A significant cyber breach at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) that saw scammers cheat the public purse out of approximately £47m has been met with dismay from security experts thanks to the sheer simplicity of the attack, which originated via account takeover attempts on legitimate taxpayers. HMRC disclosed the breach to a Treasury Select Committee this week, revealing that hackers accessed the online accounts of about 100,000 people via phishing attacks and managed to claim a significant amount of money in tax rebates before being stopped. It is understood that those individuals affected have been contacted by HMRC – they have not personally lost any money and are not themselves in any trouble. Arrests in the case have already been made. During proceedings, HMRC also came in for criticism by the committee’s chair Meg Hillier, who had learned about the via an earlier news report on the matter, over the length of time taken to come clean over the incident. With phishing emails sent to unwitting taxpayers identified as the initial attack vector for the scammers, HMRC might feel relieved that it has dodged full blame for the incident. But according to Will Richmond-Coggan, a partner specialising in data and cyber disputes at law firm Freeths, even though the tax office had gone to pains to stress its own systems were never actually compromised, the incident underscored just how widespread the consequences of cyber attacks can be – snowballing from simple origins into a multimillion pound loss. “It is clear from HMRC's explanation that the crime against HMRC was only possible because of earlier data breaches and cyber attacks,” said Richmond-Coggan. “Those earlier attacks put personal data in the hands of the criminals which enabled them to impersonate tax payers and apply successfully to claim back tax.” Meanwhile, Gerasim Hovhannisyan, CEO of EasyDMARC, an email security provider, pointed out that phishing against both private individuals and businesses and other organisations had long ago moved beyond the domain of scammers chancing their luck. While this type of scattergun fraud remains a potent threat, particularly to consumers who may not be informed about cyber security matters – the scale of the HMRC phish surely suggests a targeted operation, likely using carefully crafted email purporting to represent HMRC itself, designed to lure self-assessment taxpayers into handing over their accounts. Not only that, but generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) means targeted phishing operations have become exponentially more dangerous in a very short space of time, added Hovhannisyan. “[It] has made [phishing] scalable, polished, and dangerously convincing, often indistinguishable from legitimate communication. And while many organisations have strengthened their security perimeters, email remains the most consistently exploited and underestimated attack vector,” he said. “These scams exploit human trust, using urgency, authority, and increasingly realistic impersonation tactics. If HMRC can be phished, anyone can.” Added Hovhannisyan: “What’s more alarming is that the Treasury Select Committee only learned of the breach through the news. When £47m is stolen through impersonation, institutions can’t afford to stay quiet. Delayed disclosure erodes trust, stalls response, and gives attackers room to manoeuvre.” Once again a service’s end-users have turned out to be the source of a cyber attack and as such, whether they are internal or – as in this case – external, are often considered an organisation’s first line of defence. However, it is not always wise to take this approach, and for an organisation like HMRC daily engaging with members of the public, it is also not really possible. Security education is a difficult proposition at the best of times and although the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) provides extensive advice and guidance on spotting and dealing with phishing emails for consumers – it also operates a phishing reporting service that as of April 2025 has received over 41 million scam reports – bodies like HMRC cannot rely on everybody having visited the NCSC’s website. As such, Mike Britton, chief information officer (CIO) at Abnormal AI, a specialist in phishing, social engineering and account takeover prevention, argued that HMRC could and should have done more from a technical perspective. “Governments will always be a high tier target for cyber criminals due to the valuable information they hold. In fact, attacks against this sector are rising,” he said. “In this case, it looks like criminals utilised account take over to conduct fraud. To combat this, multifactor authentication (MFA) is key, but as attacks grow more sophisticated, further steps must be taken.” Britton said organisations like HMRC really needed to consider adopting more layered security strategies, not only including MFA but also incorporating wider visibility and unified controls across its IT systems. Account takeover attacks such as the ones seen in this incident can unfold quickly, he added, so its cyber function should also be equipped with the tools to identify and remediate compromised accounts on the fly. Read more about trends in phishing Quishing, meaning QR code phishing, is an offputting term for an on-the-rise attack method. Learn how to defend against it. A healthy dose of judicious skepticism is crucial to preventing phishing attacks, said David Fine, supervisory special agent at the FBI, during a presentation at a HIMSS event. Exchange admins got a boost from Microsoft when it improved how it handles DMARC authentication failures to help organisations fight back from email-based attacks on their users.

June 3, 20255 min readAre We Ready for Death in Space?NASA has quietly taken steps to prepare for a death in space. We need to ask how nations will deal with this inevitability now, as more people start traveling off the planetBy Peter Cummings edited by Lee Billings SciePro/Science Photo Library/Getty ImagesIn 2012 NASA stealthily slipped a morgue into orbit.No press release. No fanfare. Just a sealed, soft-sided pouch tucked in a cargo shipment to the International Space Station (ISS) alongside freeze-dried meals and scientific gear. Officially, it was called the Human Remains Containment Unit (HRCU). To the untrained eye it looked like a shipping bag for frozen cargo. But to NASA it marked something far more sobering: a major advance in preparing for death beyond Earth.As a kid, I obsessed over how astronauts went to the bathroom in zero gravity. Now, decades later, as a forensic pathologist and a perennial applicant to NASA’s astronaut corps, I find myself fixated on a darker, more haunting question: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.What would happen if an astronaut died out there? Would they be brought home, or would they be left behind? If they expired on some other world, would that be their final resting place? If they passed away on a spacecraft or space station, would their remains be cast off into orbit—or sent on an escape-velocity voyage to the interstellar void?NASA, it turns out, has begun working out most of these answers. And none too soon. Because the question itself is no longer if someone will die in space—but when.A Graying CorpsNo astronaut has ever died of natural causes off-world. In 1971 the three-man crew of the Soviet Soyuz 11 mission asphyxiated in space when their spacecraft depressurized shortly before its automated atmospheric reentry—but their deaths were only discovered once the spacecraft landed on Earth. Similarly, every U.S. spaceflight fatality to date has occurred within Earth’s atmosphere—under gravity, oxygen and a clear national jurisdiction. That matters, because it means every spaceflight mortality has played out in familiar territory.But planned missions are getting longer, with destinations beyond low-Earth orbit. And NASA’s astronaut corps is getting older. The average age now hovers around 50—an age bracket where natural death becomes statistically relevant, even for clean-living fitness buffs. Death in space is no longer a thought experiment. It’s a probability curve—and NASA knows it.In response, the agency is making subtle but decisive moves. The most recent astronaut selection cycle was extended—not only to boost intake but also to attract younger crew members capable of handling future long-duration missions.NASA’s Space MorgueIf someone were to die aboard the ISS today, their body would be placed in the HRCU, which would then be sealed and secured in a nonpressurized area to await eventual return to Earth.The HRCU itself is a modified version of a military-grade body bag designed to store human remains in hazardous environments. It integrates with refrigeration systems already aboard the ISS to slow decomposition and includes odor-control filters and moisture-absorbent linings, as well as reversed zippers for respectful access at the head. There are straps to secure the body in a seat for return, and patches for name tags and national flags.Cadaver tests conducted in 2019 at Sam Houston State University have proved the system durable. Some versions held for over 40 days before decomposition breached the barrier. NASA even drop-tested the bag from 19 feet to simulate a hard landing.But it’s never been used in space. And since no one yet knows how a body decomposes in true microgravity (or, for that matter, on the moon), no one can really say whether the HRCU would preserve tissue well enough for a forensic autopsy.This is a troubling knowledge gap, because in space, a death isn’t just a tragic loss—it’s also a vital data point. Was an astronaut’s demise from a fluke of their physiology, or an unavoidable stroke of cosmic bad luck—or was it instead a consequence of flaws in a space habitat’s myriad systems that might be found and fixed? Future lives may depend on understanding what went wrong, via a proper postmortem investigation.But there’s no medical examiner in orbit. So NASA trains its crews in something called the In-Mission Forensic Sample Collection protocol. The space agency’s astronauts may avoid talking about it, but they all have it memorized: Document everything, ideally with real-time guidance from NASA flight surgeons. Photograph the body. Collect blood and vitreous fluid, as well as hair and tissue samples. Only then can the remains be stowed in the HRCU.NASA has also prepared for death outside the station—on spacewalks, the moon or deep space missions. If a crew member perishes in vacuum but their remains are retrieved, the body is wrapped in a specially designed space shroud.The goal isn’t just a technical matter of preventing contamination. It’s psychological, too, as a way of preserving dignity. Of all the “firsts” any space agency hopes to achieve, the first-ever human corpse drifting into frame on a satellite feed is not among them.If a burial must occur—in lunar regolith or by jettisoning into solar orbit—the body will be dutifully tracked and cataloged, treated forevermore as a hallowed artifact of space history.Such gestures are also of relevance to NASA’s plans for off-world mourning; grief and memorial protocols are now part of official crew training. If a death occurs, surviving astronauts are tasked with holding a simple ceremony to honor the fallen—then to move on with their mission.Uncharted RealmsSo far we’ve only covered the “easy” questions. NASA and others are still grappling with harder ones.Consider the issue of authority over a death and mortal remains. On the ISS, it’s simple: the deceased astronaut’s home country retains jurisdiction. But that clarity fades as destinations grow more distant and the voyages more diverse: What really happens on space-agency missions to the moon, or to Mars? How might rules change for commercial or multinational spaceflights—or, for that matter, the private space stations and interplanetary settlements that are envisioned by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and other tech multibillionaires?NASA and its partners have started drafting frameworks, like the Artemis Accords—agreements signed by more than 50 nations to govern behavior in space. But even those don’t address many intimate details of death.What happens, for instance, if foul play is suspected?The Outer Space Treaty, a legal document drafted in 1967 under the United Nations that is humanity’s foundational set of rules for orbit and beyond, doesn’t say.Of course, not everything can be planned for in advance. And NASA has done an extraordinary job of keeping astronauts in orbit alive. But as more people venture into space, and as the frontier stretches to longer voyages and farther destinations, it becomes a statistical certainty that sooner or later someone won’t come home.When that happens, it won’t just be a tragedy. It will be a test. A test of our systems, our ethics and our ability to adapt to a new dimension of mortality. To some, NASA’s preparations for astronautical death may seem merely morbid, even silly—but that couldn’t be further from the truth.Space won’t care of course, whenever it claims more lives. But we will. And rising to that grim occasion with reverence, rigor and grace will define not just policy out in the great beyond—but what it means to be human there, too.

Despite its appearance as just another arcady sandbox game, Deliver At All Costs is shockingly story-minded. So much so, that its constant focus on narrative might deter those just looking for some dumb fun. And after seeing the narrative through to the end, I wouldn’t blame them, given how hard the game tries to be a grand tapestry of storytelling excellence. The adventure is structured into three acts, each with a unique town to explore and complete missions in. One act even features a time skip accompanied by a moment of no return. So even if you just want to ignore story and focus on acing deliveries and causing mayhem in the streets, you still have to go through some cutscenes and narrative progression to unlock the next towns and side missions.   "The majority of the side content in Deliver At All Costs isn’t very enticing." Not that the side missions are worth doing anyway. The majority of side content in Deliver At All Costs isn’t very enticing. The rewards aren’t worth it and the fetch quest design doesn’t warrant the effort. I’d only recommend going out of your way for the side content if you’re already keen on exploring the various maps. The treasure chests and small boxes hidden throughout the game give cash that is used on materials for vehicle upgrades; however, a majority of upgrades can be purchased from the main story mission rewards anyway. I expected to have fun with the vehicle upgrades, but ended up sorely disappointed in their limited application. This is because upgrades cannot be used outside of curated story missions; bummer. Not that the crane attachment or extreme hauling capacity upgrade aren’t fun to play with; they are rather fun, but exclusively used for their particular missions. Again, if you’re expected a zany vehicular sandbox with a lot of options and unlockables, Deliver At All Costs isn’t that. The reason I keep associating the game with sandbox playability is due to its map design. It has an old-school 2D Grand Theft Auto style of isometric driving. In between story missions, you’re given the leisure to roam around town freely. All of your driving and running around is done through a top-down isometric camera angle that gives the environments a nice diorama look to them, and what’s more, you can move the camera between two different angles in case it’s difficult to see something. "Speaking of scenery, there’s a surprising amount of activity going on while you’re driving around delivering stuff." All the unique shops and landmarks of this diorama give off a classic vibe well. Oh, and the soundtrack fits the setting wonderfully. Lounge jazz and instrumental surfer rock accompany your deliveries, and it rarely gets repetitive. Tying it into GTA even more is the radio, with infrequent broadcasts that add flavor lore to the setting. Each town has multiple districts, each with their own theme, which helps vary up the scenery just that much more. Speaking of scenery, there’s a surprising amount of activity going on while you’re driving around delivering stuff. NPCs go about their business, birds glide across the sky, and plenty of vehicle traffic accompany the streets. In fact, there’s often a tad too much activity. Streets are so packed with cars and people that collisions are unavoidable. "NPCs roam the streets and become aggressive when threatened." I like how populated the game is, but it’s tuned a bit too high, getting in the way of enjoyability a lot of the time. Perhaps, it would have been better balanced to up the street traffic the further you get into the game, especially since the towns progress from rural to metropolitan through the course of the narrative. At the very least, there’s an attractive mini-map with well designed labels and indicators. Navigation is aided with helpful arrows showing the way to a mission destination too. But you aren’t merely delivering parcels to a destination in a given time limit; there’s a variety of ways the game mixes up its missions. Part of the game’s initial draw is its physics-based driving, which manifests in hilarious ways. One of the first missions tasks you with delivering a truck full of rotted watermelons. The first step is to bring them to a sanitizer, then you paint them so they look presentable, all while avoiding traffic and trying not to knock them over as they roll around in the back of the truck. It’s one of the enjoyable missions in the game, and one that demonstrates the physics gameplay best. I like how the missions get progressively more wacky and clever as you progress too. You even become a UFO hunter during one late-game job. It’s just too bad the very high traffic and wonky controls hamper the overall experience. "I like how the missions get progressively more wacky and clever as you progress." The driving controls are rather simple. Just aim in the direction you want to drive and hold the accelerate button. It’s the high sensitivity of the acceleration and the hard braking and turning that contribute to a somewhat frustrating experience. The high traffic just further compounds the controls to make for a somewhat clunky driving experience. Vehicles don’t differ in how they drive either, though you really only have the one truck for a large majority of the game anyway, so it doesn’t really make a difference. And the cars aren’t great to look at either. Heck, nothing looks particularly nice in the game, especially the characters. Facial animations are frankly bad and the bland art style doesn’t make up for the graphical shortcomings. What’s worse is there’s still some pretty substantial load times in-between regions, which hurts the flow of the open-world. But the element that gets hurt from graphics the most is the mixed story. It’s hard to take the drama seriously when its presented so poorly. There’s an attempt at cinematic camera angles during cutscenes, but textures are featureless and close-ups of people’s faces are serious PS1 quality stuff. Thankfully, a handful of characters are quite likable despite what their low poly models suggest. Winston’s delivery mates have surprising depth and a good amount of backstory. And Winston himself is a fully fledged personality and someone you can imagine working with. "Winston’s delivery mates have surprising depth and a good amount of backstory." Characters like Norman are instantly likeable while Winston’s arch-nemesis and hardline boss, Donovon, is perfectly punchable. I’m also impressed with a majority of the dialogue writing. Characters speak with a down-to-earth tone and level of informality that makes them realistic, even if they look like untextured Unity assets. Going back to where I started the review, the game goes surprisingly hard on the story axis, but it doesn’t fully land for me. The wacky yet earnest tone is great, but the execution of the plot doesn’t wrap up in a satisfying way. Winston’s mysterious past and the true motives of the delivery company’s executives had so much potential for an intriguing narrative thread. But alas, the finale just kinda falls flat without the payoff that the game was teasing. "The game goes surprisingly hard on the story front, but it didn’t fully land for me." As a whole, Delivery At All Costs delivers a zany and fun, though frustrating, isometric delivery experience with a story that tries a bit too hard. I can easily see this game being a cult classic, but for a majority of gamers, it won’t deliver a truly stunning experience. If you’re looking for a game with a wacky and inventive premise that experiments a bit, and don’t mind gameplay and graphics from three generations ago, give Deliver At All Costs a try and it might just deliver. This game was reviewed on the PlayStation 5.

It may be time to suck it up — and we don't just mean the carbon in the atmosphere. No, we're talking about reckoning with the possibility that our attempts at capturing the greenhouse gas to stave off climate disaster are already hopelessly behind schedule, New Scientist reports, if they're not in vain entirely.To illustrate, here're some simple numbers. The CO2 removal industry expects to hit a milestone of removing one million metric tons of CO2 this year. And companies across the globe have bought carbon credits to remove 27 million more, according to data from CDR.fyi cited in the reporting (more on these carbon credit schemes in a moment).That sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. As New Scientist notes, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the leading authority on these issues — concluded in a 2022 report that we need to be removing up to 16 billion tons of carbon, not millions, each year to keep the rise in global temperature from exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming by the middle of the century, past which the most drastic effects of climate change are believed to be irreversible."It's not scaling up as fast as it would need to if we are going to reach multiple gigatons by 2050," Robert Höglund at Marginal Carbon, a climate consultancy based in Sweden, told the magazine. Carbon capture is not the be-all and end-all. The fact remains that humanity needs to drastically reduce its emissions, which probably means reorganizing society — or at least its energy production and consumption — as we know it. Simply removing the CO2 that's already there is more like a band-aid that buys us a little time; eventually, we'll need to rip it off.For these reasons, some critics fear that carbon capture — and even more drastic interventions, like attempting to dim the Sun — could distract from the climate change's systemic causes. But there's a lot of enthusiasm for the approach all the same, both from scientists and investors. The IPCC acknowledged in its 2022 report that carbon removal was "unavoidable" — as in, essential to meeting climate targets.One popular method of carbon removal is called direct air capture, which involves sucking the carbon straight from the air using massive industrial facilities. A more circuitous approach that's gaining steam involves extracting CO2 out of the ocean, freeing up room for the world's largest carbon sink to passively absorb even more of the greenhouse gas. All of these initiatives, though, are basically just getting off the ground. And the corporate investment, which once promised billions of dollars in cash, seems to be cooling. More than 90 percent of all carbon removal credits sold this year were bought by a single company, Microsoft, New Scientist notes, probably to gloss over its egregious energy bill it's accrued from building loads of AI datacenters.This also touches on the fact that the practice of buying carbon credits can be used as a means of corporate greenwashing. By paying to another firm to "certify" that they will remove a certain amount of carbon at some undetermined point in the future, a company can report a greener carbon balance sheet without actually reducing its emissions.In any case, staking the industry's hopes on corporate munificence is a dicey prospect indeed."I have been raising the alarm for about a year and a half," Eli Mitchell-Larson at Carbon Gap, a UK carbon dioxide removal advocacy organisation, told New Scientist. "If we're just waiting for the waves of free philanthropic money from corporations to fill a hole on their sustainability report, we're not really going to solve the problem."More on climate change: Scientists Just Found Who's Causing Global WarmingShare This Article

Xando Member Oct 28, 2017 38,006 With the launch of Call of Duty Season 4, Activision quietly put adverts inside loadouts for Black Ops 6 and Warzone, sparking a backlash in the process. Activision already has a bad reputation for the aggressive monetization of the premium Black Ops 6 and its free-to-play battle royale Warzone, but this latest move may have tipped some players over the edge. Following the launch of Season 4, adverts for weapon bundles can be seen in the build and weapon menus. These are unavoidable for players as they tinker with their loadouts. Elsewhere, Activision has added bundle and Battle Pass advertisements to the Events tab, another controversial change that has caused complaints. Here's a snippet of the response, sourced from across Call of Duty subreddits, Discords, and social media: I wouldn't even be mad if this was just in Warzone, a free game, but putting it in a pay-to-play premium title, with how expensive they're getting? F**k off. This game is still 80€ I get that they make most of their money from the store, but I feel like the bare minimum for a premium product would be to not have ads clogging the menus right? At this point it really feels like opening up a mobile game with how much more you see an option to buy anything in this game. Anyone who wanted this bundle would've checked the store and bought it. Putting it here isn't gonna make more people buy it, its justannoying. Just wait until they add pop up ads for bundles while you are playing the game. Click to expand... Click to shrink... More including some examples here: Activision Quietly Force Adverts into Call of Duty Black Ops 6 and Warzone Loadouts and Players Absolutely Hate It: 'At This Point It Really Feels Like Opening Up a Mobile Game' - IGN With the launch of Call of Duty Season 4, Activision quietly put adverts inside loadouts for Black Ops 6 and Warzone, sparking a backlash in the process. www.ign.com   Gaspode Member Jan 17, 2025 152 gross   MarcosBrXD Member Aug 28, 2024 1,779 Crazy one of the biggest IPs doing this   Wallace Member Oct 25, 2017 28,182 Midwest What a shit franchise.   Shirkelton Member Aug 20, 2020 6,976 Fuck that.   MinerArcaniner Uncle Works at Nintendo Member Oct 29, 2017 7,473 The revenue line has to keep going up. There's no such thing as "enough" with corporations.   Kinthey Avenger Oct 27, 2017 25,551 Poor Cod really needs the money to keep the lights on   skullmuffins Member Oct 25, 2017 7,615 oh, ads for in-game microtransactions. guess i'm not surprised. that's where all the money is these days.   Remark Member Oct 27, 2017 4,184 Yeah the ads are so bad this season. When you boot up the game in CoD HQ, theres a big ass button for Blackcell and BO6 and WZ are all the way on the right side of the menu. It's so annoying. Huge disrespect to the people who actually bought the game. I wish CoD HQ would go away, it doesn't even actually help with anything and actually hampers the UX experience in a lot of ways especially on PC.  Last edited: Today at 10:14 AM LiquidDom Avenger Oct 27, 2017 2,730 Wait it's just ads for the in-game purchases? Not outside ads that have nothing to do with the game? I don't have that much of an issue with it, still shit though.  Richietto One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 26,147 North Carolina Lmao what a joke   Loxley Prophet of Truth Member Oct 25, 2017 10,702 We're inching closer and closer to this scene from Ready Player One. "We estimate we can sell up to 80% of an individual's visual field before inducing seizures" View: https://youtu.be/KpPE85Jogjw?si=Di0mlmiF27KidwWs  Fabs Member Aug 22, 2019 2,780 This doesn't seem that different than like Fortnite advertising the shop updates in the main menu. It's fairly harmless.   Noisepurge Corrupted by Vengeance Member Oct 25, 2017 9,775 Fabs said: This doesn't seem that different than like Fortnite advertising the shop updates in the main menu. It's fairly harmless. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Fortnite doesn't cost 80$  OP OP Xando Member Oct 28, 2017 38,006 LiquidDom said: Wait it's just ads for the in-game purchases? Not outside ads that have nothing to do with the game? I don't have that much of an issue with it, still shit though. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Considering half of the in-game purchases are basically ads for some brands or characters that have nothing to do with COD it's basically the same thing   Remark Member Oct 27, 2017 4,184 Noisepurge said: Fortnite doesn't cost 80$ Click to expand... Click to shrink... To be fair, Warzone is F2P but that shit should be in there. Whether you buy the game or not, you have to go through CoD HQ which is so annoying.   Doskoi Panda One Winged Slayer Member Oct 27, 2017 17,314 CoD is so fucking trashy lmao. I will never understand how it remains so popular. It just gets worse year over yesr, even Warzone.   SunBroDave "This guy are sick" Member Oct 25, 2017 15,148 How else is COD supposed to make money   Decarb Member Oct 27, 2017 9,264 Fabs said: This doesn't seem that different than like Fortnite advertising the shop updates in the main menu. It's fairly harmless. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Not only is it in a full priced mode, but its also in the weapon customization menu where you least expect it.   Agni Kai Member Nov 2, 2017 10,037 Only Battlefield 6 can save us now. Hold the line, my friends. Hold the line.   jroc74 Member Oct 27, 2017 34,177 Yeah I dont think it needs to be this aggressive. LiquidDom said: Wait it's just ads for the in-game purchases? Not outside ads that have nothing to do with the game? I don't have that much of an issue with it, still shit though. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Fabs said: This doesn't seem that different than like Fortnite advertising the shop updates in the main menu. It's fairly harmless. Click to expand... Click to shrink... While trying to play the game tho? "Following the launch of Season 4, adverts for weapon bundles can be seen in the build and weapon menus. These are unavoidable for players as they tinker with their loadouts." Imagine getting hit with Shark Card ads while browsing the in game stores in GTA Online....please Rockstar dont do this. Noisepurge said: Fortnite doesn't cost 80$ Click to expand... Click to shrink... Also this.  BradleyLove Member Oct 29, 2017 1,661 Doesn't surprise me. I bought Forza Horizon for PS5 a few days ago and was shocked to encounter unskippable ads for DLC. The American obsession with forcing ads everywhere they can is horrible. This reply was brought to you by NEW Mountain Dew—new look, same bold refreshing flavour.  TransEuropaExpress Member Dec 6, 2017 11,420 US They should go all in and start doing random 5-minute commercial breaks in the middle of rounds.   Pyro God help us the mods are making weekend threads Member Jul 30, 2018 18,922 United States Really fucking gross.   Vourlis Member Aug 14, 2022 5,911 United States I...where are the ads? edit: Oh like advertising the bundles or whatever. Okay.  jroc74 Member Oct 27, 2017 34,177 BradleyLove said: Doesn't surprise me. I bought Forza Horizon for PS5 a few days ago and was shocked to encounter unskippable ads for DLC. The American obsession with forcing ads everywhere they can is horrible. This reply was brought to you by NEW Mountain Dew—new look, same bold refreshing flavour. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I either forgot how it was or just didnt know, because I played it on XSX when it launched. But I was and am shocked at the mtx in FH5.  shadowman16 Member Oct 25, 2017 41,804 I feel like this has already become too normalised because I honestly assumed we were talking about unrelated product ads... Meanwhile the examples above... honestly I kinda expected. Granted the article also points it out perfectly that if it were just in Warzone (free) it'd be... less bad, but charging however much for COD THEN pushing those ads on you... you just know people will crack. Not the worst example of ads in games though, I still give that to SFVI's Turtles costumes, aside the cost, having that damn song playing constantly in the battle hub for month(s) on end drove me nuts at the time.  Papaya The Fallen Oct 25, 2017 2,735 California The financial model for CoD is awful and lacks any sort of creativity. They just copied fortnite even though it doesn't work for a military shooter. They rarely release any good content because it either doesn't match the game's tone, or it sucks. It just doesn't lend itself well to skins, and other visual customization options. Or maybe they just don't know how to make good. Either way, I've never seen a more boring battlepass in my life. CoD can be a super fun action game, but it's never felt more hollow and lifeless. The best counter-example to "games are art" I've ever seen.  BestBrand Member Mar 5, 2025 457 Call of duty is the worst man. I may not even buy another COD again.   MerluzaSamus Member Dec 3, 2018 1,471 Argentina Agni Kai said: Only Battlefield 6 can save us now. Hold the line, my friends. Hold the line. Click to expand... Click to shrink... The game published by EA to gather obscene money on the fps market? That one Battlefield? Jokes aside, 'fraid this is going to be the norm long term, Fortnite normalized it and publishers with less restraint are going wild, same with AI. At least on the AAA market.  Lumination Member Oct 26, 2017 16,064 Who could have expected them giving the game away would have affected the revenue stream and business model of the game itself.   Geeko Member Oct 27, 2017 1,413 San Jose, CA Lame as hell. The problem is that the masses won't care about it and will still spend crap tons of money on this game thus continuing this constant bombardment of ads.   shadowman16 Member Oct 25, 2017 41,804 Agni Kai said: Only Battlefield 6 can save us now. Hold the line, my friends. Hold the line. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Gameplay wise, Hopefully Dice will take the time and make something truly special. However... I wouldnt expect much better from EA of all publishers. They are every bit as summy...  OP OP Xando Member Oct 28, 2017 38,006 My guess is this is only going to get worse as MS tries to make up the lost revenue from people playing via GP instead of buying   SP. Member Oct 27, 2017 8,578 I guess I thought it would be worse than the reaction seems to suggest… They're in-game micro transaction ads and for the most are for weapon skins which naturally don't seem that out of place in a weapon selection menu. It's not like they're advertising a Burger King Whopper in here. Obviously it'd be better if they weren't there at all but honestly if I played the game and saw these I wouldn't think it's anything out of the ordinary.  Ravelle Member Oct 31, 2017 20,432 Noisepurge said: Fortnite doesn't cost 80$ Click to expand... Click to shrink... It doesn't spam you with multiple windows to buy something either  Rosebud Two Pieces Member Apr 16, 2018 51,386 Wallace said: What a shit franchise. Click to expand... Click to shrink... .   Kyokanto Member Mar 4, 2025 493 For a second I thought this was going to be McDonald's ads or something lol. I wonder how far off that is… Still scummy as is.  Pop-O-Matic Avenger Oct 25, 2017 14,007 MarcosBrXD said: Crazy one of the biggest IPs doing this Click to expand... Click to shrink... Not really. CoD might move more money than most of the rest of the industry put together, but capitalism (especially at publicly traded mega corps like MS and ActiBlizz before them) demands that the line must always be going up, and there isn't really much CoD can do to grow the player base in any significant way in the short-to-medium term, so they're going to start trying out shit like this to get even more money out of the existing players so the line goes up and the shareholders can be happy.   Fabs Member Aug 22, 2019 2,780 Noisepurge said: Fortnite doesn't cost 80$ Click to expand... Click to shrink... Decarb said: Not only is it in a full priced mode, but its also in the weapon customization menu where you least expect it. Click to expand... Click to shrink... jroc74 said: Yeah I dont think it needs to be this aggressive. While trying to play the game tho? "Following the launch of Season 4, adverts for weapon bundles can be seen in the build and weapon menus. These are unavoidable for players as they tinker with their loadouts." Imagine getting hit with Shark Card ads while browsing the in game stores in GTA Online....please Rockstar dont do this. Also this. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Full priced games advertise their dlc in menus all the time. Is it because it's in a new place? Is this that different than having the paid operators in the menu for selection like they have in past CoD? Or when I play Street Fighter and I can't pick Akuma because he costs money? I get it if it was for McDonalds but this seems like rage bait.  Plexas Member Jan 24, 2025 289 Several trillion dollar company needs some money to survive, please understand.   Twister Member Feb 11, 2019 6,692 This franchise peaked with BO3. Everything after has been a disaster   Vertigo1 Member Jun 30, 2023 1,093 CoD will never be as good as it was in the 360 era, ever again.   Sordid Plebeian Member Oct 26, 2017 19,955 Yeah I remember seeing that AI store slop when I booted up S4, and they wonder why they're driving players away   Tommy Showbiz Member Jul 20, 2022 3,727 This is pretty corny, but I was honestly expecting ads for like Dr. Squatch and not just prodding you to buy in-game bundles.   Apathy Member Oct 25, 2017 13,538 So the biggest game, created by the biggest publisher, paced by the riches company in the world needs to slide ads into their paid games. Lovely   DarkJ Member Nov 11, 2017 1,918 Ai slop? Ads in the menus? In a fully priced game? Really just making sure I don't even look at the next game.  T88heon Member Aug 26, 2024 1,042 This is a profitability issue coupled with horrendous stewardship of the ip. If the retail side was profitable would they need to stealthily run ads in "COD" of all ip? 😬  DSync Member Oct 27, 2017 884 Black Ops 6 in 2025 after the most recent update for Season 4 > £70 for the base game > £100 for the "Vault Editon" > £50/60 for a year of PS Plus to play the game online > £10 for the Battlepass > £15 for the Battlepass plus tier skips > £25 for the "Blackcell" Battlepass > Free and Premium (Costs money) Battlepasses for the Seth Rogan Operator Weed event > £16-25 Weapon and Operator bundles > AI art in the emblems, calling cards, posters in certain levels > Ads for bundles in creating a Loadout > Server instability issues > Whole game crashes to desktop/homescreen when editing your loadout during a match > UI Menu lagging > Cheaters, hackers run rampant > Store will 100% work no matter what (Prices for everything may not be exact)  Pai Pai Master Member Oct 25, 2017 37,298 Atlanta GA AI crap and ads, yet people will still buy this shit in record numbers every year  

to a T – what a strange thing to happen (Annapurna Interactive) Having your arms stuck in a permeant T-pose leads to a wonderfully surreal narrative adventure, in this new indie treat from Katamari creator Keita Takahashi. Keita Takahashi seems to be a very nice man. We met him back in 2018, and liked him immensely, but we’re genuinely surprise he’s still working in the games industry. He rose to fame with the first two Katamari Damacy games but after leaving Bandai Namco his assertion that he wanted to leave gaming behind and design playgrounds for children seemed like a much more obvious career path, for someone that absolutely doesn’t want to be stuck making sequels or generic action games. That’s certainly not been his fate and while titles like Noby Noby Boy and Wattam were wonderfully weird and inventive they weren’t the breakout hits that his bank balance probably needed. His latest refusal to toe the line probably isn’t destined to make him a billionaire either, but we’re sure that was never the point of to a T. Instead, this is just a relentlessly sweet and charming game about the evils of bullying and the benefits of being nice to people. It’s frequently surreal and ridiculous, but also capable of being serious, and somewhat dark, when it feels the need. Which given all the signing giraffes is quite some accomplishment. The game casts you as a young schoolkid whose arms are permanently stuck in a T-pose, with both stretched out 90° from his torso. If you’re waiting for an explanation as to why then we’re afraid we can’t tell you, because your character (who you can customise and name as you see fit, along with his dog) doesn’t know either. You find out eventually and the answer is… nothing you would expect. This has all been going on for a while before the game starts, as you’re by now well used to sidling through doors and getting your dog to help you dress. You’re also regularly bullied at school, which makes it obvious that being stuck like this is just a metaphor for any difference or peculiarity in real-life. Although the specific situations in to a T are fantastical, including the fact that the Japanese village you live in is also populated by anthropomorphic animals (most notably a cadre of food-obsessed giraffes), its take on bullying is surprisingly nuanced and well written. There’re also some fun songs that are repeated just enough to become unavoidable earworms. The problem is that as well meaning as all this is, there’s no core gameplay element to make it a compelling video game. You can wander around talking to people, and a lot of what they say can be interesting and/or charmingly silly, but that’s all you’re doing. The game describes itself as a ‘narrative adventure’ and that’s very accurate, but what results is the sort of barely interactive experience that makes a Telltale game seem like Doom by comparison. There are some short little mini-games, like cleaning your teeth and eating breakfast, but the only goal beyond just triggering story sequences is collecting coins that you can spend on new outfits. This is gamified quite a bit when you realise your arms give you the ability to glide short distances, but it’s still very basic stuff. One chapter also lets you play as your dog, trying to solve an array of simple puzzles and engaging in very basic platforming, but while this is more interactive than the normal chapters it’s still not really much fun in its own right. More Trending Everything is all very charming – the cartoonish visuals are reminiscent of a slightly more realistic looking Wattam – but none of it really amounts to very much. The overall message is about getting on with people no matter their differences, but while that doesn’t necessarily come across as trite it’s also not really the sort of thing you need a £15 video game, with zero replayability, to tell you about. It also doesn’t help that the game can be quite frustrating to play through, making it hard to know what you’re supposed to do next, or where you’re meant to be going. The lack of camera controls means it’s hard to act on that information even if you do know what destination you’re aiming for, either because the screen is too zoomed in, something’s blocking your view, or you keep getting confused because the perspective changes. As with Wattam, we don’t feel entirely comfortable criticising the game for its failings. We’ll take a game trying to do something new and interesting over a workmanlike sequel any day of the week – whether it succeeds or not – but there’s so little to the experience it’s hard to imagine this fitting anyone to a T. to a T review summary In Short: Charming, silly, and occasionally profound but Keita Takahashi’s latest lacks the gameplay hook of Katamari Damacy, even if it is surprisingly well written. Pros: Wonderfully and unashamedly bizarre, from the premise on down. A great script, that touches on some dark subjects, and charming visuals and music. Cons: There’s very little gameplay involved and what there is, is either very simple or awkward to control. Barely five hours long, with no replayability. Score: 6/10 Formats: PlayStation 5 (reviewed), Xbox Series X/S, and PCPrice: £15.49Publisher: Annapurna InteractiveDeveloper: uvulaRelease Date: 28th May 2025Age Rating: 7 Who knew giraffes were so good at making sandwiches (Annapurna Interactive) Email gamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below, follow us on Twitter, and sign-up to our newsletter. To submit Inbox letters and Reader’s Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use our Submit Stuff page here. For more stories like this, check our Gaming page. GameCentral Sign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

Streaming Wars is a weekly opinion column by IGN’s Streaming Editor, Amelia Emberwing. Check out the last entry No, Netflix Isn't Saving Hollywood (But It Isn't Killing It, Either)This column contains spoilers for Season 2 of The Last of Us on HBO Max as well as The Last of Us Part II game. When Joel was brutally killed in the second episode of HBO’s The Last of Us Season 2, it confirmed what many fans of the games expected was coming. But as the season progressed after that point, Joel’s death came and went without any significance. Replacing it was, for me, a certainty: what was a controversial decision for the The Last of Us game franchise would prove to be a killing blow for the television series.Now, I realize that an adaptation fundamentally deviating from its source material can be polarizing in and of itself, but the HBO series simply did not need to kill Joel to successfully tell its story.First and foremost, I think it’s important to note that there’s a reason that this column is being written at the end of the season rather than immediately after Joel’s (Pedro Pascal) death in Episode 2. I did want to be wrong, for whatever that sentiment might be worth. I dutifully watched the rest of the season, hoping that the show’s writers would find a way to reset their story and carry on their narrative in any kind of meaningful way. But, despite the best efforts of Bella Ramsey and newcomers Isabela Merced, Kaitlyn Dever and Young Mazino, there’s little to be done when your blockbuster show’s first season was fully reliant on a relationship that no longer exists. The show’s audience — which is made up of plenty of folks who have never played the games — signed up for a series that no longer exists. The Last Of Us Series Messes With Canon, But the Wrong PartsThe Last of Us has implemented a series of story elements that deviate from the game, and vary in impact, but have broadly served the medium shift. Bill (Nick Offerman) and Frank’s (Murray Bartlet) Season 1 episode wasn’t just the best of the series, it was one of the best episodes of television that year, it hasn’t mattered at all that Dever’s Abby isn’t jacked the way she is in the game, Season 1 had tendrils instead of spores, Stalkers play more of a role in the series than they did during gameplay, etc.But the Big Joel Death Scene™ features both 1:1 scenes and major canon divergence, and the core problem with the majority of Season 2 is that the series stayed loyal where it shouldn’t have and diverted where it should have remained true to story. In killing Joel and revealing Abby’s motives from the start, The Last of Us series removed any reason for the audience to return in Season 3.In the game, players stuck around when it came time to play Abby because they needed to know why the hell she did what she did. By the time that information is revealed, Abby had become interesting enough for people to keep playing. In the series, since Abby’s motivations were revealed pretty much in the series premiere, all viewers have to look forward to now is wondering who’s going to shoot who or who is going to forgive who first. And, with respect to what I know is a long adored franchise, I’m forced to ask why should the television audience care?The series either needed to keep Joel alive, choosing to have Abby beat him within an inch of his life and have Ellie believe that he was dead before leaving Jackson on her revenge tour, or leave Abby’s motives a mystery. Joel may have been the inciting incident that made the forgiveness meaningful in the game, but let’s not pretend it’s the only way to get to the desired end result. This series has wildly talented writers attached. It can be done. Meanwhile, while the mystery of Abby’s motivations wouldn’t have been enough to keep me around personally, I can see why it would appeal to a broader television audience. Now though, we’re all stuck in an impending future of no catharsis.Not One, Not Two, But Three Shows in One [Derogatory]Ellie spent much of this season insisting she’s not like Abby despite her rising body count and similar obsession. This will remain a throughline for the upcoming season (or seasons, if co-creator Craig Mazin has his way) even though Ellie will continue to make rash decisions on her quest for revenge. All of this will come after Ellie’s current pickle, as we left her with Abby’s gun pointed squarely at her face. Season 2’s odd “cliffhanger” is another 1:1 pull from the game, as this is the moment where you shift from playing Ellie to playing Abby. This means that we can likely expect the central focus of the series to shift yet again, giving us not one show, not two shows, but a surprise third show. The thing about these focus and perspective shifts is that they totally could have worked if they had billed The Last of Us as an anthology series with the overall wrap-around (the narrative treatment surrounding the individual stories that ties everything together) being the apocalypse they’re all sharing. But because this was presented as a traditional prestige series, there are rules and expectations as to how the story is meant to play out. Storytelling rules are made to be broken, but Season 2 does not inspire any faith that the rest of The Last of Us series will succeed in doing so.Television has always played with the death of the mentor. It’s a trope that often offers more meaning than most, forcing the protagonist to finally take said mentor’s lessons to heart or otherwise reckon with the devastation of their loss. The difference here is that there is typically a broader ensemble to rely on to avoid shaking up the core of the series. We get a little bit of that from Season 2 in Merced’s Dina and Manzino’s Jesse, but they aren’t meaningfully established before the core relationship of the series is destroyed. By introducing them later — and then giving us little reason to care about them until after that still — the foundation of the series remains fractured in a way that seems beyond repair. But that fracture was always avoidable.All signs point to Season 3 being told from Abby’s perspective.Season 1 set the expectation for television viewers that this was a show about Joel and Ellie. Season 2 haphazardly shifted that focus to a story about Ellie, Dina and their quest for revenge against Abby. All signs point to Season 3 being told from Abby’s perspective as she rescues defecting Seraphites Lev and Yara three days before murdering Jesse and holding Ellie and Tommy (Gabriel Luna) at gunpoint. While I cannot stress enough that Kaitlyn Dever is doing great work with the material she has been given, what reason do folks have to stick around at this point? Television viewers with no knowledge of the games aren’t going to buy into the show suddenly being told from the perspective of someone that they’ve been given no reason to care about. I am from the outside looking in when it comes to the game, but it doesn’t seem likely that the WLF vs. Seraphites war was engaging enough to watch a second time in TV form, even with Isaac’s (Jeffrey Wright) expanded involvement in the series. Is there enough interest in seeing Ellie and Abby’s anticlimactic ending to keep viewers already in the know around?It’s All a CompetitionGames as a medium have plenty of hurdles, but they have the benefit of fewer releases than television by a remarkable margin and, whether the audience loves or hates a game, it’s already bought and paid for. The Last of Us Part II may be plenty controversial (all of the best art is!) but a key factor in any television show’s success is giving the audience a reason to return episode after episode. The story format's constantly shifting perspective is a tremendous hurdle in and of itself. Add in The Last of Us’ wildly short seasons, long hiatuses, and Season 2’s lackluster story, and you’ve got yourself one hell of a pickle when it comes to getting fans back for Season 3. The rest of The Last of Us Part II’s arc is one focused on forgiveness and how being hellbent on revenge tears everything apart. Sometimes the journey on the way to an already well-known ending is worth it for the ride (looking at you, Andor)! But given that The Last of Us Season 2 featured exactly one compelling episode focused on a flashback with its now long-dead protagonist, is that journey worth it? The cast sure is doing their damndest to ensure that’s the case, but will that be enough for the audience?Season 2’s penultimate episode may have been great, and Neil Druckmann has confirmed that we’ll have more Joel flashbacks to come, but it’s just not a bandaid to the show’s problem. No amount of strong performances or stellar production value can fix a failure to adapt your story to a new medium. Joel ain’t coming back to life and there’s no putting Abby’s reveal back in the proverbial bag. The Season 2 finale was lackluster at best, the rest of the season wasn’t much better, and knowing where the story heads next forces me to wonder if The Last of Us’ best days are behind it. It’s a dog eat dog world in the land of TV, and people’s time is a zero-sum game. With such high competition and waning interest from viewers, maybe it’s just time to take the show to look at a pretty lake while it rides out its last moments before losing itself to the infection…

PROS: Highly Portable: Lightweight and compact with balanced ergonomics for easy one-handed use Quiet, Efficient Performance: Fanless design runs silently while handling daily tasks smoothly Improved Input Design: Redesigned keyboard and pen integration enhance usability Eco-Friendly Materials: Uses recycled cobalt, aluminum, and packaging to reduce impact CONS: Accessories Sold Separately: Keyboard and charger increase total cost significantly Limited Ports: No USB-A or headphone jack requires adapters Not Built for Heavy Creative Work: Struggles with intensive editing or gaming tasks RATINGS: AESTHETICSERGONOMICSPERFORMANCESUSTAINABILITY / REPAIRABILITYVALUE FOR MONEYEDITOR'S QUOTE:Smart, silent, and travel-ready. The Surface Pro 12 cuts the bulk while keeping the features that matter for real work and play. Microsoft’s Surface Pro 12 arrives with the subtlety of a whisper and the impact of a shout. The newest addition to Microsoft’s 2-in-1 lineup doesn’t announce itself with flashy gimmicks or revolutionary redesigns. Instead, it quietly refines what we’ve come to expect from the Surface family while carving out its own distinct identity in an increasingly crowded market. Smaller, lighter, and more nimble than its predecessors, this 12-inch tablet-laptop hybrid represents Microsoft’s most focused attempt yet at balancing power and portability. Designer: Microsoft I’ve spent considerable time with this device, exploring its capabilities and limitations across various use cases. What emerges is a fascinating study in compromise and calculation. The Surface Pro 12 exists in an interesting middle ground. It’s not the most powerful Surface device you can buy. It’s not the largest or the most premium. But that’s precisely the point. Microsoft has crafted something deliberately positioned to appeal to users who found previous Surface models either too unwieldy or too expensive. Does it succeed? That depends entirely on what you’re looking for. For some, the 12-inch form factor will feel like the Goldilocks zone. Not too big, not too small, but just right. For others, the compromises made to achieve this more compact design might prove frustrating. And hovering over everything is the question of value: at $799 for the base model (without keyboard or pen), is this the Surface that finally makes sense for mainstream consumers? The timing couldn’t be more interesting. As Microsoft pushes forward with its Copilot+ PC initiative, the Surface Pro 12 arrives as one of the standard-bearers for this new AI-focused computing paradigm. With its Snapdragon X Plus processor and dedicated NPU delivering 45 TOPS of AI performance, this diminutive device packs surprising computational muscle specifically tuned for the next generation of AI-powered applications. But specs only tell part of the story. The real question is how all this technology comes together in daily use. Can the Surface Pro 12 deliver on Microsoft’s promises of all-day battery life and responsive performance in a more portable package? And perhaps more importantly, does it justify its existence in a lineup that already includes the more powerful Surface Pro 13-inch? Let’s find out. Design and Ergonomics Pick up the Surface Pro 12, and something immediately feels different. The weight distribution. The rounded edges. The way it nestles into your palm with unexpected comfort. At just 1.5 pounds (686g), this isn’t Microsoft’s lightest device ever, but it might be their most thoughtfully balanced. I found myself reaching for it instinctively throughout the day. Its 0.30-inch thickness, combined with its compact footprint, makes it substantially more comfortable to hold in one hand than previous Surface models. This matters tremendously for a device meant to transition seamlessly between laptop and tablet modes. Microsoft has embraced a more organic design language here. Gone are the sharper edges of previous generations, replaced by gently rounded corners that echo the aesthetic of modern tablets. The bezels have shrunk considerably, though they’re still present enough to provide a comfortable grip without triggering accidental touches. The overall effect is subtle but significant. This feels less like a business tool and more like a personal device. The color options deserve special mention. Beyond the standard Platinum, Microsoft offers Ocean (a sophisticated blue-gray) and Violet. These aren’t the bold, saturated hues you might expect from consumer electronics, but rather subdued, mature tones that manage to feel both professional and personal. The Violet, in particular, strikes an interesting balance. It is distinctive without being flashy. Flip the device around and you’ll notice the integrated kickstand, a Surface hallmark that continues to distinguish these devices from iPad competitors. The hinge feels remarkably solid, with 165 degrees of smooth, consistent resistance. You can position it at virtually any angle, from nearly flat to upright, and it stays exactly where you place it. This flexibility proves invaluable when using the device on uneven surfaces like your lap or a bed. The port selection remains minimal. Two USB-C 3.2 ports with DisplayPort 1.4a support handle all your connectivity needs. They’re well-positioned and work with a wide range of accessories, but the absence of a headphone jack or USB-A port means dongles will remain a fact of life for many users. This minimalist approach keeps the device slim but demands some adaptability from users with legacy peripherals. What about the keyboard? The optional Surface Pro 12-inch Keyboard ($149 without pen, $249 with Slim Pen) represents a significant redesign. Microsoft has removed the Alcantara fabric from the palm rest, opting instead for a clean, monochromatic matte finish that feels premium to the touch. The fabric hasn’t disappeared entirely. It’s now relegated to the back of the keyboard cover, providing a pleasant tactile contrast when carrying the closed device. The typing experience surpasses expectations for such a compact keyboard. Key travel feels generous, with a satisfying tactile response that avoids the mushiness common to many tablet keyboards. The layout is thoughtfully designed, with full-sized keys in the central typing area and slightly compressed function and specialty keys at the edges. After a brief adjustment period, I was typing at nearly my full speed. The trackpad deserves equal praise. It’s responsive, accurate, and reasonably sized given the constraints of the 12-inch form factor. Microsoft has clearly prioritized quality over size here, and the result is a tracking surface that rarely frustrates. Perhaps the most significant ergonomic improvement involves the Surface Slim Pen. Rather than attaching to the keyboard as in previous models, it now magnetically snaps to the back of the tablet itself. The connection is surprisingly strong. You can shake the tablet vigorously without dislodging the pen. This redesign serves multiple purposes: it keeps the pen accessible whether you’re using the keyboard or not, it allows for wireless charging of the pen, and it slightly reduces the keyboard’s footprint. The front-facing camera placement requires some adjustment. Located at the top of the display when in landscape orientation, it creates a slightly downward-facing angle during video calls when using the kickstand. This isn’t ideal for presenting your best angle, though it’s a common compromise in tablet design. Switching to portrait orientation provides a more flattering angle but isn’t always practical for extended calls. Audio performance exceeds expectations for a device this size. The dual 2W stereo speakers with Dolby Atmos support deliver clear, room-filling sound with surprising bass response. They’re positioned perfectly to create a convincing stereo image when the device is in landscape orientation, making the Surface Pro 12 a legitimate option for casual movie watching without headphones. The most impressive aspect of the Surface Pro 12’s design is not any one feature, but how all the elements work together cohesively. The proportions feel natural, the weight distribution is balanced, and the materials and finishes complement each other nicely. This device has been refined over several generations, and that accumulated knowledge is evident in numerous small details. Performance The Surface Pro 12 introduces an intriguing performance proposition. Microsoft has equipped this compact device with Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X Plus processor, an 8-core variant of the chip powering many of this year’s AI-focused laptops. This marks a significant departure from Intel-based Surface devices of the past. The question isn’t whether this processor is powerful. It is. The question is whether it’s the right kind of powerful for your specific needs. For everyday computing, the answer is a resounding yes. The system boots instantly, apps launch without hesitation, and multitasking feels remarkably fluid. I routinely ran multiple Office applications alongside dozens of browser tabs without encountering any slowdown. This responsiveness extends to more demanding productivity tasks like photo editing in Adobe Lightroom, where the device handled 20+ megapixel RAW files with surprising agility. What makes this performance particularly impressive is the complete absence of fan noise. The Surface Pro 12 features a fanless design with no vents whatsoever. Even under sustained workloads, the device remains silent, with only minimal warming of the chassis. This thermal efficiency represents a significant quality-of-life improvement over previous Surface models, especially in quiet environments like libraries or meeting rooms. Benchmark results confirm these subjective impressions. In Geekbench 6, the Surface Pro 12 scored around 2,250 for single-core and 9,500 for multi-core performance. These numbers put it in the same neighborhood as many Intel Core Ultra 5-powered laptops, particularly for single-core tasks where the Snapdragon X Plus shows impressive efficiency. Cinebench results tell a similar story, with scores that would have been considered high-end just a couple of generations ago. Battery life represents perhaps the most significant performance advantage. Microsoft claims up to 16 hours of video playback and 12 hours of active web usage. In my testing, these numbers proved surprisingly accurate. A full day of mixed productivity work (writing, web browsing, video calls, and occasional photo editing) left me with 25 to 30 percent battery remaining. More impressively, the device sips power when idle, losing just a few percentage points overnight. This efficiency means you can confidently leave your charger at home for most workdays. When you do need to charge, the process is refreshingly quick. Using the optional 45-watt USB-C charger ($70), the Surface Pro 12 reaches 50 percent battery in approximately 30 minutes and 80 percent in about an hour. This rapid charging capability further enhances the device’s practicality for mobile professionals. The neural processing unit (NPU) deserves special attention. With 45 TOPS of AI performance, the Qualcomm Hexagon NPU positions the Surface Pro 12 as a capable platform for Microsoft’s growing ecosystem of AI-enhanced applications. Features like Windows Studio Effects, which provides background blur and eye contact correction during video calls, run smoothly without taxing the main CPU. The upcoming Recall feature, which promises to help you find anything you’ve seen on your PC, also leverages this dedicated AI hardware. Memory and storage configurations are straightforward. All models include 16GB of LPDDR5x RAM, which proves ample for most productivity workflows. Storage options include either 256GB or 512GB of UFS storage. While not as fast as the PCIe SSDs found in premium laptops, these storage solutions deliver respectable performance for everyday tasks. The absence of user-upgradeable components means choosing the right configuration at purchase time is crucial. Connectivity options enhance the overall performance picture. Wi-Fi 7 support ensures the fastest possible wireless connections on compatible networks, while Bluetooth 5.4 provides reliable connections to peripherals. The two USB-C ports support DisplayPort 1.4a, allowing you to drive up to two 4K monitors at 60Hz, a significant upgrade for productivity. Where does the Surface Pro 12 fall short? Demanding creative applications like video editing or 3D rendering will push this system to its limits. While it can handle these tasks, you’ll experience longer render times compared to more powerful systems. Similarly, gaming capabilities are limited to older titles, cloud gaming services, or less demanding indie games. This isn’t a gaming machine by any stretch. It’s also worth noting that while Windows on ARM compatibility has improved dramatically, you may occasionally encounter software that doesn’t run optimally or requires emulation. Microsoft’s Rosetta-like translation layer handles most x86 applications admirably, but with some performance penalty. Fortunately, major productivity applications like the Microsoft Office suite and Adobe Creative Cloud now offer native ARM versions that run beautifully. The performance story of the Surface Pro 12 is ultimately about balance. Microsoft has created a device that delivers impressive responsiveness for everyday tasks while maximizing battery life and eliminating fan noise. For the target audience (mobile professionals, students, and productivity-focused users), this balance hits a sweet spot that many will find compelling. Sustainability Surface devices have rarely been evaluated through an environmental lens. That shifts with the Surface Pro 12. Microsoft’s latest tablet-laptop hybrid takes a material-first approach to reducing its ecological footprint, applying tangible revisions in sourcing, assembly, and lifecycle design. The battery introduces a foundational change. This is the first Surface Pro to use 100 percent recycled cobalt inside the cell. The shift matters. Cobalt extraction is linked to heavy environmental degradation and labor violations, particularly in regions where the material is most abundant. Using recycled cobalt minimizes dependency on these supply chains while maintaining performance. Microsoft applies similar logic to the enclosure. The casing incorporates at least 82.9 percent recycled content, including fully recycled aluminum alloy and rare earth elements. These metals are essential to core functions like audio and haptic feedback, but traditional sourcing is energy-intensive and harmful to ecosystems. Recycling them cuts the carbon load while preserving durability. The recycled aluminum, in particular, reduces energy consumption by over 90 percent compared to newly smelted metal. Packaging aligns with this direction. Microsoft states that 71 percent of wood-fiber packaging uses recycled material, and all virgin paper is sourced from responsibly managed forests. The result feels considered and premium, but without the typical waste profile seen in high-end electronics. Power efficiency is handled by both certification and architecture. The Surface Pro 12 meets ENERGY STAR criteria. Its Snapdragon processor operates on a performance-per-watt model, reducing heat and load during basic workflows without sacrificing responsiveness. Repairability has also improved. Microsoft includes labeled components and internal diagrams that support technician-guided part replacements. These efforts fall short of true user-repairability, but they increase the odds that broken devices will be fixed rather than discarded. A trade-in program supports hardware recovery for U.S. commercial customers. The initiative encourages responsible disposal and keeps materials in circulation longer. This model moves the Surface series closer to a lower-impact future. Microsoft still relies on proprietary accessories that may not carry forward. The keyboard and pen are not backward compatible with earlier models. That limits cross-generation reuse and could introduce avoidable waste. True modularity is still missing. Even with those constraints, the Surface Pro 12 represents the most focused sustainability effort in the product line to date. Material sourcing, energy use, and packaging all reflect an intention to lower the cost to the planet without compromising design or performance. Value and Wrap-up The Surface Pro 12 redefines how compact Windows hardware can serve practical, real-world needs. Its value isn’t rooted in technical dominance or low pricing. It comes from how effectively the device supports a mobile, focused workflow. This model favors portability and responsiveness over excess. It’s built for those who move constantly between meetings, transit, and flexible workspaces, without wanting to sacrifice the continuity of a full Windows environment. The smaller form factor isn’t a downgrade. It’s deliberate, eliminating clutter and favoring daily-use speed, comfort, and silence. Microsoft’s design choices reflect this purpose. From the near-instant wake time to the magnetic keyboard closure, the experience is tuned to reduce friction. That fluidity helps the device become second nature. It’s not about raw performance. It’s about always being ready. The inclusion of dedicated AI hardware gives the Surface Pro 12 another dimension. As more Windows features become NPU-dependent, this machine stays relevant. You’re not just buying current functionality. You’re investing in a platform with a longer upgrade arc. The accessory pricing remains clunky. But over time, the value balances out through longevity and reduced dependency on external gear. Build quality, battery endurance, and AI readiness all support longer ownership without the usual performance decay. What makes the Surface Pro 12 stand out is discipline. Microsoft didn’t stretch this device to cover every use case. Instead, it doubled down on a clear objective: make a serious, portable Windows tool that respects your time and space. The result is confident and complete.The post Microsoft Surface Pro 12 Review: Compact Copilot+ Windows device built for silence, stamina, and adaptability first appeared on Yanko Design.

Amazon, the multi-trillion dollar e-commerce monolith, seemingly cheaped out on on a key feature installed on its six-propeller delivery drones. Predictably, this backfired almost immediately.On a (lightly) rainy December day at the company's testing range in Oregon, not one but two Prime Air drones suddenly stopped spinning their propellers mid-flight and plummeted some 200 feet to the ground. The crashes, which destroyed both aircraft, happened within minutes of each other. And now, , we know why. According to documents from the National Transportation Safety Board, bad readings from the drones' onboard lidar sensors led the drones to believe they had already landed. Their software, thinking it was on solid ground, cluelessly cut off power to the propellers.But that's not all. After Amazon decided to remove them, the drones no longer had backup sensors that were equipped on older versions. And these probably would've prevented the drones from shutting down, per Bloomberg's sources.Amazon denies this line of thinking."Bloomberg's reporting is misleading," an Amazon spokesperson told the newspaper. "Statements that assume that replacing one system with another would have prevented an accident in the past is irresponsible." Per the NTSB documents, a botched software update made the lidar sensors more susceptible to being thrown off by rain. Lidar is short for light detection and ranging, a form of technology that uses lasers to scan surroundings in a similar manner to radar.A glitch may have been the main reason, but it definitely sounds like it could've been easily avoidable had Amazon kept the redundant system from its previous drone, the MK27. The backup sensors came in the form of two metal prongs on the bottom of the drone called squat switches. When the drone lands, the switches are depressed, providing confirmation that it's on solid ground. A source told Bloomberg that the MK27 drone's software was originally designed to confirm a landing only when two of its three sensors agreed.This was removed with the MK30, and it's unclear why. Reducing costs could be one reason, and it's not uncommon to remove redundant systems to streamline a device.It could also be because of a shift in how Amazon intends to deliver packages with its drones, according to a Bloomberg source. The MK27 was designed to make deliveries by landing in a customer's yard, with enclosed propellers to make them safer. The MK30 moved away from this and drops packages from around a dozen feet in the air.This is far from the only setback Amazon has faced during its drone development, which it first announced back in 2013. In 2021, a drone crash sparked an acres-wide blaze in Oregon, and outside of incidents like that, many residents living where the drones are being trialed simply find them annoying. After the latest December SNAFU, Amazon halted future experiments for months — though it maintained that the crashes weren't the "primary reason" — and only recently lifted the pause.Overall, development has been sluggish and the project remains years behind schedule. Currently, Amazon is only carrying out drone deliveries in College Station, Texas, and Tolleson, Arizona.More on Amazon: The NYPD Is Sending Drones to the Sites of 9-1-1 CallsShare This Article

May 16, 2025The Hacker NewsDevSecOps / Threat Detection Modern apps move fast—faster than most security teams can keep up. As businesses rush to build in the cloud, security often lags behind. Teams scan code in isolation, react late to cloud threats, and monitor SOC alerts only after damage is done. Attackers don't wait. They exploit vulnerabilities within hours. Yet most organizations take days to respond to critical cloud alerts. That delay isn't just risky—it's an open door. The problem? Security is split across silos. DevSecOps, CloudSec, and SOC teams all work separately. Their tools don't talk. Their data doesn't sync. And in those gaps, 80% of cloud exposures slip through—exploitable, avoidable, and often invisible until it's too late. This free webinar ,"Breaking Down Security Silos: Why Application Security Must Span from Code to Cloud to SOC," shows you how to fix that. Join Ory Segal, Technical Evangelist at Cortex Cloud (Palo Alto Networks), and discover a practical approach to securing your apps from code to cloud to SOC—all in one connected strategy. You'll learn: Why code scanning alone isn't enough Where attackers find your biggest blind spots How to unify your security tools and teams How to cut response times from days to hours If you're in AppSec, CloudOps, DevSecOps, or SOC—you'll walk away with insights you can apply immediately. Watch this Webinar Still relying on just code reviews or siloed tools? That's only part of the picture. Attackers see your whole environment. It's time you did too. Join us and take the first step toward smarter, faster, full-stack security. Found this article interesting? This article is a contributed piece from one of our valued partners. Follow us on Twitter  and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post. SHARE    