Army Boosts Lethality, Navy Innovates in NATO Push  Mirage News

Workshop on “Harnessing Space-Based Earth Observation and GIS Technologies for Disaster Risk Management”  isro.gov.in

In Rancho Palos Verde, California, the disassembled Wayfarers Chapel designed by Lloyd Wright, the son of Frank Lloyd Wright, has been stored away since last July, following damage from landslides. A potential site for the ecclesiastical structure has been found. The proposed site would expand the footprint of the serene property and protect its structures from further damage caused by land movement.  In the 1970s, a landslide at the site destroyed the chapel’s visitor center, and the geologic movement was inactive for a while. However, in the past few years activity began accelerating at an unprecedented rate. In February 2024, the Wayfarers Chapel announced that it would close its doors due to land movement in the area. The shuttering left a displaced congregation and devastated brides in its wake, but there was still hope of a return. Then, in May 2024, it was announced that the only way to maintain the structure was to disassemble it. Land movement had caused glass panels to shatter, the metal framing to warp, and cracks to form in the concrete. Though leadership initially wanted to rebuild on site, the worsening conditions proved this was no longer a viable option. In July 2024, with the help of Architectural Resources Group, the church was meticulously disassembled with each part numbered and labeled. Many of the irreplaceable materials used to construct the original chapel were salvaged. The pieces have since been kept in storage, waiting to be rebuilt.  The chapel was disassembled and stored for preservation. (Architectural Resources Group) The chapel’s new site must carry similar characteristics to the old one to uphold its National Historic Landmark designation. The prospective site, Battery Barnes, shares the original site’s coastal views of the Pacific, while situating the reassembled chapel outside the Portuguese Bend. Built in 1943 as part of the U.S. Army’s coastal fortification plan, the Battery Barnes’s connection to World War II could also be highlighted throughout the use of the land.  The glass chapel will be reconstructed using the salvaged original materials. (Architectural Resources Group/Courtesy Wayfarers Chapel) Wayfarers Chapel also plans to take advantage of the expanded footprint of the proposed site. During an episode of “RPV City Talk,” the chapel’s communications director Stephanie Cartozian shared that the organization hopes to rebuild the chapel along with the lost visitor center, as well as constructing a museum, archival center, and restaurant. The campus would also see the addition of public restrooms for hikers, expanding on its community accessibility.   Currently, Wayfarers Chapel is fundraising to cover the rebuild, with part of the funds going toward securing the site. Unlike wildfires, earthquakes, or flooding, landslides are not considered disasters in the State of California. Thus, along with fundraising efforts, local lobbying efforts are being made to add landslides to the list of covered emergencies, which could create a path to governmental assistance.

Science fiction encompasses so much of modern blockbuster cinema. So many big-budget movies these days are based on comic books, video games, and toys — and, in turn, so many comics, video games, and toys are rooted in sci-fi concepts like doctors who inject themselves with experimental serums or alien bounty hunters on alternate planets, or robots in disguise that transform into tractor-trailers or boomboxes.Comics and games and even action figures have inspired some good science-fiction movies, even one or two about robots that can turn into boomboxes. But we tend to not to expect Shakespeare from most of those sub-genres, and we tend not to get Shakespeare from those sub-genres all too often either. (Although I bet Shakespeare would have loved to write a play about a robot boombox ... “To beat or not to beat. That is the question.”)In the last 10 years alone, there have been some truly abysmal science-fiction movies — including then ten listed below, which might be the worst sci-fi films of the last decade. These are films about scientists racing to stop climate disasters, scientists racing to stop alien invasions, and scientists racing to stop themselves from turning into vampires. At this point, I’m basically on high alert from the moment I hear a movie is about a scientist.The worst sci-fi films of recent years are...The 10 Worst Sci-Fi Movies of the Last 10 Years (2016-2025)Fact: These science fiction movies are ... not great.“Honorable” Mentions: Chappie, Don’t Worry Darling, Eternals, Fantastic Four, Godzilla: King of the Monsters, Jupiter Ascending, Jurassic World, Jurassic World Dominion, Passengers, Pixels.READ MORE: The 10 Best Sci-Fi Movies of the Last 10 YearsGet our free mobile appThe 10 Best Comic Book Movies of the Last 10 Years (2015-2024)There have been a lot of comic book movies over the last ten years. These are the best of the best.

In Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in California, trees that have persisted through rain and shine for thousands of years are now facing multiple threats triggered by a changing climate. Scientists and park managers once thought giant sequoia forests were nearly impervious to stressors like wildfire, drought and pests. Yet, even very large trees are proving vulnerable, particularly when those stressors are amplified by rising temperatures and increasing weather extremes. The rapid pace of climate change—combined with threats like the spread of invasive species and diseases—can affect ecosystems in ways that defy expectations based on past experiences. As a result, Western forests are transitioning to grasslands or shrublands after unprecedented wildfires. Woody plants are expanding into coastal wetlands. Coral reefs are being lost entirely. To protect these places, which are valued for their natural beauty and the benefits they provide for recreation, clean water and wildlife, forest and land managers increasingly must anticipate risks they have never seen before. And they must prepare for what those risks will mean for stewardship as ecosystems rapidly transform. As ecologists and a climate scientist, we’re helping them figure out how to do that. Managing changing ecosystems Traditional management approaches focus on maintaining or restoring how ecosystems looked and functioned historically. However, that doesn’t always work when ecosystems are subjected to new and rapidly shifting conditions. Ecosystems have many moving parts—plants, animals, fungi, and microbes; and the soil, air and water in which they live—that interact with one another in complex ways. When the climate changes, it’s like shifting the ground on which everything rests. The results can undermine the integrity of the system, leading to ecological changes that are hard to predict. To plan for an uncertain future, natural resource managers need to consider many different ways changes in climate and ecosystems could affect their landscapes. Essentially, what scenarios are possible? Preparing for multiple possibilities At Sequoia and Kings Canyon, park managers were aware that climate change posed some big risks to the iconic trees under their care. More than a decade ago, they undertook a major effort to explore different scenarios that could play out in the future. It’s a good thing they did, because some of the more extreme possibilities they imagined happened sooner than expected. In 2014, drought in California caused the giant sequoias’ foliage to die back, something never documented before. In 2017, sequoia trees began dying from insect damage. And, in 2020 and 2021, fires burned through sequoia groves, killing thousands of ancient trees. While these extreme events came as a surprise to many people, thinking through the possibilities ahead of time meant the park managers had already begun to take steps that proved beneficial. One example was prioritizing prescribed burns to remove undergrowth that could fuel hotter, more destructive fires. The key to effective planning is a thoughtful consideration of a suite of strategies that are likely to succeed in the face of many different changes in climates and ecosystems. That involves thinking through wide-ranging potential outcomes to see how different strategies might fare under each scenario—including preparing for catastrophic possibilities, even those considered unlikely. For example, prescribed burning may reduce risks from both catastrophic wildfire and drought by reducing the density of plant growth, whereas suppressing all fires could increase those risks in the long run. Strategies undertaken today have consequences for decades to come. Managers need to have confidence that they are making good investments when they put limited resources toward actions like forest thinning, invasive species control, buying seeds or replanting trees. Scenarios can help inform those investment choices. Constructing credible scenarios of ecological change to inform this type of planning requires considering the most important unknowns. Scenarios look not only at how the climate could change, but also how complex ecosystems could react and what surprises might lay beyond the horizon. Scientists at the North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center are collaborating with managers in the Nebraska Sandhills to develop scenarios of future ecological change under different climate conditions, disturbance events like fires and extreme droughts, and land uses like grazing. [Photos: T. Walz, M. Lavin, C. Helzer, O. Richmond, NPS (top to bottom)., CC BY] Key ingredients for crafting ecological scenarios To provide some guidance to people tasked with managing these landscapes, we brought together a group of experts in ecology, climate science, and natural resource management from across universities and government agencies. We identified three key ingredients for constructing credible ecological scenarios: 1. Embracing ecological uncertainty: Instead of banking on one “most likely” outcome for ecosystems in a changing climate, managers can better prepare by mapping out multiple possibilities. In Nebraska’s Sandhills, we are exploring how this mostly intact native prairie could transform, with outcomes as divergent as woodlands and open dunes. 2. Thinking in trajectories: It’s helpful to consider not just the outcomes, but also the potential pathways for getting there. Will ecological changes unfold gradually or all at once? By envisioning different pathways through which ecosystems might respond to climate change and other stressors, natural resource managers can identify critical moments where specific actions, such as removing tree seedlings encroaching into grasslands, can steer ecosystems toward a more desirable future. 3. Preparing for surprises: Planning for rare disasters or sudden species collapses helps managers respond nimbly when the unexpected strikes, such as a severe drought leading to widespread erosion. Being prepared for abrupt changes and having contingency plans can mean the difference between quickly helping an ecosystem recover and losing it entirely. Over the past decade, access to climate model projections through easy-to-use websites has revolutionized resource managers’ ability to explore different scenarios of how the local climate might change. What managers are missing today is similar access to ecological model projections and tools that can help them anticipate possible changes in ecosystems. To bridge this gap, we believe the scientific community should prioritize developing ecological projections and decision-support tools that can empower managers to plan for ecological uncertainty with greater confidence and foresight. Ecological scenarios don’t eliminate uncertainty, but they can help to navigate it more effectively by identifying strategic actions to manage forests and other ecosystems. Kyra Clark-Wolf is a research scientist in ecological transformation at the University of Colorado Boulder. Brian W. Miller is a research ecologist at the U.S. Geological Survey. Imtiaz Rangwala is a research scientist in climate at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Key Takeaways AMD’s RX 9060 XT is set to launch on June 5th, 2025 in both 8GB and 16GB versions under the same name, creating confusion and backlash. Reviewers and gamers say 8GB of VRAM isn’t enough for modern gaming, especially at 1440p. AMD’s decision to showcase only the 16GB model in benchmarks raised concerns about transparency. This move mirrors Nvidia’s controversial RTX 4060 Ti rollout, suggesting an industry trend of misleading GPU marketing. It all started with a new GPU announcement. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT is set to launch, and on paper, it looks like a solid move. A $349 graphics card with 16GB of VRAM? Not bad. That’s more memory than some RTX 4070 cards. Sounds like AMD might finally be delivering some value again, right?  Well, yes and no.  Because right alongside that 16GB version, AMD is also releasing an 8GB version for $299. Same name, same chip, half the memory. And that’s where the internet lost it.  Déjà Vu: We’ve Seen This Trick Before If this sounds familiar, it’s because Nvidia pulled the same move with the RTX 4060 Ti.  They sold both 8GB and 16GB versions with the same branding, but a $100 price difference. The RTX 4060 Ti 8GB launched in May 2023, and the 16GB variant followed in July.  Source: Nvidia Gamers hated the confusion. Reviewers criticized the 8GB version’s lack of performance, especially in memory-heavy games, and the way Nvidia tried to sweep the difference under the rug.  Performance dipped significantly at 1440p, and stuttering was a problem even in some 1080p titles. The backlash was swift. Tech media slammed Nvidia for deceptive marketing, and buyers were left second-guessing which version they were getting.  We’ve seen this pattern before in Nvidia’s review restrictions around the RTX 5060, where early coverage was shaped by what reviewers were allowed to test – and what they weren’t.  It led to a mess of misinformation, bad value perceptions, and a very clear message: don’t confuse your customers. So naturally, AMD did it too.  It’s like watching two billion-dollar companies playing a game of ‘Who Can Confuse the Customer More.’ It’s not just about the money. It’s about trust, and AMD just dumped a bunch of it off a cliff.  Frank Azor Lights the Fuse on X The backlash started when AMD’s Director of Gaming Marketing, Frank Azor, took to X to defend the 8GB card.  He said that most gamers don’t need more than 8GB of VRAM and that the cheaper card still serves the mainstream crowd just fine.  It’s the same reasoning Nvidia used last year with the RTX 4060 Ti. That didn’t work then, and it isn’t working now.  Because when Steve from Hardware Unboxed sees a bad take like that, you know a flamethrower video is coming. And oh boy, did it come.  Hardware Unboxed Fires Back The backlash against AMD’s 8GB RX 9060 XT took off after a post from Hardware Unboxed on X called out the company’s defense of limited VRAM.  In response to AMD’s claim that most gamers don’t need more than 8GB of memory, Hardware Unboxed accused them of misleading buyers and building weaker products just to hit certain price points. The criticism gained traction fast. Tech YouTuber Vex picked up the story and added fuel to the fire by showing side-by-side gameplay comparisons.  In multiple games, the 8GB RX 9060 XT showed serious performance issues – stuttering, frame drops, and VRAM bottlenecks – while the 16GB version handled the same titles smoothly.  And yet, during the GPU’s official reveal, AMD only showed performance data for the 16GB card. There were no benchmarks for the 8GB version – not a single chart. That omission wasn’t lost on anyone. If AMD truly believed the 8GB model held up under modern gaming loads, they would have shown it. The silence speaks volumes.  Why This Actually Matters You might be thinking: ‘So what? Some games still run fine on 8GB. I only play Valorant.’ Sure. But the problem is bigger than that. Source: AMD Games are getting heavier. Even titles like Cyberpunk 2077, released in 2020, can eat up more than 8GB of VRAM. And with GTA 6 (still) on the horizon, do you really think game developers are going to keep optimizing for 8GB cards in 2025? That’s not how game development works. Developers target the most common setups, yes. But hardware also shapes software.  If everyone’s stuck with 8GB, games will be designed around that limit. That holds back progress for everyone.  It’s like trying to make a movie with a flip phone because some people still own one. Same Name, Different Game Another big issue is how these cards are named and sold.  The RX 9060 XT 16GB and RX 9060 XT 8GB are not clearly labeled as different products. They’re just two versions of the same GPU.  But that extra memory makes a huge difference.  In some games, the 8GB card performs dramatically worse. And yet, unless you know what to look for, you might walk into a store and buy the 8GB version thinking you’re getting the same performance.  You’re not. You’re getting a watered-down version with the same name and a silent asterisk. This isn’t just AMD’s Problem Nvidia started this mess with the 4060 Ti naming confusion. AMD just saw the outrage and decided to walk straight into the same buzzsaw.  It’s hard not to feel like both companies are treating consumers like they’re too dumb to notice. Spoiler: they noticed. And this whole ‘VRAM doesn’t matter’ argument? It’s already been debunked by dozens of reviewers.  If you’re spending over $300 on a graphics card in 2025, it needs to last more than a year or two. 8GB cards are already struggling. Buying one now is like buying a smartphone in 2025 with 64GB of storage. Sure, it works. Until it doesn’t. Steam Data Doesn’t Help AMD’s Case AMD and Nvidia both love to point at the Steam Hardware Survey. They say, ‘See? Most people still play at 1080p.’ And that’s true – for now. Source: Nvidia But what they leave out is that 1440p gaming is growing fast. More gamers are upgrading their setups because 1440p monitors are getting a lot more affordable.  Take the Pixio PXC277 Advanced, for instance – a 27-inch curved 1440p monitor with a 165Hz refresh rate and 1ms response time, all for $219.99. A few years ago, a screen like that would’ve cost you double. Now it’s entry-level. Gamers are ready to step up their experience. The only thing holding them back is GPU hardware that’s still stuck in 2020.  Planned Obsolescence in Disguise Here’s the worst part. Companies know full well that 8GB won’t cut it in 2026.  But they still sell it, knowing many gamers will only find out when it’s too late – when the stutters kick in, the textures disappear, or the next big title becomes unplayable. It’s planned obsolescence disguised as ‘choice.’ And while it’s great to have options at different price points, it should be clear which option is built to last – and which one is built to frustrate.  So, Is AMD Actually Screwed?  Not right now. In fact, they’re playing the game better than they used to.  They’ve learned from past pricing disasters and figured out how to get better launch-day headlines – even if it means faking the MSRP and letting street prices run wild.  But this kind of marketing comes at a cost. If AMD keeps making decisions that prioritize short-term wins over long-term trust, they’ll lose the very crowd that once rooted for them.  We don’t need two Nvidias. We need AMD to be different – to be better.  One Name, Two Very Different Cards The RX 9060 XT 16GB might be a good deal. But it’s being overshadowed by the 8GB version’s drama. And the longer AMD keeps playing games with memory and naming, the more it chips away at its hard-earned goodwill.  This whole mess could’ve been avoided with one simple move: name the 8GB card something else. Call it the RX 9055. Call it Lite or whatever. Just don’t make it look like the same card when it isn’t.  Until then, buyers beware. There’s more going on behind the box art than meets the eye.  Anya Zhukova is an in-house tech and crypto writer at Techreport with 10 years of hands-on experience covering cybersecurity, consumer tech, digital privacy, and blockchain. She’s known for turning complex topics into clear, useful advice that regular people can actually understand and use.  Her work has been featured in top-tier digital publications including MakeUseOf, Online Tech Tips, Help Desk Geek, Switching to Mac, and Make Tech Easier. Whether she’s writing about the latest privacy tools or reviewing a new laptop, her goal is always the same: help readers feel confident and in control of the tech they use every day.  Anya holds a BA in English Philology and Translation from Tula State Pedagogical University and also studied Mass Media and Journalism at Minnesota State University, Mankato. That mix of language, media, and tech has given her a unique lens to look at how technology shapes our daily lives.  Over the years, she’s also taken courses and done research in data privacy, digital security, and ethical writing – skills she uses when tackling sensitive topics like PC hardware, system vulnerabilities, and crypto security.  Anya worked directly with brands like Framework, Insta360, Redmagic, Inmotion, Secretlab, Kodak, and Anker, reviewing their products in real-life scenarios. Her testing process involves real-world use cases – whether it's stress-testing laptops for creative workloads, reviewing the battery performance of mobile gaming phones, or evaluating the long-term ergonomics of furniture designed for hybrid workspaces.  In the world of crypto, Anya covers everything from beginner guides to deep dives into hardware wallets, DeFi protocols, and Web3 tools. She helps readers understand how to use multisig wallets, keep their assets safe, and choose the right platforms for their needs.  Her writing often touches on financial freedom and privacy – two things she strongly believes should be in everyone’s hands. Outside of writing, Anya contributes to editorial style guides focused on privacy and inclusivity, and she mentors newer tech writers on how to build subject matter expertise and write responsibly.  She sticks to high editorial standards, only recommends products she’s personally tested, and always aims to give readers the full picture.  You can find her on LinkedIn, where she shares more about her work and projects.  Key Areas of Expertise: Consumer Tech (laptops, phones, wearables, etc.) Cybersecurity and Digital Privacy PC/PC Hardware Blockchain, Crypto Wallets, and DeFi In-Depth Product Reviews and Buying Guides Whether she’s reviewing a new wallet or benchmarking a PC build, Anya brings curiosity, care, and a strong sense of responsibility to everything she writes. Her mission? To make the digital world a little easier – and safer – for everyone.  View all articles by Anya Zhukova Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors.

Here’s a selection of recent headlines about artificial intelligence, picked more or less at random:For some recent graduates, the AI job apocalypse may already be hereArtificial intelligence threatens to raid the water reserves of Europe’s driest regionsTop AI CEO foresees white-collar bloodbathOkay, not exactly at random — I did look for more doomy-sounding headlines. But they weren’t hard to find. That’s because numerous studies indicate that negative or fear-framed coverage of AI in mainstream media tends to outnumber positive framings. And to be clear, there are good reasons for that! From disinformation to cyberwarfare to autonomous weapons to massive job loss to the actual, flat-out end of the world (shameless plug of my book here), there are a lot of things that could go very, very wrong with AI. But as in so many other areas, the emphasis on the negative in artificial intelligence risks overshadowing what could go right — both in the future as this technology continues to develop and right now. As a corrective (and maybe just to ingratiate myself to our potential future robot overlords), here’s a roundup of one way in which AI is already making a positive difference in three important fields.ScienceWhenever anyone asks me about an unquestionably good use of AI, I point to one thing: AlphaFold. After all, how many other AI models have won their creators an actual Nobel Prize? AlphaFold, which was developed by the Google-owned AI company DeepMind, is an AI model that predicts the 3D structures of proteins based solely on their amino acid sequences. That’s important because scientists need to predict the shape of protein to better understand how it might function and how it might be used in products like drugs. That’s known as the “protein-folding problem” — and it was a problem because while human researchers could eventually figure out the structure of a protein, it would often take them years of laborious work in the lab to do so. AlphaFold, through machine-learning methods I couldn’t explain to you if I tried, can make predictions in as little as five seconds, with accuracy that is almost as good as gold-standard experimental methods. By speeding up a basic part of biomedical research, AlphaFold has already managed to meaningfully accelerate drug development in everything from Huntington’s disease to antibiotic resistance. And Google DeepMind’s decision last year to open source AlphaFold3, its most advanced model, for non-commercial academic use has greatly expanded the number of researchers who can take advantage of it.MedicineYou wouldn’t know it from watching medical dramas like The Pitt, but doctors spend a lot of time doing paperwork — two hours of it for every one hour they actually spend with a patient, by one count. Finding a way to cut down that time could free up doctors to do actual medicine and help stem the problem of burnout. That’s where AI is already making a difference. As the Wall Street Journal reported this week, health care systems across the country are employing “AI scribes” — systems that automatically capture doctor-patient discussions, update medical records, and generally automate as much as possible around the documentation of a medical interaction. In one pilot study employing AI scribes from Microsoft and a startup called Abridge, doctors cut back daily documentation time from 90 minutes to under 30 minutes. Not only do ambient-listening AI products free doctors from much of the need to make manual notes, but they can eventually connect new data from a doctor-patient interaction with existing medical records and ensure connections and insights on care don’t fall between the cracks. “I see it being able to provide insights about the patient that the human mind just can’t do in a reasonable time,” Dr. Lance Owens, regional chief medical information officer at University of Michigan Health, told the Journal.ClimateA timely warning about a natural disaster can mean the difference between life and death, especially in already vulnerable poor countries. That is why Google Flood Hub is so important.An open-access, AI-driven river-flood early warning system, Flood Hub provides seven-day flood forecasts for 700 million people in 100 countries. It works by marrying a global hydrology model that can forecast river levels even in basins that lack physical flood gauges with an inundation model that converts those predicted levels into high-resolution flood maps. This allows villagers to see exactly what roads or fields might end up underwater. Flood Hub, to my mind, is one of the clearest examples of how AI can be used for good for those who need it most. Though many rich countries like the US are included in Flood Hub, they mostly already have infrastructure in place to forecast the effects of extreme weather. (Unless, of course, we cut it all from the budget.) But many poor countries lack those capabilities. AI’s ability to drastically reduce the labor and cost of such forecasts has made it possible to extend those lifesaving capabilities to those who need it most.One more cool thing: The NGO GiveDirectly — which provides direct cash payments to the global poor — has experimented with using Flood Hub warnings to send families hundreds of dollars in cash aid days before an expected flood to help themselves prepare for the worst. As the threat of extreme weather grows, thanks to climate change and population movement, this is the kind of cutting-edge philanthropy.AI for goodEven what seems to be the best applications for AI can come with their drawbacks. The same kind of AI technology that allows AlphaFold to help speed drug development could conceivably be used one day to more rapidly design bioweapons. AI scribes in medicine raise questions about patient confidentiality and the risk of hacking. And while it’s hard to find fault in an AI system that can help warn poor people about natural disasters, the lack of access to the internet in the poorest countries can limit the value of those warnings — and there’s not much AI can do to change that.But with the headlines around AI leaning so apocalyptic, it’s easy to overlook the tangible benefits AI already delivers. Ultimately AI is a tool. A powerful tool, but a tool nonetheless. And like any tool, what it will do — bad and good — will be determined by how we use it.A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!See More:

Even at first glance, there’s something off about the body on the street. The white sheet it’s under is a little too clean, and the officers’ movements are totally devoid of purpose. “We need to clear the street,” one of them says with a firm hand gesture, though her lips don’t move. It’s AI, alright. But here’s the kicker: my prompt didn’t include any dialogue.Veo 3, Google’s new AI video generation model, added that line all on its own. Over the past 24 hours I’ve created a dozen clips depicting news reports, disasters, and goofy cartoon cats with convincing audio — some of which the model invented all on its own. It’s more than a little creepy and way more sophisticated than I had imagined. And while I don’t think it’s going to propel us to a misinformation doomsday just yet, Veo 3 strikes me as an absolute AI slop machine.AI generated video: Made with Veo 3Google introduced Veo 3 at I/O this week, highlighting its most important new capability: generating sound to go with your AI video. “We’re entering a new era of creation,” Google’s VP of Gemini, Josh Woodward, explained in the keynote, calling it “incredibly realistic.” I wasn’t completely sold, but then, a few days later, I had Veo 3 generate a video of a news anchor announcing a fire at the Space Needle. All it took was a basic text prompt, a few minutes, and an expensive subscription to Google’s AI Ultra plan. And you know what? Woodward wasn’t exaggerating. It’s realistic as hell.I tried the news anchor prompt after seeing what Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, was able to produce. One of her clips features a news anchor announcing the death of US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. He is not dead, but the clip is incredibly convincing. A post including a string of videos with AI-generated characters protesting the prompts used to create them has 50,000 upvotes on Reddit. The scenes include disasters, a woman in a hospital bed using a breathing tube, and a character being threatened at gunpoint — all with spoken dialogue and realistic background sounds. Real lighthearted stuff!Maybe I’m being naive, but after playing around with Veo 3 I’m not quite as concerned as I was at first. For starters, the obvious guardrails are in place. You can’t prompt it to create a video of Biden tripping and falling. You can’t have a news anchor announce the assassination of the president, or even generate a video of a T-shirt-and-chain-wearing tech company CEO laughing while dollar bills rain down around him. That’s a start.That said, you can generate some troubling shit. Without any clever workarounds I prompted Veo 3 to create a video of the Space Needle on fire. Starting with my own photo of Mount Rainier, I generated a video of it erupting with smoke and lava. Coupled with a clip of a news anchor announcing said disaster, I can see how you could seed some mischief real easily with this tool.AI generated video: Made with Veo 3Here’s the better news: it doesn’t seem like a ready-made deepfake machine. I gave it a couple of photos of myself and asked it to generate a video with specific dialogue and it wouldn’t comply. I also asked it to bring a pair of giant boots in a photo to life and have them walk out of the scene; it managed one boot stomping across the sidewalk with some comical crunching noises in the background.AI generated video: Made with Veo 3I had an easier time generating videos when my prompts were less specific, which is how I confirmed something my colleague Andrew Marino pointed out: Veo 3 is excellent at creating the kind of lowest-common-denominator YouTube content aimed at kids.If you’ve never been subjected to the endless pit of garbage on YouTube Kids, let me enlighten you. Imagine watching the worst 3D rendering of a monster truck driving down a ramp, landing in a vat of colored paint. Next to it, another monster truck drives down another ramp into another vat of paint — this time, a different color. Now watch that again. And again. And again. There are hours of this stuff on YouTube designed to mesmerize toddlers. These videos are usually harmless, just empty calories designed to rack up views that make Cocomelon look like Citizen Kane. In about 10 minutes with Veo 3, I threw together a clip following the same basic formula — complete with jaunty background music. But the clip that’s even more troubling to me is the two cartoon cats on a pier.AI generated video: Made with Veo 3I thought it would be funny to have the cats complain to each other that the fish aren’t biting. In just a couple of minutes, I had a clip complete with two cats and some AI-generated dialogue that I never wrote. If it’s this easy to make a 10-second clip, stretching it out to a seven-minute YouTube video would be trivial. In its current form, clips revert to Veo 2 when you try to extend them into longer scenes, which removes the audio. But the way that Google has been pushing these tools forward relentlessly, I can’t imagine it’ll be long before you can edit a full feature-length video with Veo 3.Honestly, I wonder if this sort of use for AI-generated video is a feature and not a bug. Google showed us some fancy AI-generated video from real filmmakers, including Eliza McNitt, who is working with Darren Aronofsky on a new film with some AI-generated elements. And sure, AI video could be an interesting tool in the right hands. But I think what we’re most likely to see is a proliferation of the kind of bland imagery that AI is so good at generating — this time, in stereo.See More:

Even at first glance, there’s something off about the body on the street. The white sheet it’s under is a little too clean, and the officers’ movements are totally devoid of purpose. “We need to clear the street,” one of them says with a firm hand gesture, though her lips don’t move. It’s AI, alright. But here’s the kicker: my prompt didn’t include any dialogue.Veo 3, Google’s new AI video generation model, added that line all on its own. Over the past 24 hours I’ve created a dozen clips depicting news reports, disasters, and goofy cartoon cats with convincing audio — some of which the model invented all on its own. It’s more than a little creepy and way more sophisticated than I had imagined. And while I don’t think it’s going to propel us to a misinformation doomsday just yet, Veo 3 strikes me as an absolute AI slop machine.AI generated video: Made with Veo 3Google introduced Veo 3 at I/O this week, highlighting its most important new capability: generating sound to go with your AI video. “We’re entering a new era of creation,” Google’s VP of Gemini, Josh Woodward, explained in the keynote, calling it “incredibly realistic.” I wasn’t completely sold, but then, a few days later, I had Veo 3 generate a video of a news anchor announcing a fire at the Space Needle. All it took was a basic text prompt, a few minutes, and an expensive subscription to Google’s AI Ultra plan. And you know what? Woodward wasn’t exaggerating. It’s realistic as hell.I tried the news anchor prompt after seeing what Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, was able to produce. One of her clips features a news anchor announcing the death of US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. He is not dead, but the clip is incredibly convincing. A post including a string of videos with AI-generated characters protesting the prompts used to create them has 50,000 upvotes on Reddit. The scenes include disasters, a woman in a hospital bed using a breathing tube, and a character being threatened at gunpoint — all with spoken dialogue and realistic background sounds. Real lighthearted stuff!Maybe I’m being naive, but after playing around with Veo 3 I’m not quite as concerned as I was at first. For starters, the obvious guardrails are in place. You can’t prompt it to create a video of Biden tripping and falling. You can’t have a news anchor announce the assassination of the president, or even generate a video of a T-shirt-and-chain-wearing tech company CEO laughing while dollar bills rain down around him. That’s a start.That said, you can generate some troubling shit. Without any clever workarounds I prompted Veo 3 to create a video of the Space Needle on fire. Starting with my own photo of Mount Rainier, I generated a video of it erupting with smoke and lava. Coupled with a clip of a news anchor announcing said disaster, I can see how you could seed some mischief real easily with this tool.AI generated video: Made with Veo 3Here’s the better news: it doesn’t seem like a ready-made deepfake machine. I gave it a couple of photos of myself and asked it to generate a video with specific dialogue and it wouldn’t comply. I also asked it to bring a pair of giant boots in a photo to life and have them walk out of the scene; it managed one boot stomping across the sidewalk with some comical crunching noises in the background.AI generated video: Made with Veo 3I had an easier time generating videos when my prompts were less specific, which is how I confirmed something my colleague Andrew Marino pointed out: Veo 3 is excellent at creating the kind of lowest-common-denominator YouTube content aimed at kids.If you’ve never been subjected to the endless pit of garbage on YouTube Kids, let me enlighten you. Imagine watching the worst 3D rendering of a monster truck driving down a ramp, landing in a vat of colored paint. Next to it, another monster truck drives down another ramp into another vat of paint — this time, a different color. Now watch that again. And again. And again. There are hours of this stuff on YouTube designed to mesmerize toddlers. These videos are usually harmless, just empty calories designed to rack up views that make Cocomelon look like Citizen Kane. In about 10 minutes with Veo 3, I threw together a clip following the same basic formula — complete with jaunty background music. But the clip that’s even more troubling to me is the two cartoon cats on a pier.AI generated video: Made with Veo 3I thought it would be funny to have the cats complain to each other that the fish aren’t biting. In just a couple of minutes, I had a clip complete with two cats and some AI-generated dialogue that I never wrote. If it’s this easy to make a 10-second clip, stretching it out to a seven-minute YouTube video would be trivial. In its current form, clips revert to Veo 2 when you try to extend them into longer scenes, which removes the audio. But the way that Google has been pushing these tools forward relentlessly, I can’t imagine it’ll be long before you can edit a full feature-length video with Veo 3.Honestly, I wonder if this sort of use for AI-generated video is a feature and not a bug. Google showed us some fancy AI-generated video from real filmmakers, including Eliza McNitt, who is working with Darren Aronofsky on a new film with some AI-generated elements. And sure, AI video could be an interesting tool in the right hands. But I think what we’re most likely to see is a proliferation of the kind of bland imagery that AI is so good at generating — this time, in stereo.See More:

I do not live in a country with a camping culture, although I could see its appeal if you live in areas where you could actually go camping. But seeing all the wildfire disasters in the US and even in South Korea makes me a bit concerned about the dangers of lighting fires out in the open fields or even by the beach. While of course there have been no connections to campfires from these incidents, there are a lot of dangers that can come from these campfires even if they seem fun and romantic. The Magic Campfire is a concept designed by students from the Shenzhen Technology University. It offers a safer and more environmentally friendly alternative to open flames. Its advanced electronic illumination simulates the warm, flickering glow of a real fire without the associated risks, making it suitable for various outdoor settings. It is constructed from durable, recyclable materials and embraces eco-conscious principles without compromising the device’s performance. Designers: Bowen Deng and Yihan Peng from Shenzhen Technology University The device resembles a bundle of elongated flashlights or torches arranged vertically, mimicking the shape and glow of a real campfire. This clever design not only creates a familiar visual effect but also enhances the immersive outdoor atmosphere without the need for open flames. The structure is supported by collapsible legs, making it incredibly easy to set up or pack away, whether you’re at a campsite, on the beach, or in your backyard. Each torch-like unit is detachable, allowing users to remove one and use it as a standalone flashlight — perfect for late-night walks, finding your way in the dark, or navigating uneven terrain. To further elevate the campfire experience, the device includes an integrated outdoor speaker that delivers ambient sound or music, enriching the social atmosphere around the “fire.” In addition to its visual and audio features, it functions as a practical power bank, equipped with a USB Type-C charging port to keep your phone, lanterns, or other essential gadgets powered throughout your outdoor adventure. By merging technology with timeless design, the Magic Campfire offers an engaging outdoor experience that meets modern needs while preserving the nostalgic allure of a real campfire. It allows people to enjoy the warmth, light, and ambiance of a traditional campfire without endangering the environment or public safety. Whether you’re gathering in your backyard, camping in a controlled site, or simply creating a cozy atmosphere, this student-designed device proves that reimagining tradition through innovation can light the way to a safer future. The post Campfire device concept gives safer, smarter spark for outdoor experiences first appeared on Yanko Design.