima considers the study a proof of concept. “The idea of coral probiotics has been thrown around for decades, but no one has directly shown their effects on disease in the wild,” he says. “I think it’s very exciting because it’s actually opening the door to a new field.”

Once again, Sam Altman wants to show you the future. The CEO of OpenAI is standing on a sparse stage in San Francisco, preparing to reveal his next move to an attentive crowd. “We needed some way for identifying, authenticating humans in the age of AGI,” Altman explains, referring to artificial general intelligence. “We wanted a way to make sure that humans stayed special and central.” The solution Altman came up with is looming behind him. It’s a white sphere about the size of a beach ball, with a camera at its center. The company that makes it, known as Tools for Humanity, calls this mysterious device the Orb. Stare into the heart of the plastic-and-silicon globe and it will map the unique furrows and ciliary zones of your iris. Seconds later, you’ll receive inviolable proof of your humanity: a 12,800-digit binary number, known as an iris code, sent to an app on your phone. At the same time, a packet of cryptocurrency called Worldcoin, worth approximately $42, will be transferred to your digital wallet—your reward for becoming a “verified human.” Altman co-founded Tools for Humanity in 2019 as part of a suite of companies he believed would reshape the world. Once the tech he was developing at OpenAI passed a certain level of intelligence, he reasoned, it would mark the end of one era on the Internet and the beginning of another, in which AI became so advanced, so human-like, that you would no longer be able to tell whether what you read, saw, or heard online came from a real person. When that happened, Altman imagined, we would need a new kind of online infrastructure: a human-verification layer for the Internet, to distinguish real people from the proliferating number of bots and AI “agents.”And so Tools for Humanity set out to build a global “proof-of-humanity” network. It aims to verify 50 million people by the end of 2025; ultimately its goal is to sign up every single human being on the planet. The free crypto serves as both an incentive for users to sign up, and also an entry point into what the company hopes will become the world’s largest financial network, through which it believes “double-digit percentages of the global economy” will eventually flow. Even for Altman, these missions are audacious. “If this really works, it’s like a fundamental piece of infrastructure for the world,” Altman tells TIME in a video interview from the passenger seat of a car a few days before his April 30 keynote address.Internal hardware of the Orb in mid-assembly in March. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe project’s goal is to solve a problem partly of Altman’s own making. In the near future, he and other tech leaders say, advanced AIs will be imbued with agency: the ability to not just respond to human prompting, but to take actions independently in the world. This will enable the creation of AI coworkers that can drop into your company and begin solving problems; AI tutors that can adapt their teaching style to students’ preferences; even AI doctors that can diagnose routine cases and handle scheduling or logistics. The arrival of these virtual agents, their venture capitalist backers predict, will turbocharge our productivity and unleash an age of material abundance.But AI agents will also have cascading consequences for the human experience online. “As AI systems become harder to distinguish from people, websites may face difficult trade-offs,” says a recent paper by researchers from 25 different universities, nonprofits, and tech companies, including OpenAI. “There is a significant risk that digital institutions will be unprepared for a time when AI-powered agents, including those leveraged by malicious actors, overwhelm other activity online.” On social-media platforms like X and Facebook, bot-driven accounts are amassing billions of views on AI-generated content. In April, the foundation that runs Wikipedia disclosed that AI bots scraping their site were making the encyclopedia too costly to sustainably run. Later the same month, researchers from the University of Zurich found that AI-generated comments on the subreddit /r/ChangeMyView were up to six times more successful than human-written ones at persuading unknowing users to change their minds.  Photograph by Davide Monteleone for TIMEBuy a copy of the Orb issue hereThe arrival of agents won’t only threaten our ability to distinguish between authentic and AI content online. It will also challenge the Internet’s core business model, online advertising, which relies on the assumption that ads are being viewed by humans. “The Internet will change very drastically sometime in the next 12 to 24 months,” says Tools for Humanity CEO Alex Blania. “So we have to succeed, or I’m not sure what else would happen.”For four years, Blania’s team has been testing the Orb’s hardware abroad. Now the U.S. rollout has arrived. Over the next 12 months, 7,500 Orbs will be arriving in dozens of American cities, in locations like gas stations, bodegas, and flagship stores in Los Angeles, Austin, and Miami. The project’s founders and fans hope the Orb’s U.S. debut will kickstart a new phase of growth. The San Francisco keynote was titled: “At Last.” It’s not clear the public appetite matches the exultant branding. Tools for Humanity has “verified” just 12 million humans since mid 2023, a pace Blania concedes is well behind schedule. Few online platforms currently support the so-called “World ID” that the Orb bestows upon its visitors, leaving little to entice users to give up their biometrics beyond the lure of free crypto. Even Altman isn’t sure whether the whole thing can work. “I can see [how] this becomes a fairly mainstream thing in a few years,” he says. “Or I can see that it’s still only used by a small subset of people who think about the world in a certain way.” Blania (left) and Altman debut the Orb at World’s U.S. launch in San Francisco on April 30, 2025. Jason Henry—The New York Times/ReduxYet as the Internet becomes overrun with AI, the creators of this strange new piece of hardware are betting that everybody in the world will soon want—or need—to visit an Orb. The biometric code it creates, they predict, will become a new type of digital passport, without which you might be denied passage to the Internet of the future, from dating apps to government services. In a best-case scenario, World ID could be a privacy-preserving way to fortify the Internet against an AI-driven deluge of fake or deceptive content. It could also enable the distribution of universal basic income (UBI)—a policy that Altman has previously touted—as AI automation transforms the global economy. To examine what this new technology might mean, I reported from three continents, interviewed 10 Tools for Humanity executives and investors, reviewed hundreds of pages of company documents, and “verified” my own humanity. The Internet will inevitably need some kind of proof-of-humanity system in the near future, says Divya Siddarth, founder of the nonprofit Collective Intelligence Project. The real question, she argues, is whether such a system will be centralized—“a big security nightmare that enables a lot of surveillance”—or privacy-preserving, as the Orb claims to be. Questions remain about Tools for Humanity’s corporate structure, its yoking to an unstable cryptocurrency, and what power it would concentrate in the hands of its owners if successful. Yet it’s also one of the only attempts to solve what many see as an increasingly urgent problem. “There are some issues with it,” Siddarth says of World ID. “But you can’t preserve the Internet in amber. Something in this direction is necessary.”In March, I met Blania at Tools for Humanity’s San Francisco headquarters, where a large screen displays the number of weekly “Orb verifications” by country. A few days earlier, the CEO had attended a $1 million-per-head dinner at Mar-a-Lago with President Donald Trump, whom he credits with clearing the way for the company’s U.S. launch by relaxing crypto regulations. “Given Sam is a very high profile target,” Blania says, “we just decided that we would let other companies fight that fight, and enter the U.S. once the air is clear.” As a kid growing up in Germany, Blania was a little different than his peers. “Other kids were, like, drinking a lot, or doing a lot of parties, and I was just building a lot of things that could potentially blow up,” he recalls. At the California Institute of Technology, where he was pursuing research for a masters degree, he spent many evenings reading the blogs of startup gurus like Paul Graham and Altman. Then, in 2019, Blania received an email from Max Novendstern, an entrepreneur who had been kicking around a concept with Altman to build a global cryptocurrency network. They were looking for technical minds to help with the project. Over cappuccinos, Altman told Blania he was certain about three things. First, smarter-than-human AI was not only possible, but inevitable—and it would soon mean you could no longer assume that anything you read, saw, or heard on the Internet was human-created. Second, cryptocurrency and other decentralized technologies would be a massive force for change in the world. And third, scale was essential to any crypto network’s value. The Orb is tested on a calibration rig, surrounded by checkerboard targets to ensure precision in iris detection. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe goal of Worldcoin, as the project was initially called, was to combine those three insights. Altman took a lesson from PayPal, the company co-founded by his mentor Peter Thiel. Of its initial funding, PayPal spent less than $10 million actually building its app—but pumped an additional $70 million or so into a referral program, whereby new users and the person who invited them would each receive $10 in credit. The referral program helped make PayPal a leading payment platform. Altman thought a version of that strategy would propel Worldcoin to similar heights. He wanted to create a new cryptocurrency and give it to users as a reward for signing up. The more people who joined the system, the higher the token’s value would theoretically rise. Since 2019, the project has raised $244 million from investors like Coinbase and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. That money paid for the $50 million cost of designing the Orb, plus maintaining the software it runs on. The total market value of all Worldcoins in existence, however, is far higher—around $12 billion. That number is a bit misleading: most of those coins are not in circulation and Worldcoin’s price has fluctuated wildly. Still, it allows the company to reward users for signing up at no cost to itself. The main lure for investors is the crypto upside. Some 75% of all Worldcoins are set aside for humans to claim when they sign up, or as referral bonuses. The remaining 25% are split between Tools for Humanity’s backers and staff, including Blania and Altman. “I’m really excited to make a lot of money,” ” Blania says.From the beginning, Altman was thinking about the consequences of the AI revolution he intended to unleash. (On May 21, he announced plans to team up with famed former Apple designer Jony Ive on a new AI personal device.) A future in which advanced AI could perform most tasks more effectively than humans would bring a wave of unemployment and economic dislocation, he reasoned. Some kind of wealth redistribution might be necessary. In 2016, he partially funded a study of basic income, which gave $1,000 per-month handouts to low-income individuals in Illinois and Texas. But there was no single financial system that would allow money to be sent to everybody in the world. Nor was there a way to stop an individual human from claiming their share twice—or to identify a sophisticated AI pretending to be human and pocketing some cash of its own. In 2023, Tools for Humanity raised the possibility of using the network to redistribute the profits of AI labs that were able to automate human labor. “As AI advances,” it said, “fairly distributing access and some of the created value through UBI will play an increasingly vital role in counteracting the concentration of economic power.”Blania was taken by the pitch, and agreed to join the project as a co-founder. “Most people told us we were very stupid or crazy or insane, including Silicon Valley investors,” Blania says. At least until ChatGPT came out in 2022, transforming OpenAI into one of the world’s most famous tech companies and kickstarting a market bull-run. “Things suddenly started to make more and more sense to the external world,” Blania says of the vision to develop a global “proof-of-humanity” network. “You have to imagine a world in which you will have very smart and competent systems somehow flying through the Internet with different goals and ideas of what they want to do, and us having no idea anymore what we’re dealing with.”After our interview, Blania’s head of communications ushers me over to a circular wooden structure where eight Orbs face one another. The scene feels like a cross between an Apple Store and a ceremonial altar. “Do you want to get verified?” she asks. Putting aside my reservations for the purposes of research, I download the World App and follow its prompts. I flash a QR code at the Orb, then gaze into it. A minute or so later, my phone buzzes with confirmation: I’ve been issued my own personal World ID and some Worldcoin.The first thing the Orb does is check if you’re human, using a neural network that takes input from various sensors, including an infrared camera and a thermometer. Davide Monteleone for TIMEWhile I stared into the Orb, several complex procedures had taken place at once. A neural network took inputs from multiple sensors—an infrared camera, a thermometer—to confirm I was a living human. Simultaneously, a telephoto lens zoomed in on my iris, capturing the physical traits within that distinguish me from every other human on Earth. It then converted that image into an iris code: a numerical abstraction of my unique biometric data. Then the Orb checked to see if my iris code matched any it had seen before, using a technique allowing encrypted data to be compared without revealing the underlying information. Before the Orb deleted my data, it turned my iris code into several derivative codes—none of which on its own can be linked back to the original—encrypted them, deleted the only copies of the decryption keys, and sent each one to a different secure server, so that future users’ iris codes can be checked for uniqueness against mine. If I were to use my World ID to access a website, that site would learn nothing about me except that I’m human. The Orb is open-source, so outside experts can examine its code and verify the company’s privacy claims. “I did a colonoscopy on this company and these technologies before I agreed to join,” says Trevor Traina, a Trump donor and former U.S. ambassador to Austria who now serves as Tools for Humanity’s chief business officer. “It is the most privacy-preserving technology on the planet.”Only weeks later, when researching what would happen if I wanted to delete my data, do I discover that Tools for Humanity’s privacy claims rest on what feels like a sleight of hand. The company argues that in modifying your iris code, it has “effectively anonymized” your biometric data. If you ask Tools for Humanity to delete your iris codes, they will delete the one stored on your phone, but not the derivatives. Those, they argue, are no longer your personal data at all. But if I were to return to an Orb after deleting my data, it would still recognize those codes as uniquely mine. Once you look into the Orb, a piece of your identity remains in the system forever. If users could truly delete that data, the premise of one ID per human would collapse, Tools for Humanity’s chief privacy officer Damien Kieran tells me when I call seeking an explanation. People could delete and sign up for new World IDs after being suspended from a platform. Or claim their Worldcoin tokens, sell them, delete their data, and cash in again. This argument fell flat with European Union regulators in Germany, who recently declared that the Orb posed “fundamental data protection issues” and ordered the company to allow European users to fully delete even their anonymized data. (Tools for Humanity has appealed; the regulator is now reassessing the decision.) “Just like any other technology service, users cannot delete data that is not personal data,” Kieran said in a statement. “If a person could delete anonymized data that can’t be linked to them by World or any third party, it would allow bad actors to circumvent the security and safety that World ID is working to bring to every human.”On a balmy afternoon this spring, I climb a flight of stairs up to a room above a restaurant in an outer suburb of Seoul. Five elderly South Koreans tap on their phones as they wait to be “verified” by the two Orbs in the center of the room. “We don’t really know how to distinguish between AI and humans anymore,” an attendant in a company t-shirt explains in Korean, gesturing toward the spheres. “We need a way to verify that we’re human and not AI. So how do we do that? Well, humans have irises, but AI doesn’t.”The attendant ushers an elderly woman over to an Orb. It bleeps. “Open your eyes,” a disembodied voice says in English. The woman stares into the camera. Seconds later, she checks her phone and sees that a packet of Worldcoin worth 75,000 Korean won (about $54) has landed in her digital wallet. Congratulations, the app tells her. You are now a verified human.A visitor views the Orbs in Seoul on April 14, 2025. Taemin Ha for TIMETools for Humanity aims to “verify” 1 million Koreans over the next year. Taemin Ha for TIMEA couple dozen Orbs have been available in South Korea since 2023, verifying roughly 55,000 people. Now Tools for Humanity is redoubling its efforts there. At an event in a traditional wooden hanok house in central Seoul, an executive announces that 250 Orbs will soon be dispersed around the country—with the aim of verifying 1 million Koreans in the next 12 months. South Korea has high levels of smartphone usage, crypto and AI adoption, and Internet access, while average wages are modest enough for the free Worldcoin on offer to still be an enticing draw—all of which makes it fertile testing ground for the company’s ambitious global expansion. Yet things seem off to a slow start. In a retail space I visited in central Seoul, Tools for Humanity had constructed a wooden structure with eight Orbs facing each other. Locals and tourists wander past looking bemused; few volunteer themselves up. Most who do tell me they are crypto enthusiasts who came intentionally, driven more by the spirit of early adoption than the free coins. The next day, I visit a coffee shop in central Seoul where a chrome Orb sits unassumingly in one corner. Wu Ruijun, a 20-year-old student from China, strikes up a conversation with the barista, who doubles as the Orb’s operator. Wu was invited here by a friend who said both could claim free cryptocurrency if he signed up. The barista speeds him through the process. Wu accepts the privacy disclosure without reading it, and widens his eyes for the Orb. Soon he’s verified. “I wasn’t told anything about the privacy policy,” he says on his way out. “I just came for the money.”As Altman’s car winds through San Francisco, I ask about the vision he laid out in 2019: that AI would make it harder for us to trust each other online. To my surprise, he rejects the framing. “I’m much more [about] like: what is the good we can create, rather than the bad we can stop?” he says. “It’s not like, ‘Oh, we’ve got to avoid the bot overrun’ or whatever. It’s just that we can do a lot of special things for humans.” It’s an answer that may reflect how his role has changed over the years. Altman is now the chief public cheerleader of a $300 billion company that’s touting the transformative utility of AI agents. The rise of agents, he and others say, will be a boon for our quality of life—like having an assistant on hand who can answer your most pressing questions, carry out mundane tasks, and help you develop new skills. It’s an optimistic vision that may well pan out. But it doesn’t quite fit with the prophecies of AI-enabled infopocalypse that Tools for Humanity was founded upon.Altman waves away a question about the influence he and other investors stand to gain if their vision is realized. Most holders, he assumes, will have already started selling their tokens—too early, he adds. “What I think would be bad is if an early crew had a lot of control over the protocol,” he says, “and that’s where I think the commitment to decentralization is so cool.” Altman is referring to the World Protocol, the underlying technology upon which the Orb, Worldcoin, and World ID all rely. Tools for Humanity is developing it, but has committed to giving control to its users over time—a process they say will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of a few executives or investors. Tools for Humanity would remain a for-profit company, and could levy fees on platforms that use World ID, but other companies would be able to compete for customers by building alternative apps—or even alternative Orbs. The plan draws on ideas that animated the crypto ecosystem in the late 2010s and early 2020s, when evangelists for emerging blockchain technologies argued that the centralization of power—especially in large so-called “Web 2.0” tech companies—was responsible for many of the problems plaguing the modern Internet. Just as decentralized cryptocurrencies could reform a financial system controlled by economic elites, so too would it be possible to create decentralized organizations, run by their members instead of CEOs. How such a system might work in practice remains unclear. “Building a community-based governance system,” Tools for Humanity says in a 2023 white paper, “represents perhaps the most formidable challenge of the entire project.”Altman has a pattern of making idealistic promises that shift over time. He founded OpenAI as a nonprofit in 2015, with a mission to develop AGI safely and for the benefit of all humanity. To raise money, OpenAI restructured itself as a for-profit company in 2019, but with overall control still in the hands of its nonprofit board. Last year, Altman proposed yet another restructure—one which would dilute the board’s control and allow more profits to flow to shareholders. Why, I ask, should the public trust Tools for Humanity’s commitment to freely surrender influence and power? “I think you will just see the continued decentralization via the protocol,” he says. “The value here is going to live in the network, and the network will be owned and governed by a lot of people.” Altman talks less about universal basic income these days. He recently mused about an alternative, which he called “universal basic compute.” Instead of AI companies redistributing their profits, he seemed to suggest, they could instead give everyone in the world fair access to super-powerful AI. Blania tells me he recently “made the decision to stop talking” about UBI at Tools for Humanity. “UBI is one potential answer,” he says. “Just giving [people] access to the latest [AI] models and having them learn faster and better is another.” Says Altman: “I still don’t know what the right answer is. I believe we should do a better job of distribution of resources than we currently do.” When I probe the question of why people should trust him, Altman gets irritated. “I understand that you hate AI, and that’s fine,” he says. “If you want to frame it as the downside of AI is that there’s going to be a proliferation of very convincing AI systems that are pretending to be human, and we need ways to know what is really human-authorized versus not, then yeah, I think you can call that a downside of AI. It’s not how I would naturally frame it.” The phrase human-authorized hints at a tension between World ID and OpenAI’s plans for AI agents. An Internet where a World ID is required to access most services might impede the usefulness of the agents that OpenAI and others are developing. So Tools for Humanity is building a system that would allow users to delegate their World ID to an agent, allowing the bot to take actions online on their behalf, according to Tiago Sada, the company’s chief product officer. “We’ve built everything in a way that can be very easily delegatable to an agent,” Sada says. It’s a measure that would allow humans to be held accountable for the actions of their AIs. But it suggests that Tools for Humanity’s mission may be shifting beyond simply proving humanity, and toward becoming the infrastructure that enables AI agents to proliferate with human authorization. World ID doesn’t tell you whether a piece of content is AI-generated or human-generated; all it tells you is whether the account that posted it is a human or a bot. Even in a world where everybody had a World ID, our online spaces might still be filled with AI-generated text, images, and videos.As I say goodbye to Altman, I’m left feeling conflicted about his project. If the Internet is going to be transformed by AI agents, then some kind of proof-of-humanity system will almost certainly be necessary. Yet if the Orb becomes a piece of Internet infrastructure, it could give Altman—a beneficiary of the proliferation of AI content—significant influence over a leading defense mechanism against it. People might have no choice but to participate in the network in order to access social media or online services.I thought of an encounter I witnessed in Seoul. In the room above the restaurant, Cho Jeong-yeon, 75, watched her friend get verified by an Orb. Cho had been invited to do the same, but demurred. The reward wasn’t enough for her to surrender a part of her identity. “Your iris is uniquely yours, and we don’t really know how it might be used,” she says. “Seeing the machine made me think: are we becoming machines instead of humans now? Everything is changing, and we don’t know how it’ll all turn out.”—With reporting by Stephen Kim/Seoul. This story was supported by Tarbell Grants.Correction, May 30The original version of this story misstated the market capitalization of Worldcoin if all coins were in circulation. It is $12 billion, not $1.2 billion.