Air travel is remarkably, astonishingly safe. Every year, commercial US airlines take more than 800 million domestic passengers to their destinations, and in a typical year, zero of them are killed and very few are injured. It’s a track record made possible by a fairly intense commitment to safety. But increasingly over the last few years, we’ve been testing these limits.This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter.Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.Right now the example in the headlines is New Jersey’s Newark Liberty International Airport, which had three air traffic controllers on duty when it was supposed to have 14 and which over the last couple of weeks suffered three “communications blackouts” where air traffic controllers couldn’t communicate with approaching planes.But it’s not just Newark. There has been an alarming rise in near-misses, communications blackouts, and other serious problems over the last few years at airports across the country, often a consequence of understaffing and high traffic. The midair collision near Reagan National Airport in Washington earlier this year that killed over 60 people was the deadliest air crash in the US since 2001.Even with the Washington disaster, very few of these incidents, thankfully, get anyone killed. That’s because the US achieves the astonishing safety of our air travel system with defense in depth, which means a bunch of different things have to go wrong for a crash to happen.Planes have on-board systems that should alert them if they’re too near another plane, even if air traffic control is sleeping on the job. There are backup emergency frequencies in case a communications blackout occurs. There are pre-published procedures for what to do in the event of a landing that looks unsafe, so if the pilots find themselves abruptly entirely out of contact with the ground, or coming in for a landing on a runway that they realize too late isn’t clear, they have been trained on precisely how to respond.Pushing our defenses against disaster to the limitsIn the risk analysis world, this is called the “Swiss cheese” model of how to prevent a disaster. Every layer of a system made up of humans — with all our flaws — is going to have some gaps. Air traffic controllers will have a bad day, or be tired, or let something slip their mind. Technological solutions will have limitations and edge cases. Pilots will make mistakes or have a medical emergency or get confused by unusual instructions. So each layer of the defenses against disaster has “holes” in it. But so long as the holes don’t all line up — so long as there isn’t a gap in every single layer at the same time — the defenses hold, and the planes land safely. All of this means that despite the absurd strain on air traffic controllers, flying out of Newark is still almost certainly going to go fine. But to achieve and maintain the exceptionally low accident levels that we’ve taken pride in over the last 20 years, “almost certainly” isn’t good enough. If you want not just 99.9 percent of planes but every single plane, every single year, to land safely, you can’t afford to let one of the layers of our defenses get more and more full of holes. A “near miss” where several layers of defenses fail should be taken incredibly seriously and prompt changes, even if one other layer sufficed to save us.Any event which would have been a mass casualty event if not for the good judgment and quick thinking of the pilots, or if not for good weather, or if not for an activation of the automatic TCAS collision avoidance system, needs to be treated as a major emergency. If we let near-misses become business as usual, then it’s inevitable that some percentage of them will convert into actual mass disasters — as happened in Washington this January, where a helicopter and plane collided in an airspace that was known to have risky amounts of helicopter traffic and a bunch of alarming near-misses.This is, of course, important in its own right, since every single commercial plane crash is a preventable tragedy. But it’s also, I sometimes fear, a symptom of a broader cultural malaise. Plane crashes used to be horrifyingly common. We made them rarer through a comprehensive, aggressive program to add layers of defense against human error, revising our procedures through tragedy after tragedy. And we succeeded.If you read the description of almost any plane crash that occurred in the 1970s, one thing stands out: It could not have happened today. Through mechanical improvements, procedural improvements, training improvements, and backup systems, we’ve built planes that are much, much harder to crash. But then, as frequent deadly plane crashes became a distant cultural memory, we immediately started testing how far we could underresource those systems. We ignored near-misses and staffing shortages; we failed to heed warnings that our systems are in trouble and our procedures need changes. Boeing pushed out a dangerous new plane, hoping that other layers of our collective defenses against crashes would suffice to keep them in the air; in the US, those other layers were sufficient, but in poorer countries, they were not. We’ve lost our fearThe parallels to other areas of modern life stand out. It used to be that half of children were dead before age 5; vaccination changed that, but in the world made safe by vaccination, parents grew skeptical of it. Now kids are dying of measles again. It’s been observed that “what if we hike tariffs?” is an idea that comes around once a century or so, and goes badly enough we’re warned off it for a while. We have to touch the hot stove ourselves to learn that it burns us, it seems: The cultural memory doesn’t last for all that long.This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, by itself. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where caution only ever ratchets up; safety is a trade-off, and it’s reasonable to relax precautions if we still get good results without those precautions. But in some cases — like understaffing air traffic control or not vaccinating against measles — the precaution in question passes any reasonable cost-benefit calculation. Our “lesson” is taught by the deaths of innocent people. And more terrifyingly, it’s not clear we’re even learning from our brush with reality. Were the deaths of children in Texas enough to turn around measles vaccination rates? Did the crash over the Potomac teach us to start paying more attention to near-misses? It’s too early to say, but it doesn’t look good so far — and that is what really scares me.A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!You’ve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you — join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More: Future Perfect #how #stretched #our #aviation #system

Hideo Kojima, known for his unconventional approach to game design, does not seem to believe in crowd-pleasers. Despite that, Death Stranding 2: On the Beach might become a mainstream hit. VGC reported that in a recent interview with Edge Magazine Kojima said, “I do wish I was a bit more controversial,” reflecting on the positive reaction Death Stranding 2 received from internal playtesters. He contrasted the internal reception for Death Stranding 2 to the original Death Stranding: “In fact, I did a lot of monitoring tests for the original Death Stranding. I’d find that four out of ten people would love the game, but six would say it was a terrible game. For me, I think that’s a good balance. But with the playtests for Death Stranding 2: On the Beach, everyone seems to be positive.” Edge 411 is out today, featuring Death Stranding 2: On The Beach. For our 16-page cover story, Simon Parkin visits Kojima Productions to play the studio’s most ambitious game to date and discuss its creation with Hideo Kojima, who explains why it is more Aliens than Alien. pic.twitter.com/AUyceJyBOA— EdgeMay 15, 2025 That type of pre-release praise is normally music to a game studio founder’s ears, but Kojima is different. “I’m not interested in making something that appeals to everyone,” he said in the Edge interview. While the original Death Stranding — with its bold package delivery premise — was not a hit right out of the gate, more critics came around to it with its Director’s Cut edition. Amid a warming reception to the original Death Stranding, it makes sense that play testers for Death Stranding 2 are more ready to buy in. Well, there’s that improving climate, and there’s also the fact that Death Stranding 2 looks like it’s building on the first game’s already ambitious base. Natural disasters like earthquakes and sandstorms create new challenges for traversing the world. On top of highways, players can also now set up efficient, but expensive, trade routes through monorails. Combat is becoming more core to the experience, with a new arsenal of sniper rifles, assault rifles, grenade launchers, and more. Even Sam’s backpack can be put down, allowing for more nimble combat and infiltration sequences. All together, it looks like Death Stranding 2 promises more freedom in how to overcome obstacles. With all that packed inside an already unforgettable world, it is no surprise that play testers are responding positively. Balancing the desire for originality with more widespread success is a key consideration for Kojima, he said. “Of course, I can’t afford to make a failure, either. I must take care of my studio, my staff, and our production budget. But in essence, I don’t want to simply recreate something that’s already in the world,” Kojima said. “I want to make something new.” Death Stranding 2: On the Beach is set to be released June 26, 2025 on PlayStation 5. #hideo #kojima #wishes #death #stranding

Hideo Kojima, known for his unconventional approach to game design, does not seem to believe in crowd-pleasers. Despite that, Death Stranding 2: On the Beach might become a mainstream hit.VGC reported that in a recent interview with Edge Magazine Kojima said, “I do wish I was a bit more controversial,” reflecting on the positive reaction Death Stranding 2 received from internal playtesters.He contrasted the internal reception for Death Stranding 2 to the original Death Stranding: “In fact, I did a lot of monitoring tests for the original Death Stranding. I’d find that four out of ten people would love the game, but six would say it was a terrible game. For me, I think that’s a good balance. But with the playtests for Death Stranding 2: On the Beach, everyone seems to be positive.”That type of pre-release praise is normally music to a game studio founder’s ears, but Kojima is different. “I’m not interested in making something that appeals to everyone,” he said in the Edge interview. While the original Death Stranding — with its bold package delivery premise — was not a hit right out of the gate, more critics came around to it with its Director’s Cut edition. Amid a warming reception to the original Death Stranding, it makes sense that play testers for Death Stranding 2 are more ready to buy in.Well, there’s that improving climate, and there’s also the fact that Death Stranding 2 looks like it’s building on the first game’s already ambitious base. Natural disasters like earthquakes and sandstorms create new challenges for traversing the world. On top of highways, players can also now set up efficient, but expensive, trade routes through monorails. Combat is becoming more core to the experience, with a new arsenal of sniper rifles, assault rifles, grenade launchers, and more. Even Sam’s backpack can be put down, allowing for more nimble combat and infiltration sequences. All together, it looks like Death Stranding 2 promises more freedom in how to overcome obstacles.With all that packed inside an already unforgettable world, it is no surprise that play testers are responding positively. Balancing the desire for originality with more widespread success is a key consideration for Kojima, he said.“Of course, I can’t afford to make a failure, either. I must take care of my studio, my staff, and our production budget. But in essence, I don’t want to simply recreate something that’s already in the world,” Kojima said. “I want to make something new.”Death Stranding 2: On the Beach is set to be released June 26, 2025 on PlayStation 5.See More: #hideo #kojima #wishes #death #stranding

Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. You can now own a gold coin celebrating one of America’s most revolutionary achievements: the NASA Space Shuttle program. The latest variant in the ongoing American Innovation Coin series is available to order through the United States Mint. Selected to represent the state of Florida, the noncirculating legal tender is the third coin released this year and the 28th coin in the 15-year project first announced in 2018. While the coin’s front displays the series’ Statue of Liberty image, the back shows the shuttle launching above plumes of exhaust. United States Mint Medallic Artist Eric David Custer sculpted the image while Artistic Infusion ProgramDesigner Ron Sanders designed it. “The Space Shuttle, officially known as the Space Transportation System, remains one of the most iconic and influential spacecrafts in history,” explained US Mint acting director Kristie McNally in an accompanying announcement. “As the world’s first reusable spacecraft, it played a pivotal role in advancing space exploration. We are honored to celebrate this major achievement.” The Space Shuttle’s iconic designfrequently featured not just the shuttle itself, but its large external fuel tank and two solid rocket boosters. Those attachments detached after the shuttle reached a predetermined altitude. While the boosters included parachutes allowing them to be recovered and reused, the fuel tank was designed to disintegrate during its atmospheric reentry along a ballistic trajectory ensuring any remnants landed in the Indian or Pacific Oceans. The Space Shuttle coin is the 28th in the American Innovation series. Credit: US Mint NASA relied on the Space Shuttle to transport astronauts on missions from April 1981 until its retirement in July 2011. The spacecraft blasted off a total of 135 times from one of two launchpads in Florida, returning to Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral at the end of 78 of those trips. During its tenure, the shuttle flew the first women and minority crew members into space, as well as delivered components for both the Hubble Space Telescope and International Space Station. The program was not without tragedy, however. The Challenger and Columbia disasters of 1986 and 2003, respectively,  collectively claimed the lives of 14 astronauts. In 2004, President George W. Bush announced plans to retire the Space Shuttle program following the completion of the ISS. Today, NASA primarily relies on private contracts with companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin for astronaut and mission transport. The ongoing Artemis lunar program will use an Orion spacecraft designed by Lockheed Martin. The Space Shuttle’s influence today is far more than just symbolic. The Artemis program’s rocket booster engines, casings, and main engines are all repurposed and refurbished from Space Shuttle craft. The Artemis I mission alone utilized components previously employed on 83 shuttle missions. The United States Mint announced its American Innovation Coin series celebrating American achievements across science and technology in 2018, and has already featured three space-related selections prior to the Florida coin. Delaware’s coin from 2018 showcases Annie Jump Cannon, the pioneering astronomer responsible for the star classification system still used today. Meanwhile, Maryland’s 2020 entry pays tribute to the Hubble Space Telescope, and Alabama’s 2024 release includes the Saturn V rocket. Later this year, Texas will become the fifth space-centric gold coin with its Mission Control design. #mint #releases #space #shuttle #gold

This is today's edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what's going on in the world of technology. The first US hub for experimental medical treatments is coming The news: A bill that allows clinics to sell unproven treatments has been passed in Montana. Under the legislation, doctors can apply for a license to open an experimental treatment clinic and recommend and sell therapies not approved by the Food and Drug Administrationto their patients. Why it matters: Once it’s signed by the governor, the law will be the most expansive in the country in allowing access to drugs that have not been fully tested. The bill allows for any drug produced in the state to be sold in it, providing it has been through phase I clinical trials—but these trials do not determine if the drug is effective.The big picture: The bill was drafted and lobbied for by people interested in extending human lifespans. And these longevity enthusiasts are hoping Montana will serve as a test bed for opening up access to experimental drugs. Read the full story. —Jessica Hamzelou Google DeepMind’s new AI agent cracks real-world problems better than humans can Google DeepMind has once again used large language models to discover new solutions to long-standing problems in math and computer science. This time the firm has shown that its approach can not only tackle unsolved theoretical puzzles, but improve a range of important real-world processes as well. The new tool, called AlphaEvolve, uses large language modelsto produce code for a wide range of different tasks. LLMs are known to be hit and miss at coding. The twist here is that AlphaEvolve scores each of Gemini’s suggestions, throwing out the bad and tweaking the good, in an iterative process, until it has produced the best algorithm it can. In many cases, the results are more efficient or more accurate than the best existingsolutions.Read the full story. —Will Douglas Heaven Research cuts are threatening crucial climate data —Casey Crownhart Over the last few weeks, there’s been an explosion of news about proposed budget cuts to science in the US. Researchers and civil servants are sounding the alarm that those cuts mean we might lose key data that helps us understand our world and how climate change is affecting it. Long-running US government programs that monitor the snowpack across the West are among those being threatened by cuts across the US federal government, as my colleague James Temple’s new story explores. Also potentially in trouble: carbon dioxide measurements in Hawaii, hurricane forecasting tools, and a database that tracks the economic impact of natural disasters.  It’s all got me thinking: What do we lose when data is in danger? Read the full story. This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 Donald Trump doesn’t want Apple building iPhones in India The US President claims Apple will be upping their US production as a result.+ He also said that India was willing to “literally charge us no tariffs.”2 Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot ranted about white genocide  In response to completely unrelated queries.+ It’s not the first time Grok has shared questionable responses.+ Grok told users it was instructed to accept white genocide as real.3 RFK Jr doesn’t think we should take his medical advice Which begs the question: why is he US Health and Human Services secretary?+ Kennedy said his opinions on vaccines are irrelevant.+ He defended his decision to downsize the health department amid protests.4 GM’s new EV battery can power a truck for more than 400 miles  Its lithium manganese-rich cells use cheaper minerals than lithium-ion ones.+ Tariffs are bad news for batteries.5 Anthropic has been accused of using AI-generated evidence in a legal case A lawyer for Universal Music Group claimed an expert cited a source that didn’t exist.+ A judge in another case reportedly caught fake AI citations, too.+ AI companies are finally being forced to cough up for training data.6 AI won’t put human radiologists out of a job any time soonThe technology is helpful, but is unable to do everything trained human experts can.+ Why it’s so hard to use AI to diagnose cancer.7 The US Defense Department wants faster aircraft and missiles And startups are more than willing to answer the call.+ Phase two of military AI has arrived.8 SpaceX has successfully tested its Starship rocket 🚀Clearing a major hurdle ahead of its planned launch later this month.9 YouTube will start inserting ads into videos’ crucial moments Wow, that doesn’t sound annoying at all.10 Apple’s Vision Pro headset is a pain in the neckAnd early adopters are regretting shelling out apiece.+ Maybe the ability to scroll using their eyes will change their minds.Quote of the day “To say a professor is ‘some kind of monster’ for using AI to generate slides “is, to me, ridiculous.” —Paul Shovlin, a professor at Ohio University, reacts to student backlash against professors using AI to create teaching materials, the New York Times reports. One more thing Who gets to decide who receives experimental medical treatments?There has been a trend toward lowering the bar for new medicines, and it is becoming easier for people to access treatments that might not help them—and could even harm them. Anecdotes appear to be overpowering evidence in decisions on drug approval. As a result, we’re ending up with some drugs that don’t work. We urgently need to question how these decisions are made. Who should have access to experimental therapies? And who should get to decide? Such questions are especially pressing considering how quickly biotechnology is advancing. We’re not just improving on existing classes of treatments—we’re creating entirely new ones. Read the full story.—Jessica Hamzelou We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day.+ Food nostalgia is the best nostalgia, and this Bluesky account of discontinued foods doesn't disappoint.+ Don’t even think of calling your newborn baby King if you live in New Zealand.+ Actor Jeremy Strong just loves a bucket hat.+ Watch out Swiss drivers—a duck has been caught speeding 🦆 #download #montanas #experimental #treatments #google

This is today's edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what's going on in the world of technology. The first US hub for experimental medical treatments is coming The news: A bill that allows clinics to sell unproven treatments has been passed in Montana. Under the legislation, doctors can apply for a license to open an experimental treatment clinic and recommend and sell therapies not approved by the Food and Drug Administrationto their patients. Why it matters: Once it’s signed by the governor, the law will be the most expansive in the country in allowing access to drugs that have not been fully tested. The bill allows for any drug produced in the state to be sold in it, providing it has been through phase I clinical trials—but these trials do not determine if the drug is effective.The big picture: The bill was drafted and lobbied for by people interested in extending human lifespans. And these longevity enthusiasts are hoping Montana will serve as a test bed for opening up access to experimental drugs. Read the full story. —Jessica Hamzelou Google DeepMind’s new AI agent cracks real-world problems better than humans can Google DeepMind has once again used large language models to discover new solutions to long-standing problems in math and computer science. This time the firm has shown that its approach can not only tackle unsolved theoretical puzzles, but improve a range of important real-world processes as well. The new tool, called AlphaEvolve, uses large language modelsto produce code for a wide range of different tasks. LLMs are known to be hit and miss at coding. The twist here is that AlphaEvolve scores each of Gemini’s suggestions, throwing out the bad and tweaking the good, in an iterative process, until it has produced the best algorithm it can. In many cases, the results are more efficient or more accurate than the best existingsolutions.Read the full story. —Will Douglas Heaven Research cuts are threatening crucial climate data —Casey Crownhart Over the last few weeks, there’s been an explosion of news about proposed budget cuts to science in the US. Researchers and civil servants are sounding the alarm that those cuts mean we might lose key data that helps us understand our world and how climate change is affecting it. Long-running US government programs that monitor the snowpack across the West are among those being threatened by cuts across the US federal government, as my colleague James Temple’s new story explores. Also potentially in trouble: carbon dioxide measurements in Hawaii, hurricane forecasting tools, and a database that tracks the economic impact of natural disasters.  It’s all got me thinking: What do we lose when data is in danger? Read the full story. This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 Donald Trump doesn’t want Apple building iPhones in India The US President claims Apple will be upping their US production as a result.+ He also said that India was willing to “literally charge us no tariffs.”2 Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot ranted about white genocide  In response to completely unrelated queries.+ It’s not the first time Grok has shared questionable responses.+ Grok told users it was instructed to accept white genocide as real.3 RFK Jr doesn’t think we should take his medical advice Which begs the question: why is he US Health and Human Services secretary?+ Kennedy said his opinions on vaccines are irrelevant.+ He defended his decision to downsize the health department amid protests.4 GM’s new EV battery can power a truck for more than 400 miles  Its lithium manganese-rich cells use cheaper minerals than lithium-ion ones.+ Tariffs are bad news for batteries.5 Anthropic has been accused of using AI-generated evidence in a legal case A lawyer for Universal Music Group claimed an expert cited a source that didn’t exist.+ A judge in another case reportedly caught fake AI citations, too.+ AI companies are finally being forced to cough up for training data.6 AI won’t put human radiologists out of a job any time soonThe technology is helpful, but is unable to do everything trained human experts can.+ Why it’s so hard to use AI to diagnose cancer.7 The US Defense Department wants faster aircraft and missiles And startups are more than willing to answer the call.+ Phase two of military AI has arrived.8 SpaceX has successfully tested its Starship rocket 🚀Clearing a major hurdle ahead of its planned launch later this month.9 YouTube will start inserting ads into videos’ crucial moments Wow, that doesn’t sound annoying at all.10 Apple’s Vision Pro headset is a pain in the neckAnd early adopters are regretting shelling out apiece.+ Maybe the ability to scroll using their eyes will change their minds.Quote of the day “To say a professor is ‘some kind of monster’ for using AI to generate slides “is, to me, ridiculous.” —Paul Shovlin, a professor at Ohio University, reacts to student backlash against professors using AI to create teaching materials, the New York Times reports. One more thing Who gets to decide who receives experimental medical treatments?There has been a trend toward lowering the bar for new medicines, and it is becoming easier for people to access treatments that might not help them—and could even harm them. Anecdotes appear to be overpowering evidence in decisions on drug approval. As a result, we’re ending up with some drugs that don’t work. We urgently need to question how these decisions are made. Who should have access to experimental therapies? And who should get to decide? Such questions are especially pressing considering how quickly biotechnology is advancing. We’re not just improving on existing classes of treatments—we’re creating entirely new ones. Read the full story.—Jessica Hamzelou We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day.+ Food nostalgia is the best nostalgia, and this Bluesky account of discontinued foods doesn't disappoint.+ Don’t even think of calling your newborn baby King if you live in New Zealand.+ Actor Jeremy Strong just loves a bucket hat.+ Watch out Swiss drivers—a duck has been caught speeding 🦆 #download #montanas #experimental #treatments #google

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. The first US hub for experimental medical treatments is coming The news: A bill that allows clinics to sell unproven treatments has been passed in Montana. Under the legislation, doctors can apply for a license to open an experimental treatment clinic and recommend and sell therapies not approved by the Food and Drug Administrationto their patients. Why it matters: Once it’s signed by the governor, the law will be the most expansive in the country in allowing access to drugs that have not been fully tested. The bill allows for any drug produced in the state to be sold in it, providing it has been through phase I clinical trials—but these trials do not determine if the drug is effective.The big picture: The bill was drafted and lobbied for by people interested in extending human lifespans. And these longevity enthusiasts are hoping Montana will serve as a test bed for opening up access to experimental drugs. Read the full story. —Jessica Hamzelou Google DeepMind’s new AI agent cracks real-world problems better than humans can Google DeepMind has once again used large language models to discover new solutions to long-standing problems in math and computer science. This time the firm has shown that its approach can not only tackle unsolved theoretical puzzles, but improve a range of important real-world processes as well. The new tool, called AlphaEvolve, uses large language modelsto produce code for a wide range of different tasks. LLMs are known to be hit and miss at coding. The twist here is that AlphaEvolve scores each of Gemini’s suggestions, throwing out the bad and tweaking the good, in an iterative process, until it has produced the best algorithm it can. In many cases, the results are more efficient or more accurate than the best existingsolutions.Read the full story. —Will Douglas Heaven Research cuts are threatening crucial climate data —Casey Crownhart Over the last few weeks, there’s been an explosion of news about proposed budget cuts to science in the US. Researchers and civil servants are sounding the alarm that those cuts mean we might lose key data that helps us understand our world and how climate change is affecting it. Long-running US government programs that monitor the snowpack across the West are among those being threatened by cuts across the US federal government, as my colleague James Temple’s new story explores. Also potentially in trouble: carbon dioxide measurements in Hawaii, hurricane forecasting tools, and a database that tracks the economic impact of natural disasters.  It’s all got me thinking: What do we lose when data is in danger? Read the full story. This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 Donald Trump doesn’t want Apple building iPhones in IndiaThe US President claims Apple will be upping their US production as a result.+ He also said that India was willing to “literally charge us no tariffs.”2 Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot ranted about white genocide In response to completely unrelated queries.+ It’s not the first time Grok has shared questionable responses.+ Grok told users it was instructed to accept white genocide as real.3 RFK Jr doesn’t think we should take his medical adviceWhich begs the question: why is he US Health and Human Services secretary?+ Kennedy said his opinions on vaccines are irrelevant.+ He defended his decision to downsize the health department amid protests.4 GM’s new EV battery can power a truck for more than 400 miles Its lithium manganese-rich cells use cheaper minerals than lithium-ion ones.+ Tariffs are bad news for batteries.5 Anthropic has been accused of using AI-generated evidence in a legal caseA lawyer for Universal Music Group claimed an expert cited a source that didn’t exist.+ A judge in another case reportedly caught fake AI citations, too.+ AI companies are finally being forced to cough up for training data.6 AI won’t put human radiologists out of a job any time soonThe technology is helpful, but is unable to do everything trained human experts can.+ Why it’s so hard to use AI to diagnose cancer.7 The US Defense Department wants faster aircraft and missilesAnd startups are more than willing to answer the call.+ Phase two of military AI has arrived.8 SpaceX has successfully tested its Starship rocket Clearing a major hurdle ahead of its planned launch later this month.9 YouTube will start inserting ads into videos’ crucial momentsWow, that doesn’t sound annoying at all.10 Apple’s Vision Pro headset is a pain in the neckAnd early adopters are regretting shelling out apiece.+ Maybe the ability to scroll using their eyes will change their minds.Quote of the day “To say a professor is ‘some kind of monster’ for using AI to generate slides “is, to me, ridiculous.” —Paul Shovlin, a professor at Ohio University, reacts to student backlash against professors using AI to create teaching materials, the New York Times reports. One more thing Who gets to decide who receives experimental medical treatments?There has been a trend toward lowering the bar for new medicines, and it is becoming easier for people to access treatments that might not help them—and could even harm them. Anecdotes appear to be overpowering evidence in decisions on drug approval. As a result, we’re ending up with some drugs that don’t work.We urgently need to question how these decisions are made. Who should have access to experimental therapies? And who should get to decide? Such questions are especially pressing considering how quickly biotechnology is advancing. We’re not just improving on existing classes of treatments—we’re creating entirely new ones. Read the full story. —Jessica Hamzelou We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day.+ Food nostalgia is the best nostalgia, and this Bluesky account of discontinued foods doesn’t disappoint.+ Don’t even think of calling your newborn baby King if you live in New Zealand.+ Actor Jeremy Strong just loves a bucket hat.+ Watch out Swiss drivers—a duck has been caught speeding #download #montanas #experimental #treatments #google

Over the last few months, and especially the last few weeks, there’s been an explosion of news about proposed budget cuts to science in the US. One trend I’ve noticed: Researchers and civil servants are sounding the alarm that those cuts mean we might lose key data that helps us understand our world and how climate change is affecting it. My colleague James Temple has a new story out today about researchers who are attempting to measure the temperature of mountain snowpack across the western US. Snow that melts in the spring is a major water source across the region, and monitoring the temperature far below the top layer of snow could help scientists more accurately predict how fast water will flow down the mountains, allowing farmers, businesses, and residents to plan accordingly. But long-running government programs that monitor the snowpack across the West are among those being threatened by cuts across the US federal government. Also potentially in trouble: carbon dioxide measurements in Hawaii, hurricane forecasting tools, and a database that tracks the economic impact of natural disasters. It’s all got me thinking: What do we lose when data is in danger? Take for example the work at Mauna Loa Observatory, which sits on the northern side of the world’s largest active volcano. In this Hawaii facility, researchers have been measuring the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1958. The resulting graph, called the Keeling Curveis a pillar of climate research. It shows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas warming the planet, has increased in the atmosphere from around 313 parts per million in 1958 to over 420 parts per million today. Proposed cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationjeopardize the Keeling Curve’s future. As Ralph Keelingput it in a new piece for Wired, “If successful, this loss will be a nightmare scenario for climate science, not just in the United States, but the world.” This story has echoes across the climate world right now. A lab at Princeton that produces what some consider the top-of-the-line climate models used to make hurricane forecasts could be in trouble because of NOAA budget cuts. And last week, NOAA announced it would no longer track the economic impact of the biggest natural disasters in the US. Some of the largest-scale climate efforts will feel the effects of these cuts, and as James’s new story shows, they could also seep into all sorts of specialized fields. Even seemingly niche work can have a huge impact not just on research, but on people. The frozen reservoir of the Sierra snowpack provides about a third of California’s groundwater, as well as the majority used by towns and cities in northwest Nevada. Researchers there are hoping to help officials better forecast the timing of potential water supplies across the region. This story brought to mind my visit to El Paso, Texas, a few years ago. I spoke with farmers there who rely on water coming down the Rio Grande, alongside dwindling groundwater, to support their crops. There, water comes down from the mountains in Colorado and New Mexico in the spring and is held in the Elephant Butte Reservoir. One farmer I met showed me pages and pages of notes of reservoir records, which he had meticulously copied by hand. Those crinkled pages were a clear sign: Publicly available data was crucial to his work. The endeavor of scientific research, particularly when it involves patiently gathering data, isn’t always exciting. Its importance is often overlooked. But as cuts continue, we’re keeping a lookout, because losing data could harm our ability to track, address, and adapt to our changing climate.  This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. #how #research #cuts #are #threatening

Over the last few months, and especially the last few weeks, there’s been an explosion of news about proposed budget cuts to science in the US. One trend I’ve noticed: Researchers and civil servants are sounding the alarm that those cuts mean we might lose key data that helps us understand our world and how climate change is affecting it. My colleague James Temple has a new story out today about researchers who are attempting to measure the temperature of mountain snowpack across the western US. Snow that melts in the spring is a major water source across the region, and monitoring the temperature far below the top layer of snow could help scientists more accurately predict how fast water will flow down the mountains, allowing farmers, businesses, and residents to plan accordingly. But long-running government programs that monitor the snowpack across the West are among those being threatened by cuts across the US federal government. Also potentially in trouble: carbon dioxide measurements in Hawaii, hurricane forecasting tools, and a database that tracks the economic impact of natural disasters. It’s all got me thinking: What do we lose when data is in danger? Take for example the work at Mauna Loa Observatory, which sits on the northern side of the world’s largest active volcano. In this Hawaii facility, researchers have been measuring the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1958. The resulting graph, called the Keeling Curveis a pillar of climate research. It shows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas warming the planet, has increased in the atmosphere from around 313 parts per million in 1958 to over 420 parts per million today. Proposed cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationjeopardize the Keeling Curve’s future. As Ralph Keelingput it in a new piece for Wired, “If successful, this loss will be a nightmare scenario for climate science, not just in the United States, but the world.” This story has echoes across the climate world right now. A lab at Princeton that produces what some consider the top-of-the-line climate models used to make hurricane forecasts could be in trouble because of NOAA budget cuts. And last week, NOAA announced it would no longer track the economic impact of the biggest natural disasters in the US. Some of the largest-scale climate efforts will feel the effects of these cuts, and as James’s new story shows, they could also seep into all sorts of specialized fields. Even seemingly niche work can have a huge impact not just on research, but on people. The frozen reservoir of the Sierra snowpack provides about a third of California’s groundwater, as well as the majority used by towns and cities in northwest Nevada. Researchers there are hoping to help officials better forecast the timing of potential water supplies across the region. This story brought to mind my visit to El Paso, Texas, a few years ago. I spoke with farmers there who rely on water coming down the Rio Grande, alongside dwindling groundwater, to support their crops. There, water comes down from the mountains in Colorado and New Mexico in the spring and is held in the Elephant Butte Reservoir. One farmer I met showed me pages and pages of notes of reservoir records, which he had meticulously copied by hand. Those crinkled pages were a clear sign: Publicly available data was crucial to his work. The endeavor of scientific research, particularly when it involves patiently gathering data, isn’t always exciting. Its importance is often overlooked. But as cuts continue, we’re keeping a lookout, because losing data could harm our ability to track, address, and adapt to our changing climate.  This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. #how #research #cuts #are #threatening

Over the last few months, and especially the last few weeks, there’s been an explosion of news about proposed budget cuts to science in the US. One trend I’ve noticed: Researchers and civil servants are sounding the alarm that those cuts mean we might lose key data that helps us understand our world and how climate change is affecting it. My colleague James Temple has a new story out today about researchers who are attempting to measure the temperature of mountain snowpack across the western US. Snow that melts in the spring is a major water source across the region, and monitoring the temperature far below the top layer of snow could help scientists more accurately predict how fast water will flow down the mountains, allowing farmers, businesses, and residents to plan accordingly. But long-running government programs that monitor the snowpack across the West are among those being threatened by cuts across the US federal government. Also potentially in trouble: carbon dioxide measurements in Hawaii, hurricane forecasting tools, and a database that tracks the economic impact of natural disasters. It’s all got me thinking: What do we lose when data is in danger? Take for example the work at Mauna Loa Observatory, which sits on the northern side of the world’s largest active volcano. In this Hawaii facility, researchers have been measuring the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1958. The resulting graph, called the Keeling Curveis a pillar of climate research. It shows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas warming the planet, has increased in the atmosphere from around 313 parts per million in 1958 to over 420 parts per million today. Proposed cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationjeopardize the Keeling Curve’s future. As Ralph Keelingput it in a new piece for Wired, “If successful, this loss will be a nightmare scenario for climate science, not just in the United States, but the world.” This story has echoes across the climate world right now. A lab at Princeton that produces what some consider the top-of-the-line climate models used to make hurricane forecasts could be in trouble because of NOAA budget cuts. And last week, NOAA announced it would no longer track the economic impact of the biggest natural disasters in the US. Some of the largest-scale climate efforts will feel the effects of these cuts, and as James’s new story shows, they could also seep into all sorts of specialized fields. Even seemingly niche work can have a huge impact not just on research, but on people. The frozen reservoir of the Sierra snowpack provides about a third of California’s groundwater, as well as the majority used by towns and cities in northwest Nevada. Researchers there are hoping to help officials better forecast the timing of potential water supplies across the region. This story brought to mind my visit to El Paso, Texas, a few years ago. I spoke with farmers there who rely on water coming down the Rio Grande, alongside dwindling groundwater, to support their crops. There, water comes down from the mountains in Colorado and New Mexico in the spring and is held in the Elephant Butte Reservoir. One farmer I met showed me pages and pages of notes of reservoir records, which he had meticulously copied by hand. Those crinkled pages were a clear sign: Publicly available data was crucial to his work. The endeavor of scientific research, particularly when it involves patiently gathering data, isn’t always exciting. Its importance is often overlooked. But as cuts continue, we’re keeping a lookout, because losing data could harm our ability to track, address, and adapt to our changing climate.  This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. #how #research #cuts #are #threatening