Budgeting for a monthly mortgage payment is harder than it used to be, even with a six-figure salary.

By OLIVER WEBB Images courtesy of Peter Hjorth and Zentropa, except where noted. Peter Hjorth. (Photo courtesy of Danish Film Institute) When Peter Hjorth first started out, visual effects were virtually non-existent in the Danish film industry. “We had one guy at the lab who did work on the Oxberry [rostrum animation camera], and I worked at a video production company,” Hjorth states. “I trained as a videotape editor, then it went into online. When the first digital tools arrived, I joined one of the hot post places where they got the first digital VTRs. All my first years of experience were with commercial clients and music videos and making the transition from analogue to digital in video post-production. I did a little bit of work for friends of mine where we actually did it at the lab. I’m old enough to have done stuff with the optical printer and waiting for weeks to get it right. There were some very early start-ups in Copenhagen doing files to film, and I started working with them.” Hjorth’s first feature film came in 1998 with Thomas Vinterberg’s Festen, where he served as camera operator and digital consultant. Festen also marked Hjorth’s first foray into the Dogme 95 movement. “We shot on MiniDV, and I was attached to the whole project. I shot the second camera and then was asked if I could do some advanced work in visual effects for commercials. I was then asked by Lars von Trier to help out on Dancer in the Dark when he was starting.” Working on Dancer in the Dark marked the beginning of Hjorth’s frequent collaborations with Lars von Trier. “That was sort of a two-fold thing because we had 100 DV cameras that needed some kind of infrastructure to work, and my television background was good for that. We also needed some visual effects work to get rid of some cameras. If you put 100 cameras in the same set, you’re going to get into a visual effects situation. So, I did that and worked on the editing. At that time, people were a little bit afraid of Lars, but I’m up for anything. We had a great time, especially during the editing and post-production.” Hjorth was pleased with his collaboration with director Tarik Saleh on the U.S. film The Contractor (2022), on which he served as Production Visual Effects Supervisor. (Image courtesy of Paramount Pictures) “There’s a special thing about Denmark, which is that we tend to all stick together… It’s not competitive in this way because people will get the jobs they get. Everybody realizes we have to work together, and what really matters is that we put something on screen that gives the audience a good experience.” —Peter Hjorth, Visual Effects Supervisor Initially, production experimented with a wall of cameras, where Hjorth did a test compositing that into an image. Von Trier found it interesting, but felt it wasn’t right for Dancer in the Dark. He later came back to Hjorth with Dogville and explained that he wanted to implement the multi-camera technique for this project. “Lars didn’t want linear perspective, instead he wanted something more like visual arts, fine arts, a notion of perspective, even cubism maybe,” Hjorth adds. “At that point in between those two projects, I did the first big Vinterberg film, It’s All About Love.” Hjorth worked as Visual Effects Supervisor for the film. “We did lots of precise visual effects, matched lenses, matched camera heights, everything by the book. Then I went into this totally crazy project for Lars and really developed a close understanding of what Lars wanted. We’ve done eight feature films and a TV series together. The last one was the third season of The Kingdom. I also did his last feature film, The House That Jack Built. I was Production Visual Effects Supervisor on all the stuff in-between, such as Antichrist and Melancholia.” Hjorth explains that he was very lucky to be in the right place at the right time. “Working on those projects has given me a network all over Europe with good people. We had some decent budgets, and people were thrilled to work on Lars’ films. I’ve made some excellent friends and good connections. If you wanted VFX for a movie in the early 2000s you hired someone from a post house for a specific scene. The notion of a production visual effects supervisor was not very common in Denmark, and the role has since developed. I find that my contribution is now mostly in pre-production. With post-production, I usually take a step back and leave it to the vendors to get right, but I’m happy I’ve been able to assist when the need arose.”  Throughout his career, Hjorth has worked across the board as camera operator, colorist and editor. “I did some camera work on the side for music videos, and so on,” he explains. “When I speak to the DP and the gaffers, I know the language. I wouldn’t say I did great work as a cinematographer, but I know the language, the equipment and the limitations. Actually, my first job before even going into post-production was as an electrician. I used to work on really old, heavy movie lights back in the day, so I also know a little bit about departments on set and how it works. That has made it a little bit easier for me to be on set because as a visual effects supervisor, it can be a super scary experience. If you feel like a tourist, it’s just horrible. I, of course, worked on the Dogme 95 films, where we worked closely with the actors, and I’m not afraid to have a conversation with an actor. No matter how good the VFX is, if the actors don’t believe a scene they are in, it doesn’t work. So, I’ve been lucky to do a bit of everything, and I feel blessed that things turned out the way that they did.” Starting out in Dogme 95 also proved to be a huge learning curve when it came to film language and understanding how to work within a set of specific rules and guidelines. The movement was founded by Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg, who created the Dogme 95 Manifesto. The Manifesto consisted of 10 rules, which included: camera must be handheld, shooting must be done on location and special lighting isn’t allowed. “It’s a good background to have,” Hjorth states. “We’ve had rules for all of the films I’ve made with Lars, even on projects such as Melancholia.” Setting rules hasn’t been limited to Danish cinema and extends beyond that. “We made kind of a set of rules for the films I’ve made with Ali Abbasi, and that’s always made things easier,” Hjorth says. “He first called me when he was in film school. He was doing some early tests and was audacious enough to ask me for a VFX shot. It was hard to understand what he was saying, but then he talked about a scene with a guy coming out of a cake and he kills his brother, slicing his throat with a knife, and he wanted to see that in close-up. I appreciate younger directors calling and asking me to work with them, and it has really paid off.” Hjorth was the Visual Effects Supervisor for several episodes of the 1994-2022 TV series The Kingdom and The Kingdom: Exodus. Hjorth has worked on eight feature films and a TV series with director Lars von Trier. (Photo: Peter Hjorth) Hjorth with director Lars von Trier, left, on the set of The Kingdom: Exodus. (Photo: Peter Hjorth) Hjorth was Visual Effects Supervisor on The House That Jack Built, directed by Lars von Trier. (Photo: Christian Geisnæs) Peter Hjorth was recognized for his work as European Visual Effects Supervisor for the Swedish-Danish feature and Cannes winner Border, directed by Ali Abbasi. (Image courtesy of Meta Film Stockholm) Hjorth was Production Visual Effects Supervisor on Lamb (2021), directed by Valdimar Jóhannsson. (Image courtesy of Go To Sheep and A24) Hjorth with Simone Grau Roney, Production Designer on The House That Jack Built (2018), directed by Lars von Trier. Choosing a favorite visual effect shot from his career, however, is a difficult task for Hjorth, though he’s particularly proud of the work achieved on Dogville. “Nobody noticed how messed up it was,” he explains. “Toward the end of the movie, you can see the masks, and you can see that we didn’t bother to match the grain between layers and all that. We did the first test on Flame, and when we went to layer 99, it just stopped working. We ended up doing it with combustion software, which was crummy, but it worked, and we got the shots done. I think we went to 170 layers on the opening shot. It was a learning experience for everybody involved, and I still work with some of those same people, most recently on the Netflix series I did this spring.” Hjorth worked as Visual Effects Supervisor on Holy Spider, directed by Ali Abbasi. (Photo: Nadim Carlsen. Image courtesy of Profile Pictures)   Hjorth served as Visual Effects Supervisor on Antichrist (2009), directed by Lars von Trier. Hjorth believes that there’s been an immense upgrade in professionalism in Denmark in the years since he’s worked in the business. “The beginning was much less industrial. The directors that I have worked with tend to work with me multiple times. A lot of the stuff I say in the first meeting is really defining for how that [job] is going to go. I’ve been so lucky to work on films that I actually think made a difference. It has mostly been art house films with limited budgets and resources. When we work together with the same producer or director a few times, sometimes they come back and say, ‘We’d like to have a creature or some special thing.’ It’s an evolving process.” Hjorth worked as Visual Effects Supervisor on the Lars von Trier-directed Melancholia (2011), and was also credited for his astrophotography of auroras for the film. (Image courtesy Magnolia Pictures) Hjorth was Visual Effects Supervisor on Dogville (2003), directed by Lars von Trier. Hjorth worked with director Lars von Trier to develop the Automavision technique, which was credited with the cinematography for The Boss of It All (2006). A computer algorithm randomly changes the camera’s tilt, pan, focal length and/or positioning as well as the sound recording without being actively operated by the cinematographer. Hjorth works closely with stunts, special effects makeup, animal wranglers and other specialists. “I know the craft and what they need from me. They know more about what’s going to be effective on screen, so I just leave them to it and make sure they have what they need. Same thing with animals and visual effects, makeup and stuff like that, physical things. You know I have a bit of a reputation for trying to get as many pieces of the puzzle as possible with a camera. Some production VFX people get quotes from, say, three different vendors, and then they pick all the cheapest bids for each sequence or shot, and that’s how they get down in budget. I tried to avoid that. I’d rather actually sit down with the director and say for example, ‘We should have some breathing space here.’” When it comes to the future of visual effects in Denmark, Hjorth takes an optimistic view. “I think this trend that we have more production supervisors is basically going to continue in the way that even if you have very little work, you hire someone from the get-go and you make sure that’s a balance in ambition and resources. There’s a special thing about Denmark, which is that we tend to all stick together, even people who are not in the same line of work. We have lots of experience sharing. There are no limits to who you can call and ask questions. It’s not competitive in this way because people will get the jobs they get. Everybody realizes we have to work together, and what really matters is that we put something on screen that gives the audience a good experience.”

In a medium that often thrives on scale and spectacle, these games prove how far heart, grit, and creativity can take you.

The billionaire oligarch isn't happy with Trump's Big Beautiful Bill.

Missing the big picture US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war Facing an extreme budget, the National Academies hosted an event that ignored it. John Timmer – Jun 4, 2025 6:00 pm | 16 Credit: JHVE Photo Credit: JHVE Photo Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more WASHINGTON, DC—The general outline of the Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget was released a few weeks back, and it included massive cuts for most agencies, including every one that funds scientific research. Late last week, those agencies began releasing details of what the cuts would mean for the actual projects and people they support. And the results are as bad as the initial budget had suggested: one-of-a-kind scientific experiment facilities and hardware retired, massive cuts in supported scientists, and entire areas of research halted. And this comes in an environment where previously funded grants are being terminated, funding is being held up for ideological screening, and universities have been subject to arbitrary funding freezes. Collectively, things are heading for damage to US science that will take decades to recover from. It's a radical break from the trajectory science had been on. That's the environment that the US's National Academies of Science found itself in yesterday while hosting the State of the Science event in Washington, DC. It was an obvious opportunity for the nation's leading scientific organization to warn the nation of the consequences of the path that the current administration has been traveling. Instead, the event largely ignored the present to worry about a future that may never exist. The proposed cuts The top-line budget numbers proposed earlier indicated things would be bad: nearly 40 percent taken off the National Institutes of Health's budget, the National Science Foundation down by over half. But now, many of the details of what those cuts mean are becoming apparent. NASA's budget includes sharp cuts for planetary science, which would be cut in half and then stay flat for the rest of the decade, with the Mars Sample Return mission canceled. All other science budgets, including Earth Science and Astrophysics, take similar hits; one astronomer posted a graphic showing how many present and future missions that would mean. Active missions that have returned unprecedented data, like Juno and New Horizons, would go, as would two Mars orbiters. As described by Science magazine's news team, "The plans would also kill off nearly every major science mission the agency has not yet begun to build." A chart prepared by astronomer Laura Lopez showing just how many astrophysics missions will be cancelled. Credit: Laura Lopez The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the US's fundamental research, is also set for brutal cuts. Biology, engineering, and education will all be slashed by over 70 percent; computer science, math and physical science, and social and behavioral science will all see cuts of over 60 percent. International programs will take an 80 percent cut. The funding rate of grant proposals is expected to drop from 26 percent to just 7 percent, meaning the vast majority of grants submitted to the NSF will be a waste of time. The number of people involved in NSF-funded activities will drop from over 300,000 to just 90,000. Almost every program to broaden participation in science will be eliminated. As for specifics, they're equally grim. The fleet of research ships will essentially become someone else's problem: "The FY 2026 Budget Request will enable partial support of some ships." We've been able to better pin down the nature and location of gravitational wave events as detectors in Japan and Italy joined the original two LIGO detectors; the NSF will reverse that progress by shutting one of the LIGOs. The NSF's contributions to detectors at the Large Hadron Collider will be cut by over half, and one of the two very large telescopes it was helping fund will be cancelled (say goodbye to the Thirty Meter Telescope). "Access to the telescopes at Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo will be phased out," and the NSF will transfer the facilities to other organizations. The Department of Health and Human Services has been less detailed about the specific cuts its divisions will see, largely focusing on the overall numbers, which are down considerably. The NIH, which is facing a cut of over 40 percent, will be reorganized, with its 19 institutes pared down to just eight. This will result in some odd pairings, such as the dental and eye institutes ending up in the same place; genomics and biomedical imaging will likewise end up under the same roof. Other groups like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration will also face major cuts. Issues go well beyond the core science agencies, as well. In the Department of Energy, funding for wind, solar, and renewable grid integration has been zeroed out, essentially ending all programs in this area. Hydrogen and fuel cells face a similar fate. Collectively, these had gotten over $600 billion dollars in 2024's budget. Other areas of science at the DOE, such as high-energy physics, fusion, and biology, receive relatively minor cuts that are largely in line with the ones faced by administration priorities like fossil and nuclear energy. Will this happen? It goes without saying that this would amount to an abandonment of US scientific leadership at a time when most estimates of China's research spending show it approaching US-like levels of support. Not only would it eliminate many key facilities, instruments, and institutions that have helped make the US a scientific powerhouse, but it would also block the development of newer and additional ones. The harms are so widespread that even topics that the administration claims are priorities would see severe cuts. And the damage is likely to last for generations, as support is cut at every stage of the educational pipeline that prepares people for STEM careers. This includes careers in high-tech industries, which may require relocation overseas due to a combination of staffing concerns and heightened immigration controls. That said, we've been here before in the first Trump administration, when budgets were proposed with potentially catastrophic implications for US science. But Congress limited the damage and maintained reasonably consistent budgets for most agencies. Can we expect that to happen again? So far, the signs are not especially promising. The House has largely adopted the Trump administration's budget priorities, despite the fact that the budget they pass turns its back on decades of supposed concerns about deficit spending. While the Senate has yet to take up the budget, it has also been very pliant during the second Trump administration, approving grossly unqualified cabinet picks such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. All of which would seem to call for the leadership of US science organizations to press the case for the importance of science funding to the US, and highlight the damage that these cuts would cause. But, if yesterday's National Academies event is anything to judge by, the leadership is not especially interested. Altered states As the nation's premier science organization, and one that performs lots of analyses for the government, the National Academies would seem to be in a position to have its concerns taken seriously by members of Congress. And, given that the present and future of science in the US is being set by policy choices, a meeting entitled the State of the Science would seem like the obvious place to address those concerns. If so, it was not obvious to Marcia McNutt, the president of the NAS, who gave the presentation. She made some oblique references to current problems, saying, that “We are embarking on a radical new experiment in what conditions promote science leadership, with the US being the treatment group, and China as the control," and acknowledged that "uncertainties over the science budgets for next year, coupled with cancellations of billions of dollars of already hard-won research grants, is causing an exodus of researchers." But her primary focus was on the trends that have been operative in science funding and policy leading up to but excluding the second Trump administration. McNutt suggested this was needed to look beyond the next four years. However, that ignores the obvious fact that US science will be fundamentally different if the Trump administration can follow through on its plans and policies; the trends that have been present for the last two decades will be irrelevant. She was also remarkably selective about her avoidance of discussing Trump administration priorities. After noting that faculty surveys have suggested they spend roughly 40 percent of their time handling regulatory requirements, she twice mentioned that the administration's anti-regulatory stance could be a net positive here (once calling it "an opportunity to help"). Yet she neglected to note that many of the abandoned regulations represent a retreat from science-driven policy. McNutt also acknowledged the problem of science losing the bipartisan support it has enjoyed, as trust in scientists among US conservatives has been on a downward trend. But she suggested it was scientists' responsibility to fix the problem, even though it's largely the product of one party deciding it can gain partisan advantage by raising doubts about scientific findings in fields like climate change and vaccine safety. The panel discussion that came after largely followed McNutt's lead in avoiding any mention of the current threats to science. The lone exception was Heather Wilson, president of the University of Texas at El Paso and a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Air Force during the first Trump administration. Wilson took direct aim at Trump's cuts to funding for underrepresented groups, arguing, "Talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not." After arguing that "the moral authority of science depends on the pursuit of truth," she highlighted the cancellation of grants that had been used to study diseases that are more prevalent in some ethnic groups, saying "that's not woke science—that's genetics." Wilson was clearly the exception, however, as the rest of the panel largely avoided direct mention of either the damage already done to US science funding or the impending catastrophe on the horizon. We've asked the National Academies' leadership a number of questions about how it perceives its role at a time when US science is clearly under threat. As of this article's publication, however, we have not received a response. At yesterday's event, however, only one person showed a clear sense of what they thought that role should be—Wilson again, whose strongest words were directed at the National Academies themselves, which she said should "do what you've done since Lincoln was president," and stand up for the truth. John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 16 Comments

The French Open is one of the most exciting Grand Slams—especially with this year’s lineup. Djokovic, Alcaraz, and Sinner—just those names alone promise a show. Even better, there’s a way to watch the French Open live on a free channel, so you won’t miss a single moment. In this guide, we’ll highlight two free channels for streaming Roland Garros and explain how to access them from anywhere in the world. We’ll also include a few premium streaming services from the UK, Canada, and the US that broadcast the event. Schedule May 25 to June 8 Free channels 9now (Australia) / France TV (France) The schedule for Thursday, June 5 This Thursday at Roland-Garros, we’ll be treated to the two women’s singles semifinals. Here is the detailed schedule: [1] Aryna Sabalenka vs [5] Iga Swiatek (POL) – Not before 3:00 PM CET / 9:00 AM ET / 6:00 AM PST [2] Coco Gauff (USA) vs [WC] Lois Boisson (FRA) Which free channels are broadcasting the French Open live? Reigning and upcoming champs will battle it out on the clay-filled courts and honor us with some epic showdowns. As exciting as it sounds, it doesn’t have to cost a penny. Two free channels broadcast the French Open 2025: 9Now (Australian TV channel) France TV (French TV channel) If you’re in one of these countries, you know you can boot them up and start watching. However, as these are foreign channels for many of you, it’s good to know what they actually provide. 9Now broadcasts the best French Open 2025 matches online for free every day. You’ll need a free account, which takes less than a minute to create. 9Now also offers English commentary, making it a great option for English-speaking viewers. 9Now broadcasts the French Open for free © 9now.com.au France TV is a French channel, so naturally, it features French commentary. It broadcasts all matches (you can follow the action on every court) except for the night sessions. The night sessions refer to the matches played on the Central Court after 8:15 PM Paris time. This TV channel also requires a free account, but again, creating one takes a minute or two, as you can sign up without a TV license. The main gripe with these two is that they’re region-locked to their respective regions. 9Now works only in Australia, whilst France TV works only in France. Trick to Watch the French Open 2025 on a Free Channel from Anywhere To sidestep this inconvenience, people have been relying on VPNs for years. Watching the French Open for free online was never an issue with a popular option like NordVPN. You’ve likely heard of it by this point. Watch the tournament for free with NordVPN As the world’s #1 provider by popularity (and quality), NordVPN provides quintessential servers in Australia and France. It’s also equipped with unrestricted bandwidth and fast 10 Gbps server ports built for speed. The main advantage of NordVPN, according to people online, is compatibility. It works on all desktop and mobile devices, but its VPN app for Fire TV and Apple TV is also there. This makes it easy to watch Roland Garros live for free on your TV. NordVPN allows for a swift IP address change. Once your IP originates from another country, you can overcome stubborn geo-blocks and access new content. Simply put, you’ll need an IP from Australia or France to unblock 9Now or France TV. With NordVPN installed, you just need to connect to a server in the respective country, go to the free channel that streams the French Open 2025, and enjoy. Keep in mind that NordVPN isn’t free, but in this case, it can be. After all, there’s a 30-day money-back guarantee. In this period, you can stream the entire Grand Slam and still have ample time left to request and get a full refund. If necessary, we have a tutorial that explains how to test NordVPN free of charge for 30 days. How to Stream the French Open Live in the USA Even in the USA, using the two free channels is a more sensible option. That’s because US-based streaming services are costly. Still, if you don’t want to mess around with VPNs, you can opt for one of these three: Sling TV (TNT) — at least $45.99/mo (Sling Orange or Blue) DirecTV (TNT) — at least $79.99/mo + $69.99/mo for MySports HBO Max — at least $17/mo Sling TV provides access to TNT where the stream will be available — Blue and Orange plans are both eligible. You’ll find that Orange also contains ESPN. DirecTV requires a $69.99/mo MySports package for this purpose. It includes TNT and ESPN Plus for free if you wish to stream other sports. You don’t have to have an eagle eye to see the prices. Sling TV and DirecTV are way out of many people’s budgets. Plus, they don’t have lengthy free trials that would allow you to watch the French Open for free. DirecTV has a risk-free 5-day trial, but that’s roughly a third of the event. Bear in mind that, even if you have an account with one of these three, you still won’t be able to access them abroad. HBO Max can be watched outside the USA, along with DirecTV and Sling TV, but with a caveat — you’ll need a VPN! Watch the French Open With NordVPN Watching Roland Garros 2025 in the UK Brits don’t have a vibrant selection of channels for this case. They do lack horses for the race, but there’s Discovery Plus that comes to the rescue. Unfortunately, Discovery Plus is no joke price-wise and costs £31/mo in the United Kingdom. A notable free trial is missing, as well. Once you spend your £31, you won’t be able to get it back, either. On top of that, Discovery Plus works abroad only with a VPN, even if you have an active subscription paid for regularly. It’s worth noting that Discovery Plus also provides access to Eurosport, which will broadcast the French Grand Slam for the rest of Europe. Eurosport also isn’t free and costs £3.99 for Discovery Plus subscribers. How to Watch Roland Garros Live in Canada Canadians, similarly to Brits, don’t have plenty of choices — TSN is once again there to quench their tennis thirst. Of course, at a price. TSN is relatively inexpensive, so it might be a good option if you’re in Canada. The subscription starts at $8/mo or $80/year if you pay upfront. Like 9Now and Discovery Plus, TSN provides Full HD coverage and includes English commentary for better immersion. Just bear in mind that TSN is Canada-exclusive, so being on vacation rids you of access to it. NordVPN can help you regain access risk-free if you so desire. Other than that, TSN doesn’t provide a free trial and won’t allow you to sign up as a new user without a Canadian payment method. As explained, TSN is adequate only for native Canadian tennis fans. Final Thoughts Your vacation or business trip doesn’t have to squander your plans to watch the French Open 2025 on a free channel. 9Now and France TV are there, and with risk-free NordVPN, you’ll catch up to all major matches with no issues. If you’d rather use premium platforms and don’t mind the price tag, so be it. You have a myriad of options in the US, the UK, and Canada. Sling TV, DirecTV, HBO Max, Discovery Plus, and TSN — six excellent premium channels. Try NordVPN Risk-Free for 30 days

For the past two years, it’s been a ghost in the machine of American tech. Between 2022 and today, a little-noticed tweak to the U.S. tax code has quietly rewired the financial logic of how American companies invest in research and development. Outside of CFO and accounting circles, almost no one knew it existed. “I work on these tax write-offs and still hadn’t heard about this,” a chief operating officer at a private-equity-backed tech company told Quartz. “It’s just been so weirdly silent.”AdvertisementStill, the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That’s the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a “niche issue with broad impact,” echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters.Since the start of 2023, more than half-a-million tech workers have been laid off, according to industry tallies. Headlines have blamed over-hiring during the pandemic and, more recently, AI. But beneath the surface was a hidden accelerant: a change to what’s known as Section 174 that helped gut in-house software and product development teams everywhere from tech giants such as Microsoft (MSFT) and Meta (META) to much smaller, private, direct-to-consumer and other internet-first companies.Now, as a bipartisan effort to repeal the Section 174 change moves through Congress, bigger questions are surfacing: How did a single line in the tax code help trigger a tsunami of mass layoffs? And why did no one see it coming? For almost 70 years, American companies could deduct 100% of qualified research and development spending in the year they incurred the costs. Salaries, software, contractor payments — if it contributed to creating or improving a product, it came off the top of a firm’s taxable income.AdvertisementThe deduction was guaranteed by Section 174 of the IRS Code of 1954, and under the provision, R&D flourished in the U.S.Microsoft was founded in 1975. Apple (AAPL) launched its first computer in 1976. Google (GOOGL) incorporated in 1998. Facebook opened to the general public in 2006. All these companies, now among the most valuable in the world, developed their earliest products — programming tools, hardware, search engines — under a tax system that rewarded building now, not later.The subsequent rise of smartphones, cloud computing, and mobile apps also happened in an America where companies could immediately write off their investments in engineering, infrastructure, and experimentation. It was a baseline assumption — innovation and risk-taking subsidized by the tax code — that shaped how founders operated and how investors made decisions.In turn, tech companies largely built their products in the U.S. AdvertisementMicrosoft’s operating systems were coded in Washington state. Apple’s early hardware and software teams were in California. Google’s search engine was born at Stanford and scaled from Mountain View. Facebook’s entire social architecture was developed in Menlo Park. The deduction directly incentivized keeping R&D close to home, rewarding companies for investing in American workers, engineers, and infrastructure.That’s what makes the politics of Section 174 so revealing. For all the rhetoric about bringing jobs back and making things in America, the first Trump administration’s major tax bill arguably helped accomplish the opposite.When Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the signature legislative achievement of President Donald Trump’s first term, it slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — a massive revenue loss on paper for the federal government.To make the 2017 bill comply with Senate budget rules, lawmakers needed to offset the cost. So they added future tax hikes that wouldn’t kick in right away, wouldn’t provoke immediate backlash from businesses, and could, in theory, be quietly repealed later.AdvertisementThe delayed change to Section 174 — from immediate expensing of R&D to mandatory amortization, meaning that companies must spread the deduction out in smaller chunks over five or even 15-year periods — was that kind of provision. It didn’t start affecting the budget until 2022, but it helped the TCJA appear “deficit neutral” over the 10-year window used for legislative scoring.The delay wasn’t a technical necessity. It was a political tactic. Such moves are common in tax legislation. Phase-ins and delayed provisions let lawmakers game how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — Congress’ nonpartisan analyst of how bills impact budgets and deficits — scores legislation, pushing costs or revenue losses outside official forecasting windows.And so, on schedule in 2022, the change to Section 174 went into effect. Companies filed their 2022 tax returns under the new rules in early 2023. And suddenly, R&D wasn’t a full, immediate write-off anymore. The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. To understand the impact, imagine a personal tax code change that allowed you to deduct 100% of your biggest source of expenses, and that becoming a 20% deduction. For cash-strapped companies, especially those not yet profitable, the result was a painful tax bill just as venture funding dried up and interest rates soared.AdvertisementSalesforce office buildings in San Francisco.Photo: Jason Henry/Bloomberg (Getty Images)It’s no coincidence that Meta announced its “Year of Efficiency” immediately after the Section 174 change took effect. Ditto Microsoft laying off 10,000 employees in January 2023 despite strong earnings, or Google parent Alphabet cutting 12,000 jobs around the same time.Amazon (AMZN) also laid off almost 30,000 people, with cuts focused not just on logistics but on Alexa and internal cloud tools — precisely the kinds of projects that would have once qualified as immediately deductible R&D. Salesforce (CRM) eliminated 10% of its staff, or 8,000 people, including entire product teams.In public, companies blamed bloat and AI. But inside boardrooms, spreadsheets were telling a quieter story. And MD&A notes — management’s notes on the numbers — buried deep in 10-K filings recorded the change, too. R&D had become more expensive to carry. Headcount, the leading R&D expense across the tech industry, was the easiest thing to cut.AdvertisementIn its 2023 annual report, Meta described salaries as its single biggest R&D expense. Between the first and second years that the Section 174 change began affecting tax returns, Meta cut its total workforce by almost 25%. Over the same period, Microsoft reduced its global headcount by about 7%, with cuts concentrated in product-facing, engineering-heavy roles.Smaller companies without the fortress-like balance sheets of Big Tech have arguably been hit even harder. Twilio (TWLO) slashed 22% of its workforce in 2023 alone. Shopify (SHOP) (headquartered in Canada but with much of its R&D teams in the U.S.) cut almost 30% of staff in 2022 and 2023. Coinbase (COIN) reduced headcount by 36% across a pair of brutal restructuring waves.Since going into effect, the provision has hit at the very heart of America’s economic growth engine: the tech sector.By market cap, tech giants dominate the S&P 500, with the “Magnificent 7” alone accounting for more than a third of the index’s total value. Workforce numbers tell a similar story, with tech employing millions of Americans directly and supporting the employment of tens of millions more. As measured by GDP, capital-T tech contributes about 10% of national output.AdvertisementIt’s not just that tech layoffs were large, it’s that they were massively disproportionate. Across the broader U.S. economy, job cuts hovered around in low single digits across most sectors. But in tech, entire divisions vanished, with a whopping 60% jump in layoffs between 2022 and 2023. Some cuts reflected real inefficiencies — a response to over-hiring during the zero-interest rate boom. At the same time, many of the roles eliminated were in R&D, product, and engineering, precisely the kind of functions that had once benefitted from generous tax treatment under Section 174.Throughout the 2010s, a broad swath of startups, direct-to-consumer brands, and internet-first firms — basically every company you recognize from Instagram or Facebook ads — built their growth models around a kind of engineered break-even.The tax code allowed them to spend aggressively on product and engineering, then write it all off as R&D, keeping their taxable income close to zero by design. It worked because taxable income and actual cash flow were often notGAAP accounting practices. Basically, as long as spending counted as R&D, companies could report losses to investors while owing almost nothing to the IRS.But the Section 174 change broke that model. Once those same expenses had to be spread out, or amortized, over multiple years, the tax shield vanished. Companies that were still burning cash suddenly looked profitable on paper, triggering real tax bills on imaginary gains.AdvertisementThe logic that once fueled a generation of digital-first growth collapsed overnight.So it wasn’t just tech experiencing effects. From 1954 until 2022, the U.S. tax code had encouraged businesses of all stripes to behave like tech companies. From retail to logistics, healthcare to media, if firms built internal tools, customized a software stack, or invested in business intelligence and data-driven product development, they could expense those costs. The write-off incentivized in-house builds and fast growth well outside the capital-T tech sector. This lines up with OECD research showing that immediate deductions foster innovation more than spread-out ones.And American companies ran with that logic. According to government data, U.S. businesses reported about $500 billion in R&D expenditures in 2019 alone, and almost half of that came from industries outside traditional tech. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that this sector, the broader digital economy, accounts for another 10% of GDP.Add that to core tech’s contribution, and the Section 174 shift has likely touched at least 20% of the U.S. economy.AdvertisementThe result? A tax policy aimed at raising short-term revenue effectively hid a time bomb inside the growth engines of thousands of companies. And when it detonated, it kneecapped the incentive for hiring American engineers or investing in American-made tech and digital products.It made building tech companies in America look irrational on a spreadsheet.A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to repeal the Section 174 change, with business groups, CFOs, crypto executives, and venture capitalists lobbying hard for retroactive relief. But the politics are messy. Fixing 174 would mean handing a tax break to the same companies many voters in both parties see as symbols of corporate excess. Any repeal would also come too late for the hundreds of thousands of workers already laid off.And of course, the losses don’t stop at Meta’s or Google’s campus gates. They ripple out. When high-paid tech workers disappear, so do the lunch orders. The house tours. The contract gigs. The spending habits that sustain entire urban economies and thousands of other jobs. Sandwich artists. Rideshare drivers. Realtors. Personal trainers. House cleaners. In tech-heavy cities, the fallout runs deep — and it’s still unfolding.AdvertisementWashington is now poised to pass a second Trump tax bill — one packed with more obscure provisions, more delayed impacts, more quiet redistribution. And it comes as analysts are only just beginning to understand the real-world effects of the last round.The Section 174 change “significantly increased the tax burden on companies investing in innovation, potentially stifling economic growth and reducing the United States’ competitiveness on the global stage,” according to the tax consulting firm KBKG. Whether the U.S. will reverse course — or simply adapt to a new normal — remains to be seen.

From lifelike avatars to automated fan interactions, AI is remaking digital modeling. But can tech ... More scale intimacy — or will it erode the human spark behind the screen?getty The AI boom has been defined by unprecedented innovation across nearly every sector. From improving flight punctuality through AI-powered scheduling to detecting early markers of Alzheimer’s disease, AI is modifying how we live and work. And the advertising world isn’t left out. In March of this year, OpenAI’s GPT-4o sent the internet into a frenzy with its ability to generate Studio Ghibli-style images. The model produces realistic, emotionally nuanced visuals from a series of prompts — a feat that has led some to predict the demise of visual arts as we know them. While such conclusions may be premature, there’s growing belief among industry players that AI could transform how digital model agencies operate. That belief isn’t limited to one startup. A new class of AI-powered agencies — including FanPro, Lalaland.ai, Deep Agency andThe Diigitals — is testing whether modeling can be automated without losing its creative edge. Some use AI to generate lifelike avatars. Others offer virtual photo studios, CRM — customer relationship management — integrations, or creator monetization tools. Together, they reflect a big shift in how digital modeling agencies think about labor, revenue and scale. FanPro — founded by Tyron Humphris in 2023 to help digital model agencies scale efficiently — offers a striking case study. Fully self-funded, Humphris said in an interview that the company reached $1 million in revenue within its first 90 days and crossed eight figures by 2024, all while maintaining a lean team by automating nearly every process. As Humphris noted, “the companies that will lead this next decade won’t just be the ones with the best marketing or biggest budgets. They’ll be the ones who use AI, automation and systems thinking to scale with precision, all while staying lean and agile.” That explains the big bet that startups like FanPro are making — but how far can it really go? And why should digital model agencies care in the first place? Automation In Digital Model Agencies To understand how automation works in the digital modeling industry — a fast-rising corner of the creator economy — it helps to understand what it’s replacing. A typical digital model agency juggles five or more monetization platforms per creator — from OnlyFans and Fansly to TikTok and Instagram. But behind every viral post is a grind of scheduling, analytics, upselling, customer support and retention. The average agency may need 10 to 15 contractors to manage a roster of just a few high-performing creators. These agencies oversee a complex cycle: content creation, onboarding, audience engagement and sales funnel optimization, usually across several monetization platforms. According to Humphris, there’s often a misconception that running a digital model agency is just about posting pretty pictures. But in reality, he noted, it’s more. “It’s CRM, data science and psychology all wrapped in one. If AI can streamline even half of that, it’s a game-changer.” That claim reflects a growing pain point in the creator economy, where agencies swim in an ocean of tools in an attempt to monetize attention for creators while simultaneously managing marketing, sales and customer support. For context, a 2024 Clevertouch Consulting study revealed that 54% of marketers use more than 50 tools to manage operations — many stitched together with Zapier or manual workarounds. Tyron Humphris, founder of FanProFanPro But, according to Humphris, “no matter how strong your offer is, if you don’t have systems, processes and accountability built into the business, it’s going to collapse under pressure.” And that’s where AI steps in. Beyond handling routine tasks, large language models and automation stacks now allow agencies to scale operations while staying lean. With minimal human input, agencies can schedule posts, auto-respond to DMs, upsell subscriptions, track social analytics and manage retention flows. What once required a full team of marketers, virtual assistants and sales reps can now be executed by a few well-trained AI agents. FanPro claims that over 90% of its operations — from dynamic pricing to fan interactions — are now handled by automation. Likewise, Deep Agency allows creators to generate professional-grade photo shoots without booking a studio or hiring staff and Lalaland.ai helps fashion brands generate AI avatars to reduce production costs and increase diversity in representation. A Necessary Human Touch Still, not everyone is convinced that AI can capture the nuance of digital intimacy. Some experts have raised concerns that hyper automation in creator-driven industries could flatten human expression into predictable engagement patterns, risking long-term user loyalty. A 2024 ContentGrip study of 1,000 consumers found 80% of respondents would likely switch brands that rely heavily on AI-generated emails, citing a loss of authenticity. Nearly half said such messages made them feel “less connected” to the brand. Humphris doesn’t disagree. “AI can do a lot, but it needs to be paired with someone who understands psychology,” he said. “We didn’t scale because we had the best tech. We scaled because we understood human behavior and built systems that respected it.” Humphris’ sentiment isn’t a mere anecdote but one rooted in research. For example, a recent study by Northeastern University showed that AI influencers often reduce brand trust — especially when users aren’t aware the content is AI-generated. The implication is clear: over-automating the wrong parts of human interaction can backfire. Automation doesn’t — and shouldn’t — mean that human input becomes obsolete. Rather, as many industry experts have noted, it will enhance efficiency but not replace empathy. While AI can process data at speed and generate alluring visuals, it cannot replicate human creativity or emotional intelligence. Neither does AI know the psychology of human behavior like humans do, a trait Humphris credits for their almost-instant success. What’s Working — And What’s Not Lalaland.ai and The Diigitals have earned praise for enhancing inclusivity, enabling brands to feature underrepresented body types, skin tones and styles. Meanwhile, FanPro focuses on building AI “growth engines” for agencies — full-stack systems that combine monetization tools, CRM and content flows. But not all reactions have been positive. In November 2024, fashion brand Mango faced backlash for its use of AI-generated models, which critics called “false advertising” and “a threat to real jobs.” The New York Post covered the fallout in detail, highlighting how ethical lines are still being drawn. As brands look to balance cost savings with authenticity, some have begun labeling AI-generated content more clearly — or embedding human oversight into workflows, rather than removing it. Despite offering an automation stack, FanPro itself wasn’t an immediate adopter of automation in its processes. But, as Humphris noted, embracing AI made all the difference for the company. “If we had adopted AI and automation earlier, we would’ve hit 8 figures much faster and with far less stress,” he noted. Automation In The New Era FanPro is a great example of how AI integration, when done the right way, could be a profitable venture for digital model agencies. Whether or not the company’s model becomes the blueprint for AI-first digital agencies, it’s clear that there’s a big shift in the creator economy, where automation isn’t only viewed as a time-saver, but also as a foundational pillar for businesses. As digital model agencies lean further into an AI-centric future, the bigger task is remembering what not to automate — the spark of human connection that built the industry in the first place. “In this new era of automation,” Humphris said, “the smartest agencies won’t just ask what AI can do. They’ll ask what it shouldn’t.”

Schemes include jobs in Liverpool, Bradford and NewcastleRachel Reeves has announced £15bn for transport projects in the north of England, the Midlands and the West Country to stimulate growth outside of the South-east. The chancellor unveiled a funding package this morning for a raft of rail, tram and bus projects ahead of the government’s spending review, due next week, which is expected to include cuts to many departmental budgets. It is also expected to be part of the government’s 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will be announced later this month. Rachel Reeves delivering her speech in Manchester this morning Tram schemes have been handed the biggest investments, including £2.5bn to extend Manchester’s network to Stockport and £2.4bn to expand Birmingham’s network to the city’s planned ‘sports quarter’. A long-awaited tram network in West Yorkshire will get £2.1bn to start construction of the first two lines by 2028, along with new bus stations in Bradford and Wakefield, while South Yorkshire’s tram network has been handed £2.1bn for renewal works and bus service. Liverpool has been allocated £1.6bn to improve links to locations in the city including the new Everton Stadium, and the North East will get £1.8bn to extend the Newcastle to Sunderland Metro via Washington. Other funding packages include £2bn for the East Midlands to improve road, rail and bus links between Derby and Nottingham and £800m for rail upgrades in the West of England. Some of these projects were part of former prime minister Rishi Sunak’s Network North plan, which backed schemes including the West Yorkshire tram system to compensate for the decision to scrap HS2 north of Birmingham. Network North was put on ice following Labour’s election victory last year after Reeves claimed the programme had not been fully funded. The money will be part of a five-year funding allocation from 2027/28 to 2031/32.  >> Also read: It’s time for trams – and Britain needs to catch up >> Also read: Traffic in Towns: 60 years on from Colin Buchanan’s prophetic report

The OnePlus Nord N30 is a solid smartphone for budget shoppers. For a limited time, the smartphone is on sale for $230.