• Hytale is officially done for good. Riot Games has thrown in the towel, and it seems like the project won't be moving forward. It was supposed to be the next big thing after Minecraft, but now it's just another canceled dream. Not much excitement here, honestly. Just a reminder that not everything turns out the way we hope.

    #Hytale #RiotGames #GameDevelopment #CanceledProjects #MinecraftAlternative
    Hytale is officially done for good. Riot Games has thrown in the towel, and it seems like the project won't be moving forward. It was supposed to be the next big thing after Minecraft, but now it's just another canceled dream. Not much excitement here, honestly. Just a reminder that not everything turns out the way we hope. #Hytale #RiotGames #GameDevelopment #CanceledProjects #MinecraftAlternative
    Hytale c’est fini pour de bon, Riot Games jette l’éponge
    Hytale devait être le Minecraft nouvelle génération. Mais Riot a tranché, le projet n’ira pas […] Cet article Hytale c’est fini pour de bon, Riot Games jette l’éponge a été publié sur REALITE-VIRTUELLE.COM.
    1 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri
  • Sony is Still Putting Its Faith in ‘Marathon’

    Bungie’s Marathon is still coming out, and when it does, PlayStation plans on giving the extraction shooter a fair shot. During a recent investor interview, Sony Interactive Entertainment head Herman Hulst assured the game would come out before March 31, 2026, when Sony’s fiscal year ends. Touching on its recent alpha test, he descbied the feedback as “varied, but super useful.The constant testing, the constant re-validation of assumptions that we just talked about, to me is just so valuable to iterate and to constantly improve the title, so when launch comes, we’re going to give the title the optimal chance of success.” Hanging over PlayStation is 2024’s sci-fi shooter Concord, which shut down weeks after launch and later led to developer Firewalk Studios closing down. That’s been just one of several botched attempts from PlayStation’s attempts to enter live-service games, which includes several canceled projects and layoffs across its first-party studios. While acknowledging these “unique challenges” and attributing Concord’s failure to the “hypercompetitive market” of hero shooters, Hulst talked up how they’re avoiding the same mistakes with Marathon. “It’s going to be the first new Bungie title in over a decade, and it’s our goal to release a very bold, very innovative, and deeply engaging title. We’re monitoring the closed alpha cycle the team has just gone through. We’re taking all the lessons learned, we’re using the capabilities we’ve built and analytics and user testing to understand how audiences are engaging with the title.”

    One thing Hulst didn’t touch on, though, was the recent accusations of art plagiarism levvied against Bungie. In May, artist Fern “Antireal” Hook released evidence alleging the studio stole assets she made from previous work and failed to credit her. After investigating, Bungie attributed the theft to the work of a former employee, publicly apologized, and said it would do “everything we can to make this right” with Hook. It also promised to review all in-game assets and replace “questionably sourced” art with original, in-house work. With the mention of its arriving before the fiscal year ends, Marathon may be delayed out of its current September 23 launch. At time of writing, Bungie and PlayStation have kept mum on a potential delay, but the game failed to make an appearance at PlayStation’s recent State of Play in early June.Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.
    #sony #still #putting #its #faith
    Sony is Still Putting Its Faith in ‘Marathon’
    Bungie’s Marathon is still coming out, and when it does, PlayStation plans on giving the extraction shooter a fair shot. During a recent investor interview, Sony Interactive Entertainment head Herman Hulst assured the game would come out before March 31, 2026, when Sony’s fiscal year ends. Touching on its recent alpha test, he descbied the feedback as “varied, but super useful.The constant testing, the constant re-validation of assumptions that we just talked about, to me is just so valuable to iterate and to constantly improve the title, so when launch comes, we’re going to give the title the optimal chance of success.” Hanging over PlayStation is 2024’s sci-fi shooter Concord, which shut down weeks after launch and later led to developer Firewalk Studios closing down. That’s been just one of several botched attempts from PlayStation’s attempts to enter live-service games, which includes several canceled projects and layoffs across its first-party studios. While acknowledging these “unique challenges” and attributing Concord’s failure to the “hypercompetitive market” of hero shooters, Hulst talked up how they’re avoiding the same mistakes with Marathon. “It’s going to be the first new Bungie title in over a decade, and it’s our goal to release a very bold, very innovative, and deeply engaging title. We’re monitoring the closed alpha cycle the team has just gone through. We’re taking all the lessons learned, we’re using the capabilities we’ve built and analytics and user testing to understand how audiences are engaging with the title.” One thing Hulst didn’t touch on, though, was the recent accusations of art plagiarism levvied against Bungie. In May, artist Fern “Antireal” Hook released evidence alleging the studio stole assets she made from previous work and failed to credit her. After investigating, Bungie attributed the theft to the work of a former employee, publicly apologized, and said it would do “everything we can to make this right” with Hook. It also promised to review all in-game assets and replace “questionably sourced” art with original, in-house work. With the mention of its arriving before the fiscal year ends, Marathon may be delayed out of its current September 23 launch. At time of writing, Bungie and PlayStation have kept mum on a potential delay, but the game failed to make an appearance at PlayStation’s recent State of Play in early June.Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who. #sony #still #putting #its #faith
    GIZMODO.COM
    Sony is Still Putting Its Faith in ‘Marathon’
    Bungie’s Marathon is still coming out, and when it does, PlayStation plans on giving the extraction shooter a fair shot. During a recent investor interview, Sony Interactive Entertainment head Herman Hulst assured the game would come out before March 31, 2026, when Sony’s fiscal year ends. Touching on its recent alpha test, he descbied the feedback as “varied, but super useful. […] The constant testing, the constant re-validation of assumptions that we just talked about, to me is just so valuable to iterate and to constantly improve the title, so when launch comes, we’re going to give the title the optimal chance of success.” Hanging over PlayStation is 2024’s sci-fi shooter Concord, which shut down weeks after launch and later led to developer Firewalk Studios closing down. That’s been just one of several botched attempts from PlayStation’s attempts to enter live-service games, which includes several canceled projects and layoffs across its first-party studios. While acknowledging these “unique challenges” and attributing Concord’s failure to the “hypercompetitive market” of hero shooters, Hulst talked up how they’re avoiding the same mistakes with Marathon. “It’s going to be the first new Bungie title in over a decade, and it’s our goal to release a very bold, very innovative, and deeply engaging title. We’re monitoring the closed alpha cycle the team has just gone through. We’re taking all the lessons learned, we’re using the capabilities we’ve built and analytics and user testing to understand how audiences are engaging with the title.” One thing Hulst didn’t touch on, though, was the recent accusations of art plagiarism levvied against Bungie. In May, artist Fern “Antireal” Hook released evidence alleging the studio stole assets she made from previous work and failed to credit her. After investigating, Bungie attributed the theft to the work of a former employee, publicly apologized, and said it would do “everything we can to make this right” with Hook. It also promised to review all in-game assets and replace “questionably sourced” art with original, in-house work. With the mention of its arriving before the fiscal year ends, Marathon may be delayed out of its current September 23 launch. At time of writing, Bungie and PlayStation have kept mum on a potential delay, but the game failed to make an appearance at PlayStation’s recent State of Play in early June. [via IGN] Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.
    0 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri
  • Is Chris Evans Secretly Returning For ‘Avengers: Doomsday’?

    Doing press for his latest movie, Chris Evans was flat-out asked by a journalist: Are you returning for Marvel’s Avengers: Doomsday? That rumor has floated around the internet for months, no doubt buoyed by the fact that Evans made a surprise cameo in last summer’s Deadpool vs. Wolverine, despite the fact that he was supposed to be “retired” from the Marvel Cinematic Universe after the last Avengers movie, Endgame.Evans claimed he wasn’t involved. But he wouldn’t be the first Marvel star to lie about a role in an MCU movie — and he wouldn’t be the first “retired” Marvel hero returning for Doomsday either.Avengers: Doomsday video we look at the facts and speculate about whether Evans might or might not appear in the filmWatch our full discussion on Chris Evans and Doomsday below:READ MORE: The Weirdest Marvel Comics Ever PublishedIf you liked that video on whether Chris Evans is secretly in Avengers: Doomsday, check out more of our videos below, including one on the original plan for Madame Web and why it was so much better than what Sony actually made, one on the connection between Wanda and Doctor Doom, and one on the canceled X-Men vs. Fantastic Four film we never got to see. Plus, there’s tons more videos over at ScreenCrush’s YouTube channel. Be sure to subscribe to catch all our future episodes. Avengers: Doomsday is scheduled to open in theaters on December 18, 2026.Sign up for Disney+ here.Get our free mobile appEvery Marvel Cinematic Universe Movie, Ranked From Worst to BestIt started with Iron Man and it’s continued and expanded ever since. It’s the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with 36 movies and counting. But what’s the best and the worst? We ranked them all.
    #chris #evans #secretly #returning #avengers
    Is Chris Evans Secretly Returning For ‘Avengers: Doomsday’?
    Doing press for his latest movie, Chris Evans was flat-out asked by a journalist: Are you returning for Marvel’s Avengers: Doomsday? That rumor has floated around the internet for months, no doubt buoyed by the fact that Evans made a surprise cameo in last summer’s Deadpool vs. Wolverine, despite the fact that he was supposed to be “retired” from the Marvel Cinematic Universe after the last Avengers movie, Endgame.Evans claimed he wasn’t involved. But he wouldn’t be the first Marvel star to lie about a role in an MCU movie — and he wouldn’t be the first “retired” Marvel hero returning for Doomsday either.Avengers: Doomsday video we look at the facts and speculate about whether Evans might or might not appear in the filmWatch our full discussion on Chris Evans and Doomsday below:READ MORE: The Weirdest Marvel Comics Ever PublishedIf you liked that video on whether Chris Evans is secretly in Avengers: Doomsday, check out more of our videos below, including one on the original plan for Madame Web and why it was so much better than what Sony actually made, one on the connection between Wanda and Doctor Doom, and one on the canceled X-Men vs. Fantastic Four film we never got to see. Plus, there’s tons more videos over at ScreenCrush’s YouTube channel. Be sure to subscribe to catch all our future episodes. Avengers: Doomsday is scheduled to open in theaters on December 18, 2026.Sign up for Disney+ here.Get our free mobile appEvery Marvel Cinematic Universe Movie, Ranked From Worst to BestIt started with Iron Man and it’s continued and expanded ever since. It’s the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with 36 movies and counting. But what’s the best and the worst? We ranked them all. #chris #evans #secretly #returning #avengers
    SCREENCRUSH.COM
    Is Chris Evans Secretly Returning For ‘Avengers: Doomsday’?
    Doing press for his latest movie, Chris Evans was flat-out asked by a journalist: Are you returning for Marvel’s Avengers: Doomsday? That rumor has floated around the internet for months, no doubt buoyed by the fact that Evans made a surprise cameo in last summer’s Deadpool vs. Wolverine, despite the fact that he was supposed to be “retired” from the Marvel Cinematic Universe after the last Avengers movie, Endgame.Evans claimed he wasn’t involved. But he wouldn’t be the first Marvel star to lie about a role in an MCU movie — and he wouldn’t be the first “retired” Marvel hero returning for Doomsday either.Avengers: Doomsday video we look at the facts and speculate about whether Evans might or might not appear in the film (or, for that matter, its sequel, Avengers: Secret Wars)Watch our full discussion on Chris Evans and Doomsday below:READ MORE: The Weirdest Marvel Comics Ever PublishedIf you liked that video on whether Chris Evans is secretly in Avengers: Doomsday, check out more of our videos below, including one on the original plan for Madame Web and why it was so much better than what Sony actually made, one on the connection between Wanda and Doctor Doom, and one on the canceled X-Men vs. Fantastic Four film we never got to see. Plus, there’s tons more videos over at ScreenCrush’s YouTube channel. Be sure to subscribe to catch all our future episodes. Avengers: Doomsday is scheduled to open in theaters on December 18, 2026.Sign up for Disney+ here.Get our free mobile appEvery Marvel Cinematic Universe Movie, Ranked From Worst to BestIt started with Iron Man and it’s continued and expanded ever since. It’s the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with 36 movies and counting. But what’s the best and the worst? We ranked them all.
    0 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri
  • Nintendo Switch 2: Is It Worth Buying at Launch?

    Most of what you need to know about the Nintendo Switch 2 is right there in the name: this is the direct sequel to the Switch.
    It’s bigger, more powerful, more refined, and builds on a strong foundation. If you liked the first Switch, you’re almost certainly going to like the Switch 2. But whether it’s worth upgrading immediately is going to depend a lot on your current gaming library and how much you’re willing to spend for a small library of first party titles. 

    The Hardware
    From an ergonomic perspective, the Switch 2 is a definite upgrade over the original with a nicer looking, rounded off cradle, a bigger screen, and new magnetically attached Joy-cons that are a breeze to connect and remove. Also a really underrated new feature is the more flexible kickstand, which lets you play the Switch 2 from multiple angles if you’re into that sort of thing.
    While it didn’t really get much coverage in previews, I was also pleasantly surprised by a sturdier cover for game cards that will better lock them into place. That’s not hugely important, but it does show how much thought Nintendo put into the system to address almost every criticism of the original Switch, which was a pretty great portable to begin with.

    Furthermore, the sound quality of the Switch 2 in portable mode is surprisingly better than the old model. Oddly enough though, as good as the sound is, the HDR implementation is surprisingly underwhelming in this initial batch of games. That’s really not a huge deal, but it’s odd that Nintendo even pushed it at all given how barely noticeable it is right now. Maybe future gameswill improve on it.
    My only real gripe about the Switch 2 is that it’s maybe too big. I’m a six-foot and two inches, 270 pound professional wrestler in my spare time, and this thing is almost too big for my hands. It starts to feel a little heavy after an hour of playtime. At least the battery life is rock solid, however, which has always been a strong point of Nintendo portables, though the console does run noticeably warmer than its predecessor. 
    Set Up and the Switch 2 Experience
    Getting started with the Switch 2 is simple, although not without a bit of the typical Nintendo weirdness. By logging into my Wi-Fi and My Nintendo account, I transferred everything from my original Switch to the Switch 2 in a little over 10 minutes. All I had to do was plug in both consoles and move them within a few feet of each other.
    The one downside of this is that the Switch 2 then immediately decided to start downloading a few dozen of the most recent games I’ve played. That’s good in theory, but since the Switch 2 only comes with 256GB of internal storage, I didn’t want all those old games on my new console.
    If there’s an easier way than going through the game library and canceling all of those individual downloads, I couldn’t find it. Still, this made clear just how much space is going to be an issue with the new console. After downloading updates and just a handful of my older titles, I was down to only 175GB of space. When some launch titles are already clocking in at 60 gigs, it’s clear that a MicroSD Express card is going to be a necessity for a lot of gamers. Given the price of those, I do wish the Switch 2 had a port for older SD cards that could play original Switch games, or allowed for a hard drive in docked mode. Maybe that’s something we’ll see in an update down the line.
    Anyway, once I had downloaded what I wanted and canceled everything else, it was time to dive into the Switch 2 dashboard… which actually looks a lot like the original Switch’s. All of the icons are rounder, just like the cradle and system itself. The eShop doesn’t slow down anymore, and everything else is pretty much where it was on the first Switch. If you ever upgraded from an Xbox One to an Xbox Series X, it’s a similar type of negligible change.  

    What’s New with the Switch 2
    Unlike some past Nintendo consoles like the Wii, the Switch 2 doesn’t have any major new gimmicks, but there are a couple of interesting new features. The upgraded Joy-Cons can now be used like computer mice. There’s also GameChat, a new way to communicate with other players during gameplay through video and audio.

    Join our mailing list
    Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox!

    Honestly, I didn’t spend a lot of time with either of these features. They work as advertised, they’re just not exactly revolutionary, especially given that Microsoft and Sony have allowed this type of communication while gaming for years. There’s definitely promise to these ideas down the line, but they’re not exactly day one system sellers. It’s probably 50-50 whether we see games that take advantage of these features, or if developers just ignore them entirely.
    Switch 2 Games, Old and New
    The Switch 2 is launching with an impressive collection of more than two dozen games. Many like Street Fighter 6, Hogwarts Legacy, and Hitman are ports of games that have been available elsewhere for awhile now.
    I picked up Mario Kart World, Bravely Default HD, and Cyberpunk 2077. I’ll have fuller thoughts on Mario Kart World in a few days, but for now I’ll say it’s a very fun game that doesn’t necessarily do a whole lot to show off its console’s power. The other two games are excellent ports of older titles, with Cyberpunk 2077 in particular offering some enjoyable new control options thanks to the upgraded Joy-Cons. What’s especially impressive at launch are the upgrades to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. Available for each, or as part of an annual Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack membership. These almost look like brand new games with higher resolution and frame rates that now put them on par with a lot of the best looking games on Xbox or PlayStation. 
    Even in handheld mode, the Zelda titles look noticeably better than on the original Switch. The free upgrades I checked out in New Super Mario Bros. U, Super Mario Odyssey, and Super Mario 3D World + Bowser’s Fury don’t go quite that far in terms of improvements, but the games definitely do perform better. It was actually kind of rough going back to Switch games like Splatoon 3 and Xenoblade Chronicles X that don’t have enhancements of any kind, and still having to deal with their little graphical hiccups on the Switch 2. But I didn’t notice any issues with backwards compatibility. Original Switch games seem to play flawlessly on the new console.
    Another reason to check out the Switch 2 is GameCube games for Expansion Pack members. I played a few minutes each of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, F-Zero GX, and SoulCalibur II and I’m pleased to report that they all performed admirably. Whatever emulator Nintendo is using doesn’t make these games look like full-on remasters, but they do look very sharp on a 4K TV, and I’m excited to see what other classic titles get added in the future.

    Is the Switch 2 Worth Buying?
    Whether you should pick up a Switch 2 right nowreally depends. If you always wanted a Switch but for some reason never got one, a Switch 2 is an absolute no brainer. It’s going to be the best way to experience some Switch classics like Breath of the Wild and Super Mario Odyssey. If you haven’t had any other way to play great games like Cyberpunk 2077, Yakuza 0, or Hogwarts Legacy, then yes, the Switch 2 is an excellent purchase, and it’s cheaper than either a PlayStation 5 or Xbox Series X.But if you’ve played your original Switch to death and have any other current gen console, a solid gaming PC, or a Steam Deck, the Switch 2 is a dicier proposition.
    Some great looking games like Donkey Kong Bananza, Metroid Prime 4, and Hyrule Warriors: Age of Imprisonment are on the horizon, and I have no doubt the Switch 2 will be worth the purchase over time, but and up is a lot to ask for what the console offers at the moment.
    #nintendo #switch #worth #buying #launch
    Nintendo Switch 2: Is It Worth Buying at Launch?
    Most of what you need to know about the Nintendo Switch 2 is right there in the name: this is the direct sequel to the Switch. It’s bigger, more powerful, more refined, and builds on a strong foundation. If you liked the first Switch, you’re almost certainly going to like the Switch 2. But whether it’s worth upgrading immediately is going to depend a lot on your current gaming library and how much you’re willing to spend for a small library of first party titles.  The Hardware From an ergonomic perspective, the Switch 2 is a definite upgrade over the original with a nicer looking, rounded off cradle, a bigger screen, and new magnetically attached Joy-cons that are a breeze to connect and remove. Also a really underrated new feature is the more flexible kickstand, which lets you play the Switch 2 from multiple angles if you’re into that sort of thing. While it didn’t really get much coverage in previews, I was also pleasantly surprised by a sturdier cover for game cards that will better lock them into place. That’s not hugely important, but it does show how much thought Nintendo put into the system to address almost every criticism of the original Switch, which was a pretty great portable to begin with. Furthermore, the sound quality of the Switch 2 in portable mode is surprisingly better than the old model. Oddly enough though, as good as the sound is, the HDR implementation is surprisingly underwhelming in this initial batch of games. That’s really not a huge deal, but it’s odd that Nintendo even pushed it at all given how barely noticeable it is right now. Maybe future gameswill improve on it. My only real gripe about the Switch 2 is that it’s maybe too big. I’m a six-foot and two inches, 270 pound professional wrestler in my spare time, and this thing is almost too big for my hands. It starts to feel a little heavy after an hour of playtime. At least the battery life is rock solid, however, which has always been a strong point of Nintendo portables, though the console does run noticeably warmer than its predecessor.  Set Up and the Switch 2 Experience Getting started with the Switch 2 is simple, although not without a bit of the typical Nintendo weirdness. By logging into my Wi-Fi and My Nintendo account, I transferred everything from my original Switch to the Switch 2 in a little over 10 minutes. All I had to do was plug in both consoles and move them within a few feet of each other. The one downside of this is that the Switch 2 then immediately decided to start downloading a few dozen of the most recent games I’ve played. That’s good in theory, but since the Switch 2 only comes with 256GB of internal storage, I didn’t want all those old games on my new console. If there’s an easier way than going through the game library and canceling all of those individual downloads, I couldn’t find it. Still, this made clear just how much space is going to be an issue with the new console. After downloading updates and just a handful of my older titles, I was down to only 175GB of space. When some launch titles are already clocking in at 60 gigs, it’s clear that a MicroSD Express card is going to be a necessity for a lot of gamers. Given the price of those, I do wish the Switch 2 had a port for older SD cards that could play original Switch games, or allowed for a hard drive in docked mode. Maybe that’s something we’ll see in an update down the line. Anyway, once I had downloaded what I wanted and canceled everything else, it was time to dive into the Switch 2 dashboard… which actually looks a lot like the original Switch’s. All of the icons are rounder, just like the cradle and system itself. The eShop doesn’t slow down anymore, and everything else is pretty much where it was on the first Switch. If you ever upgraded from an Xbox One to an Xbox Series X, it’s a similar type of negligible change.   What’s New with the Switch 2 Unlike some past Nintendo consoles like the Wii, the Switch 2 doesn’t have any major new gimmicks, but there are a couple of interesting new features. The upgraded Joy-Cons can now be used like computer mice. There’s also GameChat, a new way to communicate with other players during gameplay through video and audio. Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox! Honestly, I didn’t spend a lot of time with either of these features. They work as advertised, they’re just not exactly revolutionary, especially given that Microsoft and Sony have allowed this type of communication while gaming for years. There’s definitely promise to these ideas down the line, but they’re not exactly day one system sellers. It’s probably 50-50 whether we see games that take advantage of these features, or if developers just ignore them entirely. Switch 2 Games, Old and New The Switch 2 is launching with an impressive collection of more than two dozen games. Many like Street Fighter 6, Hogwarts Legacy, and Hitman are ports of games that have been available elsewhere for awhile now. I picked up Mario Kart World, Bravely Default HD, and Cyberpunk 2077. I’ll have fuller thoughts on Mario Kart World in a few days, but for now I’ll say it’s a very fun game that doesn’t necessarily do a whole lot to show off its console’s power. The other two games are excellent ports of older titles, with Cyberpunk 2077 in particular offering some enjoyable new control options thanks to the upgraded Joy-Cons. What’s especially impressive at launch are the upgrades to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. Available for each, or as part of an annual Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack membership. These almost look like brand new games with higher resolution and frame rates that now put them on par with a lot of the best looking games on Xbox or PlayStation.  Even in handheld mode, the Zelda titles look noticeably better than on the original Switch. The free upgrades I checked out in New Super Mario Bros. U, Super Mario Odyssey, and Super Mario 3D World + Bowser’s Fury don’t go quite that far in terms of improvements, but the games definitely do perform better. It was actually kind of rough going back to Switch games like Splatoon 3 and Xenoblade Chronicles X that don’t have enhancements of any kind, and still having to deal with their little graphical hiccups on the Switch 2. But I didn’t notice any issues with backwards compatibility. Original Switch games seem to play flawlessly on the new console. Another reason to check out the Switch 2 is GameCube games for Expansion Pack members. I played a few minutes each of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, F-Zero GX, and SoulCalibur II and I’m pleased to report that they all performed admirably. Whatever emulator Nintendo is using doesn’t make these games look like full-on remasters, but they do look very sharp on a 4K TV, and I’m excited to see what other classic titles get added in the future. Is the Switch 2 Worth Buying? Whether you should pick up a Switch 2 right nowreally depends. If you always wanted a Switch but for some reason never got one, a Switch 2 is an absolute no brainer. It’s going to be the best way to experience some Switch classics like Breath of the Wild and Super Mario Odyssey. If you haven’t had any other way to play great games like Cyberpunk 2077, Yakuza 0, or Hogwarts Legacy, then yes, the Switch 2 is an excellent purchase, and it’s cheaper than either a PlayStation 5 or Xbox Series X.But if you’ve played your original Switch to death and have any other current gen console, a solid gaming PC, or a Steam Deck, the Switch 2 is a dicier proposition. Some great looking games like Donkey Kong Bananza, Metroid Prime 4, and Hyrule Warriors: Age of Imprisonment are on the horizon, and I have no doubt the Switch 2 will be worth the purchase over time, but and up is a lot to ask for what the console offers at the moment. #nintendo #switch #worth #buying #launch
    WWW.DENOFGEEK.COM
    Nintendo Switch 2: Is It Worth Buying at Launch?
    Most of what you need to know about the Nintendo Switch 2 is right there in the name: this is the direct sequel to the Switch. It’s bigger, more powerful, more refined, and builds on a strong foundation. If you liked the first Switch, you’re almost certainly going to like the Switch 2. But whether it’s worth upgrading immediately is going to depend a lot on your current gaming library and how much you’re willing to spend for a small library of first party titles.  The Hardware From an ergonomic perspective, the Switch 2 is a definite upgrade over the original with a nicer looking, rounded off cradle, a bigger screen, and new magnetically attached Joy-cons that are a breeze to connect and remove. Also a really underrated new feature is the more flexible kickstand, which lets you play the Switch 2 from multiple angles if you’re into that sort of thing. While it didn’t really get much coverage in previews, I was also pleasantly surprised by a sturdier cover for game cards that will better lock them into place. That’s not hugely important, but it does show how much thought Nintendo put into the system to address almost every criticism of the original Switch, which was a pretty great portable to begin with. Furthermore, the sound quality of the Switch 2 in portable mode is surprisingly better than the old model. Oddly enough though, as good as the sound is, the HDR implementation is surprisingly underwhelming in this initial batch of games. That’s really not a huge deal, but it’s odd that Nintendo even pushed it at all given how barely noticeable it is right now. Maybe future games (or a future Switch 2 refresh) will improve on it. My only real gripe about the Switch 2 is that it’s maybe too big. I’m a six-foot and two inches, 270 pound professional wrestler in my spare time, and this thing is almost too big for my hands. It starts to feel a little heavy after an hour of playtime. At least the battery life is rock solid, however, which has always been a strong point of Nintendo portables, though the console does run noticeably warmer than its predecessor.  Set Up and the Switch 2 Experience Getting started with the Switch 2 is simple, although not without a bit of the typical Nintendo weirdness. By logging into my Wi-Fi and My Nintendo account, I transferred everything from my original Switch to the Switch 2 in a little over 10 minutes. All I had to do was plug in both consoles and move them within a few feet of each other. The one downside of this is that the Switch 2 then immediately decided to start downloading a few dozen of the most recent games I’ve played. That’s good in theory, but since the Switch 2 only comes with 256GB of internal storage, I didn’t want all those old games on my new console. If there’s an easier way than going through the game library and canceling all of those individual downloads, I couldn’t find it. Still, this made clear just how much space is going to be an issue with the new console. After downloading updates and just a handful of my older titles, I was down to only 175GB of space. When some launch titles are already clocking in at 60 gigs, it’s clear that a MicroSD Express card is going to be a necessity for a lot of gamers. Given the price of those, I do wish the Switch 2 had a port for older SD cards that could play original Switch games, or allowed for a hard drive in docked mode. Maybe that’s something we’ll see in an update down the line. Anyway, once I had downloaded what I wanted and canceled everything else, it was time to dive into the Switch 2 dashboard… which actually looks a lot like the original Switch’s. All of the icons are rounder, just like the cradle and system itself. The eShop doesn’t slow down anymore, and everything else is pretty much where it was on the first Switch. If you ever upgraded from an Xbox One to an Xbox Series X, it’s a similar type of negligible change.   What’s New with the Switch 2 Unlike some past Nintendo consoles like the Wii, the Switch 2 doesn’t have any major new gimmicks, but there are a couple of interesting new features. The upgraded Joy-Cons can now be used like computer mice. There’s also GameChat, a new way to communicate with other players during gameplay through video and audio. Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox! Honestly, I didn’t spend a lot of time with either of these features. They work as advertised, they’re just not exactly revolutionary, especially given that Microsoft and Sony have allowed this type of communication while gaming for years. There’s definitely promise to these ideas down the line, but they’re not exactly day one system sellers. It’s probably 50-50 whether we see games that take advantage of these features, or if developers just ignore them entirely. Switch 2 Games, Old and New The Switch 2 is launching with an impressive collection of more than two dozen games. Many like Street Fighter 6, Hogwarts Legacy, and Hitman are ports of games that have been available elsewhere for awhile now. I picked up Mario Kart World, Bravely Default HD, and Cyberpunk 2077. I’ll have fuller thoughts on Mario Kart World in a few days, but for now I’ll say it’s a very fun game that doesn’t necessarily do a whole lot to show off its console’s power. The other two games are excellent ports of older titles, with Cyberpunk 2077 in particular offering some enjoyable new control options thanks to the upgraded Joy-Cons. What’s especially impressive at launch are the upgrades to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. Available for $10 each, or as part of an annual Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack membership. These almost look like brand new games with higher resolution and frame rates that now put them on par with a lot of the best looking games on Xbox or PlayStation.  Even in handheld mode, the Zelda titles look noticeably better than on the original Switch. The free upgrades I checked out in New Super Mario Bros. U, Super Mario Odyssey, and Super Mario 3D World + Bowser’s Fury don’t go quite that far in terms of improvements, but the games definitely do perform better. It was actually kind of rough going back to Switch games like Splatoon 3 and Xenoblade Chronicles X that don’t have enhancements of any kind, and still having to deal with their little graphical hiccups on the Switch 2. But I didn’t notice any issues with backwards compatibility. Original Switch games seem to play flawlessly on the new console. Another reason to check out the Switch 2 is GameCube games for Expansion Pack members. I played a few minutes each of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, F-Zero GX, and SoulCalibur II and I’m pleased to report that they all performed admirably. Whatever emulator Nintendo is using doesn’t make these games look like full-on remasters, but they do look very sharp on a 4K TV, and I’m excited to see what other classic titles get added in the future. Is the Switch 2 Worth Buying? Whether you should pick up a Switch 2 right now (if you can even find one) really depends. If you always wanted a Switch but for some reason never got one, a Switch 2 is an absolute no brainer. It’s going to be the best way to experience some Switch classics like Breath of the Wild and Super Mario Odyssey. If you haven’t had any other way to play great games like Cyberpunk 2077, Yakuza 0, or Hogwarts Legacy, then yes, the Switch 2 is an excellent purchase, and it’s cheaper than either a PlayStation 5 or Xbox Series X.But if you’ve played your original Switch to death and have any other current gen console, a solid gaming PC, or a Steam Deck, the Switch 2 is a dicier proposition. Some great looking games like Donkey Kong Bananza, Metroid Prime 4, and Hyrule Warriors: Age of Imprisonment are on the horizon, and I have no doubt the Switch 2 will be worth the purchase over time, but $450 and up is a lot to ask for what the console offers at the moment.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    511
    0 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri
  • Starlink Deal in Canada Still Dead, Despite Musk's Breakup With Trump

    Elon Musk’s sudden breakup with President Trump took over social media on Thursday. But the escalating feud won’t be enough to salvage a Starlink contract with Canada’s Ontario province, which canceled the deal to hit back at Trump’s trade war. Ontario Premier Doug Ford today confirmed to reporters that the Starlink deal is still dead, even though Musk is on the outs with Trump. Ford also couldn’t help but take a shot at the very public demise of the Musk-Trump partnership.“Yes, Starlink is done,” he said. “Are we surprised that they’re not seeing eye-to-eye? I predicted that as soon as that marriage happened. I thought that there would be a divorce real quick.”As for why Ontario won’t revive the deal, Ford indicated that Musk’s past support of Trump and his trade war against Canada went too far. This included Musk tweeting “Canada is not a real country" in response to a petition urging the Canadian government to rescind his citizenship.Recommended by Our Editors“I don’t want to deal with someone who’s attacking our country. And he was one of the number one culprits, Elon Musk. And that’s unacceptable. I can’t do business with someone that’s doing that,” Ford said. SpaceX’s Starlink business was originally supposed to receive a million CADcontract to deploy satellite internet dishes that would connect 15,000 underserved homes and businesses. But in March, Ontario killed the deal to retaliate against Trump’s 25% tariff on Canadian goods. The decision caused anti-Starlink sentiment skyrocketed in the country, but it also undermined Ontario's effort to bring high-speed broadband to rural and remote areas. Still, some Canadian consumers continue to subscribe to and sign up for the satellite internet service, which has been pushing Starlink promotions in the country. In the meantime, Musk’s emerging feud with Trump could trigger some harsh consequences for SpaceX, which receives numerous federal contracts. In a Truth Social post on Thursday, the President said: “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.”
    #starlink #deal #canada #still #dead
    Starlink Deal in Canada Still Dead, Despite Musk's Breakup With Trump
    Elon Musk’s sudden breakup with President Trump took over social media on Thursday. But the escalating feud won’t be enough to salvage a Starlink contract with Canada’s Ontario province, which canceled the deal to hit back at Trump’s trade war. Ontario Premier Doug Ford today confirmed to reporters that the Starlink deal is still dead, even though Musk is on the outs with Trump. Ford also couldn’t help but take a shot at the very public demise of the Musk-Trump partnership.“Yes, Starlink is done,” he said. “Are we surprised that they’re not seeing eye-to-eye? I predicted that as soon as that marriage happened. I thought that there would be a divorce real quick.”As for why Ontario won’t revive the deal, Ford indicated that Musk’s past support of Trump and his trade war against Canada went too far. This included Musk tweeting “Canada is not a real country" in response to a petition urging the Canadian government to rescind his citizenship.Recommended by Our Editors“I don’t want to deal with someone who’s attacking our country. And he was one of the number one culprits, Elon Musk. And that’s unacceptable. I can’t do business with someone that’s doing that,” Ford said. SpaceX’s Starlink business was originally supposed to receive a million CADcontract to deploy satellite internet dishes that would connect 15,000 underserved homes and businesses. But in March, Ontario killed the deal to retaliate against Trump’s 25% tariff on Canadian goods. The decision caused anti-Starlink sentiment skyrocketed in the country, but it also undermined Ontario's effort to bring high-speed broadband to rural and remote areas. Still, some Canadian consumers continue to subscribe to and sign up for the satellite internet service, which has been pushing Starlink promotions in the country. In the meantime, Musk’s emerging feud with Trump could trigger some harsh consequences for SpaceX, which receives numerous federal contracts. In a Truth Social post on Thursday, the President said: “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.” #starlink #deal #canada #still #dead
    ME.PCMAG.COM
    Starlink Deal in Canada Still Dead, Despite Musk's Breakup With Trump
    Elon Musk’s sudden breakup with President Trump took over social media on Thursday. But the escalating feud won’t be enough to salvage a Starlink contract with Canada’s Ontario province, which canceled the deal to hit back at Trump’s trade war. Ontario Premier Doug Ford today confirmed to reporters that the Starlink deal is still dead, even though Musk is on the outs with Trump. Ford also couldn’t help but take a shot at the very public demise of the Musk-Trump partnership.“Yes, Starlink is done,” he said. “Are we surprised that they’re not seeing eye-to-eye? I predicted that as soon as that marriage happened. I thought that there would be a divorce real quick.”As for why Ontario won’t revive the deal, Ford indicated that Musk’s past support of Trump and his trade war against Canada went too far. This included Musk tweeting “Canada is not a real country" in response to a petition urging the Canadian government to rescind his citizenship.Recommended by Our Editors“I don’t want to deal with someone who’s attacking our country. And he was one of the number one culprits, Elon Musk. And that’s unacceptable. I can’t do business with someone that’s doing that,” Ford said. SpaceX’s Starlink business was originally supposed to receive a $100 million CAD ($73 million) contract to deploy satellite internet dishes that would connect 15,000 underserved homes and businesses. But in March, Ontario killed the deal to retaliate against Trump’s 25% tariff on Canadian goods. The decision caused anti-Starlink sentiment skyrocketed in the country, but it also undermined Ontario's effort to bring high-speed broadband to rural and remote areas. Still, some Canadian consumers continue to subscribe to and sign up for the satellite internet service, which has been pushing Starlink promotions in the country. In the meantime, Musk’s emerging feud with Trump could trigger some harsh consequences for SpaceX, which receives numerous federal contracts. In a Truth Social post on Thursday, the President said: “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.”
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    386
    0 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri
  • US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war

    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. "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 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. 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
    #science #being #wrecked #its #leadership
    US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war
    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. "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 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. 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 #science #being #wrecked #its #leadership
    ARSTECHNICA.COM
    US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war
    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
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    209
    0 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri
  • ACSA announces new JAE issue, edited by Rafael Longoria and Michelangelo Sabatino, after Palestine edition fallout

    It has been 3 months since ACSA canceled the Fall 2025 Journal of Architectural Educationissue about Palestine and fired its interim executive editor, McClain Clutter. In response, the JAE editorial board resigned in protest.
    ACSA subsequently put out a solicitation for services to honor its contract with Taylor & Francis, who publishes JAE, and it sought new theme editors to publish an alternative Winter 2025 issue. ACSA also hired Maverick Publishing Specialists to conduct an independent review of JAE and ACSA editorial policy and practices related to the terminated 79.2 Palestine issue.

    University of Houston’s Rafael Longoria and Michelangelo Sabatino of the Illinois Institute of Technology are the Winter 2025 JAE 79:2 editors. Their theme for the issue? “Educating Civic Architects.”
    The new call for papers situates itself in our “increasingly complex economic, environmental, and political reality.”
    Theme editors seek “contributions that explore the full range of expressions of civic architecture and community design—past, present, and future.” The word “civic” is repeated throughout the open call, which echoes the Trump administration’s recent mandate for “beautiful federal civic architecture.” 
    The open call asks:
    “How might educating civic-minded architects help inspire and guide the profession? How do architecture schools foster a culture of collaboration with community and city leaders? How can design research inform the evolving role that civic-minded architects can play? Beyond the design studio, what role should the teaching of history, theory, professional practice, policy, technology, and other disciplines play in educating civic architects?”
    The open call cites Luiz Paulo Conde, an architect who became the mayor of Rio de Janeiro; former Peruvian architect-turned-president ​​Fernando Belaúnde Terry; and Jaime Lerner, an architect-turned-mayor-turned-governor from Brazil as cases to emulate.
    Terry organized PREVI, an ambitious social housing competition in Lima in the 1970s, but he also launched a settler-colonial campaign in Peru’s Indigenous territories.Italian mayors Giulio Carlo Argan and Massimo Cacciari, of Rome and Venice, respectively, were other examples of aesthete politicians JAE cited.

    Domestic examples are also offered, like Joseph P. Riley Jr., former mayor of Charleston, South Carolina; Harvey Gantt, former mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina; and Maurice Cox, who was mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia, before going on to leadership roles in Detroit and Chicago city government.
    Practicing architects are cited, like Richard Rogers and Johanna Hurme of 5468796 Architecture. The editors also invite reflections on postmodernism as it led to “increased attention on contextual design, vernacular architecture, and perhaps more significantly a reinvigorated interest in urban design.”
    ACSA executive director Michael Monti told AN: “We solicited proposals from a number of potential editorial teams. The interim editorial team for the Fall 2025 issue was selected through a committee of the Board of Directors. They authored the theme and the Call for Papers.”
    “The organization continues with the next steps for the journal that we communicated to our membership in the spring. This includes an external assessment of decisions, processes, and structures related to JAE and ACSA,” Monti added. “We are also convening a special committee to provide guidance on broader threats and issues facing our member schools. Those steps will inform the appointment of a new Executive Editor and Editorial Board in the upcoming months as well as the direction of the journal.”

    Disclosure: The author previously responded to the JAE’s call for papers for its now-canceled issue on Palestine.
    #acsa #announces #new #jae #issue
    ACSA announces new JAE issue, edited by Rafael Longoria and Michelangelo Sabatino, after Palestine edition fallout
    It has been 3 months since ACSA canceled the Fall 2025 Journal of Architectural Educationissue about Palestine and fired its interim executive editor, McClain Clutter. In response, the JAE editorial board resigned in protest. ACSA subsequently put out a solicitation for services to honor its contract with Taylor & Francis, who publishes JAE, and it sought new theme editors to publish an alternative Winter 2025 issue. ACSA also hired Maverick Publishing Specialists to conduct an independent review of JAE and ACSA editorial policy and practices related to the terminated 79.2 Palestine issue. University of Houston’s Rafael Longoria and Michelangelo Sabatino of the Illinois Institute of Technology are the Winter 2025 JAE 79:2 editors. Their theme for the issue? “Educating Civic Architects.” The new call for papers situates itself in our “increasingly complex economic, environmental, and political reality.” Theme editors seek “contributions that explore the full range of expressions of civic architecture and community design—past, present, and future.” The word “civic” is repeated throughout the open call, which echoes the Trump administration’s recent mandate for “beautiful federal civic architecture.”  The open call asks: “How might educating civic-minded architects help inspire and guide the profession? How do architecture schools foster a culture of collaboration with community and city leaders? How can design research inform the evolving role that civic-minded architects can play? Beyond the design studio, what role should the teaching of history, theory, professional practice, policy, technology, and other disciplines play in educating civic architects?” The open call cites Luiz Paulo Conde, an architect who became the mayor of Rio de Janeiro; former Peruvian architect-turned-president ​​Fernando Belaúnde Terry; and Jaime Lerner, an architect-turned-mayor-turned-governor from Brazil as cases to emulate. Terry organized PREVI, an ambitious social housing competition in Lima in the 1970s, but he also launched a settler-colonial campaign in Peru’s Indigenous territories.Italian mayors Giulio Carlo Argan and Massimo Cacciari, of Rome and Venice, respectively, were other examples of aesthete politicians JAE cited. Domestic examples are also offered, like Joseph P. Riley Jr., former mayor of Charleston, South Carolina; Harvey Gantt, former mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina; and Maurice Cox, who was mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia, before going on to leadership roles in Detroit and Chicago city government. Practicing architects are cited, like Richard Rogers and Johanna Hurme of 5468796 Architecture. The editors also invite reflections on postmodernism as it led to “increased attention on contextual design, vernacular architecture, and perhaps more significantly a reinvigorated interest in urban design.” ACSA executive director Michael Monti told AN: “We solicited proposals from a number of potential editorial teams. The interim editorial team for the Fall 2025 issue was selected through a committee of the Board of Directors. They authored the theme and the Call for Papers.” “The organization continues with the next steps for the journal that we communicated to our membership in the spring. This includes an external assessment of decisions, processes, and structures related to JAE and ACSA,” Monti added. “We are also convening a special committee to provide guidance on broader threats and issues facing our member schools. Those steps will inform the appointment of a new Executive Editor and Editorial Board in the upcoming months as well as the direction of the journal.” Disclosure: The author previously responded to the JAE’s call for papers for its now-canceled issue on Palestine. #acsa #announces #new #jae #issue
    ACSA announces new JAE issue, edited by Rafael Longoria and Michelangelo Sabatino, after Palestine edition fallout
    It has been 3 months since ACSA canceled the Fall 2025 Journal of Architectural Education (JAE) issue about Palestine and fired its interim executive editor, McClain Clutter. In response, the JAE editorial board resigned in protest. ACSA subsequently put out a solicitation for services to honor its contract with Taylor & Francis, who publishes JAE, and it sought new theme editors to publish an alternative Winter 2025 issue. ACSA also hired Maverick Publishing Specialists to conduct an independent review of JAE and ACSA editorial policy and practices related to the terminated 79.2 Palestine issue. University of Houston’s Rafael Longoria and Michelangelo Sabatino of the Illinois Institute of Technology are the Winter 2025 JAE 79:2 editors. Their theme for the issue? “Educating Civic Architects.” The new call for papers situates itself in our “increasingly complex economic, environmental, and political reality.” Theme editors seek “contributions that explore the full range of expressions of civic architecture and community design—past, present, and future.” The word “civic” is repeated throughout the open call, which echoes the Trump administration’s recent mandate for “beautiful federal civic architecture.”  The open call asks: “How might educating civic-minded architects help inspire and guide the profession? How do architecture schools foster a culture of collaboration with community and city leaders? How can design research inform the evolving role that civic-minded architects can play? Beyond the design studio, what role should the teaching of history, theory, professional practice, policy, technology, and other disciplines play in educating civic architects?” The open call cites Luiz Paulo Conde, an architect who became the mayor of Rio de Janeiro; former Peruvian architect-turned-president ​​Fernando Belaúnde Terry; and Jaime Lerner, an architect-turned-mayor-turned-governor from Brazil as cases to emulate. Terry organized PREVI, an ambitious social housing competition in Lima in the 1970s, but he also launched a settler-colonial campaign in Peru’s Indigenous territories. (Terry’s effort was outlined in his 1965 book Peru’s Own Conquest.) Italian mayors Giulio Carlo Argan and Massimo Cacciari, of Rome and Venice, respectively, were other examples of aesthete politicians JAE cited. Domestic examples are also offered, like Joseph P. Riley Jr., former mayor of Charleston, South Carolina; Harvey Gantt, former mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina; and Maurice Cox, who was mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia, before going on to leadership roles in Detroit and Chicago city government. Practicing architects are cited, like Richard Rogers and Johanna Hurme of 5468796 Architecture. The editors also invite reflections on postmodernism as it led to “increased attention on contextual design, vernacular architecture, and perhaps more significantly a reinvigorated interest in urban design.” ACSA executive director Michael Monti told AN: “We solicited proposals from a number of potential editorial teams. The interim editorial team for the Fall 2025 issue was selected through a committee of the Board of Directors. They authored the theme and the Call for Papers.” “The organization continues with the next steps for the journal that we communicated to our membership in the spring. This includes an external assessment of decisions, processes, and structures related to JAE and ACSA,” Monti added. “We are also convening a special committee to provide guidance on broader threats and issues facing our member schools. Those steps will inform the appointment of a new Executive Editor and Editorial Board in the upcoming months as well as the direction of the journal.” Disclosure: The author previously responded to the JAE’s call for papers for its now-canceled issue on Palestine.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    413
    0 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri