Social media outlet Reddit filed a lawsuit Wednesday against artificial intelligence company Anthropic, accusing the startup of illegally scraping millions of user comments to train its Claude chatbot without permission or compensation.

Missing the big picture US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war Facing an extreme budget, the National Academies hosted an event that ignored it. John Timmer – Jun 4, 2025 6:00 pm | 16 Credit: JHVE Photo Credit: JHVE Photo Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more WASHINGTON, DC—The general outline of the Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget was released a few weeks back, and it included massive cuts for most agencies, including every one that funds scientific research. Late last week, those agencies began releasing details of what the cuts would mean for the actual projects and people they support. And the results are as bad as the initial budget had suggested: one-of-a-kind scientific experiment facilities and hardware retired, massive cuts in supported scientists, and entire areas of research halted. And this comes in an environment where previously funded grants are being terminated, funding is being held up for ideological screening, and universities have been subject to arbitrary funding freezes. Collectively, things are heading for damage to US science that will take decades to recover from. It's a radical break from the trajectory science had been on. That's the environment that the US's National Academies of Science found itself in yesterday while hosting the State of the Science event in Washington, DC. It was an obvious opportunity for the nation's leading scientific organization to warn the nation of the consequences of the path that the current administration has been traveling. Instead, the event largely ignored the present to worry about a future that may never exist. The proposed cuts The top-line budget numbers proposed earlier indicated things would be bad: nearly 40 percent taken off the National Institutes of Health's budget, the National Science Foundation down by over half. But now, many of the details of what those cuts mean are becoming apparent. NASA's budget includes sharp cuts for planetary science, which would be cut in half and then stay flat for the rest of the decade, with the Mars Sample Return mission canceled. All other science budgets, including Earth Science and Astrophysics, take similar hits; one astronomer posted a graphic showing how many present and future missions that would mean. Active missions that have returned unprecedented data, like Juno and New Horizons, would go, as would two Mars orbiters. As described by Science magazine's news team, "The plans would also kill off nearly every major science mission the agency has not yet begun to build." A chart prepared by astronomer Laura Lopez showing just how many astrophysics missions will be cancelled. Credit: Laura Lopez The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the US's fundamental research, is also set for brutal cuts. Biology, engineering, and education will all be slashed by over 70 percent; computer science, math and physical science, and social and behavioral science will all see cuts of over 60 percent. International programs will take an 80 percent cut. The funding rate of grant proposals is expected to drop from 26 percent to just 7 percent, meaning the vast majority of grants submitted to the NSF will be a waste of time. The number of people involved in NSF-funded activities will drop from over 300,000 to just 90,000. Almost every program to broaden participation in science will be eliminated. As for specifics, they're equally grim. The fleet of research ships will essentially become someone else's problem: "The FY 2026 Budget Request will enable partial support of some ships." We've been able to better pin down the nature and location of gravitational wave events as detectors in Japan and Italy joined the original two LIGO detectors; the NSF will reverse that progress by shutting one of the LIGOs. The NSF's contributions to detectors at the Large Hadron Collider will be cut by over half, and one of the two very large telescopes it was helping fund will be cancelled (say goodbye to the Thirty Meter Telescope). "Access to the telescopes at Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo will be phased out," and the NSF will transfer the facilities to other organizations. The Department of Health and Human Services has been less detailed about the specific cuts its divisions will see, largely focusing on the overall numbers, which are down considerably. The NIH, which is facing a cut of over 40 percent, will be reorganized, with its 19 institutes pared down to just eight. This will result in some odd pairings, such as the dental and eye institutes ending up in the same place; genomics and biomedical imaging will likewise end up under the same roof. Other groups like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration will also face major cuts. Issues go well beyond the core science agencies, as well. In the Department of Energy, funding for wind, solar, and renewable grid integration has been zeroed out, essentially ending all programs in this area. Hydrogen and fuel cells face a similar fate. Collectively, these had gotten over $600 billion dollars in 2024's budget. Other areas of science at the DOE, such as high-energy physics, fusion, and biology, receive relatively minor cuts that are largely in line with the ones faced by administration priorities like fossil and nuclear energy. Will this happen? It goes without saying that this would amount to an abandonment of US scientific leadership at a time when most estimates of China's research spending show it approaching US-like levels of support. Not only would it eliminate many key facilities, instruments, and institutions that have helped make the US a scientific powerhouse, but it would also block the development of newer and additional ones. The harms are so widespread that even topics that the administration claims are priorities would see severe cuts. And the damage is likely to last for generations, as support is cut at every stage of the educational pipeline that prepares people for STEM careers. This includes careers in high-tech industries, which may require relocation overseas due to a combination of staffing concerns and heightened immigration controls. That said, we've been here before in the first Trump administration, when budgets were proposed with potentially catastrophic implications for US science. But Congress limited the damage and maintained reasonably consistent budgets for most agencies. Can we expect that to happen again? So far, the signs are not especially promising. The House has largely adopted the Trump administration's budget priorities, despite the fact that the budget they pass turns its back on decades of supposed concerns about deficit spending. While the Senate has yet to take up the budget, it has also been very pliant during the second Trump administration, approving grossly unqualified cabinet picks such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. All of which would seem to call for the leadership of US science organizations to press the case for the importance of science funding to the US, and highlight the damage that these cuts would cause. But, if yesterday's National Academies event is anything to judge by, the leadership is not especially interested. Altered states As the nation's premier science organization, and one that performs lots of analyses for the government, the National Academies would seem to be in a position to have its concerns taken seriously by members of Congress. And, given that the present and future of science in the US is being set by policy choices, a meeting entitled the State of the Science would seem like the obvious place to address those concerns. If so, it was not obvious to Marcia McNutt, the president of the NAS, who gave the presentation. She made some oblique references to current problems, saying, that “We are embarking on a radical new experiment in what conditions promote science leadership, with the US being the treatment group, and China as the control," and acknowledged that "uncertainties over the science budgets for next year, coupled with cancellations of billions of dollars of already hard-won research grants, is causing an exodus of researchers." But her primary focus was on the trends that have been operative in science funding and policy leading up to but excluding the second Trump administration. McNutt suggested this was needed to look beyond the next four years. However, that ignores the obvious fact that US science will be fundamentally different if the Trump administration can follow through on its plans and policies; the trends that have been present for the last two decades will be irrelevant. She was also remarkably selective about her avoidance of discussing Trump administration priorities. After noting that faculty surveys have suggested they spend roughly 40 percent of their time handling regulatory requirements, she twice mentioned that the administration's anti-regulatory stance could be a net positive here (once calling it "an opportunity to help"). Yet she neglected to note that many of the abandoned regulations represent a retreat from science-driven policy. McNutt also acknowledged the problem of science losing the bipartisan support it has enjoyed, as trust in scientists among US conservatives has been on a downward trend. But she suggested it was scientists' responsibility to fix the problem, even though it's largely the product of one party deciding it can gain partisan advantage by raising doubts about scientific findings in fields like climate change and vaccine safety. The panel discussion that came after largely followed McNutt's lead in avoiding any mention of the current threats to science. The lone exception was Heather Wilson, president of the University of Texas at El Paso and a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Air Force during the first Trump administration. Wilson took direct aim at Trump's cuts to funding for underrepresented groups, arguing, "Talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not." After arguing that "the moral authority of science depends on the pursuit of truth," she highlighted the cancellation of grants that had been used to study diseases that are more prevalent in some ethnic groups, saying "that's not woke science—that's genetics." Wilson was clearly the exception, however, as the rest of the panel largely avoided direct mention of either the damage already done to US science funding or the impending catastrophe on the horizon. We've asked the National Academies' leadership a number of questions about how it perceives its role at a time when US science is clearly under threat. As of this article's publication, however, we have not received a response. At yesterday's event, however, only one person showed a clear sense of what they thought that role should be—Wilson again, whose strongest words were directed at the National Academies themselves, which she said should "do what you've done since Lincoln was president," and stand up for the truth. John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 16 Comments

Tech AI robots help nurses beat burnout and transform hospital care Hospitals using AI-powered robots to support nurses, redefine patient care Published June 4, 2025 6:00am EDT close AI robots help nurses beat burnout and transform hospital care Artificial intelligence and robotics may help with nursing shortage. NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! The global healthcare system is expected to face a shortage of 4.5 million nurses by 2030, with burnout identified as a leading cause for this deficit. In response, Taiwan's hospitals are taking decisive action by integrating artificial intelligence and robotics to support their staff and maintain high standards of patient care. AI-powered Nurabot (Nvidia)Nurabot: The AI nursing robot changing patient careNurabot, a collaborative nursing robot developed by Foxconn and Kawasaki Heavy Industries with Nvidia's AI technology, is designed to take on some of the most physically demanding and repetitive tasks in clinical care. These include delivering medications, transporting samples, patrolling wards and guiding visitors through hospital corridors. By handling these responsibilities, Nurabot allows nurses to focus on more meaningful aspects of patient care and helps reduce the physical fatigue that often leads to burnout. AI-powered Nurabot (Nvidia)Using AI to build the hospitals of the futureFoxconn's approach to smart hospitals goes beyond deploying robots. The company has developed a suite of digital tools using Nvidia platforms, including AI models that monitor patient vitals and digital twins that simulate hospital environments for planning and training purposes.The process starts in the data center, where large AI models are trained on Nvidia supercomputers. Hospitals then use digital twins to test and train robots in virtual settings before deploying them in real-world scenarios, ensuring that these systems are both safe and effective.ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TRANSFORMS PATIENT CARE AND REDUCES BURNOUT, PHYSICIAN SAYS AI-powered Nurabot (Nvidia)AI robots in real hospitals: Results from Taiwan's Healthcare SystemTaichung Veterans General Hospital (TCVGH), along with other top hospitals in Taiwan, is at the forefront of this digital transformation. TCVGH has built digital twins of its wards and nursing stations, providing a virtual training ground for Nurabot before it is introduced to real hospital floors. According to Shu-Fang Liu, deputy director of the nursing department at TCVGH, robots like Nurabot are augmenting the capabilities of healthcare staff, enabling them to deliver more focused and meaningful care to patients. AI-powered Nurabot (Nvidia)Ways Nurabot reduces nurse burnout and boosts efficiencyNurabot is already making a difference in daily hospital operations. The robot handles medicine deliveries, ward patrols and visitor guidance, which Foxconn estimates can reduce nurse workloads by up to 30%. In one ward, Nurabot delivers wound care kits and educational materials directly to patient bedsides, saving nurses multiple trips to supply rooms and allowing them to dedicate more time to their patients. The robot is also especially helpful during visiting hours and night shifts, when staffing levels are typically lower.Nurses hope future versions of Nurabot will be able to converse with patients in multiple languages, recognize faces for personalized interactions and even assist with lifting patients when needed. For example, a lung patient who needs two nurses to sit up for breathing exercises might only require one nurse with Nurabot's help, freeing the other to care for other patients. AI-powered Nurabot (Nvidia)Kurt's key takeawaysWhen it comes to addressing the nursing shortage, Taiwan is demonstrating that AI and robotics can make a significant difference in hospitals. Instead of spending their shifts running errands or handling repetitive tasks, nurses now have robots like Nurabot to lend a hand. This means nurses can focus their energy on what matters most – caring for patients – while robots handle tasks such as delivering medication or guiding visitors around the hospital.It's a team effort between people and technology, and it's already helping healthcare staff provide better care for everyone.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPHow would you feel if a robot, not a human, delivered your medication during a hospital stay? Let us know by writing us at Cyberguy.com/Contact.For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/Newsletter.Ask Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved. Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on "FOX & Friends." Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

“Pillars” (2024), oil on linen, 84 x 96 inches. All images courtesy of Mario Moore and Library Street Collective, shared with permission Mario Moore’s Oil Paintings Bridge Past and Present to Spotlight Black Resilience and Style June 4, 2025 Kate Mothes In large-scale works in oil, Detroit-based artist Mario Moore taps into the legacy of European painting traditions to create bold portraits exploring the nature of veneration, self-determination, and the continuum of history. Moore’s work is currently on view in Beneath Our Feet at Library Street Collective alongside fellow Detroiter LaKela Brown. His new pieces nod to the Dutch and Flemish tradition of devotional painting, particularly religious garland paintings. Within elegant arrangements of flowers and foliage, he highlights Black figures relaxing or tending to gardens. “The Patron Saint of Urban Farming” (2025), oil on linen, 72 x 48 inches In “Watermelon Man,” a stone altar is surrounded by hibiscus and watermelons, both symbols of resilience. Historically, the latter represented self-sufficiency and freedom for Southern African Americans following Emancipation, but whites flipped the narrative into a stereotypical exemplar of poverty. Moore reclaims the fruit in the spirit of refined 17th-century still-lifes. The artist has long drawn on the culture and legacies of both Detroit and the U.S. more broadly through the lens of the Black diaspora. Earlier works like “Pillars” position Black figures in elegant dress within the vast wildernesses of the American frontier, bridging the past to explore how racial divisions continue to shape the present. An exhibition last summer at Grand Rapids Art Museum titled Revolutionary Times took his series A New Republic as a starting point, revisiting the history of Black Union soldiers during the Civil War. Moore learned that one of his ancestors, who had been enslaved as a child, later enlisted in the Union Army, spurring the artist’s exploration of the seminal mid-19th-century period of conflict and Western colonization. He positions present-day figures in contemporary dress within historical contexts, interrogating political and racial segregations. “Watermelon Man” (2025), oil on linen, 51 1/2 x 42 inches Through tropes of European painting like a self-portrait of the artist in mirrored reflections and poses in three-quarter profile, Moore renders individuals whose direct, confident gazes and elegant dress invoke Detroit style and pride. For Beneath Our Feet, Brown and Moore collaborated on a five-foot-wide bas-relief bronze coin. Each artist completed one side, with Mario’s contribution taking the form of a portrait of Brown. “Her profile echoes the conventional format of traditional American coinage, confronting the historic absence of Black women in national symbolism and positions of authority,” the gallery says. On the opposite side, Brown depicts a bouquet of collard greens symbolic of nourishment and community. For this exhibition, Brown and Moore “reflect on the wealth held in the earth beneath us—and the enduring question of who holds the rights to till, own, and shape that land,” says an exhibition statement. Detroit is home to ambitious urban gardening initiatives that aim for local food sovereignty, mirroring the resourcefulness of Black farmers throughout history. The artists “consider land not just as property but as history, inheritance, and possibility,” the gallery says. Beneath Our Feet continues through July 30 in Detroit. See more on Moore’s website and Instagram. “International Detroit Playa: Sheefy” (2022), oil on linen, 108 x 96 inches “These Are Not Yams But They Are Damn Good” (2025), oil on linen, 51 1/2 x 42 inches “Creation of a Revolutionary (Helen Moore)” (2023), oil on linen, 76 x 52 inches “Black” (2023), oil on linen, 48 x 48 inches “Garland of Resilience” (2025), oil on linen, 51 1/2 x 42 inches “Birth of Cool” (2023), oil on linen, 72 x 48 inches Installation view of ‘LaKela Brown and Mario Moore: Beneath Our Feet’ at Library Street Collective, Detroit Previous articleNext article

For the past two years, it’s been a ghost in the machine of American tech. Between 2022 and today, a little-noticed tweak to the U.S. tax code has quietly rewired the financial logic of how American companies invest in research and development. Outside of CFO and accounting circles, almost no one knew it existed. “I work on these tax write-offs and still hadn’t heard about this,” a chief operating officer at a private-equity-backed tech company told Quartz. “It’s just been so weirdly silent.”AdvertisementStill, the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That’s the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a “niche issue with broad impact,” echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters.Since the start of 2023, more than half-a-million tech workers have been laid off, according to industry tallies. Headlines have blamed over-hiring during the pandemic and, more recently, AI. But beneath the surface was a hidden accelerant: a change to what’s known as Section 174 that helped gut in-house software and product development teams everywhere from tech giants such as Microsoft (MSFT) and Meta (META) to much smaller, private, direct-to-consumer and other internet-first companies.Now, as a bipartisan effort to repeal the Section 174 change moves through Congress, bigger questions are surfacing: How did a single line in the tax code help trigger a tsunami of mass layoffs? And why did no one see it coming? For almost 70 years, American companies could deduct 100% of qualified research and development spending in the year they incurred the costs. Salaries, software, contractor payments — if it contributed to creating or improving a product, it came off the top of a firm’s taxable income.AdvertisementThe deduction was guaranteed by Section 174 of the IRS Code of 1954, and under the provision, R&D flourished in the U.S.Microsoft was founded in 1975. Apple (AAPL) launched its first computer in 1976. Google (GOOGL) incorporated in 1998. Facebook opened to the general public in 2006. All these companies, now among the most valuable in the world, developed their earliest products — programming tools, hardware, search engines — under a tax system that rewarded building now, not later.The subsequent rise of smartphones, cloud computing, and mobile apps also happened in an America where companies could immediately write off their investments in engineering, infrastructure, and experimentation. It was a baseline assumption — innovation and risk-taking subsidized by the tax code — that shaped how founders operated and how investors made decisions.In turn, tech companies largely built their products in the U.S. AdvertisementMicrosoft’s operating systems were coded in Washington state. Apple’s early hardware and software teams were in California. Google’s search engine was born at Stanford and scaled from Mountain View. Facebook’s entire social architecture was developed in Menlo Park. The deduction directly incentivized keeping R&D close to home, rewarding companies for investing in American workers, engineers, and infrastructure.That’s what makes the politics of Section 174 so revealing. For all the rhetoric about bringing jobs back and making things in America, the first Trump administration’s major tax bill arguably helped accomplish the opposite.When Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the signature legislative achievement of President Donald Trump’s first term, it slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — a massive revenue loss on paper for the federal government.To make the 2017 bill comply with Senate budget rules, lawmakers needed to offset the cost. So they added future tax hikes that wouldn’t kick in right away, wouldn’t provoke immediate backlash from businesses, and could, in theory, be quietly repealed later.AdvertisementThe delayed change to Section 174 — from immediate expensing of R&D to mandatory amortization, meaning that companies must spread the deduction out in smaller chunks over five or even 15-year periods — was that kind of provision. It didn’t start affecting the budget until 2022, but it helped the TCJA appear “deficit neutral” over the 10-year window used for legislative scoring.The delay wasn’t a technical necessity. It was a political tactic. Such moves are common in tax legislation. Phase-ins and delayed provisions let lawmakers game how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — Congress’ nonpartisan analyst of how bills impact budgets and deficits — scores legislation, pushing costs or revenue losses outside official forecasting windows.And so, on schedule in 2022, the change to Section 174 went into effect. Companies filed their 2022 tax returns under the new rules in early 2023. And suddenly, R&D wasn’t a full, immediate write-off anymore. The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. To understand the impact, imagine a personal tax code change that allowed you to deduct 100% of your biggest source of expenses, and that becoming a 20% deduction. For cash-strapped companies, especially those not yet profitable, the result was a painful tax bill just as venture funding dried up and interest rates soared.AdvertisementSalesforce office buildings in San Francisco.Photo: Jason Henry/Bloomberg (Getty Images)It’s no coincidence that Meta announced its “Year of Efficiency” immediately after the Section 174 change took effect. Ditto Microsoft laying off 10,000 employees in January 2023 despite strong earnings, or Google parent Alphabet cutting 12,000 jobs around the same time.Amazon (AMZN) also laid off almost 30,000 people, with cuts focused not just on logistics but on Alexa and internal cloud tools — precisely the kinds of projects that would have once qualified as immediately deductible R&D. Salesforce (CRM) eliminated 10% of its staff, or 8,000 people, including entire product teams.In public, companies blamed bloat and AI. But inside boardrooms, spreadsheets were telling a quieter story. And MD&A notes — management’s notes on the numbers — buried deep in 10-K filings recorded the change, too. R&D had become more expensive to carry. Headcount, the leading R&D expense across the tech industry, was the easiest thing to cut.AdvertisementIn its 2023 annual report, Meta described salaries as its single biggest R&D expense. Between the first and second years that the Section 174 change began affecting tax returns, Meta cut its total workforce by almost 25%. Over the same period, Microsoft reduced its global headcount by about 7%, with cuts concentrated in product-facing, engineering-heavy roles.Smaller companies without the fortress-like balance sheets of Big Tech have arguably been hit even harder. Twilio (TWLO) slashed 22% of its workforce in 2023 alone. Shopify (SHOP) (headquartered in Canada but with much of its R&D teams in the U.S.) cut almost 30% of staff in 2022 and 2023. Coinbase (COIN) reduced headcount by 36% across a pair of brutal restructuring waves.Since going into effect, the provision has hit at the very heart of America’s economic growth engine: the tech sector.By market cap, tech giants dominate the S&P 500, with the “Magnificent 7” alone accounting for more than a third of the index’s total value. Workforce numbers tell a similar story, with tech employing millions of Americans directly and supporting the employment of tens of millions more. As measured by GDP, capital-T tech contributes about 10% of national output.AdvertisementIt’s not just that tech layoffs were large, it’s that they were massively disproportionate. Across the broader U.S. economy, job cuts hovered around in low single digits across most sectors. But in tech, entire divisions vanished, with a whopping 60% jump in layoffs between 2022 and 2023. Some cuts reflected real inefficiencies — a response to over-hiring during the zero-interest rate boom. At the same time, many of the roles eliminated were in R&D, product, and engineering, precisely the kind of functions that had once benefitted from generous tax treatment under Section 174.Throughout the 2010s, a broad swath of startups, direct-to-consumer brands, and internet-first firms — basically every company you recognize from Instagram or Facebook ads — built their growth models around a kind of engineered break-even.The tax code allowed them to spend aggressively on product and engineering, then write it all off as R&D, keeping their taxable income close to zero by design. It worked because taxable income and actual cash flow were often notGAAP accounting practices. Basically, as long as spending counted as R&D, companies could report losses to investors while owing almost nothing to the IRS.But the Section 174 change broke that model. Once those same expenses had to be spread out, or amortized, over multiple years, the tax shield vanished. Companies that were still burning cash suddenly looked profitable on paper, triggering real tax bills on imaginary gains.AdvertisementThe logic that once fueled a generation of digital-first growth collapsed overnight.So it wasn’t just tech experiencing effects. From 1954 until 2022, the U.S. tax code had encouraged businesses of all stripes to behave like tech companies. From retail to logistics, healthcare to media, if firms built internal tools, customized a software stack, or invested in business intelligence and data-driven product development, they could expense those costs. The write-off incentivized in-house builds and fast growth well outside the capital-T tech sector. This lines up with OECD research showing that immediate deductions foster innovation more than spread-out ones.And American companies ran with that logic. According to government data, U.S. businesses reported about $500 billion in R&D expenditures in 2019 alone, and almost half of that came from industries outside traditional tech. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that this sector, the broader digital economy, accounts for another 10% of GDP.Add that to core tech’s contribution, and the Section 174 shift has likely touched at least 20% of the U.S. economy.AdvertisementThe result? A tax policy aimed at raising short-term revenue effectively hid a time bomb inside the growth engines of thousands of companies. And when it detonated, it kneecapped the incentive for hiring American engineers or investing in American-made tech and digital products.It made building tech companies in America look irrational on a spreadsheet.A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to repeal the Section 174 change, with business groups, CFOs, crypto executives, and venture capitalists lobbying hard for retroactive relief. But the politics are messy. Fixing 174 would mean handing a tax break to the same companies many voters in both parties see as symbols of corporate excess. Any repeal would also come too late for the hundreds of thousands of workers already laid off.And of course, the losses don’t stop at Meta’s or Google’s campus gates. They ripple out. When high-paid tech workers disappear, so do the lunch orders. The house tours. The contract gigs. The spending habits that sustain entire urban economies and thousands of other jobs. Sandwich artists. Rideshare drivers. Realtors. Personal trainers. House cleaners. In tech-heavy cities, the fallout runs deep — and it’s still unfolding.AdvertisementWashington is now poised to pass a second Trump tax bill — one packed with more obscure provisions, more delayed impacts, more quiet redistribution. And it comes as analysts are only just beginning to understand the real-world effects of the last round.The Section 174 change “significantly increased the tax burden on companies investing in innovation, potentially stifling economic growth and reducing the United States’ competitiveness on the global stage,” according to the tax consulting firm KBKG. Whether the U.S. will reverse course — or simply adapt to a new normal — remains to be seen.

Published June 4, 2025 10:00am EDT close Windows bug leaves computer Wi-Fi vulnerable to hackers Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson explains how to keep your Windows computer safe and the security risks of online retail giant Temu. NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! Hackers are no longer targeting only tech giants or hospitals. Any business that collects valuable personal information, such as names, phone numbers, email addresses or even basic financial details, is now a target.Companies that rely heavily on third-party vendors or outsourced customer support are even more at risk, especially if they are not particularly strong in the technology sector.German retailer Adidas learned this the hard way. The company recently confirmed a data breach involving one of its external partners, and although it has acknowledged the issue, many important details are still missing. A hacker at work (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)Adidas confirms vendor breach: Here’s what we knowAdidas has officially acknowledged that a third-party vendor suffered a breach, resulting in unauthorized access to consumer data. In a public notice titled "Data Security Information," the company revealed that a "third-party customer service provider" had been compromised. While the brand was initially silent on the scope, it had already been reported earlier this month that customers in Turkey and Korea had received breach notifications.MASSIVE DATA BREACH EXPOSES 184 MILLION PASSWORDS AND LOGINSAdidas posted this information on both its German and English websites. However, no specific region or number of affected individuals has been confirmed. The company’s statement did clarify that no payment information, such as credit card details, nor passwords were included in the breach. Instead, it involved contact details submitted by users to Adidas’ help desk in the past.Data obtained reportedly includes names, phone numbers, email addresses and dates of birth. While this might seem limited compared to financial data, this type of information can be exploited for phishing scams and identity theft.  An Adidas sign (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)What Adidas told customers after the breachIn the wake of the breach, Adidas began notifying potentially affected customers directly. The company's email to customers below aimed to reassure recipients and clarify what information was involved. Here is the full text of the notification sent to affected individuals.Dear customer,We are writing to inform you of an issue that we recently became aware of which may have impacted some of your data.What happenedadidas recently learned that an unauthorized external party gained access to certain customer data through a third-party customer service provider.What information was involvedThe affected data does not contain passwords, credit card or any other payment-related information. Nor have any Social Security numbers been impacted.It mainly consists of contact information relating to customers who had contacted our customer service help desk in the past. This may have included one or more of the following: name, email address, telephone number, gender and/or birth date.What we are doing Privacy and the security of your data is our priority. Upon becoming aware of this incident, adidas took proactive and immediate steps to investigate and contain the incident. This includes further enhancing security measures and resetting passwords for customer service accounts.What you can doWe are currently unaware of any harm (such as identity theft or fraud) being caused to our customers as a result of this incident. There are no immediate steps that you need to take. Although, as always, please remain vigilant and look out for any suspicious messages. As a reminder, adidas will never directly contact you to ask that you provide us with financial information, such as your credit card details, bank account information or passwords.Who you can contactIf you have any questions, then please contact our Customer Service team at https://www.adidas.com/us/helpWe apologise for any inconvenience caused by this incident.adidas TeamWhat Adidas hasn’t said about the vendor hackDespite the official acknowledgment, several questions remain unanswered. Adidas has yet to clarify whether this is a single breach affecting multiple regions or several separate incidents. The lack of transparency around the name of the third-party vendor and the absence of concrete numbers or locations for affected users has created frustration among observers and possibly among customers themselves.The earlier regional reports from Turkey and Korea might suggest that this incident was either global in scale or that similar third-party vendors were independently targeted. In either case, the company's current handling of the situation has left room for speculation. Adidas claims it is in the process of informing potentially affected customers, but it has not detailed the method or timeline for this outreach.We reached out to adidas for a comment, and a representative referred us to this statement on their website. In part, the company said, "We remain fully committed to protecting the privacy and security of our consumers, and sincerely regret any inconvenience or concern caused by this incident."GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE An Adidas shoe (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)6 critical steps to take after the Adidas data breachIf you think you were affected or just want to be cautious, here are some steps you can take right now to stay safe from the Adidas data breach:1. Scrub your data from the internet using a personal data removal service: The more exposed your personal information is online, the easier it is for scammers to use it against you. Following the Adidas breach, consider removing your information from public databases and people-search sites. Check out my top picks for data removal services here.Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web.2. Watch out for phishing scams and use strong antivirus software: With access to your email and phone number, Adidas attackers can craft convincing phishing emails pretending to be from healthcare providers or banks. These emails might include malicious links designed to install malware or steal login information. To defend yourself, use a strong antivirus program. Get my picks for the best 2025 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android and iOS devices.3. Safeguard against identity theft and use identity theft protection: Hackers now have access to high-value information from the Adidas breach. This makes you a prime target for identity theft. You might want to consider investing in identity theft protection, which can also assist you in freezing your bank and credit card accounts to prevent further unauthorized use by criminals. Signing up for identity theft protection gives you 24/7 monitoring, alerts for unusual activity and support if your identity is stolen. See my tips and best picks on how to protect yourself from identity theft.4. Set up fraud alerts: Requesting fraud alerts notifies creditors that they need extra verification before issuing credit in your name. You can request fraud alerts through any one of the three major credit bureaus; they’ll notify the others. This adds another layer of protection without completely freezing access to credit.5. Change passwords and use a password manager: Update passwords on any accounts tied to compromised data. Use unique passwords that are hard to guess and let a password manager do the heavy lifting by generating secure ones for you. Reused passwords are an easy target after breaches. Consider password managers for convenience and security. Get more details about my best expert-reviewed password managers of 2025 here.6. Be wary of social engineering attacks: Hackers may use stolen details like names or birthdates from breaches in phone scams or fake customer service calls designed to trick you into revealing more sensitive info. Never share personal details over unsolicited calls or emails. Social engineering attacks rely on trust, and vigilance is key.Kurt’s key takeawayThe Adidas breach shows that even companies with decades of brand equity and a massive global footprint are not immune to lapses in data security. It underscores the need for companies to go beyond basic compliance and actively evaluate the cybersecurity standards of every partner in their ecosystem. Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the trade-offs they make when sharing their personal information, and brands that fail to meet this moment may find their reputations eroding faster than they expect.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPShould retailers be penalized for neglecting basic cybersecurity practices? Let us know by writing us atCyberguy.com/Contact.For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/Newsletter.Ask Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved. Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on "FOX & Friends." Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

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

June 3, 20258 min readWhite House Budget Plan Would Devastate U.S. Space ScienceScientists are rallying to reverse ruinous proposed cuts to both NASA and the National Science FoundationBy Nadia Drake edited by Lee BillingsFog shrouds the iconic Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in this photograph from February 25, 2025. Gregg Newton/AFP via GettyLate last week the Trump Administration released its detailed budget request for fiscal year 2026 —a request that, if enacted, would be the equivalent of carpet-bombing the national scientific enterprise.“This is a profound, generational threat to scientific leadership in the United States,” says Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, a science advocacy group. “If implemented, it would fundamentally undermine and potentially devastate the most unique capabilities that the U.S. has built up over a half-century.”The Trump administration’s proposal, which still needs to be approved by Congress, is sure to ignite fierce resistance from scientists and senators alike. Among other agencies, the budget deals staggering blows to NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which together fund the majority of U.S. research in astronomy, astrophysics, planetary science, heliophysics and Earth science —all space-related sciences that have typically mustered hearty bipartisan support.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The NSF supports ground-based astronomy, including such facilities as the Nobel Prize–winning gravitational-wave detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), globe-spanning arrays of radio telescopes, and cutting-edge observatories that stretch from Hawaii to the South Pole. The agency faces a lethal 57 percent reduction to its $9-billion budget, with deep cuts to every program except those in President Trump’s priority areas, which include artificial intelligence and quantum information science. NASA, which funds space-based observatories, faces a 25 percent reduction, dropping the agency’s $24.9-billion budget to $18.8 billion. The proposal beefs up efforts to send humans to the moon and to Mars, but the agency’s Science Mission Directorate —home to Mars rovers, the Voyager interstellar probes, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Hubble Space Telescope, and much more —is looking at a nearly 50 percent reduction, with dozens of missions canceled, turned off or operating on a starvation diet.“It’s an end-game scenario for science at NASA,” says Joel Parriott, director of external affairs and public policy at the American Astronomical Society. “It’s not just the facilities. You’re punching a generation-size hole, maybe a multigenerational hole, in the scientific and technical workforce. You don’t just Cryovac these people and pull them out when the money comes back. People are going to move on.”Adding to the chaos, on Saturday President Trump announced that billionaire entrepreneur and private astronaut Jared Isaacman was no longer his pick for NASA administrator—just days before the Senate was set to confirm Isaacman’s nomination. Initial reports—which have now been disputed—explained the president’s decision as stemming from his discovery that Isaacman recently donated money to Democratic candidates. Regardless of the true reason, the decision leaves both NASA and the NSF, whose director abruptly resigned in April, with respective placeholder “acting” leaders at the top. That leadership vacuum significantly weakens the agencies’ ability to fight the proposed budget cuts and advocate for themselves. “What’s more inefficient than a rudderless agency without an empowered leadership?” Dreier asks.Actions versus WordsDuring his second administration, President Trump has repeatedly celebrated U.S. leadership in space. When he nominated Isaacman last December, Trump noted “NASA’s mission of discovery and inspiration” and looked to a future of “groundbreaking achievements in space science, technology and exploration.” More recently, while celebrating Hubble’s 35th anniversary in April, Trump called the telescope “a symbol of America’s unmatched exploratory might” and declared that NASA would “continue to lead the way in fueling the pursuit of space discovery and exploration.” The administration’s budgetary actions speak louder than Trump’s words, however. Instead of ushering in a new golden age of space exploration—or even setting up the U.S. to stay atop the podium—the president’s budget “narrows down what the cosmos is to moon and Mars and pretty much nothing else,” Dreier says. “And the cosmos is a lot bigger, and there’s a lot more to learn out there.”Dreier notes that when corrected for inflation, the overall NASA budget would be the lowest it’s been since 1961. But in April of that year, the Soviet Union launched the first human into orbit, igniting a space race that swelled NASA’s budget and led to the Apollo program putting American astronauts on the moon. Today China’s rapidprogress and enormous ambitions in space would make the moment ripe for a 21st-century version of this competition, with the U.S. generously funding its own efforts to maintain pole position. Instead the White House’s budget would do the exact opposite.“The seesaw is sort of unbalanced,” says Tony Beasley, director of the NSF-funded National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). “On the one side, we’re saying, ‘Well, China’s kicking our ass, and we need to do something about that.’ But then we’re not going to give any money to anything that might actually do that.”How NASA will achieve a crewed return to the moon and send astronauts to Mars—goals that the agency now considers part of “winning the second space race”—while also maintaining its leadership in science is unclear.“This is Russ Vought’s budget,” Dreier says, referring to the director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an unelected bureaucrat who has been notorious for his efforts to reshape the U.S. government by weaponizing federal funding. “This isn’t even Trump’s budget. Trump’s budget would be good for space. This one undermines the president’s own claims and ambitions when it comes to space.”“Low Expectations” at the High FrontierRumors began swirling about the demise of NASA science in April, when a leaked OMB document described some of the proposed cuts and cancellations. Those included both the beleaguered, bloated Mars Sample Return (MSR) program and the on-time, on-budget Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the next astrophysics flagship mission.The top-line numbers in the more fleshed-out proposal are consistent with that document, and MSR would still be canceled. But Roman would be granted a stay of execution: rather than being zeroed out, it would be put on life support.“It’s a reprieve from outright termination, but it’s still a cut for functionally no reason,” Dreier says. “In some ways, [the budget] is slightly better than I was expecting. But I had very low expectations.”In the proposal, many of the deepest cuts would be made to NASA science, which would sink from $7.3 billion to $3.9 billion. Earth science missions focused on carbon monitoring and climate change, as well as programs aimed at education and workforce diversity, would be effectively erased by the cuts. But a slew of high-profile planetary science projects would suffer, too, with cancellations proposed for two future Venus missions, the Juno mission that is currently surveilling Jupiter, the New Horizons mission that flew by Pluto and two Mars orbiters. (The Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s moon Titan would survive, as would the flagship Europa Clipper spacecraft, which launched last October.) NASA’s international partnerships in planetary science fare poorly, too, as the budget rescinds the agency’s involvement with multiple European-led projects, including a Venus mission and Mars rover.The proposal is even worse for NASA astrophysics—the study of our cosmic home—which “really takes it to the chin,” Dreier says, with a roughly $1-billion drop to just $523 million. In the president’s proposal, only three big astrophysics missions would survive: the soon-to-launch Roman and the already-operational Hubble and JWST. The rest of NASA’s active astrophysics missions, which include the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), would be severely pared back or zeroed out. Additionally, the budget would nix NASA’s contributions to large European missions, such as a future space-based gravitational-wave observatory.“This is the most powerful fleet of missions in the history of the study of astrophysics from space,” says John O’Meara, chief scientist at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii and co-chair of a recent senior review panel that evaluated NASA’s astrophysics missions. The report found that each reviewed mission “continues to be capable of producing important, impactful science.” This fleet, O’Meara adds, is more than the sum of its parts, with much of its power emerging from synergies among multiple telescopes that study the cosmos in many different types, or wavelengths, of light.By hollowing out NASA’s science to ruthlessly focus on crewed missions, the White House budget might be charitably viewed as seeking to rekindle a heroic age of spaceflight—with China’s burgeoning space program as the new archrival. But even for these supposedly high-priority initiatives, the proposed funding levels appear too anemic and meager to give the U.S. any competitive edge. For example, the budget directs about $1 billion to new technology investments to support crewed Mars missions while conservative estimates have projected that such voyages would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more.“It cedes U.S. leadership in space science at a time when other nations, particularly China, are increasing their ambitions,” Dreier says. “It completely flies in the face of the president’s own stated goals for American leadership in space.”Undermining the FoundationThe NSF’s situation, which one senior space scientist predicted would be “diabolical” when the NASA numbers leaked back in April, is also unsurprisingly dire. Unlike NASA, which is focused on space science and exploration, the NSF’s programs span the sweep of scientific disciplines, meaning that even small, isolated cuts—let alone the enormous ones that the budget has proposed—can have shockingly large effects on certain research domains.“Across the different parts of the NSF, the programs that are upvoted are the president’s strategic initiatives, but then everything else gets hit,” Beasley says.Several large-scale NSF-funded projects would escape more or less intact. Among these are the panoramic Vera C. Rubin Observatory, scheduled to unveil its first science images later this month, and the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) radio telescope. The budget also moves the Giant Magellan Telescope, which would boast starlight-gathering mirrors totaling more than 25 meters across, into a final design phase. All three of those facilities take advantage of Chile’s pristine dark skies. Other large NSF-funded projects that would survive include the proposed Next Generation Very Large Array of radio telescopes in New Mexico and several facilities at the South Pole, such as the IceCube Neutrino Observatory.If this budget is enacted, however, NSF officials anticipate only funding a measly 7 percent of research proposals overall rather than 25 percent; the number of graduate research fellowships awarded would be cleaved in half, and postdoctoral fellowships in the physical sciences would drop to zero. NRAO’s Green Bank Observatory — home to the largest steerable single-dish radio telescope on the planet — would likely shut down. So would other, smaller observatories in Arizona and Chile. The Thirty Meter Telescope, a humongous, perennially embattled project with no clear site selection, would be canceled. And the budget proposes closing one of the two gravitational-wave detectors used by the LIGO collaboration—whose observations of colliding black holes earned the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics—even though both detectors need to be online for LIGO’s experiment to work. Even factoring in other operational detectors, such as Virgo in Europe and the Kamioka Gravitational Wave Detector (KAGRA) in Japan, shutting down half of LIGO would leave a gaping blind spot in humanity’s gravitational-wave view of the heavens.“The consequences of this budget are that key scientific priorities, on the ground and in space, will take at least a decade longer—or not be realized at all,” O’Meara says. “The universe is telling its story at all wavelengths. It doesn’t care what you build, but if you want to hear that story, you must build many things.”Dreier, Parriott and others are anticipating fierce battles on Capitol Hill. And already both Democratic and Republican legislators have issued statement signaling that they won’t support the budget request as is. “This sick joke of a budget is a nonstarter,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, in a recent statement. And in an earlier statement, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the powerful Senate Committee on Appropriations, cautioned that “the President’s Budget Request is simply one step in the annual budget process.”The Trump administration has “thrown a huge punch here, and there will be a certain back-reaction, and we’ll end up in the middle somewhere,” Beasley says. “The mistake you can make right now is to assume that this represents finalized decisions and the future—because it doesn’t.”

Ballerina is what happens when a studio wants to extend a franchise but really has no reason to do so except a financial one. Subtitled From The World of John Wick, this action thriller contains too much action and precious little thrills. Directed (maybe) by Len Wiseman of Underworld fame, Ballerina is set in the same universe as the four majestic adrenaline epics starring Keanu Reeves, and incorporates as many elements from those films as possible, including the Continental Hotel and the Ruska Roma, not to mention appearances from Ian McShane, Anjelica Huston, the late, great Lance Reddick, and Mr. Reeves himself. But what is also found in ample supply in the John Wick movies and sadly missing in Ballerina is heart, character, and a sense of conviction. At the center of the movie is a miscast, utterly bland Ana de Armas as Eve Macarro, whose father’s death sent her as a little girl into the custody of McShane’s Winston Scott and, eventually, the tutelage of the Director (Huston) of the Ruska Roma ballet/assassin school. It’s there that Eve goes through the usual training montage, with her inability to dance only matched by her evident aptitude at killing and fighting. Once her training is complete, Eve is sent out into the world on Ruska Roma business, but of course her main goal is avenging her dad, who was killed by members of a mysterious cult led by the enigmatic Chancellor (Gabriel Byrne). No sooner can you say “she’s gone rogue” than she does just that, jetting off to Prague in pursuit of a cult member (Norman Reedus) who’s trying to get himself and his own little daughter out from under the Chancellor’s thumb, while finding herself at odds with the Director and pursued by the Chancellor’s minions at every turn. The movie’s thin “lady vengeance” premise, which we’ve seen countless times before, is reheated once again by screenwriter Shay Hatten, who has co-written the last two John Wick entries but seems lost here. Unlike John Wick himself, whose single-minded quest for revenge over the death of his dog took on mythic overtones as more layers to both John and the surreal world of elegant criminality in which he moved were revealed, Eve has nothing to define her that hasn’t been done or said before. It doesn’t help that Armas, while up to the role’s physicality, offers nothing in terms of personality—she’s an empty vessel. Which is a shame, since she’s displayed earthiness (Knives Out), complexity (Blonde), and a sexy playfulness (No Time to Die) in previous work. The rest of the non-Wick cast is forgettable as well, with Byrne’s Chancellor and his entire regime badly underdeveloped, and Reedus completely wasted in what amounts to maybe two scenes. McShane, Reddick, and Huston just go through their paces, spouting lots of portentous lines about “choice” and “fate” that ring mostly hollow, as does a late-stage twist that carries no weight because one of the characters involved barely registers. As for the Baba Yaga himself, the largely non-verbal Reeves is the “Chekhov’s gun” of the film: introduced briefly in the first act, he inevitably turns up again in the third act, parachuted in by the magic of rumored reshoots even though his contribution to the narrative amounts to absolutely nothing. It’s always nice to see him, but if you took him out, it wouldn’t drastically change the picture. Speaking of reshoots, there’s a Frankenstein nature to the proceedings that provides evidence for the reports that Wick director (and franchise torch-bearer) Chad Stahelski refilmed much of the movie after Wiseman’s first draft came up short. While the first act is a murky, enervated slog, things seem to pick up in the middle, with a more eye-catching color scheme (such as a sequence in a neon-lit club reminiscent of a similar scene in the magnificent John Wick: Chapter 4), a creative, free-flowing use of the camera, and some of the more inventive, oddball action that has become part and parcel of the franchise—most notably in a scene where de Armas and an enemy smash a pile of dinner plates over each other’s heads with manic Three Stooges-like energy. Unfortunately, there’s also a sadistic edge to a lot of the action this time as well, particularly in a climactic fight involving flamethrowers that badly wants to emulate the famous overhead apartment shot from John Wick: Chapter 4 but goes on for far too long and ultimately becomes actively unpleasant. That’s a problem with even the better action on hand in Ballerina, as if the filmmakers want to make up for the film’s deficiencies by overdoing what the series is best known for. Hatten’s script was an original piece that was rewritten to fit into the John Wick universe, with elements introduced in John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum to pave the way for the arrival of Eve and Ballerina. But this reverse engineering highlights the pitfalls of trying to create a cinematic universe without stopping to wonder whether it’s a good idea. Watching John Wick stonily fight and slaughter his way through his off-center world and its population of funky, eccentric weirdos has been fantastic fun (the threat of an arc-undermining John Wick 5 notwithstanding) because of the unique nature of the character and that world. But dropping the more conventional, cliched tropes of Ballerina into the mix, along with a protagonist (and actor) not nearly as compelling, only exemplifies that the John Wick movies are character-driven first and foremost. All the brutal action, heavy-handed callbacks, and predictable cameos in the world can’t make this Ballerina into a better dancer. Ballerina opens in theaters in the U.S. on Friday, June 6. Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox!

Architizer is thrilled to welcome Lyndon Neri, Hon. FAIA, co-founder of 2023 Firm of the Year Neri&Hu Design and Research Office, to the jury for the 2025 Vision Awards. As one of the most respected voices in contemporary architecture and design, Neri brings a deeply interdisciplinary perspective that aligns powerfully with the program’s celebration of conceptual rigor and visual innovation. To have your work seen by Neri and secure a place in the running for global publication this year, Architizer cordially invites you to submit your best architectural concepts, images and ideas to this year’s Vision Awards: Share My Vision Based in Shanghai and working globally, Architizer’s 2023 Firm of the Year Neri&Hu is known for its boundary-defying approach to design — where architecture, interiors and product design are all treated as part of a singular, research-driven narrative. With a stunning portfolio of richly layered cultural projects, Neri&Hu’s work expresses a commitment to contextual storytelling and material exploration at every scale. The firm’s projects are recognized not just for their aesthetic sensitivity, but for the conceptual clarity that underpins each spatial gesture. Educated at the University of California, Berkeley and the Harvard Graduate School of Design, Neri is equally celebrated as an educator and theorist. In recent years, he has held prominent teaching positions at Harvard, Yale, Berkeley and Princeton, where he was appointed as Visiting Faculty in 2024. His editorial and written contributions — including Persistence of Vision: Shanghai Architects in Dialogue and Neri&Hu’s monograph Thresholds: Space, Time and Practice — have helped frame an emergent dialogue around contemporary Asian architecture and its role in global discourse. Neri’s presence on the 2025 Vision Awards Jury is particularly exciting given the program’s expansive exploration of architectural ideation across every medium. Categories for architectural drawings, models, renderings and conceptual designs all speak directly to Neri’s longstanding interest in the process and craft of architecture, from concept to construction. His insights will undoubtedly help shape a new generation of design thinking through this year’s program. Sketch for Aranya Art Center by Neri&Hu Design and Research Office, Qinhuangdao, China. Neri joins a stellar judging panel that includes fellow architectural luminaries such as Daniel Libeskind, Steven Holl, Winka Dubbeldam and Suchi Reddy — all united in the search for the most inspiring architectural ideas and visual work from around the world. Entries for the 2025 Vision Awards are open, with a Main Entry Deadline of June 6th, 2025. Winners will be featured in Architizer’s Visionary 100, a definitive guide to the architecture industry’s most innovative creators, and see their work published on Architizer’s new book How to Visualize Architecture. Think you belong among them? Take part in the Vision Awards and show the world your boldest architectural visions! Click the button below to get started: Enter the Vision Awards Featured image: The Walled – Tsingpu Yangzhou Retreat by Neri&Hu Design and Research Office, Yangzhou, China The post Master of Architectural Research Lyndon Neri Joins the 2025 Vision Awards Jury appeared first on Journal.