Critics aren’t happy with the 'approved by God’ alternative.

Plus: Dell officially replaces the XPS brand, Cambride Audio budget buds, and an HDMI buying boon.

The government has axed a scheme for upgrading energy efficiency in public sector buildings. The Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS) delivered more than £2.5bn in its first three phases for measures such as heat pumps, solar panels, insulation and double glazing, with further funding of nearly £1bn recently announced. But the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has told Building Design that the scheme has been dropped after the spending review, leaving uncertainty about how upgrades will be funded when the current phase expires in 2028. Source: UK Government/FlickrEd Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is responsible for the scheme The department said it would set out plans for the period after 2028 in due course. In a post on LinkedIn, Dave Welkin, director of sustainability at Gleeds, said he had waited for the release of the spending review with a “sense of trepidation” and was unable to find mention of public sector decarbonisation when Treasury documents were released. “I hoped because it was already committed in the Budget that its omission wasn’t ominous,” he wrote. Yesterday, he was told by Salix Finance, the non-departmental public body that delivers funding for the scheme, that it was no longer being funded. It comes after the withdrawal of funding for the Low Carbon Skills Fund (LCSF) in May. According to the government’s website, PSDS and LCSF were intended to support the reduction of emissions from public sector buildings by 75% by 2037, compared to a 2017 baseline. “Neither LCSF or PSDS were perfect by any means, but they did provide a vital source of funding for local authorities, hospitals, schools and many other public sector organisations to save energy, carbon and money,” Welkin said. “PSDS has helped replace failed heating systems in schools, keeping students warm. It’s replaced roofs on hospitals, helping patients recover from illness. It’s replaced windows in our prisons, improving security and stopping drugs getting behind bars.” However, responding to Welkin’s post, Steve Connolly, chief executive at Arriba Technologies, a low carbon heating and cooling firm, said that the scheme was being “mismanaged” with a small number of professional services firms “scooping up disproportionately large grants for their clients”. The fourth phase of the scheme was confirmed last September, with allocations confirmed only last month. This latest phase, which covers the financial years between 2025/26 and 2027/28, saw the distribution of £940m across the country. A DESNZ spokesperson said: “Our settlement is about investing in Britain’s renewal to create energy security, sprint to clean power by 2030, encourage investment, create jobs and bring down bills for good. “We will deliver £1bn in current allocations of the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme until 2028 and, through Great British Energy, have invested in new rooftop solar power and renewable schemes to lower energy bills for schools and hospitals across the UK. “We want to build on this progress by incentivising the public sector to decarbonise, so they can reap the benefits in lower bills and emissions, sharing best practice across government and exploring the use of repayable finance, where appropriate.” A government assessment of phase 3a and 3b projects identified a number of issues with the scheme, including delays and cost inflation, with more than a tenth being abandoned subsequent to grants being offered. Stakeholders interviewed for the report also identified “difficulties in obtaining skilled contractors and equipment”, especially air source heat pumps. The first come first served approach to awarding funding was also said to be “encouraging applicants to opt for more straightforward projects” and “potentially undermining the achievement of PSDS objective by restricting the opportunity for larger [and] more complex measures which may have delivered greater carbon reduction benefits”. But the consensus among stakeholders and industry representatives interviewed for the report was that the scheme was “currently key to sustaining the existing UK heat pump market” and that it was “seen as vital in enabling many public sector organisations to invest in heat decarbonisation”.

When Leta Sobierajski enrolled in college, she already knew what she was meant to do, and she didn’t settle for anything less. “When I went to school for graphic design, I really didn’t have a backup plan – it was this, or nothing,” she says. “My work is a constantly evolving practice, and from the beginning, I have always convinced myself that if I put in the time and experimentation, I would grow and evolve.” After graduation, Sobierajski took on a range of projects, which included animation, print, and branding elements. She collaborated with corporate clients, but realized that she wouldn’t feel comfortable following anyone else’s rules in a 9-to-5 environment. Leta Sobierajski (standing) and Wade Jeffree (on ladder) \\\ Photo: Matt Dutile Sobierajski eventually decided to team up with fellow artist and kindred spirit Wade Jeffree. In 2016 they launched their Brooklyn-based studio, Wade and Leta. The duo, who share a taste for quirky aesthetics, produces sculpture, installations, or anything else they can dream up. Never static in thinking or method, they are constantly searching for another medium to try that will complement their shared vision of the moment. The pair is currently interested in permanency, and they want to utilize more metal, a strong material that will stand the test of time. Small architectural pieces are also on tap, and on a grander scale, they’d like to focus on a park or communal area that everyone can enjoy. With so many ideas swirling around, Sobierajski will record a concept in at least three different ways so that she’s sure to unearth it at a later date. “In some ways, I like to think I’m impeccably organized, as I have countless spreadsheets tracking our work, our lives, and our well-being,” she explains. “The reality is that I am great at over-complicating situations with my intensified list-making and note-taking. The only thing to do is to trust the process.” Today, Leta Sobierajski joins us for Friday Five! Photo: Melitta Baumeister and Michał Plata 1. Melitta Baumeister and Michał Plata The work of Melitta Baumeister and Michał Plata has been a constant inspiration to me for their innovative, artful, and architectural silhouettes. By a practice of draping and arduous pattern-making, the garments that they develop season after season feel like they could be designed for existence in another universe. I’m a person who likes to dress up for anything when I’m not in the studio, and every time I opt to wear one of their looks, I feel like I can take on the world. The best part about their pieces is that they’re extremely functional, so whether I need to hop on a bicycle or show up at an opening, I’m still able to make a statement – these garments even have the ability to strike up conversations on their own. Photo: Wade and Leta 2. Pandas! I was recently in Chengdu to launch a new project and we took half the day to visit the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Pandas and I am a new panda convert. Yes, they’re docile and cute, but their lifestyles are utterly chill and deeply enviable for us adults with responsibilities. Giant pandas primarily eat bamboo and can consume 20-40 kilograms per day. When they’re not doing that, they’re sleeping. When we visited, many could be seen reclining on their backs, feasting on some of the finest bamboo they could select within arm’s reach. While not necessarily playful in appearance, they do seem quite cheeky in their agendas and will do as little as they can to make the most of their meals. It felt like I was watching a mirrored image of myself on a Sunday afternoon while trying to make the most of my last hours of the weekend. Photo: Courtesy of Aoiro 3. Aoiro I’m not really a candle person (I forget to light it, and then I forget it’s lit, and then I panic when it’s been lit for too long) but I love the luxurious subtlety of a fragrant space. It’s an intangible feeling that really can only be experienced in the present. Some of the best people to create these fragrances, in my opinion, are Shizuko and Manuel, the masterminds behind Aoiro, a Japanese and Austrian duo who have developed a keen sense for embodying the fragrances of some of the most intriguing and captivating olfactory atmospheres – earthy forest floors with crackling pine needles, blue cypress tickling the moon in an indigo sky, and rainfall on a spirited Japanese island. Despite living in an urban city, Aoiro’s olfactory design is capable of transporting me to the deepest forests of misty Yakushima island. Photo: Wade and Leta 4. Takuro Kuwata A few months ago, I saw the work of Japanese ceramicist Takuro Kuwata at an exhibition at Salon94 and have been having trouble getting it out of my head. Kuwata’s work exemplifies someone who has worked with a medium so much to completely use the medium as a medium – if that makes sense. His ability to manipulate clay and glaze and use it to create gravity-defying effects within the kiln are exceptionally mysterious to me and feel like they could only be accomplished with years and years of experimentation with the material. I’m equally impressed seeing how he’s grown his work with scale, juxtaposing it with familiar iconography like the fuzzy peach, but sculpting it from materials like bronze. Photo: Wade and Leta 5. The Site of Reversible Destiny, a park built by artists Arakawa and Gins, in Yoro Japan The park is a testament to their career as writers, architects, and their idea of reversible destiny, which in its most extreme form, eliminates death. For all that are willing to listen, Arakawa and Gins’ Reversible Destiny mentality aims to make our lives a little more youthful by encouraging us to reevaluate our relationship with architecture and our surroundings. The intention of “reversible destiny” is not to prolong death, postpone it, grow older alongside it, but to entirely not acknowledge and surpass it. Wade (my partner) and I have spent the last ten years traveling to as many of their remaining sites as possible to further understand this notion of creating spaces to extend our lives and question how conventional living spaces can become detrimental to our longevity.   Works by Wade and Leta: Photo: Wade and Leta and Matt Alexander Now You See Me is a large-scale installation in the heart of Shoreditch, London, that explores the relationship between positive and negative space through bold color, geometry, and light. Simple, familiar shapes are embedded within monolithic forms, creating a layered visual experience that shifts throughout the day. As sunlight passes through the structures, shadows and silhouettes stretch and connect, forming dynamic compositions on the surrounding concrete. Photo: Wade and Leta and John Wylie Paint Your Own Path is series of five towering sculptures, ranging from 10 to 15 feet tall, invites viewers to explore balance, tension, and perspective through bold color and form. Inspired by the delicate, often precarious act of stacking objects, the sculptures appear as if they might topple – yet each one holds steady, challenging perceptions of stability. Created in partnership with the Corolla Cross, the installation transforms its environment into a pop-colored landscape. Photo: Millenia Walk and Outer Edit, Eurthe Studio Monument to Movement is a 14-meter-tall kinetic sculpture that celebrates the spirit of the holiday season through rhythm, motion, and color. Rising skyward in layered compositions, the work symbolizes collective joy, renewal, and the shared energy of celebrations that span cultures and traditions. Powered by motors and constructed from metal beams and cardboard forms, the sculpture continuously shifts, inviting viewers to reflect on the passage of time and the cycles that connect us all. Photo: Wade and Leta and Erika Hara, Piotr Maslanka, and Jeremy Renault Falling Into Place is a vibrant rooftop installation at Ginza Six that explores themes of alignment, adaptability, and perspective. Six colorful structures – each with a void like a missing puzzle piece – serve as spaces for reflection, inviting visitors to consider their place within a greater whole. Rather than focusing on absence, the design transforms emptiness into opportunity, encouraging people to embrace spontaneity and the unfolding nature of life. Playful yet contemplative, the work emphasizes that only through connection and participation can the full picture come into view. Photo: Wade and Leta and Erika Hara, Piotr Maslanka, and Jeremy Renault Photo: Wade and Leta Stop, Listen, Look is a 7-meter-tall interactive artwork atop IFS Chengdu that captures the vibrant rhythm of the city through movement, sound, and form. Blending motorized and wind-powered elements with seesaws and sound modulation, it invites people of all ages to engage, play, and reflect. Inspired by Chengdu’s balance of tradition and modernity, the piece incorporates circular motifs from local symbolism alongside bold, geometric forms to create a dialogue between past and present. With light, motion, and community at its core, the work invites visitors to connect with the city – and each other – through shared interaction. The Cloud is a permanent sculptural kiosk in Burlington, Vermont’s historic City Hall Park, created in collaboration with Brooklyn-based Studio RENZ+OEI. Designed to reinterpret the ephemeral nature of clouds through architecture, it blends art, air, and imagination into a light, fluid structure that defies traditional rigidity. Originally born from a creative exchange between longtime friends and collaborators, the design challenges expectations of permanence by embodying movement and openness. Now home to a local food vendor, The Cloud brings a playful, uplifting presence to the park, inviting reflection and interaction rain or shine..

Guided by visual effects supervisor John Knoll, ILM embraced continually evolving methodologies to craft breathtaking visual effects for the iconic space battles in First Contact and Rogue One. By Jay Stobie Visual effects supervisor John Knoll (right) confers with modelmakers Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: ILM). Bolstered by visual effects from Industrial Light & Magic, Star Trek: First Contact (1996) and Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) propelled their respective franchises to new heights. While Star Trek Generations (1994) welcomed Captain Jean-Luc Picard’s (Patrick Stewart) crew to the big screen, First Contact stood as the first Star Trek feature that did not focus on its original captain, the legendary James T. Kirk (William Shatner). Similarly, though Rogue One immediately preceded the events of Star Wars: A New Hope (1977), it was set apart from the episodic Star Wars films and launched an era of storytelling outside of the main Skywalker saga that has gone on to include Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018), The Mandalorian (2019-23), Andor (2022-25), Ahsoka (2023), The Acolyte (2024), and more. The two films also shared a key ILM contributor, John Knoll, who served as visual effects supervisor on both projects, as well as an executive producer on Rogue One. Currently, ILM’s executive creative director and senior visual effects supervisor, Knoll – who also conceived the initial framework for Rogue One’s story – guided ILM as it brought its talents to bear on these sci-fi and fantasy epics. The work involved crafting two spectacular starship-packed space clashes – First Contact’s Battle of Sector 001 and Rogue One’s Battle of Scarif. Although these iconic installments were released roughly two decades apart, they represent a captivating case study of how ILM’s approach to visual effects has evolved over time. With this in mind, let’s examine the films’ unforgettable space battles through the lens of fascinating in-universe parallels and the ILM-produced fleets that face off near Earth and Scarif. A final frame from the Battle of Scarif in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). A Context for Conflict In First Contact, the United Federation of Planets – a 200-year-old interstellar government consisting of more than 150 member worlds – braces itself for an invasion by the Borg – an overwhelmingly powerful collective composed of cybernetic beings who devastate entire planets by assimilating their biological populations and technological innovations. The Borg only send a single vessel, a massive cube containing thousands of hive-minded drones and their queen, pushing the Federation’s Starfleet defenders to Earth’s doorstep. Conversely, in Rogue One, the Rebel Alliance – a fledgling coalition of freedom fighters – seeks to undermine and overthrow the stalwart Galactic Empire – a totalitarian regime preparing to tighten its grip on the galaxy by revealing a horrifying superweapon. A rebel team infiltrates a top-secret vault on Scarif in a bid to steal plans to that battle station, the dreaded Death Star, with hopes of exploiting a vulnerability in its design. On the surface, the situations could not seem to be more disparate, particularly in terms of the Federation’s well-established prestige and the Rebel Alliance’s haphazardly organized factions. Yet, upon closer inspection, the spaceborne conflicts at Earth and Scarif are linked by a vital commonality. The threat posed by the Borg is well-known to the Federation, but the sudden intrusion upon their space takes its defenses by surprise. Starfleet assembles any vessel within range – including antiquated Oberth-class science ships – to intercept the Borg cube in the Typhon Sector, only to be forced back to Earth on the edge of defeat. The unsanctioned mission to Scarif with Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) and Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and the sudden need to take down the planet’s shield gate propels the Rebel Alliance fleet into rushing to their rescue with everything from their flagship Profundity to GR-75 medium transports. Whether Federation or Rebel Alliance, these fleets gather in last-ditch efforts to oppose enemies who would embrace their eradication – the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are fights for survival. From Physical to Digital By the time Jonathan Frakes was selected to direct First Contact, Star Trek’s reliance on constructing traditional physical models (many of which were built by ILM) for its features was gradually giving way to innovative computer graphics (CG) models, resulting in the film’s use of both techniques. “If one of the ships was to be seen full-screen and at length,” associate visual effects supervisor George Murphy told Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin, “we knew it would be done as a stage model. Ships that would be doing a lot of elaborate maneuvers in space battle scenes would be created digitally.” In fact, physical and CG versions of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E appear in the film, with the latter being harnessed in shots involving the vessel’s entry into a temporal vortex at the conclusion of the Battle of Sector 001. Despite the technological leaps that ILM pioneered in the decades between First Contact and Rogue One, they considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in the latter film. ILM considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in Rogue One. The feature’s fleets were ultimately created digitally to allow for changes throughout post-production. “If it’s a photographed miniature element, it’s not possible to go back and make adjustments. So it’s the additional flexibility that comes with the computer graphics models that’s very attractive to many people,” John Knoll relayed to writer Jon Witmer at American Cinematographer’s TheASC.com. However, Knoll aimed to develop computer graphics that retained the same high-quality details as their physical counterparts, leading ILM to employ a modern approach to a time-honored modelmaking tactic. “I also wanted to emulate the kit-bashing aesthetic that had been part of Star Wars from the very beginning, where a lot of mechanical detail had been added onto the ships by using little pieces from plastic model kits,” explained Knoll in his chat with TheASC.com. For Rogue One, ILM replicated the process by obtaining such kits, scanning their parts, building a computer graphics library, and applying the CG parts to digitally modeled ships. “I’m very happy to say it was super-successful,” concluded Knoll. “I think a lot of our digital models look like they are motion-control models.” John Knoll (second from left) confers with Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: ILM). Legendary Lineages In First Contact, Captain Picard commanded a brand-new vessel, the Sovereign-class U.S.S. Enterprise-E, continuing the celebrated starship’s legacy in terms of its famous name and design aesthetic. Designed by John Eaves and developed into blueprints by Rick Sternbach, the Enterprise-E was built into a 10-foot physical model by ILM model project supervisor John Goodson and his shop’s talented team. ILM infused the ship with extraordinary detail, including viewports equipped with backlit set images from the craft’s predecessor, the U.S.S. Enterprise-D. For the vessel’s larger windows, namely those associated with the observation lounge and arboretum, ILM took a painstakingly practical approach to match the interiors shown with the real-world set pieces. “We filled that area of the model with tiny, micro-scale furniture,” Goodson informed Cinefex, “including tables and chairs.” Rogue One’s rebel team initially traversed the galaxy in a U-wing transport/gunship, which, much like the Enterprise-E, was a unique vessel that nonetheless channeled a certain degree of inspiration from a classic design. Lucasfilm’s Doug Chiang, a co-production designer for Rogue One, referred to the U-wing as the film’s “Huey helicopter version of an X-wing” in the Designing Rogue One bonus featurette on Disney+ before revealing that, “Towards the end of the design cycle, we actually decided that maybe we should put in more X-wing features. And so we took the X-wing engines and literally mounted them onto the configuration that we had going.” Modeled by ILM digital artist Colie Wertz, the U-wing’s final computer graphics design subtly incorporated these X-wing influences to give the transport a distinctive feel without making the craft seem out of place within the rebel fleet. While ILM’s work on the Enterprise-E’s viewports offered a compelling view toward the ship’s interior, a breakthrough LED setup for Rogue One permitted ILM to obtain realistic lighting on actors as they looked out from their ships and into the space around them. “All of our major spaceship cockpit scenes were done that way, with the gimbal in this giant horseshoe of LED panels we got from [equipment vendor] VER, and we prepared graphics that went on the screens,” John Knoll shared with American Cinematographer’s Benjamin B and Jon D. Witmer. Furthermore, in Disney+’s Rogue One: Digital Storytelling bonus featurette, visual effects producer Janet Lewin noted, “For the actors, I think, in the space battle cockpits, for them to be able to see what was happening in the battle brought a higher level of accuracy to their performance.” The U.S.S. Enterprise-E in Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: Paramount). Familiar Foes To transport First Contact’s Borg invaders, John Goodson’s team at ILM resurrected the Borg cube design previously seen in Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987) and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993), creating a nearly three-foot physical model to replace the one from the series. Art consultant and ILM veteran Bill George proposed that the cube’s seemingly straightforward layout be augmented with a complex network of photo-etched brass, a suggestion which produced a jagged surface and offered a visual that was both intricate and menacing. ILM also developed a two-foot motion-control model for a Borg sphere, a brand-new auxiliary vessel that emerged from the cube. “We vacuformed about 15 different patterns that conformed to this spherical curve and covered those with a lot of molded and cast pieces. Then we added tons of acid-etched brass over it, just like we had on the cube,” Goodson outlined to Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin. As for Rogue One’s villainous fleet, reproducing the original trilogy’s Death Star and Imperial Star Destroyers centered upon translating physical models into digital assets. Although ILM no longer possessed A New Hope’s three-foot Death Star shooting model, John Knoll recreated the station’s surface paneling by gathering archival images, and as he spelled out to writer Joe Fordham in Cinefex, “I pieced all the images together. I unwrapped them into texture space and projected them onto a sphere with a trench. By doing that with enough pictures, I got pretty complete coverage of the original model, and that became a template upon which to redraw very high-resolution texture maps. Every panel, every vertical striped line, I matched from a photograph. It was as accurate as it was possible to be as a reproduction of the original model.” Knoll’s investigative eye continued to pay dividends when analyzing the three-foot and eight-foot Star Destroyer motion-control models, which had been built for A New Hope and Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980), respectively. “Our general mantra was, ‘Match your memory of it more than the reality,’ because sometimes you go look at the actual prop in the archive building or you look back at the actual shot from the movie, and you go, ‘Oh, I remember it being a little better than that,’” Knoll conveyed to TheASC.com. This philosophy motivated ILM to combine elements from those two physical models into a single digital design. “Generally, we copied the three-footer for details like the superstructure on the top of the bridge, but then we copied the internal lighting plan from the eight-footer,” Knoll explained. “And then the upper surface of the three-footer was relatively undetailed because there were no shots that saw it closely, so we took a lot of the high-detail upper surface from the eight-footer. So it’s this amalgam of the two models, but the goal was to try to make it look like you remember it from A New Hope.” A final frame from Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). Forming Up the Fleets In addition to the U.S.S. Enterprise-E, the Battle of Sector 001 debuted numerous vessels representing four new Starfleet ship classes – the Akira, Steamrunner, Saber, and Norway – all designed by ILM visual effects art director Alex Jaeger. “Since we figured a lot of the background action in the space battle would be done with computer graphics ships that needed to be built from scratch anyway, I realized that there was no reason not to do some new designs,” John Knoll told American Cinematographer writer Ron Magid. Used in previous Star Trek projects, older physical models for the Oberth and Nebula classes were mixed into the fleet for good measure, though the vast majority of the armada originated as computer graphics. Over at Scarif, ILM portrayed the Rebel Alliance forces with computer graphics models of fresh designs (the MC75 cruiser Profundity and U-wings), live-action versions of Star Wars Rebels’ VCX-100 light freighter Ghost and Hammerhead corvettes, and Star Wars staples (Nebulon-B frigates, X-wings, Y-wings, and more). These ships face off against two Imperial Star Destroyers and squadrons of TIE fighters, and – upon their late arrival to the battle – Darth Vader’s Star Destroyer and the Death Star. The Tantive IV, a CR90 corvette more popularly referred to as a blockade runner, made its own special cameo at the tail end of the fight. As Princess Leia Organa’s (Carrie Fisher and Ingvild Deila) personal ship, the Tantive IV received the Death Star plans and fled the scene, destined to be captured by Vader’s Star Destroyer at the beginning of A New Hope. And, while we’re on the subject of intricate starship maneuvers and space-based choreography… Although the First Contact team could plan visual effects shots with animated storyboards, ILM supplied Gareth Edwards with a next-level virtual viewfinder that allowed the director to select his shots by immersing himself among Rogue One’s ships in real time. “What we wanted to do is give Gareth the opportunity to shoot his space battles and other all-digital scenes the same way he shoots his live-action. Then he could go in with this sort of virtual viewfinder and view the space battle going on, and figure out what the best angle was to shoot those ships from,” senior animation supervisor Hal Hickel described in the Rogue One: Digital Storytelling featurette. Hickel divulged that the sequence involving the dish array docking with the Death Star was an example of the “spontaneous discovery of great angles,” as the scene was never storyboarded or previsualized. Visual effects supervisor John Knoll with director Gareth Edwards during production of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). Tough Little Ships The Federation and Rebel Alliance each deployed “tough little ships” (an endearing description Commander William T. Riker [Jonathan Frakes] bestowed upon the U.S.S. Defiant in First Contact) in their respective conflicts, namely the U.S.S. Defiant from Deep Space Nine and the Tantive IV from A New Hope. VisionArt had already built a CG Defiant for the Deep Space Nine series, but ILM upgraded the model with images gathered from the ship’s three-foot physical model. A similar tactic was taken to bring the Tantive IV into the digital realm for Rogue One. “This was the Blockade Runner. This was the most accurate 1:1 reproduction we could possibly have made,” model supervisor Russell Paul declared to Cinefex’s Joe Fordham. “We did an extensive photo reference shoot and photogrammetry re-creation of the miniature. From there, we built it out as accurately as possible.” Speaking of sturdy ships, if you look very closely, you can spot a model of the Millennium Falcon flashing across the background as the U.S.S. Defiant makes an attack run on the Borg cube at the Battle of Sector 001! Exploration and Hope The in-universe ramifications that materialize from the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are monumental. The destruction of the Borg cube compels the Borg Queen to travel back in time in an attempt to vanquish Earth before the Federation can even be formed, but Captain Picard and the Enterprise-E foil the plot and end up helping their 21st century ancestors make “first contact” with another species, the logic-revering Vulcans. The post-Scarif benefits take longer to play out for the Rebel Alliance, but the theft of the Death Star plans eventually leads to the superweapon’s destruction. The Galactic Civil War is far from over, but Scarif is a significant step in the Alliance’s effort to overthrow the Empire. The visual effects ILM provided for First Contact and Rogue One contributed significantly to the critical and commercial acclaim both pictures enjoyed, a victory reflecting the relentless dedication, tireless work ethic, and innovative spirit embodied by visual effects supervisor John Knoll and ILM’s entire staff. While being interviewed for The Making of Star Trek: First Contact, actor Patrick Stewart praised ILM’s invaluable influence, emphasizing, “ILM was with us, on this movie, almost every day on set. There is so much that they are involved in.” And, regardless of your personal preferences – phasers or lasers, photon torpedoes or proton torpedoes, warp speed or hyperspace – perhaps Industrial Light & Magic’s ability to infuse excitement into both franchises demonstrates that Star Trek and Star Wars encompass themes that are not competitive, but compatible. After all, what goes together better than exploration and hope? – Jay Stobie (he/him) is a writer, author, and consultant who has contributed articles to ILM.com, Skysound.com, Star Wars Insider, StarWars.com, Star Trek Explorer, Star Trek Magazine, and StarTrek.com. Jay loves sci-fi, fantasy, and film, and you can learn more about him by visiting JayStobie.com or finding him on Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms at @StobiesGalaxy.

The Swiss architects first submitted controversial plans to overhaul the Grade II-listed terminus in the City of London in May 2023 on behalf of Sellar and Network Rail. Now the AJ understands the practice is drawing up a rival scheme, separate to its original proposal, which is effectively a third but as yet unseen design for the station and a development above it. ACME, on behalf of Network Rail, submitted its own proposals in April after Network Rail appointed the Shoreditch practice to draw up plans last year. This put the brakes on Herzog & de Meuron’s 2023 scheme, which had been updated with amendments in 2024 in response to criticism over heritage harm – though the application was never withdrawn and remains live on the City of London’s planning portal.Advertisement According to sources, Herzog & de Meuron – still with Sellar’s backing – is actively working on a fresh scheme with ‘much less demolition’, which could rival ACME’s plans as well as its own 2023 scheme. SAVE Britain’s Heritage, which the AJ understands is among several bodies to have been consulted on the ‘third’ scheme for Liverpool Street station, told the AJ: ‘There are now potentially three live schemes for the same site. ‘However, what is interesting about Sellar’s latest proposal is that it involves much less demolition of the station. Network Rail and their current favoured architect, ACME, would do well to take note.’ Historic England, which strongly opposed the original Herzog & de Meuron scheme, is understood to have been shown the Swiss architects’ latest proposals in March. The heritage body’s official response to the ACME scheme has not yet been made public. A spokesperson for the government’s heritage watchdog told the AJ of the emerging third proposal: ‘We have seen a revised scheme designed by Herzog & de Meuron, but it has not been submitted as a formal proposal and we have not provided advice on it.’Advertisement The C20 Society added that it ‘can confirm that it has been in pre-app consultation with both ACME and Herzog & de Meuron regarding the various schemes in development for Liverpool Street Station’. The body, which campaigns to protect 20th century buildings, added: ‘We will provide a full statement once all plans have been scrutinised.’ In November, the Tate Modern architects appeared to be off the job following the appointment by Network Rail of Shoreditch-based ACME, which came up with an alternative scheme featuring slightly smaller office towers as part of the planned above-station development. The ACME plan for Liverpool Street includes an above-station office development that would rise to 18 storeys, with balcony spaces on the 10th to 17th storeys and outdoor garden terraces from the 14th to 17th storeys. These proposals are marginally shorter than Herzog & de Meuron’s original 15 and 21-storey designs. However, despite these changes, ACME and Network Rail’s scheme has recently seen criticism by the Victorian Society, which told the AJ last month that it would object to the ACME scheme, claiming the above-station development ‘would be hugely damaging to Liverpool Street Station and the wider historic environment of the City of London’. In September last year, Sellar confirmed that that Herzog & de Meuron was working on an amended proposal, as the AJ revealed at the time. However, it is unclear if the latest, third option is related to that work. While both applications introduce more escalators down to platform level and accessibility improvements, the Herzog & de Meuron scheme proved controversial because of planned changes to the inside of the Grade II*-listed former Great Eastern Hotel building above the concourse, which would have seen the hotel relocate to new-build elements. The Swiss architect’s original proposals would have also removed much of the 1992 additions to the concourse by British Rail’s last chief architect, Nick Derbyshire – which had not been included in the original 1975 listing for Liverpool Street station. Historic England listed that part of the station in late 2022 after a first consultation on the Herzog & de Meuron plans. Network Rail told the AJ that it remains ‘fully committed’ to the ACME plan, which was validated only last month. Herzog & de Meuron referred the AJ to Sellar for comment. Sellar declined to comment. ACME has been approached for comment.

Rumors strongly suggest that Apple will be overhauling the MacBook Pro in 2026, marking five years since the previous redesign that we know and love today. There are three key rumors to follow with this redesigned MacBook Pro, and we’ll be delving into them here. OLED display After debuting in the iPad Pro in 2024, Apple is expected to introduce OLED display technology to the MacBook Pro for the very first time with the redesign in 2026. This’ll provide higher brightness, better contrast ratios, and nicer colors to the MacBook Pro lineup for the very first time. Plus, according to TheElec, Apple will be using the same Tandem OLED display tech as the aforementioned iPad Pro: The OLED MacBook Air is also expected to get a standard single-stack display, rather than the more sophisticated Two-Stack Tandem displays we reported on for the MacBook Pro. Single-stack displays have one red, green and blue layer, while two-stack tandem OLED has a second RGB layer. Two layers stacked in tandem increases the brightness of the screen, while also increasing longevity. While transitioning to OLED, Apple may also ditch the notch, in favor of a smaller camera hole cutout. This information comes from Omdia, who describes it as a “rounded corner + hole cut.” The report doesn’t specify whether or not it’ll be a single hole punch, or something more similar to Dynamic Island on the iPhone. Either way, there won’t be as chunky of a cutout in your MacBook Pro display once the redesign arrives. Thinner design According to Bloomberg, Apple will be adopting a new, thinner design with the 2026 MacBook Pro. There aren’t many other details specified, so it’s unclear if the overall chassis design will change: Though Apple has continued to enhance the product with new chips and other internal improvements, the MacBook Pro probably won’t get another true overhaul until 2026. The company had once hoped to release this new version in 2025 — with a thinner design and a move to crisper OLED screens — but there were delays related to the display technology. Cutting-edge M6 chip Apple will also debut the M6 family of chips in this new MacBook Pro redesign. Currently, M6 is anticipated to be the first generation of Apple Silicon to adopt TSMC’s 2nm technology, alongside the A20 chip for iPhone. As per usual, we should see M6, M6 Pro, and M6 Max versions of the MacBook Pro, in both 14-inch and 16-inch sizes. With a new process node, we should see noticeable performance and efficiency gains. Wrap up Overall, the biggest feature of this upgrade is certainly the fact that the MacBook Pro will be adopting OLED. That said, I’ll certainly appreciate the thinner design – particularly on the 16-inch MacBook Pro, which currently comes in at 4.7 pounds. In case you aren’t too fond of waiting around a year and a half to buy a new MacBook Pro, there are some good discounts on the current M4 MacBook Pro models now that they’re around halfway through their lifespan. You can pick up an M4 14-inch for $1429, an M4 Pro 14-inch for $1779, or an M4 Pro 16-inch for $2249. These are all around $200 off compared to their typical prices. My favorite Apple accessory recommendations: Follow Michael: X/Twitter, Bluesky, Instagram Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed.  FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Here at Country Living, we love to study trends, especially those with timeless appeal. As the Senior Homes and Style Editor, it's my job to track these trends and decide which ones are worth covering and which ones are not, which is exactly why I've been watching the rise of wood paneling the last few years. People are desperate to move away from cold, clinical minimalism and make their homes feel more welcoming and lived-in. I was surprised, though, when I started seeing more and more paneling in the kitchen—not just on the walls, but acting as a backsplash. Below, we're diving into everything you need to know about the material set to replace tile as the designer-preferred kitchen backsplash this year. Related Stories What Types of Wood Paneling Are Trending? Before we get too far, let's be clear: Tile backsplash isn't going anywhere any time soon, and I'm definitely not saying you should rip out all your tile and replace it with wood paneling just because it's popular. Wood paneling offers a fresh alternative to tile that adds a warm layer to a space that can otherwise feel sterile. It's been beloved as an easy way to add character to your walls for decades, and its foray into the kitchen shouldn't be a surprise as cottage kitchens become more and more popular both online and in real life. Before you toss out your tile samples, let's examine which types of paneling might be best for your kitchen. ShiplapLove it or hate it, shiplap is here to stay. This style, made popular by Chip and Joanna Gaines more than a decade ago, offers a classic look, making it perfect for homes regardless of their age or location. If you love this look but want something that feels less ubiquitous, avoid white shiplap and choose a warmer neutral, such as Interactive Cream by Sherwin-Williams or Rhine River by Benjamin Moore. Nickel Gap Paneling Think of nickel gap paneling, which gets its name from the consistent, nickel-width gap between each of the planks, as shiplap's older, more refined cousin. Unlike shiplap, which uses a type of connecting grove called a rabbet joint, nickel gap uses a classic tongue-and-groove joinery system. Once installed, the planks feel more elevated and purposeful than standard shiplap. While any type of wood can be used for nickel gap paneling, inexpensive woods, such as pine and poplar, or even MDF are popular options. BeadboardA longtime favorite in country kitchens, beadboard paneling is full of historic cottage charm. (My two cents: If a design element was good enough for the Victorians, it's good enough for me!) Because beadboard has a raised edge—the "bead" that gives it its name—it's a great way to add texture and a sense of history to a space, and might be the best option if you're trying to add age to a newly built kitchen. Related StoryIs a Wood Backsplash Safe?If you love the lived-in look, then wood backsplash is perfect for you, and when installed with care and paired with the right materials, wood is just as safe as tile. If you have a gas stove, always pair wood backsplash with a fire-safe material such as marble or quartz. This not only keeps your wood backsplash in pristine condition but also protects it from any open flame. If you're using an induction cooktop, feel free to leave your wood backsplash uncovered. Related StoryExamples of Wood BacksplashBecky Luigart-Stayner for Country LivingBeadboard backsplash adds a cozy twist to this gingham-filled kitchen’s stove cove from designer Trinity Holmes. Stacy Zarin GoldbergIn designer Molly Singer’s kitchen, simple wood paneling adds country charm. Ali Harper for Country LivingIn this Alabama river cottage, designed by Jensen Killen, wood-planked walls were painted a creamy white and run horizontally throughout the kitchen. Mike D'AvelloKnotty pine adds country charm to this kitchen designed by HGTV star Jenny Marrs.Becky Luigart-Stayner for Country LivingIn Maribeth Jones’ Alabama kitchen, yellow walls and paneling add cottage charm when paired with painted floors and a fruit-inspired wallpaper. Related StoriesAnna LoganSenior Homes & Style EditorAnna Logan is the Senior Homes & Style Editor at Country Living, where she has been covering all things home design, including sharing exclusive looks at beautifully designed country kitchens, producing home features, writing everything from timely trend reports on the latest viral aesthetic to expert-driven explainers on must-read topics, and rounding up pretty much everything you’ve ever wanted to know about paint, since 2021. Anna has spent the last seven years covering every aspect of the design industry, previously having written for Traditional Home, One Kings Lane, House Beautiful, and Frederic. She holds a degree in journalism from the University of Georgia. When she’s not working, Anna can either be found digging around her flower garden or through the dusty shelves of an antique shop. Follow her adventures, or, more importantly, those of her three-year-old Maltese and official Country Living Pet Lab tester, Teddy, on Instagram.