Mercy is still Overwatch 2's cash cow, so fans are paying close attention to her rising skin prices The post As Mercy Skins Become More Expensive, <em>Overwatch 2</em> Fans Are Bullying Her Players Again appeared first on Kotaku.

The post بسبب "بلطجة" ترامب، TSMC تستعد لإنتاج شرائح 2nm على الأراضي الأمريكية! appeared first on عرب هاردوير.

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

It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

It has long been said that an organisation’s greatest asset is its people. Employees are the driving force behind innovation, customer engagement, revenue growth, and company culture. In an era where political, social, and economic climates are in constant flux, particularly with ongoing debates surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), it is more critical than ever for organisations to recognise the value of an inclusive workforce. There is a well-known saying: “When America sneezes, the rest of Europe catches a cold.” (often attributed to Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, a French diplomat from the 18th and 19th centuries). It rings particularly true today, as shifts in political and social climates challenge the notion of diversity programmes. This is evident in the recent ruling by the UK Supreme Court that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. However, history has shown that political regimes and societal norms can change rapidly. Regardless of where one stands on these issues, the reality remains that for an organisation to thrive, its people must feel valued, supported, and included. Despite the growing focus on DEI programmes since 2020, many past initiatives have not been as effective as hoped. To move forward, the DEI industry and DEI professionals must conduct a rigorous retrospective analysis: What has worked? What hasn’t been effective? How can we improve? Without tangible metrics and data-driven insights, it becomes difficult to measure the success and impact of these initiatives, and this lack of clear outcomes may have contributed to what some define as the “backlash against DEI.” A common challenge has been the prioritisation of diversity over inclusion, leaving organisations ill-prepared to integrate diverse talent effectively. This has often resulted in short-term disruption - what change management refers to as the "storming" phase of team development - which in turn has led to team friction, a lack of belonging, and ultimately higher turnover rates among underrepresented employees. Organisations have not allowed enough time for teams to progress to the "norming" and "performing" periods in the face of high pressure to deliver results. To counter this, organisations must shift their mindset to focus on inclusion and belonging first. When a workplace fosters an inclusive culture, diverse talent is naturally welcomed, supported, and empowered to succeed. Rather than viewing differences as an obstacle, businesses must embrace them as strengths that drive innovation and growth. I often advocate for culture “add” rather than culture “fit”. As a former project and programme manager who transitioned into HR, I have witnessed firsthand the value of applying change management principles to DEI efforts. A successful change programme requires clearly defined goals, strong leadership buy-in, stakeholder engagement, a structured delivery methodology, and measurable outcomes. When these elements are absent, initiatives tend to falter. By adopting a structured, results-oriented, and data-driven approach, organisations can embed true inclusion into their core business strategy rather than treating it as a secondary initiative or a “nice to have”. It’s also important to regularly assess and reflect on what has worked, what hasn’t, and adapt and improve accordingly. In agile methodology, we call these retrospectives. Inclusion is key to successful DEI initiatives. In the past, these efforts may have created exclusion by failing to involve those who do not identify with the Equality Act's nine protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation). This has led to defensiveness and fear instead of an understanding of historical inequity. When you are accustomed to privilege, equality can feel like oppression or exclusion and so we need to focus on how we can reframe inclusion work as being beneficial to all rather than to a few. Using storytelling, education, and relatability helps onboard more allies, understanding that equity is crucial to achieve equality. Inclusion means widening opportunities for everyone rather than limiting them to a select few. A wealth of research underscores the positive impact of inclusivity on business success. According to CIPD, 70% of employees report that a strong DEI culture positively impacts their job satisfaction. Forbes also discovered that 88% of consumers are more likely to be loyal to a company that supports social and environmental causes. Additionally, employees working in inclusive environments are 50% more likely to stay with their current employer for more than three years. Just over half of UK consumers (53%) say a brand's diversity and inclusion efforts, influence their purchase decisions. In fact, brands failing to act on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion risk losing out on £102bn annual spend from marginalised groups. Boston Consulting Group’s research demonstrates that organizations with diverse leadership see 19% higher innovation revenues. Beyond traditional meritocratic arguments, one principle is clear: inclusivity must be at the heart of every business strategy. Organisations where employees feel seen, heard, and valued naturally attract a broader, more diverse talent pool. Such employees tend to be more engaged, loyal, and productive, further strengthening the organisation's overall success and their bottom line. The UK tech industry is poised for continued growth and innovation, with a focus on emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing, however there is also a need to address challenges like talent shortages and international competition to maintain its position as a global leader.  Almost 95% of employers looking for tech talent have encountered a skills shortage in 2022, according to HR and recruitment firm Hays. In today’s job market, competitive salaries alone are not enough to attract and retain top talent. Employees now prioritise benefits, flexible working arrangements, career growth opportunities, and a sense of belonging. Organisations that prioritise inclusion, equal opportunities, and adaptability will be better positioned to navigate the evolving talent landscape and sustain long-term success. Ultimately, fostering an inclusive workplace is not merely a moral obligation; it is a business imperative. Companies that prioritise inclusion are more likely to attract top diverse talent, enhance employee engagement, and drive sustainable growth. Companies that fail to create inclusive environments are setting themselves up for failure. We are seeing more and more cases of sexual harassment, bullying and discrimination cases with high price tags. So, whether through loss of business, bad publicity or legal consequences, the price tag on exclusion can be staggering. Inclusion should not be seen as a separate HR initiative but as an integral part of an organisation’s DNA with all leaders owning an inclusion goal as part of their performance management. What gets measured, gets done! However, this can only happen if leaders and managers understand what inclusion truly means and they recognise that a diversity of voices, experiences and opinions will benefit their teams rather than hinder them. The future of work is about more than just employment—it is about providing opportunities for people to live, support their families, and achieve personal and professional growth. A poll, conducted by Ipsos for PA Mediapoint, indicates widespread support among the British public for key workplace DEI drives, including flexible working (71%), gender pay gap reporting (65%), and inclusivity training (64%). People care about wellbeing, inclusion and culture, which is why it is so important that organisations create workplaces where everyone is valued, empowered, and given the chance to succeed. True prosperity comes from ensuring that every individual, regardless of background and differences, can flourish. So, Inclusion does matter, particularly if you value creating a positive work environment that benefits employees, impacts the bottom line, and ensures everyone feels included rather than excluded. Read more about DEI in tech A lack of work-life balance and discrimination are among the biggest challenges for women in tech, finds Lorien When asked their opinions on the growing use of AI, girls expressed concerns about possible biases it will perpetuate, while boys were worried about cyber security

Meta has published the first of its quarterly integrity reports since Mark Zuckerberg walked back the company's hate speech policies and changed its approach to content moderation earlier this year. According to the reports, Facebook saw an uptick in violent content, bullying and harassment despite an overall decrease in the amount of content taken down by Meta. The reports are the first time Meta has shared data about how Zuckerberg's decision to upend Meta's policies have played out on the platform used by billions of people. Notably, the company is spinning the changes as a victory, saying that it reduced its mistakes by half while the overall prevalence of content breaking its rules "largely remained unchanged for most problem areas." There are two notable exceptions, however. Violent and graphic content increased from 0.06%-0.07% at the end of 2024 to .09% in the first quarter of 2025. Meta attributed the uptick to "an increase in sharing of violating content" as well as its own attempts to "reduce enforcement mistakes." Meta also saw a noted increase in the prevalence of bullying and harassment on Facebook, which increased from 0.06-0.07% at the end of 2024 to 0.07-0.08% at the start of 2025. Meta says this was due to an unspecified "spike" in violations in March. (Notably, this is a separate category from the company's hate speech policies, which were re-written to allow posts targeting immigrants and LGBTQ people.) Those may sound like relatively tiny percentages, but even small increases can be noticeable for a platform like Facebook that sees billions of posts every day. (Meta describes its prevalence metric as an estimate of how often rule-breaking content appears on its platform.) The report also underscores just how much less content Meta is taking down overall since it moved away from proactive enforcement of all but its most serious policies like child exploitation and terrorist content. Meta's report shows a significant decrease in the amount of Facebook posts removed for hateful content, for example, with just 3.4 million pieces of content "actioned" under the policy, the company's lowest figure since 2018. Spam removals also dropped precipitously from 730 million at the end of 2024 to just 366 million at the start of 2025. The number of fake accounts removed also declined notably on Facebook from 1.4 billion to 1 billion (Meta doesn't provide stats around fake account removals on Instagram.) At the same time, Meta claims it's making far fewer content moderation mistakes, which was one of Zuckerberg's main justifications for his decision to end proactive moderation."We saw a roughly 50% reduction in enforcement mistakes on our platforms in the United States from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025," the company wrote in an update to its January post announcing its policy changes. Meta didn't explain how it calculated that figure, but said future reports would "include metrics on our mistakes so that people can track our progress." Meta is acknowledging, however, that there is at least one group where some proactive moderation is still necessary: teens. "At the same time, we remain committed to ensuring teens on our platforms are having the safest experience possible," the company wrote. "That’s why, for teens, we’ll also continue to proactively hide other types of harmful content, like bullying." Meta has been rolling out "teen accounts" for the last several months, which should make it easier to filter content specifically for younger users. The company also offered an update on how it's using large language models to aid in its content moderation efforts. "Upon further testing, we are beginning to see LLMs operating beyond that of human performance for select policy areas," Meta writes. "We’re also using LLMs to remove content from review queues in certain circumstances when we’re highly confident it does not violate our policies." The other major component to Zuckerberg's policy changes was an end of Meta's fact-checking partnerships in the United States. The company began rolling out its own version of Community Notes to Facebook, Instagram and Threads earlier this year, and has since expanded the effort to Reels and Threads replies. Meta didn't offer any insight into how effective its new crowd-sourced approach to fact-checking might be or how often notes are appearing on its platform, though it promised updates in the coming months.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/facebook-sees-rise-in-violent-content-and-harassment-after-policy-changes-182651544.html?src=rss

Swifties have plenty to celebrate on Friday as Taylor Swift announced that she now owns the master recordings of her first six albums after years of trying and failing to buy them. Swift posted the news to her website, explaining that she was able to purchase the original versions of the albums from Shamrock Capital, the private equity firm that bought the recordings from music manager Scooter Braun in 2020 for at least $300 million.  In an emotional letter, Swift called securing her masters a dream come true, describing herself as “endlessly thankful” to Shamrock Capital for handling the deal fairly and offering her the first chance she’s ever been given to buy back her own music. “This was a business deal to them, but I really felt like they saw it for what it was to me: My memories and my sweat and my handwriting and my decades of dreams,” Swift wrote. An uphill battle, even for a billionaire titan of the music industry After two decades “of having the carrot dangled and then yanked away,” Swift admitted that she almost stopped believing that she would ever own the original recordings. “But that’s all in the past now,” Swift wrote. “I’ve been bursting into tears of joy at random intervals ever since I found out that this is really happening. I really get to say these words: All of the music I’ve ever made . . . now belongs . . . to me.” In 2019, Braun acquired Nashville indie record label Big Machine, along with the rights to the albums Swift had recorded there. After Braun’s purchase, Swift stated that she was in no way consulted on the deal and had suffered from “incessant, manipulative bullying” by the industry executive.  “It’s a shame to know that I will now be unable to help grow the future of these past works and it pains me very deeply to be separated from the music I spent over a decade creating,” Swift said after the deal went public. An update on the status of Reputation In light of her struggle to regain control of her own music, Swift set out to rerecord the albums she didn’t own. She began issuing Taylor’s Version updates to her missing catalog albums in 2021, putting out rerecordings of Fearless, Red, Speak Now, and 1989 accompanied by previously unreleased songs. Fans eager for news that Swift had finished rerecording her sixth studio album, Reputation, have plenty to cheer but are still in for a wait. In her announcement, Swift divulged that, “full transparency,” she’s less than a quarter of the way through the process. “To be perfectly honest, it’s the one album in the first 6 that I thought couldn’t be improved upon by redoing it. Not the music, or photos, or videos. So I kept putting it off,” Swift wrote, adding that she’s happy with a now-finished rerecording of her self-titled debut album.  “Those 2 albums can still have their moments to re-emerge when the time is right . . . But if it happens, it won’t be from a place of sadness and longing for what I wish I could have,” Swift wrote. “It will just be a celebration now.”