I spent an enormously disproportionate amount of my childhood playing one game: Buggy Boy. I have learned, in preparation for this article, that this arcade classic had a different name in the U.S. “Speed Buggy.” Pah-tooie. Ew. No. It’s Buggy Boy, an

In her new book Bad Company, journalist Megan Greenwell chronicles how private equity upended industries from health care to local news—and the ways workers are fighting back.

'This new phase allows me to focus on strategic initiatives, M&A, and capital allocation.'

## L'illusion du progrès : les tendances numériques dans les PME Laissez-moi vous dire une chose, et je vais être franc : la pandémie a révélé la vraie couleur de nombreuses industries. Nous avons été témoins d'un développement fulgurant dans certains secteurs, tandis que d'autres ont sombré dans l'oubli. Alors, quelle industrie a réellement tiré son épingle du jeu durant cette période...

Studio555 announced today that it has raised €4 million, or about $4.6 million in a seed funding round. It plans to put this funding towards creating a playable app, a game-like experience focused on interior design. HOF Capital and Failup Ventures led the round, with participation from the likes of Timo Soininen, co-founder of Small Giant Games; Mikko Kodisoja, co-founder of Supercell; and Riccardo Zacconi, co-founder of King. Studio555’s founders include entrepreneur Joel Roos, now the CEO, CTO Stina Larsson and CPO Axel Ullberger. The latter two formerly worked at King on the development of Candy Crush Saga. According to these founders, the app in development combines interior design with the design and consumer appeal of games and social apps. Users can create and design personal spaces without needing any technical expertise. The team plans to launch the app next year, and it plans to put its seed funding towards product development and growing its team. Roos said in a statement, “At Studio555, we’re reimagining interior design as something anyone can explore: open-ended, playful, and personal. We’re building an experience we always wished existed: a space where creativity is hands-on, social, and free from rigid rules. This funding is a major step forward in setting an entirely new category for creative expression.” Investor Timo Soininen said in a statement, “Studio555 brings together top-tier gaming talent and design vision. This team has built global hits before, and now they’re applying that experience to something completely fresh – think Pinterest in 3D meets TikTok, but for interiors. I’m honored to support Joel and this team with their rare mix of creativity, technical competence, and focus on execution.”

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future.  Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos. While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction.  “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.” “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology, [and] to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow.  A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in?  I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideology [a mashup of countercultural, libertarian, and neoliberal values] and through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization.  What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry.  Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share?  They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity.  In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics. You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so? Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end. The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen.  Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” [from 2023] is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth.  Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed? Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law. “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.” My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Moore [who first articulated it] knew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over.  These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins? You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care.  I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control.  You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is?  I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals. More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that? It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that sense of inevitability vanish pretty fast. This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 

India has been one of the top recipients of remittances in the world for more than a decade. Inward remittances jumped from $55.6 billion in 2010-11 to $118.7 billion in 2023-24, according to data from the country’s central bank. The bank projects that figure will reach $160 billion in 2029. This means there is an increasing market for digitalized banking experiences for non-resident Indians(NRIs), ranging from remittances to investing in different assets back home. Aspora (formerly Vance) is trying to build a verticalized financial experience for the Indian diaspora by keeping convenience at the center. While a lot of financial products are in its future roadmap, the company currently focuses largely on remittances. “While multiple financial products for non-resident Indians exist, they don’t know about them because there is no digital journey for them. They possibly use the same banking app as residents, which makes it harder for them to discover products catered towards them,” Garg said. In the last year, the company has grown the volume of remittances by 6x — from $400 million to $2 billion in yearly volume processed. With this growth, the company has attracted a lot of investor interest. It raised $35 million in Series A funding last December — which was previously unreported — led by Sequoia with participation from Greylock, Y Combinator, Hummingbird Ventures, and Global Founders Capital. The round pegged the company’s valuation at $150 million. In the four months following, the company tripled its transaction volume, prompting investors to put in more money. The company announced today it has raised $50 million in Series B funding, co-led by Sequoia and Greylock, with Hummingbird, Quantum Light Ventures, and Y Combinator also contributing to the round. The startup said this round values the company at $500 million. The startup has raised over $99 million in funding to date. Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | July 15 REGISTER NOW After pivoting from being Pipe.com for India, the company started by offering remittance for NRIs in the U.K. in 2023 and has expanded its presence in other markets, including Europe and the United Arab Emirates. It charges a flat fee for money transfer and offers a competitive rate. Now it also allows customers to invest in mutual funds in India. The startup markets its exchange rates as “Google rate” as customers often search for currency conversion rates, even though they may not reflect live rates. The startup is also set to launch in the U.S., one of the biggest remittance corridors to India, next month. Plus, it plans to open up shop in Canada, Singapore, and Australia by the fourth quarter of this year. Garg, who grew up in the UAE, said that remittances are just the start, and the company wants to build out more financial tools for NRIs. “We want to use remittances as a wedge and build all the financial solutions that the diaspora needs, including banking, investing, insurance, lending in the home country, and products that help them take care of their parents,” he told TechCrunch. He added that a large chunk of money that NRIs send home is for wealth creation rather than family sustenance. The startup said that 80% of its users are sending money to their own accounts back home. In the next few months, the company is launching a few products to offer more services. This month, it plans to launch a bill payment platform to let users pay for services like rent and utilities. Next month, it plans to launch fixed deposit accounts for non-resident Indians that allow them to park money in foreign currency. By the end of the year, it plans to launch a full-stack banking account for NRIs that typically takes days for users to open. While these accounts can help the diaspora maintain their tax status in India, a lot of people use a family member’s account because of the cumbersome process, and Aspora wants to simplify this. Apart from banking, the company also plans to launch a product that would help NRIs take care of their parents back home by offering regular medical checkups, emergency care coverage, and concierge services for other assistance. Besides global competitors like Remittly and Wise, the company also has India-based rivals like Abound, which was spun off from Times Internet. Sequoia’s Luciana Lixandru is confident that Aspora’s execution speed and verticalized solution will give it an edge. “Speed of execution, for me, is one of the main indicators in the early days of the future success of a company,” she told TechCrunch over a call. “Aspora moves fast, but it is also very deliberate in building corridor by corridor, which is very important in financial services.”

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future.  Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos. While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction.  “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.” “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology, [and] to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow.  A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in?  I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideology [a mashup of countercultural, libertarian, and neoliberal values] and through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization.  What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry.  Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share?  They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity.  In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics. You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so? Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end. The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen.  Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” [from 2023] is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth.  Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed? Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law. “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.” My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Moore [who first articulated it] knew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over.  These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins? You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care.  I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control.  You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is?  I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals. More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that? It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that sense of inevitability vanish pretty fast. This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 

Two years ago, German startup Proxima Fusion emerged from stealth with big ambitions to make a little-known stellarator fusion machine a serious contender in the race for commercial fusion energy. Today, the Munich-based company secured Europe’s largest-ever private investment in fusion power — a €130mn Series A funding round from big-name investors including Balderton Capital, Cherry Ventures, and Plural.  Daniel Waterhouse, partner at Balderton Capital, said he now thinks Proxima has taken its place as the leading “European contender” in the global race to commercial fusion. Proxima was the first company to spin out from the Max Planck Institute of Plasma Physics in Germany. The company’s stellarator machine holds superheated plasma in place using twisted magnetic fields, creating the conditions for atom-fusing fusion reactions to occur. Register Now Many fusion projects today use a different machine called a tokamak, which relies on symmetrical, doughnut-shaped magnetic fields. This technology is at the heart of major international projects such as ITER in France and is popular among well-funded startups such as the US’ Commonwealth Fusion Systems and the UK’s Tokamak Energy.   Stellarators are more complex to build, but have several advantages over tokamaks. They need less power to operate, and their twisted shape makes the plasma within easier to control. Theoretically, they can operate continuously without requiring breaks.  Francesco Sciortino, co-founder and CEO of Proxima Fusion, told TNW that he believes stellarators are the only fusion technology that guarantees continuous operation, an essential feature for future fusion reactors.  “While they are harder to design, we believe that stellarators will leapfrog tokamaks because they are easier to operate and are more suitable for power plants,” he said.  Francesco Sciortino, co-founder and CEO of Proxima Fusion, speaking at a company event in March 2025. Credit: Proxima Fusion First conceived in the 1950s, stellarators were largely shelved due to their sheer engineering complexity. However, advances in AI-powered simulations are helping Proxima overcome some of those design challenges. Ian Hogarth, partner at Plural, an early investor in Proxima, believes the startup’s stellarator design has opened the door for Europe to lead in fusion technology.   “Their peer-reviewed stellarator power plant design concept confirms that fusion really can be commercially viable, and creates an opportunity for Europe to be first to the target,” he said.  Proxima aims to complete its first demo device, Alpha, in just six years. The machine will lay the foundation for Stellaris, a 1GW fusion reactor which the company hopes will power up sometime in the 2030s. But it’s not the only one looking to write a stellarator redemption story.  Across the Atlantic, Bill Gates-backed Type One Energy is also pursuing bold plans to commercialise the stellarator. Like Proxima, Type One recently unveiled peer-reviewed designs for a fusion energy reactor. The company, which spun out of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, also plans to switch on its first commercial-scale machine sometime in the 2030s.   The pair are just two of dozens of startups across the world looking to build fusion energy reactors within a similar time frame. Some, such as Helion Energy and Commonwealth Fusion, have raised over $1bn apiece.  While the ambitions of fusion energy companies should be taken with a pinch of salt, they’re not necessarily unrealistic. Over 70% of experts believe we’ll have a fusion device powering the grid by 2035, a Fusion Industry Association survey found last year.  If those predictions come to pass, fusion could become an important part of Europe’s renewable energy mix — and one with distinct advantages. Unlike wind or solar, fusion would provide continuous power. Unlike fossil fuels, much of which is imported from countries like Russia and the US, fusion is clean and could be homegrown, boosting energy security.    However, with the US leading in private investment in fusion energy, Sciortino fears that Europe may lose its advantage and urged governments to support emerging startups. “This is an important moment for Europe — a moment when we have the chance to make choices that will define the coming decades, and a chance to seize the lead in the global race to commercial fusion,” Sciortino previously told TNW. “Europe cannot afford to squander the opportunity; it must invest in companies that are working towards our continent’s energy security and sovereignty.” Want to discover the next big thing in tech? Then take a trip to TNW Conference, where thousands of founders, investors, and corporate innovators will share their ideas. The event takes place on June 19–20 in Amsterdam and tickets are on sale now. Use the code TNWXMEDIA2025 at the checkout to get 30% off. Story by Siôn Geschwindt Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehic (show all) Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehicles, he's happiest sourcing a scoop, investigating the impact of emerging technologies, and even putting them to the test. He has five years of journalism experience and holds a dual degree in media and environmental science from the University of Cape Town, South Africa. When he's not writing, you can probably find Siôn out hiking, surfing, playing the drums or catering to his moderate caffeine addiction. You can contact him at: sion.geschwindt [at] protonmail [dot] com Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week. Also tagged with

We did it gang. We completed another week in the impossible survival sim that is real life. Give yourself a appreciative pat on the back and gaze wistfully towards whatever adventures or blissful respite the weekend might bring.This week I've mostly been recovering from my birthday celebrations, which entailed a bountiful Korean Barbecue that left me with a rampant case of the meat sweats and a pub crawl around one of Manchester's finest suburbs. There was no time for video games, but that's not always a bad thing. Distance makes the heart grow fonder, after all.I was welcomed back to the imaginary office with a news bludgeon to the face. The headlines this week have come thick and fast, bringing hardware announcements, more layoffs, and some notable sales milestones. As always, there's a lot to digest, so let's venture once more into the fray. The first Xbox handhelds have finally arrivedvia Game Developer // Microsoft finally stopped flirting with the idea of launching a handheld this week and unveiled not one, but two devices called the ROG Xbox Ally and ROG Xbox Ally X. The former is pitched towards casual players, while the latter aims to entice hardcore video game aficionados. Both devices were designed in collaboration with Asus and will presumably retail at price points that reflect their respective innards. We don't actually know yet, mind, because Microsoft didn't actually state how much they'll cost. You have the feel that's where the company really needs to stick the landing here.Related:Switch 2 tops 3.5 million sales to deliver Nintendo's biggest console launchvia Game Developer // Four days. That's all it took for the Switch 2 to shift over 3.5 million units worldwide to deliver Nintendo's biggest console launch ever. The original Switch needed a month to reach 2.74 million sales by contrast, while the PS5 needed two months to sell 4.5 million units worldwide. Xbox sales remain a mystery because Microsoft just doesn't talk about that sort of thing anymore, which is decidedly frustrating for those oddballs (read: this writer) who actually enjoy sifting through financial documents in search of those juicy juicy numbers.Inside the ‘Dragon Age’ Debacle That Gutted EA’s BioWare Studiovia Bloomberg (paywalled) // How do you kill a franchise like Dragon Age and leave a studio with the pedigree of BioWare in turmoil? According to a new report from Bloomberg, the answer will likely resonate with developers across the industry: corporate meddling. Sources speaking to the publication explained how Dragon Age: The Veilguard, which failed to meet the expectations of parent company EA, was in constant disarray because the American publisher couldn't decide whether it should be a live-service or single player title. Indecision from leadership within EA and an eventual pivot away from the live-service model only caused more confusion, with BioWare being told to implement foundational changes within impossible timelines. It's a story that's all the more alarming because of how familiar it feels.Related:Sony is making layoffs at Days Gone developer Bend Studiovia Game Developer // Sony has continued its Tony Award-winning tun as the Grim Reaper by cutting even more jobs within PlayStation Studios. Days Gone developer Bend Studio was the latest casualty, with the first-party developer confirming a number of employees were laid off just months after the cancellation of a live-service project. Sony didn't confirm how many people lost their jobs, but Bloomberg reporter Jason Schreier heard that around 40 people (roughly 30 percent of the studio's headcount) were let go. Embracer CEO Lars Wingefors to become executive chair and focus on M&Avia Game Developer // Somewhere, in a deep dark corner of the world, the monkey's paw has curled. Embracer CEO Lars Wingefors, who demonstrated his leadership nous by spending years embarking on a colossal merger and acquisition spree only to immediately start downsizing, has announced he'll be stepping down as CEO. The catch? Wingefors is currently proposed to be appointed executive chair of the board of Embracer. In his new role, he'll apparently focus on strategic initiatives, capital allocation, and mergers and acquisitions. And people wonder why satire is dead. Related:Hong Kong Outlaws a Video Game, Saying It Promotes 'Armed Revolution'via The New York Times (paywalled) // National security police in Hong Kong have banned a Taiwanese video game called Reversed Front: Bonfire for supposedly "advocating armed revolution." Authorities in the region warned that anybody who downloads or recommends the online strategy title will face serious legal charges. The game has been pulled from Apple's marketplace in Hong Kong but is still available for download elsewhere. It was never available in mainland China. Developer ESC Taiwan, part of an group of volunteers who are vocal detractors of China's Communist Party, thanked Hong Kong authorities for the free publicity in a social media post and said the ban shows how political censorship remains prominent in the territory. RuneScape developer accused of ‘catering to American conservatism’ by rolling back Pride Month eventsvia PinkNews // Runescape developers inside Jagex have reportedly been left reeling after the studio decided to pivot away from Pride Month content to focus more on "what players wanted." Jagex CEO broke the news to staff with a post on an internal message board, prompting a rush of complaints—with many workers explaining the content was either already complete or easy to implement. Though Jagex is based in the UK, it's parent company CVC Capital Partners operates multiple companies in the United States. It's a situation that left one employee who spoke to PinkNews questioning whether the studio has caved to "American conservatism." SAG-AFTRA suspends strike and instructs union members to return to workvia Game Developer // It has taken almost a year, but performer union SAG-AFTRA has finally suspended strike action and instructed members to return to work. The decision comes after protracted negotiations with major studios who employ performers under the Interactive Media Agreement. SAG-AFTRA had been striking to secure better working conditions and AI protections for its members, and feels it has now secured a deal that will install vital "AI guardrails."A Switch 2 exclusive Splatoon spinoff was just shadow-announced on Nintendo Todayvia Game Developer // Nintendo did something peculiar this week when it unveiled a Splatoon spinoff out of the blue. That in itself might not sound too strange, but for a short window the announcement was only accessible via the company's new Nintendo Today mobile app. It's a situation that left people without access to the app questioning whether the news was even real. Nintendo Today prevented users from capturing screenshots or footage, only adding to the sense of confusion. It led to this reporter branding the move a "shadow announcement," which in turn left some of our readers perplexed. Can you ever announce and announcement? What does that term even mean? Food for thought. A wonderful new Big Walk trailer melted this reporter's heartvia House House (YouTube) //  The mad lads behind Untitled Goose Game are back with a new jaunt called Big Walk. This one has been on my radar for a while, but the studio finally debuted a gameplay overview during Summer Game Fest and it looks extraordinary in its purity. It's about walking and talking—and therein lies the charm. Players are forced to cooperate to navigate a lush open world, solve puzzles, and embark upon hijinks. Proximity-based communication is the core mechanic in Big Walk—whether that takes the form of voice chat, written text, hand signals, blazing flares, or pictograms—and it looks like it'll lead to all sorts of weird and wonderful antics. It's a pitch that cuts through because it's so unashamedly different, and there's a lot to love about that. I'm looking forward to this one.