Fans have forced a rethink of the design.

I love this unique sketchbook look.

ActuGaming.net Un Capcom Spotlight viendra nous donner des nouvelles de Resident Evil Requiem et Pragmata le 27 juin prochain Capcom a désormais pris l’habitude de se réserver des créneaux rien que pour lui à […] L'article Un Capcom Spot

Which creative studio do you most admire right now, and why? This is a question we asked our community via an ongoing survey. With more than 700 responses so far, these are the top winners. What's striking about this year's results is the popularity of studios that aren't just producing beautiful work but are also actively shaping discussions and tackling the big challenges facing our industry and society. From the vibrant energy of Brazilian culture to the thoughtful minimalism of North European aesthetics, this list reflects a global creative landscape that's more connected, more conscious, and more collaborative than ever before. In short, these studios aren't just following trends; they're setting them. Read on to discover the 25 studios our community is most excited about right now. 1. Porto Rocha Porto Rocha is a New York-based agency that unites strategy and design to create work that evolves with the world we live in. It continues to dominate conversations in 2025, and it's easy to see why. Founders Felipe Rocha and Leo Porto have built something truly special—a studio that not only creates visually stunning work but also actively celebrates and amplifies diverse voices in design. For instance, their recent bold new identity for the São Paulo art museum MASP nods to Brazilian modernist design traditions while reimagining them for a contemporary audience. The rebrand draws heavily on the museum's iconic modernist architecture by Lina Bo Bardi, using a red-and-black colour palette and strong typography to reflect the building's striking visual presence. As we write this article, Porto Rocha just shared a new partnership with Google to reimagine the visual and verbal identity of its revolutionary Gemini AI model. We can't wait to see what they come up with! 2. DixonBaxi Simon Dixon and Aporva Baxi's London powerhouse specialises in creating brand strategies and design systems for "brave businesses" that want to challenge convention, including Hulu, Audible, and the Premier League. The studio had an exceptional start to 2025 by collaborating with Roblox on a brand new design system. At the heart of this major project is the Tilt: a 15-degree shift embedded in the logo that signals momentum, creativity, and anticipation. They've also continued to build their reputation as design thought leaders. At the OFFF Festival 2025, for instance, Simon and Aporva delivered a masterclass on running a successful brand design agency. Their core message centred on the importance of people and designing with intention, even in the face of global challenges. They also highlighted "Super Futures," their program that encourages employees to think freely and positively about brand challenges and audience desires, aiming to reclaim creative liberation. And if that wasn't enough, DixonBaxi has just launched its brand new website, one that's designed to be open in nature. As Simon explains: "It's not a shop window. It's a space to share the thinking and ethos that drive us. You'll find our work, but more importantly, what shapes it. No guff. Just us." 3. Mother Mother is a renowned independent creative agency founded in London and now boasts offices in New York and Los Angeles as well. They've spent 2025 continuing to push the boundaries of what advertising can achieve. And they've made an especially big splash with their latest instalment of KFC's 'Believe' campaign, featuring a surreal and humorous take on KFC's gravy. As we wrote at the time: "Its balance between theatrical grandeur and self-awareness makes the campaign uniquely engaging." 4. Studio Dumbar/DEPT® Based in Rotterdam, Studio Dumbar/DEPT® is widely recognised for its influential work in visual branding and identity, often incorporating creative coding and sound, for clients such as the Dutch Railways, Instagram, and the Van Gogh Museum. In 2025, we've especially admired their work for the Dutch football club Feyenoord, which brings the team under a single, cohesive vision that reflects its energy and prowess. This groundbreaking rebrand, unveiled at the start of May, moves away from nostalgia, instead emphasising the club's "measured ferocity, confidence, and ambition". 5. HONDO Based between Palma de Mallorca, Spain and London, HONDO specialises in branding, editorial, typography and product design. We're particular fans of their rebranding of metal furniture makers Castil, based around clean and versatile designs that highlight Castil's vibrant and customisable products. This new system features a bespoke monospaced typeface and logo design that evokes Castil's adaptability and the precision of its craftsmanship. 6. Smith & Diction Smith & Diction is a small but mighty design and copy studio founded by Mike and Chara Smith in Philadelphia. Born from dreams, late-night chats, and plenty of mistakes, the studio has grown into a creative force known for thoughtful, boundary-pushing branding. Starting out with Mike designing in a tiny apartment while Chara held down a day job, the pair learned the ropes the hard way—and now they're thriving. Recent highlights include their work with Gamma, an AI platform that lets you quickly get ideas out of your head and into a presentation deck or onto a website. Gamma wanted their brand update to feel "VERY fun and a little bit out there" with an AI-first approach. So Smith & Diction worked hard to "put weird to the test" while still developing responsible systems for logo, type and colour. The results, as ever, were exceptional. 7. DNCO DNCO is a London and New York-based creative studio specialising in place branding. They are best known for shaping identities, digital tools, and wayfinding for museums, cultural institutions, and entire neighbourhoods, with clients including the Design Museum, V&A and Transport for London. Recently, DNCO has been making headlines again with its ambitious brand refresh for Dumbo, a New York neighbourhood struggling with misperceptions due to mass tourism. The goal was to highlight Dumbo's unconventional spirit and demonstrate it as "a different side of New York." DNCO preserved the original diagonal logo and introduced a flexible "tape graphic" system, inspired by the neighbourhood's history of inventing the cardboard box, to reflect its ingenuity and reveal new perspectives. The colour palette and typography were chosen to embody Dumbo's industrial and gritty character. 8. Hey Studio Founded by Verònica Fuerte in Barcelona, Spain, Hey Studio is a small, all-female design agency celebrated for its striking use of geometry, bold colour, and playful yet refined visual language. With a focus on branding, illustration, editorial design, and typography, they combine joy with craft to explore issues with heart and purpose. A great example of their impact is their recent branding for Rainbow Wool. This German initiative is transforming wool from gay rams into fashion products to support the LGBT community. As is typical for Hey Studio, the project's identity is vibrant and joyful, utilising bright, curved shapes that will put a smile on everyone's face. 9. Koto Koto is a London-based global branding and digital studio known for co-creation, strategic thinking, expressive design systems, and enduring partnerships. They're well-known in the industry for bringing warmth, optimism and clarity to complex brand challenges. Over the past 18 months, they've undertaken a significant project to refresh Amazon's global brand identity. This extensive undertaking has involved redesigning Amazon's master brand and over 50 of its sub-brands across 15 global markets. Koto's approach, described as "radical coherence", aims to refine and modernize Amazon's most recognizable elements rather than drastically changing them. You can read more about the project here. 10. Robot Food Robot Food is a Leeds-based, brand-first creative studio recognised for its strategic and holistic approach. They're past masters at melding creative ideas with commercial rigour across packaging, brand strategy and campaign design. Recent Robot Food projects have included a bold rebrand for Hip Pop, a soft drinks company specializing in kombucha and alternative sodas. Their goal was to elevate Hip Pop from an indie challenger to a mainstream category leader, moving away from typical health drink aesthetics. The results are visually striking, with black backgrounds prominently featured (a rarity in the health drink aisle), punctuated by vibrant fruit illustrations and flavour-coded colours. Read more about the project here. 11. Saffron Brand Consultants Saffron is an independent global consultancy with offices in London, Madrid, Vienna and Istanbul. With deep expertise in naming, strategy, identity, and design systems, they work with leading public and private-sector clients to develop confident, culturally intelligent brands. One 2025 highlight so far has been their work for Saudi National Bank (SNB) to create NEO, a groundbreaking digital lifestyle bank in Saudi Arabia. Saffron integrated cultural and design trends, including Saudi neo-futurism, for its sonic identity to create a product that supports both individual and community connections. The design system strikes a balance between modern Saudi aesthetics and the practical demands of a fast-paced digital product, ensuring a consistent brand reflection across all interactions. 12. Alright Studio Alright Studio is a full-service strategy, creative, production and technology agency based in Brooklyn, New York. It prides itself on a "no house style" approach for clients, including A24, Meta Platforms, and Post Malone. One of the most exciting of their recent projects has been Offball, a digital-first sports news platform that aims to provide more nuanced, positive sports storytelling. Alright Studio designed a clean, intuitive, editorial-style platform featuring a masthead-like logotype and universal sports iconography, creating a calmer user experience aligned with OffBall's positive content. 13. Wolff Olins Wolff Olins is a global brand consultancy with four main offices: London, New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Known for their courageous, culturally relevant branding and forward-thinking strategy, they collaborate with large corporations and trailblazing organisations to create bold, authentic brand identities that resonate emotionally. A particular highlight of 2025 so far has been their collaboration with Leo Burnett to refresh Sandals Resorts' global brand with the "Made of Caribbean" campaign. This strategic move positions Sandals not merely as a luxury resort but as a cultural ambassador for the Caribbean. Wolff Olins developed a new visual identity called "Natural Vibrancy," integrating local influences with modern design to reflect a genuine connection to the islands' culture. This rebrand speaks to a growing traveller demand for authenticity and meaningful experiences, allowing Sandals to define itself as an extension of the Caribbean itself. 14. COLLINS Founded by Brian Collins, COLLINS is an independent branding and design consultancy based in the US, celebrated for its playful visual language, expressive storytelling and culturally rich identity systems. In the last few months, we've loved the new branding they designed for Barcelona's 25th Offf Festival, which departs from its usual consistent wordmark. The updated identity is inspired by the festival's role within the international creative community, and is rooted in the concept of 'Centre Offf Gravity'. This concept is visually expressed through the festival's name, which appears to exert a gravitational pull on the text boxes, causing them to "stick" to it. Additionally, the 'f's in the wordmark are merged into a continuous line reminiscent of a magnet, with the motion graphics further emphasising the gravitational pull as the name floats and other elements follow. 15. Studio Spass Studio Spass is a creative studio based in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, focused on vibrant and dynamic identity systems that reflect the diverse and multifaceted nature of cultural institutions. One of their recent landmark projects was Bigger, a large-scale typographic installation created for the Shenzhen Art Book Fair. Inspired by tear-off calendars and the physical act of reading, Studio Spass used 264 A4 books, with each page displaying abstract details, to create an evolving grid of colour and type. Visitors were invited to interact with the installation by flipping pages, constantly revealing new layers of design and a hidden message: "Enjoy books!" 16. Applied Design Works Applied Design Works is a New York studio that specialises in reshaping businesses through branding and design. They provide expertise in design, strategy, and implementation, with a focus on building long-term, collaborative relationships with their clients. We were thrilled by their recent work for Grand Central Madison (the station that connects Long Island to Grand Central Terminal), where they were instrumental in ushering in a new era for the transportation hub. Applied Design sought to create a commuter experience that imbued the spirit of New York, showcasing its diversity of thought, voice, and scale that befits one of the greatest cities in the world and one of the greatest structures in it. 17. The Chase The Chase Creative Consultants is a Manchester-based independent creative consultancy with over 35 years of experience, known for blending humour, purpose, and strong branding to rejuvenate popular consumer campaigns. "We're not designers, writers, advertisers or brand strategists," they say, "but all of these and more. An ideas-based creative studio." Recently, they were tasked with shaping the identity of York Central, a major urban regeneration project set to become a new city quarter for York. The Chase developed the identity based on extensive public engagement, listening to residents of all ages about their perceptions of the city and their hopes for the new area. The resulting brand identity uses linear forms that subtly reference York's famous railway hub, symbolising the long-standing connections the city has fostered. 18. A Practice for Everyday Life Based in London and founded by Kirsty Carter and Emma Thomas, A Practice for Everyday Life built a reputation as a sought-after collaborator with like-minded companies, galleries, institutions and individuals. Not to mention a conceptual rigour that ensures each design is meaningful and original. Recently, they've been working on the visual identity for Muzej Lah, a new international museum for contemporary art in Bled, Slovenia opening in 2026. This centres around a custom typeface inspired by the slanted geometry and square detailing of its concrete roof tiles. It also draws from European modernist typography and the experimental lettering of Jože Plečnik, one of Slovenia's most influential architects.⁠ A Practice for Everyday Life. Photo: Carol Sachs Alexey Brodovitch: Astonish Me publication design by A Practice for Everyday Life, 2024. Photo: Ed Park La Biennale di Venezia identity by A Practice for Everyday Life, 2022. Photo: Thomas Adank CAM – Centro de Arte Moderna Gulbenkian identity by A Practice for Everyday Life, 2024. Photo: Sanda Vučković 19. Studio Nari Studio Nari is a London-based creative and branding agency partnering with clients around the world to build "brands that truly connect with people". NARI stands, by the way, for Not Always Right Ideas. As they put it, "It's a name that might sound odd for a branding agency, but it reflects everything we believe." One landmark project this year has been a comprehensive rebrand for the electronic music festival Field Day. Studio Nari created a dynamic and evolving identity that reflects the festival's growth and its connection to the electronic music scene and community. The core idea behind the rebrand is a "reactive future", allowing the brand to adapt and grow with the festival and current trends while maintaining a strong foundation. A new, steadfast wordmark is at its centre, while a new marque has been introduced for the first time. 20. Beetroot Design Group Beetroot is a 25‑strong creative studio celebrated for its bold identities and storytelling-led approach. Based in Thessaloniki, Greece, their work spans visual identity, print, digital and motion, and has earned international recognition, including Red Dot Awards. Recently, they also won a Wood Pencil at the D&AD Awards 2025 for a series of posters created to promote live jazz music events. The creative idea behind all three designs stems from improvisation as a key feature of jazz. Each poster communicates the artist's name and other relevant information through a typographical "improvisation". 21. Kind Studio Kind Studio is an independent creative agency based in London that specialises in branding and digital design, as well as offering services in animation, creative and art direction, and print design. Their goal is to collaborate closely with clients to create impactful and visually appealing designs. One recent project that piqued our interest was a bilingual, editorially-driven digital platform for FC Como Women, a professional Italian football club. To reflect the club's ambition of promoting gender equality and driving positive social change within football, the new website employs bold typography, strong imagery, and an empowering tone of voice to inspire and disseminate its message. 22. Slug Global Slug Global is a creative agency and art collective founded by artist and musician Bosco (Brittany Bosco). Focused on creating immersive experiences "for both IRL and URL", their goal is to work with artists and brands to establish a sustainable media platform that embodies the values of young millennials, Gen Z and Gen Alpha. One of Slug Global's recent projects involved a collaboration with SheaMoisture and xoNecole for a three-part series called The Root of It. This series celebrates black beauty and hair, highlighting its significance as a connection to ancestry, tradition, blueprint and culture for black women. 23. Little Troop New York studio Little Troop crafts expressive and intimate branding for lifestyle, fashion, and cultural clients. Led by creative directors Noemie Le Coz and Jeremy Elliot, they're known for their playful and often "kid-like" approach to design, drawing inspiration from their own experiences as 90s kids. One of their recent and highly acclaimed projects is the visual identity for MoMA's first-ever family festival, Another World. Little Troop was tasked with developing a comprehensive visual identity that would extend from small items, such as café placemats, to large billboards. Their designs were deliberately a little "dream-like" and relied purely on illustration to sell the festival without needing photography. Little Troop also carefully selected seven colours from MoMA's existing brand guidelines to strike a balance between timelessness, gender neutrality, and fun. 24. Morcos Key Morcos Key is a Brooklyn-based design studio co-founded by Jon Key and Wael Morcos. Collaborating with a diverse range of clients, including arts and cultural institutions, non-profits and commercial enterprises, they're known for translating clients' stories into impactful visual systems through thoughtful conversation and formal expression. One notable project is their visual identity work for Hammer & Hope, a magazine that focuses on politics and culture within the black radical tradition. For this project, Morcos Key developed not only the visual identity but also a custom all-caps typeface to reflect the publication's mission and content. 25. Thirst Thirst, also known as Thirst Craft, is an award-winning strategic drinks packaging design agency based in Glasgow, Scotland, with additional hubs in London and New York. Founded in 2015 by Matthew Stephen Burns and Christopher John Black, the company specializes in building creatively distinctive and commercially effective brands for the beverage industry. To see what they're capable of, check out their work for SKYY Vodka. The new global visual identity system, called Audacious Glamour', aims to unify SKYY under a singular, powerful idea. The visual identity benefits from bolder framing, patterns, and a flavour-forward colour palette to highlight each product's "juicy attitude", while the photography style employs macro shots and liquid highlights to convey a premium feel.

“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 senseof inevitability vanish pretty fast.  This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 

Set in the glitzy world of Hollywood in the late '70s, Confidential Killings have you investigate a series of gruesome murders that seem connected. There are rumours about a mysterious cult behind them...  Explore the crime scenes, use your detective skills to deduce what's going on! Wishlist on Steam! https://store.steampowered.com/app/2797960/Confidential_KillingsJoin our discord: https://discord.gg/xwFXgbb2xfMore informationDownloadDevelopment logDemo out! 10 days agoCommentsLog in with itch.io to leave a comment.I LOVE it! The art, the gameplay, the story, it's so much fun!ReplyFirst I was like "nah, so you just want to check if I have read everything, or what?" but later it made sense with the twists and hunting for the word you already know but need to find elsewhere.ReplyPicto Games21 hours ago(+2)the cursor is blinking it is very disturbing and the game very goodReplyBRANE15 hours ago (1 edit) (+1)I recommend trying the desktop builds if you'd like to play without this issue. Or putting more fire on this PR of Godot:https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/103304ReplybeautifulDegen1 day ago(+1)Nice gameReplylovedovey6661 day ago(+1)I love this game! i like the detective games and this is perfect :3ReplyThis is a great game! The old style detective game ambientation is superb, and the art sublime. The misteries were pretty entertaining and interesting to keep you going as you think what truly happened!ReplyI had to take notes.... my memory aint great lol really enjoyed it ReplySebbog1 day agoThis game is kind of like the detective games the Case of the Golden Idol and its sequel, the Rise of the Golden Idol, from 2022 and 2024 respectively. It's not just bullshit. It has a coherent story. If you haven't heard of the Golden Idol games, then it's basically a game where you investigate mysterious deaths and fill in the blanks of the story. You can navigate from multiple different scenes and click on people and objects to gather important clues. I think it was a good game. I like that it's similar to the Golden Idol games. I also liked that you could see the exact amount of wrong slots when it's less than or equal to 2. It said either two incorrect or one incorrect. This isn't how it works in the Golden Idol games. Although, this might make the game too easy. I am not sure tho. I also streamed this game on YouTube: ReplyMV_Zarch3 days agoI’m so happy I found this game. Amazing! The mysteries are just so good and well done. The art is beautiful and really sets up the atmosphere well. I am really interested to see the full game.Replyreveoncelink5 days agoIt was amazing!! Perfect gameplay and so many clues to connect the dots. Amazing.ReplyHey, this is a great game except for the flickering of the cursor. It’s the same for your other games (We Suspect Foul Play afaik). Hope this gets fixed! (I’m on chrome) ReplyBRANE6 days agoheya! For the flickering issue I'm not really sure what's the problem, but having a screen recording of it could help.Other than that we're not that focused on fixing the web build as it's going to be a PC game - so I suggest trying the Windows buildReplyReally fun! Wishing you guys lots of luck!ReplyThank you!Replykcouchpotato8 days ago(+1)This game is so awesome!! I've wishlisted it on steam.ReplyBRANE8 days agoThank you!Reply

Donald Trump’s military parade in Washington this weekend — a show of force in the capital that just happens to take place on the president’s birthday — smacks of authoritarian Dear Leader-style politics (even though Trump actually got the idea after attending the 2017 Bastille Day parade in Paris).Yet as disconcerting as the imagery of tanks rolling down Constitution Avenue will be, it’s not even close to Trump’s most insidious assault on the US military’s historic and democratically essential nonpartisan ethos.In fact, it’s not even the most worrying thing he’s done this week.On Tuesday, the president gave a speech at Fort Bragg, an Army base home to Special Operations Command. While presidential speeches to soldiers are not uncommon — rows of uniformed troops make a great backdrop for a foreign policy speech — they generally avoid overt partisan attacks and campaign-style rhetoric. The soldiers, for their part, are expected to be studiously neutral, laughing at jokes and such, but remaining fully impassive during any policy conversation.That’s not what happened at Fort Bragg. Trump’s speech was a partisan tirade that targeted “radical left” opponents ranging from Joe Biden to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. He celebrated his deployment of Marines to Los Angeles, proposed jailing people for burning the American flag, and called on soldiers to be “aggressive” toward the protesters they encountered.The soldiers, for their part, cheered Trump and booed his enemies — as they were seemingly expected to. Reporters at Military.com, a military news service, uncovered internal communications from 82nd Airborne leadership suggesting that the crowd was screened for their political opinions.“If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don’t want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out,” one note read.To call this unusual is an understatement. I spoke with four different experts on civil-military relations, two of whom teach at the Naval War College, about the speech and its implications. To a person, they said it was a step towards politicizing the military with no real precedent in modern American history.“That is, I think, a really big red flag because it means the military’s professional ethic is breaking down internally,” says Risa Brooks, a professor at Marquette University. “Its capacity to maintain that firewall against civilian politicization may be faltering.”This may sound alarmist — like an overreading of a one-off incident — but it’s part of a bigger pattern. The totality of Trump administration policies, ranging from the parade in Washington to the LA troop deployment to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s firing of high-ranking women and officers of color, suggests a concerted effort to erode the military’s professional ethos and turn it into an institution subservient to the Trump administration’s whims. This is a signal policy aim of would-be dictators, who wish to head off the risk of a coup and ensure the armed forces’ political reliability if they are needed to repress dissent in a crisis.Steve Saideman, a professor at Carleton University, put together a list of eight different signs that a military is being politicized in this fashion. The Trump administration has exhibited six out of the eight.“The biggest theme is that we are seeing a number of checks on the executive fail at the same time — and that’s what’s making individual events seem more alarming than they might otherwise,” says Jessica Blankshain, a professor at the Naval War College (speaking not for the military but in a personal capacity).That Trump is trying to politicize the military does not mean he has succeeded. There are several signs, including Trump’s handpicked chair of the Joint Chiefs repudiating the president’s claims of a migrant invasion during congressional testimony, that the US military is resisting Trump’s politicization.But the events in Fort Bragg and Washington suggest that we are in the midst of a quiet crisis in civil-military relations in the United States — one whose implications for American democracy’s future could well be profound.The Trump crisis in civil-military relations, explainedA military is, by sheer fact of its existence, a threat to any civilian government. If you have an institution that controls the overwhelming bulk of weaponry in a society, it always has the physical capacity to seize control of the government at gunpoint. A key question for any government is how to convince the armed forces that they cannot or should not take power for themselves.Democracies typically do this through a process called “professionalization.” Soldiers are rigorously taught to think of themselves as a class of public servants, people trained to perform a specific job within defined parameters. Their ultimate loyalty is not to their generals or even individual presidents, but rather to the people and the constitutional order.Samuel Huntington, the late Harvard political scientist, is the canonical theorist of a professional military. In his book The Soldier and the State, he described optimal professionalization as a system of “objective control”: one in which the military retains autonomy in how they fight and plan for wars while deferring to politicians on whether and why to fight in the first place. In effect, they stay out of the politicians’ affairs while the politicians stay out of theirs.The idea of such a system is to emphasize to the military that they are professionals: Their responsibility isn’t deciding when to use force, but only to conduct operations as effectively as possible once ordered to engage in them. There is thus a strict firewall between military affairs, on the one hand, and policy-political affairs on the other.Typically, the chief worry is that the military breaches this bargain: that, for example, a general starts speaking out against elected officials’ policies in ways that undermine civilian control. This is not a hypothetical fear in the United States, with the most famous such example being Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s insubordination during the Korean War. Thankfully, not even MacArthur attempted the worst-case version of military overstep — a coup.But in backsliding democracies like the modern United States, where the chief executive is attempting an anti-democratic power grab, the military poses a very different kind of threat to democracy — in fact, something akin to the exact opposite of the typical scenario.In such cases, the issue isn’t the military inserting itself into politics but rather the civilians dragging them into it in ways that upset the democratic political order. The worst-case scenario is that the military acts on presidential directives to use force against domestic dissenters, destroying democracy not by ignoring civilian orders, but by following them.There are two ways to arrive at such a worst-case scenario, both of which are in evidence in the early days of Trump 2.0.First is politicization: an intentional attack on the constraints against partisan activity inside the professional ranks.Many of Pete Hegseth’s major moves as secretary of defense fit this bill, including his decisions to fire nonwhite and female generals seen as politically unreliable and his effort to undermine the independence of the military’s lawyers. The breaches in protocol at Fort Bragg are both consequences and causes of politicization: They could only happen in an environment of loosened constraint, and they might encourage more overt political action if gone unpunished.The second pathway to breakdown is the weaponization of professionalism against itself. Here, Trump exploits the military’s deference to politicians by ordering it to engage in undemocratic (and even questionably legal) activities. In practice, this looks a lot like the LA deployments, and, more specifically, the lack of any visible military pushback. While the military readily agreeing to deployments is normally a good sign — that civilian control is holding — these aren’t normal times. And this isn’t a normal deployment, but rather one that comes uncomfortably close to the military being ordered to assist in repressing overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations against executive abuses of power.“It’s really been pretty uncommon to use the military for law enforcement,” says David Burbach, another Naval War College professor (also speaking personally). “This is really bringing the military into frontline law enforcement when. … these are really not huge disturbances.”This, then, is the crisis: an incremental and slow-rolling effort by the Trump administration to erode the norms and procedures designed to prevent the military from being used as a tool of domestic repression. Is it time to panic?Among the experts I spoke with, there was consensus that the military’s professional and nonpartisan ethos was weakening. This isn’t just because of Trump, but his terms — the first to a degree, and now the second acutely — are major stressors.Yet there was no consensus on just how much military nonpartisanship has eroded — that is, how close we are to a moment when the US military might be willing to follow obviously authoritarian orders.For all its faults, the US military’s professional ethos is a really important part of its identity and self-conception. While few soldiers may actually read Sam Huntington or similar scholars, the general idea that they serve the people and the republic is a bedrock principle among the ranks. There is a reason why the United States has never, in over 250 years of governance, experienced a military coup — or even come particularly close to one.In theory, this ethos should also galvanize resistance to Trump’s efforts at politicization. Soldiers are not unthinking automatons: While they are trained to follow commands, they are explicitly obligated to refuse illegal orders, even coming from the president. The more aggressive Trump’s efforts to use the military as a tool of repression gets, the more likely there is to be resistance.Or, at least theoretically.The truth is that we don’t really know how the US military will respond to a situation like this. Like so many of Trump’s second-term policies, their efforts to bend the military to their will are unprecedented — actions with no real parallel in the modern history of the American military. Experts can only make informed guesses, based on their sense of US military culture as well as comparisons to historical and foreign cases.For this reason, there are probably only two things we can say with confidence.First, what we’ve seen so far is not yet sufficient evidence to declare that the military is in Trump’s thrall. The signs of decay are too limited to ground any conclusions that the longstanding professional norm is entirely gone.“We have seen a few things that are potentially alarming about erosion of the military’s non-partisan norm. But not in a way that’s definitive at this point,” Blankshain says.Second, the stressors on this tradition are going to keep piling on. Trump’s record makes it exceptionally clear that he wants the military to serve him personally — and that he, and Hegseth, will keep working to make it so. This means we really are in the midst of a quiet crisis, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.“The fact that he’s getting the troops to cheer for booing Democratic leaders at a time when there’s actually [a deployment to] a blue city and a blue state…he is ordering the troops to take a side,” Saideman says. “There may not be a coherent plan behind this. But there are a lot of things going on that are all in the same direction.”See More: Politics

Inside Apple’s high-gloss standoff with AI ambition and the uncanny choreography of WWDC 2025There was a time when watching an Apple keynote — like Steve Jobs introducing the iPhone in 2007, the masterclass of all masterclasses in product launching — felt like watching a tightrope act. There was suspense. Live demos happened — sometimes they failed, and when they didn’t, the applause was real, not piped through a Dolby mix.These days, that tension is gone. Since 2020, in the wake of the pandemic, Apple events have become pre-recorded masterworks: drone shots sweeping over Apple Park, transitions smoother than a Pixar short, and executives delivering their lines like odd, IRL spatial personas. They move like human renderings: poised, confident, and just robotic enough to raise a brow. The kind of people who, if encountered in real life, would probably light up half a dozen red flags before a handshake is even offered. A case in point: the official “Liquid Glass” UI demo — it’s visually stunning, yes, but also uncanny, like a concept reel that forgot it needed to ship.https://medium.com/media/fcb3b16cc42621ba32153aff80ea1805/hrefAnd that’s the paradox. Not only has Apple trimmed down the content of WWDC, it’s also polished the delivery into something almost inhumanly controlled. Every keynote beat feels engineered to avoid risk, reduce friction, and glide past doubt. But in doing so, something vital slips away: the tension, the spontaneity, the sense that the future is being made, not just performed.Just one year earlier, WWDC 2024 opened with a cinematic cold open “somewhere over California”:https://medium.com/media/f97f45387353363264d99c341d4571b0/hrefPhil Schiller piloting an Apple-branded plane, iPod in hand, muttering “I’m getting too old for this stuff.” A perfect mix of Lethal Weapon camp and a winking message that yes, Classic-Apple was still at the controls — literally — flying its senior leadership straight toward Cupertino. Out the hatch, like high-altitude paratroopers of optimism, leapt the entire exec team, with Craig Federighi, always the go-to for Apple’s auto-ironic set pieces, leading the charge, donning a helmet literally resembling his own legendary mane. It was peak-bold, bizarre, and unmistakably Apple. That intro now reads like the final act of full-throttle confidence.This year’s WWDC offered a particularly crisp contrast. Aside from the new intro — which features Craig Federighi drifting an F1-style race car across the inner rooftop ring of Apple Park as a “therapy session”, a not-so-subtle nod to the upcoming Formula 1 blockbuster but also to the accountability for the failure to deliver the system-wide AI on time — WWDC 2025 pulled back dramatically. The new “Apple Intelligence” was introduced in a keynote with zero stumbles, zero awkward transitions, and visuals so pristine they could have been rendered on a Vision Pro. Not only had the scope of WWDC been trimmed down to safer talking points, but even the tone had shifted — less like a tech summit, more like a handsomely lit containment-mode seminar. And that, perhaps, was the problem. The presentation wasn’t a reveal — it was a performance. And performances can be edited in post. Demos can’t.So when Apple in march 2025 quietly admitted, for the first time, in a formal press release addressed to reporters like John Gruber, that the personalized Siri and system-wide AI features would be delayed — the reaction wasn’t outrage. It was something subtler: disillusionment. Gruber’s response cracked the façade wide open. His post opened a slow but persistent wave of unease, rippling through developer Slack channels and private comment threads alike. John Gruber’s reaction, published under the headline “Something is rotten in the State of Cupertino”, was devastating. His critique opened the floodgates to a wave of murmurs and public unease among developers and insiders, many of whom had begun to question what was really happening at the helm of key divisions central to Apple’s future.Many still believe Apple is the only company truly capable of pulling off hardware-software integrated AI at scale. But there’s a sense that the company is now operating in damage-control mode. The delay didn’t just push back a feature — it disrupted the entire strategic arc of WWDC 2025. What could have been a milestone in system-level AI became a cautious sidestep, repackaged through visual polish and feature tweaks. The result: a presentation focused on UI refinements and safe bets, far removed from the sweeping revolution that had been teased as the main selling point for promoting the iPhone 16 launch, “Built for Apple Intelligence”.That tension surfaced during Joanna Stern’s recent live interview with Craig Federighi and Greg Joswiak. These are two of Apple’s most media-savvy execs, and yet, in a setting where questions weren’t scripted, you could see the seams. Their usual fluency gave way to something stiffer. More careful. Less certain. And even the absences speak volumes: for the first time in a decade, no one from Apple’s top team joined John Gruber’s Talk Show at WWDC. It wasn’t a scheduling fluke — nor a petty retaliation for Gruber’s damning March article. It was a retreat — one that Stratechery’s Ben Thompson described as exactly that: a strategic fallback, not a brave reset.Meanwhile, the keynote narrative quietly shifted from AI ambition to UI innovation: new visual effects, tighter integration, call screening. Credit here goes to Alan Dye — Apple VP of Human Interface Design and one of the last remaining members of Jony Ive’s inner circle not yet absorbed into LoveFrom — whose long-arc work on interface aesthetics, from the early stages of the Dynamic Island onward, is finally starting to click into place. This is classic Apple: refinement as substance, design as coherence. But it was meant to be the cherry on top of a much deeper AI-system transformation — not the whole sundae. All useful. All safe. And yet, the thing that Apple could uniquely deliver — a seamless, deeply integrated, user-controlled and privacy-safe Apple Intelligence — is now the thing it seems most reluctant to show.There is no doubt the groundwork has been laid. And to Apple’s credit, Jason Snell notes that the company is shifting gears, scaling ambitions to something that feels more tangible. But in scaling back the risk, something else has been scaled back too: the willingness to look your audience of stakeholders, developers and users live, in the eye, and show the future for how you have carefully crafted it and how you can put it in the market immediately, or in mere weeks. Showing things as they are, or as they will be very soon. Rehearsed, yes, but never faked.Even James Dyson’s live demo of a new vacuum showed more courage. No camera cuts. No soft lighting. Just a human being, showing a thing. It might have sucked, literally or figuratively. But it didn’t. And it stuck. That’s what feels missing in Cupertino.Some have started using the term glasslighting — a coined pun blending Apple’s signature glassy aesthetics with the soft manipulations of marketing, like a gentle fog of polished perfection that leaves expectations quietly disoriented. It’s not deception. It’s damage control. But that instinct, understandable as it is, doesn’t build momentum. It builds inertia. And inertia doesn’t sell intelligence. It only delays the reckoning.Before the curtain falls, it’s hard not to revisit the uncanny polish of Apple’s speakers presence. One might start to wonder whether Apple is really late on AI — or whether it’s simply developed such a hyper-advanced internal model that its leadership team has been replaced by real-time human avatars, flawlessly animated, fed directly by the Neural Engine. Not the constrained humanity of two floating eyes behind an Apple Vision headset, but full-on flawless embodiment — if this is Apple’s augmented AI at work, it may be the only undisclosed and underpromised demo actually shipping.OS30 live demoMeanwhile, just as Apple was soft-pedaling its A.I. story with maximum visual polish, a very different tone landed from across the bay: Sam Altman and Jony Ive, sitting in a bar, talking about the future.https://medium.com/media/5cdea73d7fde0b538e038af1990afa44/hrefNo stage. No teleprompter. No uncanny valley. Just two “old friends”, with one hell of a budget, quietly sketching the next era of computing. A vision Apple once claimed effortlessly.There’s still the question of whether Apple, as many hope, can reclaim — and lock down — that leadership for itself. A healthy dose of competition, at the very least, can only help.Too big, fail too was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

This is a spoiler-free preview of the first five episodes of season three. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds ended its second season with arguably the single strongest run of any streaming-era Trek. The show was made with such confidence in all departments that if there were flaws, you weren’t interested in looking for them. Since then, it’s gone from being the best modern Trek, to being the only modern Trek. Unfortunately, at the moment it needs to be the standard bearer for the show, it’s become noticeably weaker and less consistent.  As usual, I’ve seen the first five episodes, but can’t reveal specifics about what I’ve seen. I can say plenty of the things that made Strange New Worlds the best modern-day live-action Trek remain in place. It’s a show that’s happy for you to spend time with its characters as they hang out, and almost all of them are deeply charming. This is, after all, a show that uses as motif the image of the crew in Pike’s quarters as the captain cooks for his crew. Its format, with standalone adventures blended with serialized character drama, means it can offer something new every week. Think back to the first season, when “Memento Mori,” a tense action thriller with the Gorn, was immediately followed by “Spock Amock,” a goofy, starbase-set body-swap romantic comedy of manners centered around Spock. Strange New Worlds is the first Trek in a long while to realize audiences don’t just want a ceaseless slog of stern-faced, angry grimdark. And if they want that, they can go watch Picard and Section 31. Marni Grossman/Paramount+ But, as much as those things are SNW’s greatest strength, it’s a delicate balance to ensure the series doesn’t lurch too far either way. And, it pains me to say this, the show spends the first five episodes of its third season going too far in both directions (although, mercifully, not at the same time). No specifics, but one episode I’m sure was on the same writers room whiteboard wishlist as last season’s musical episode. What was clearly intended as a chance for everyone to get out of their usual roles and have fun falls flat. Because the episode can never get past the sense it’s too delighted in its own silliness to properly function. Marni Grossman/Paramount+ At the other end of the scale, we get sprints toward the eye-gouging grimdark that blighted those other series. Sure, the series has gone to dark places before, but previously with more of a sense of deftness, rather than just going for the viscerally-upsetting gore. A cynic might suggest that, as Paramount’s other Trek projects ended, franchise-overseer Alex Kurtzman — who has pushed the franchise into “grittier” territory whenever he can — had more time to spend in the SNW writers’ room. Much as I’ve enjoyed the series’ soapier elements, the continuing plotlines take up an ever bigger part of each episode’s runtime so far. Consequently, the story of the week gets less service, making them feel weaker and less coherent. One episode pivots two thirds of the way in to act as a low-key sequel to an episode from season two. But since we’ve only got ten minutes left, it feels thrown in as an afterthought, or to resolve a thread the creative team felt they were obliged to deal with (they didn’t). In fact, this and the recently-finished run of Doctor Who suffered from the same problem that blights so many streaming-era shows, which is the limited episode order. Rather than producing TV on the scale broadcast networks were able to — yearly runs of 22-, 24- or 26 episodes, a lot of (expensive) genre shows get less than half that. The result is that each episode has to be More Important Than The Last One in a way that’s exhausting for a viewer. But Strange New Worlds can’t solve all the economic issues with the streaming model on its own. My hope is that, much like in its first season, the weaker episodes are all in its front half to soften us up for the moments of quality that followed toward its conclusion. ASIDE: Shortly before publication, Paramount announced Strange New Worlds would end in its fifth season, which would be cut from ten episodes to six. It's not surprising — given the equally-brilliant Lower Decks was also axed after passing the same milestone — but it is disappointing. My only hope is that the series doesn't spend that final run awkwardly killing off the series' young ensemble one by one in order to replace them with the entire original series' roster as to make it "line up." Please, let them be their own things. This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/tv-movies/star-trek-strange-new-worlds-third-season-falls-short-of-its-second-020030139.html?src=rss