How did steamy, short soap operas that originated in China become the hottest thing in Hollywood, seemingly overnight?

ActuGaming.net Après des licenciements, le studio The Chinese Room (Still Wakes the Deep) se sépare de Sumo Digital Rien ne va plus chez Sumo Digital, qui procède en ce moment à de grands […] L'article Après des licenciements, le studio The Ch

The post درون صينية بحجم البعوضة: ثورة في مجال المُسيرات العسكرية! appeared first on عرب هاردوير.

A new report traces the history of the early wave of Chinese hackers who became the backbone of the state's espionage apparatus.

Persona 5: The Phantom X has faced a sudden barrage of criticism in the wake of its western launch. The team at Black Wings Game Studio was met with backlash after it was announced the gacha game would be accelerating its story rollout to catch up to

Testimonials from a number of former employees indicate the Sumo Group subsidiary is downsizing.

There has been a new update to the ongoing Stratasys v. Bambu Lab patent infringement lawsuit.  Both parties have agreed to consolidate the lead and member cases (2:24-CV-00644-JRG and 2:24-CV-00645-JRG) into a single case under Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG.  Industrial 3D printing OEM Stratasys filed the request late last month. According to an official court document, Shenzhen-based Bambu Lab did not oppose the motion. Stratasys argued that this non-opposition amounted to the defendants waiving their right to challenge the request under U.S. patent law 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). On June 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, ordered Bambu Lab to confirm in writing whether it agreed to the proposed case consolidation. The court took this step out of an “abundance of caution” to ensure both parties consented to the procedure before moving forward. Bambu Lab submitted its response on June 12, agreeing to the consolidation. The company, along with co-defendants Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., and Tuozhu Technology Limited, waived its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). The court will now decide whether to merge the cases. This followed U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s decision last month to deny Bambu Lab’s motion to dismiss the lawsuits.  The Chinese desktop 3D printer manufacturer filed the motion in February 2025, arguing the cases were invalid because its US-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, was not named in the original litigation. However, it agreed that the lawsuit could continue in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas, where a parallel case was filed last year.  Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, ruling that the cases properly target the named defendants. He concluded that Bambu Lab USA isn’t essential to the dispute, and that any misnaming should be addressed in summary judgment, not dismissal.        A Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry. Another twist in the Stratasys v. Bambu Lab lawsuit  Stratasys filed the two lawsuits against Bambu Lab in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, in August 2024. The company claims that Bambu Lab’s X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini 3D printers violate ten of its patents. These patents cover common 3D printing features, including purge towers, heated build plates, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities. Stratasys has requested a jury trial. It is seeking a ruling that Bambu Lab infringed its patents, along with financial damages and an injunction to stop Bambu from selling the allegedly infringing 3D printers. Last October, Stratasys dropped charges against two of the originally named defendants in the dispute. Court documents showed that Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co., Ltd were removed. Both defendants represent the company Tiertime, China’s first 3D printer manufacturer. The District Court accepted the dismissal, with all claims dropped without prejudice. It’s unclear why Stratasys named Beijing-based Tiertime as a defendant in the first place, given the lack of an obvious connection to Bambu Lab.  Tiertime and Stratasys have a history of legal disputes over patent issues. In 2013, Stratasys sued Afinia, Tiertime’s U.S. distributor and partner, for patent infringement. Afinia responded by suing uCRobotics, the Chinese distributor of MakerBot 3D printers, also alleging patent violations. Stratasys acquired MakerBot in June 2013. The company later merged with Ultimaker in 2022. In February 2025, Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss the original lawsuits. The company argued that Stratasys’ claims, focused on the sale, importation, and distribution of 3D printers in the United States, do not apply to the Shenzhen-based parent company. Bambu Lab contended that the allegations concern its American subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, which was not named in the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the case is invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. It argued that any party considered a “primary participant” in the allegations must be included as a defendant.    The court denied the motion on May 29, 2025. In the ruling, Judge Gilstrap explained that Stratasys’ allegations focus on the actions of the named defendants, not Bambu Lab USA. As a result, the official court document called Bambu Lab’s argument “unavailing.” Additionally, the Judge stated that, since Bambu Lab USA and Bambu Lab are both owned by Shenzhen Tuozhu, “the interest of these two entities align,” meaning the original cases are valid.   In the official court document, Judge Gilstrap emphasized that Stratasys can win or lose the lawsuits based solely on the actions of the current defendants, regardless of Bambu Lab USA’s involvement. He added that any potential risk to Bambu Lab USA’s business is too vague or hypothetical to justify making it a required party. Finally, the court noted that even if Stratasys named the wrong defendant, this does not justify dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7). Instead, the judge stated it would be more appropriate for the defendants to raise that argument in a motion for summary judgment. The Bambu Lab X1C 3D printer. Image via Bambu Lab. 3D printing patent battles  The 3D printing industry has seen its fair share of patent infringement disputes over recent months. In May 2025, 3D printer hotend developer Slice Engineering reached an agreement with Creality over a patent non-infringement lawsuit.  The Chinese 3D printer OEM filed the lawsuit in July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. The company claimed that Slice Engineering had falsely accused it of infringing two hotend patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,875,244 and 11,660,810. These cover mechanical and thermal features of Slice’s Mosquito 3D printer hotend. Creality requested a jury trial and sought a ruling confirming it had not infringed either patent. Court documents show that Slice Engineering filed a countersuit in December 2024. The Gainesville-based company maintained that Creaility “has infringed and continues to infringe” on both patents. In the filing, the company also denied allegations that it had harassed Creality’s partners, distributors, and customers, and claimed that Creality had refused to negotiate a resolution.   The Creality v. Slice Engineering lawsuit has since been dropped following a mutual resolution. Court documents show that both parties have permanently dismissed all claims and counterclaims, agreeing to cover their own legal fees and costs.  In other news, large-format resin 3D printer manufacturer Intrepid Automation sued 3D Systems over alleged patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, accused 3D Systems of using patented technology in its PSLA 270 industrial resin 3D printer. The filing called the PSLA 270 a “blatant knock off” of Intrepid’s DLP multi-projection “Range” 3D printer.   San Diego-based Intrepid Automation called this alleged infringement the “latest chapter of 3DS’s brazen, anticompetitive scheme to drive a smaller competitor with more advanced technology out of the marketplace.” The lawsuit also accused 3D Systems of corporate espionage, claiming one of its employees stole confidential trade secrets that were later used to develop the PSLA 270 printer. 3D Systems denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The company called the lawsuit “a desperate attempt” by Intrepid to distract from its own alleged theft of 3D Systems’ trade secrets. Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards? Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.Featured image shows a Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry.

Germany and NVIDIA are building possibly the most ambitious European tech project of the decade: the continent’s first industrial AI cloud.NVIDIA has been on a European tour over the past month with CEO Jensen Huang charming audiences at London Tech Week before dazzling the crowds at Paris’s VivaTech. But it was his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz that might prove the most consequential stop.The resulting partnership between NVIDIA and Deutsche Telekom isn’t just another corporate handshake; it’s potentially a turning point for European technological sovereignty.An “AI factory” (as they’re calling it) will be created with a focus on manufacturing, which is hardly surprising given Germany’s renowned industrial heritage. The facility aims to give European industrial players the computational firepower to revolutionise everything from design to robotics.“In the era of AI, every manufacturer needs two factories: one for making things, and one for creating the intelligence that powers them,” said Huang. “By building Europe’s first industrial AI infrastructure, we’re enabling the region’s leading industrial companies to advance simulation-first, AI-driven manufacturing.”It’s rare to hear such urgency from a telecoms CEO, but Deutsche Telekom’s Timotheus Höttges added: “Europe’s technological future needs a sprint, not a stroll. We must seize the opportunities of artificial intelligence now, revolutionise our industry, and secure a leading position in the global technology competition. Our economic success depends on quick decisions and collaborative innovations.”The first phase alone will deploy 10,000 NVIDIA Blackwell GPUs spread across various high-performance systems. That makes this Germany’s largest AI deployment ever; a statement the country isn’t content to watch from the sidelines as AI transforms global industry.A Deloitte study recently highlighted the critical importance of AI technology development to Germany’s future competitiveness, particularly noting the need for expanded data centre capacity. When you consider that demand is expected to triple within just five years, this investment seems less like ambition and more like necessity.Robots teaching robotsOne of the early adopters is NEURA Robotics, a German firm that specialises in cognitive robotics. They’re using this computational muscle to power something called the Neuraverse which is essentially a connected network where robots can learn from each other.Think of it as a robotic hive mind for skills ranging from precision welding to household ironing, with each machine contributing its learnings to a collective intelligence.“Physical AI is the electricity of the future—it will power every machine on the planet,” said David Reger, Founder and CEO of NEURA Robotics. “Through this initiative, we’re helping build the sovereign infrastructure Europe needs to lead in intelligent robotics and stay in control of its future.”The implications of this AI project for manufacturing in Germany could be profound. This isn’t just about making existing factories slightly more efficient; it’s about reimagining what manufacturing can be in an age of intelligent machines.AI for more than just Germany’s industrial titansWhat’s particularly promising about this project is its potential reach beyond Germany’s industrial titans. The famed Mittelstand – the network of specialised small and medium-sized businesses that forms the backbone of the German economy – stands to benefit.These companies often lack the resources to build their own AI infrastructure but possess the specialised knowledge that makes them perfect candidates for AI-enhanced innovation. Democratising access to cutting-edge AI could help preserve their competitive edge in a challenging global market.Academic and research institutions will also gain access, potentially accelerating innovation across numerous fields. The approximately 900 Germany-based startups in NVIDIA’s Inception program will be eligible to use these resources, potentially unleashing a wave of entrepreneurial AI applications.However impressive this massive project is, it’s viewed merely as a stepping stone towards something even more ambitious: Europe’s AI gigafactory. This planned 100,000 GPU-powered initiative backed by the EU and Germany won’t come online until 2027, but it represents Europe’s determination to carve out its own technological future.As other European telecom providers follow suit with their own AI infrastructure projects, we may be witnessing the beginning of a concerted effort to establish technological sovereignty across the continent.For a region that has often found itself caught between American tech dominance and Chinese ambitions, building indigenous AI capability represents more than economic opportunity. Whether this bold project in Germany will succeed remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Europe is no longer content to be a passive consumer of AI technology developed elsewhere.(Photo by Maheshkumar Painam)Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with other leading events including Intelligent Automation Conference, BlockX, Digital Transformation Week, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo.Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

Gardenful / TAOASave this picture!© Tao LeiLandscape Architecture•Beijing, China Architects: TAOA Area Area of this architecture project Area:  227 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project Year:  2024 Photographs Photographs:Tao LeiMore SpecsLess Specs Save this picture! Text description provided by the architects. This is an urban garden built for private use. As a corner of the city, I hope to fill the whole garden with abundant nature in this small space. The site is an open space in a villa compound, surrounded by a cluster of European-style single-family villas typical of Chinese real estate. Modern buildings greatly meet the requirements of indoor temperature and humidity comfort because of their complete facilities, but the building also has a clear climate boundary, cutting off the connection between indoor and outdoor, but also cut off the continuity of nature and life.Save this picture!Save this picture!There is no simple definition of the project as a garden or a building, too simple definition will only fall into the narrow imagination, the purpose is only to establish a place that can accommodate a piece of real nature, can give people shelter, can also walk in it. It is the original intention of this design to build a quiet place where you can be alone, a semi-indoor and semi-outdoor space, and re-lead the enclosed life to the outdoors and into the nature.Save this picture!Save this picture!The square site in the middle of the garden, which is a relatively independent space, the top shelter provides a comfortable life and cozy, the middle of the garden exposed a sky, sunshine and rain and snow will be staged here. With the corresponding land below, the trees and vegetation of the mountains are introduced into it, maintaining the most primitive wildness. To remain wild in this exquisite urban space, in this abstract geometric order, will naturally get rid of the wild gas of the original nature. A spatial transformation is made on both sides to the north, through the stairway and the upward pull of the roof space, extending the narrow auxiliary garden, which has no roof and is therefore bright, maintaining a different light and shade relationship from the central garden, which is filled with rocks and plants transplanted from the mountains.Save this picture!Save this picture!Save this picture!The structure of the garden is thin and dense synthetic bamboo, and the cross combination of dense structures forms a partition of the space, like a bamboo fence, forming a soft boundary. The interior of the space is lined with wooden panels, and the exterior is covered with thin and crisp aluminum panels. The "bridge" made of stone panels passes through different Spaces, sometimes standing between the bamboo structures, sometimes crossing the rocks, walking between them. Moving between order and wildness.Save this picture!Nature is difficult to measure, and because of its rich and ever-changing qualities, nature provides richness to Spaces. This is from the mountains to large trees, rocks, small flowers and plants, as far as possible to avoid artificial nursery plants. The structure of the garden will geometrically order the nature, eliminating the wild sense of nature. The details of nature can be discovered, and the life force released can be unconsciously perceived. The nature of fragments is real, is wild, and does not want to lose vitality and richness because of artificial transplantation. The superposition of wild abundance and modern geometric space makes it alive with elegance and decency.Save this picture!Save this picture!The nature is independent of the high-density urban space, becoming an independent world, shielding the noise of the city. These are integrated into a continuous and integral "pavilion" and "corridor" constitute the carrier of outdoor life of the family, while sheltering from the wind and rain, under the four eaves also create the relationship between light and dark space, the middle highlights the nature, especially bright, and becomes the center of life. From any Angle one can see a picture of hierarchy and order, a real fragment of nature, built into a new context by geometric order. The richness of nature is therefore more easily perceived, and the changes of nature are constantly played out in daily life and can be seen throughout the year.Save this picture! Project gallerySee allShow less Project locationAddress:Beijing, ChinaLocation to be used only as a reference. It could indicate city/country but not exact address.About this officeTAOAOffice••• Published on June 15, 2025Cite: "Gardenful / TAOA" 15 Jun 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1028408/gardenful-taoa&gt ISSN 0719-8884Save想阅读文章的中文版本吗?满园 / TAOA 陶磊建筑是否 You've started following your first account!Did you know?You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream

Last year, MACK Books published Architecture from Below, which anthologized writings by the French Brazilian architect, theorist, and painter Sérgio Ferro. (Douglas Spencer reviewed it for AN.) Now, MACK follows with Design and the Building Site and Complementary Essays, the second in the trilogy of books dedicated to Ferro’s scholarship. The following excerpt of the author’s 2023 preface to the English edition, which preserves its British phrasing, captures Ferro’s realization about the working conditions of construction sites in Brasília. The sentiment is likely relatable even today for young architects as they discover how drawings become buildings. Design and the Building Site and Complementary Essays will be released on May 22. If I remember correctly, it was in 1958 or 1959, when Rodrigo and I were second- or third year architecture students at FAUUSP, that my father, the real estate developer Armando Simone Pereira, commissioned us to design two large office buildings and eleven shops in Brasilia, which was then under construction. Of course, we were not adequately prepared for such an undertaking. Fortunately, Oscar Niemeyer and his team, who were responsible for overseeing the construction of the capital, had drawn up a detailed document determining the essential characteristics of all the private sector buildings. We followed these prescriptions to the letter, which saved us from disaster. Nowadays, it is hard to imagine the degree to which the construction of Brasilia inspired enthusiasm and professional pride in the country’s architects. And in the national imagination, the city’s establishment in the supposedly unpopulated hinterland evoked a re-founding of Brazil. Up until that point, the occupation of our immense territory had been reduced to a collection of arborescent communication routes, generally converging upon some river, following it up to the Atlantic Ocean. Through its ports, agricultural or extractive commodities produced by enslaved peoples or their substitutes passed towards the metropolises; goods were exchanged in the metropolises for more elaborate products, which took the opposite route. Our national identity was summed up in a few symbols, such as the anthem or the flag, and this scattering of paths pointing overseas. Brasilia would radically change this situation, or so we believed. It would create a central hub where the internal communication routes could converge, linking together hithertoseparate junctions, stimulating trade and economic progress in the country’s interior. It was as if, for the first time, we were taking care of ourselves. At the nucleus of this centripetal movement, architecture would embody the renaissance. And at the naval of the nucleus, the symbolic mandala of this utopia: the cathedral. Rodrigo and I got caught up in the euphoria. And perhaps more so than our colleagues, because we were taking part in the adventure with ‘our’ designs. The reality was very different — but we did not know that yet. At that time, architects in Brazil were responsible for verifying that the construction was in line with the design. We had already monitored some of our first building sites. But the construction company in charge of them, Osmar Souza e Silva’s CENPLA, specialized in the building sites of modernist architects from the so-called Escola Paulista led by Vilanova Artigas (which we aspired to be a part of, like the pretentious students we were). Osmar was very attentive to his clients and his workers, who formed a supportive and helpful team. He was even more careful with us, because he knew how inexperienced we were. I believe that the CENPLA was particularly important in São Paulo modernism: with its congeniality, it facilitated experimentation, but for the same reason, it deceived novices like us about the reality of other building sites. Consequently, Rodrigo and I travelled to Brasilia several times to check that the constructions followed ‘our’ designs and to resolve any issues. From the very first trip, our little bubble burst. Our building sites, like all the others in the future capital, bore no relation to Osmar’s. They were more like a branch of hell. A huge, muddy wasteland, in which a few cranes, pile drivers, tractors, and excavators dotted the mound of scaffolding occupied by thousands of skinny, seemingly exhausted wretches, who were nevertheless driven on by the shouts of master builders and foremen, in turn pressured by the imminence of the fateful inauguration date. Surrounding or huddled underneath the marquees of buildings under construction, entire families, equally skeletal and ragged, were waiting for some accident or death to open up a vacancy. In contact only with the master builders, and under close surveillance so we would not speak to the workers, we were not allowed to see what comrades who had worked on these sites later told us in prison: suicide abounded; escape was known to be futile in the unpopulated surroundings with no viable roads; fatal accidents were often caused by weakness due to chronic diarrhoea, brought on by rotten food that came from far away; outright theft took place in the calculation of wages and expenses in the contractor’s grocery store; camps were surrounded by law enforcement. I repeat this anecdote yet again not to invoke the benevolence of potential readers, but rather to point out the conditions that, in my opinion, allowed two students (Flávio Império joined us a little later) still in their professional infancy to quickly adopt positions that were contrary to the usual stance of architects. As the project was more Oscar Niemeyer’s than it was our own, we did not have the same emotional attachment that is understandably engendered between real authors and their designs. We had not yet been imbued with the charm and aura of the métier. And the only building sites we had visited thus far, Osmar’s, were incomparable to those we discovered in Brasilia. In short, our youthfulness and unpreparedness up against an unbearable situation made us react almost immediately to the profession’s satisfied doxa. Unprepared and young perhaps, but already with Marx by our side. Rodrigo and I joined the student cell of the Brazilian Communist Party during our first year at university. In itself, this did not help us much: the Party’s Marxism, revised in the interests of the USSR, was pitiful. Even high-level leaders rarely went beyond the first chapter of Capital. But at the end of the 1950s, the effervescence of the years to come was already nascent:  […] this extraordinary revival […] the rediscovery of Marxism and the great dialectical texts and traditions in the 1960s: an excitement that identifies a forgotten or repressed moment of the past as the new and subversive, and learns the dialectical grammar of a Hegel or an Adorno, a Marx or a Lukács, like a foreign language that has resources unavailable in our own. And what is more: the Chinese and Cuban revolutions, the war in Vietnam, guerrilla warfare of all kinds, national liberation movements, and a rare libertarian disposition in contemporary history, totally averse to fanaticism and respect for ideological apparatuses of (any) state or institution. Going against the grain was almost the norm. We were of course no more than contemporaries of our time. We were soon able to position ourselves from chapters 13, 14, and 15 of Capital, but only because we could constantly cross-reference Marx with our observations from well-contrasted building sites and do our own experimenting. As soon as we identified construction as manufacture, for example, thanks to the willingness and even encouragement of two friends and clients, Boris Fausto and Bernardo Issler, I was able to test both types of manufacture — organic and heterogeneous — on similar-sized projects taking place simultaneously, in order to find out which would be most convenient for the situation in Brazil, particularly in São Paulo. Despite the scientific shortcomings of these tests, they sufficed for us to select organic manufacture. Arquitetura Nova had defined its line of practice, studies, and research. There were other sources that were central to our theory and practice. Flávio Império was one of the founders of the Teatro de Arena, undoubtedly the vanguard of popular, militant theatre in Brazil. He won practically every set design award. He brought us his marvelous findings in spatial condensation and malleability, and in the creative diversion of techniques and material—appropriate devices for an underdeveloped country. This is what helped us pave the way to reformulating the reigning design paradigms.  We had to do what Flávio had done in the theatre: thoroughly rethink how to be an architect. Upend the perspective. The way we were taught was to start from a desired result; then others would take care of getting there, no matter how. We, on the other hand, set out to go down to the building site and accompany those carrying out the labor itself, those who actually build, the formally subsumed workers in manufacture who are increasingly deprived of the knowledge and know-how presupposed by this kind of subsumption. We should have been fostering the reconstitution of this knowledge and know-how—not so as to fulfil this assumption, but in order to reinvigorate the other side of this assumption according to Marx: the historical rebellion of the manufacture worker, especially the construction worker. We had to rekindle the demand that fueled this rebellion: total self-determination, and not just that of the manual operation as such. Our aim was above all political and ethical. Aesthetics only mattered by way of what it included—ethics. Instead of estética, we wrote est ética [this is ethics]. We wanted to make building sites into nests for the return of revolutionary syndicalism, which we ourselves had yet to discover. Sérgio Ferro, born in Brazil in 1938, studied architecture at FAUUSP, São Paulo. In the 1960s, he joined the Brazilian communist party and started, along with Rodrigo Lefevre and Flávio Império, the collective known as Arquitetura Nova. After being arrested by the military dictatorship that took power in Brazil in 1964, he moved to France as an exile. As a painter and a professor at the École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Grenoble, where he founded the Dessin/Chantier laboratory, he engaged in extensive research which resulted in several publications, exhibitions, and awards in Brazil and in France, including the title of Chevalier des Arts et des Lettres in 1992. Following his retirement from teaching, Ferro continues to research, write, and paint.