This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback. President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) Friday that scratched or revised several of his Democratic predecessors’ major cybersecurity initiatives. “Just days before President Trump took office, the Biden Administration attempted to sneak problematic and distracting issues into cybersecurity policy,” the White House said in a fact sheet about Trump’s new directive, referring to projects that Biden launched with his Jan. 15 executive order. Trump’s new EO eliminates those projects, which would have required software vendors to prove their compliance with new federal security standards, prioritized research and testing of artificial intelligence for cyber defense and accelerated the rollout of encryption that withstands the future code-cracking powers of quantum computers. “President Trump has made it clear that this Administration will do what it takes to make America cyber secure,” the White House said in its fact sheet, “including focusing relentlessly on technical and organizational professionalism to improve the security and resilience of the nation’s information systems and networks.” Major cyber regulation shift Trump’s elimination of Biden’s software security requirements for federal contractors represents a significant government reversal on cyber regulation. Following years of major cyberattacks linked to insecure software, the Biden administration sought to use federal procurement power to improve the software industry’s practices. That effort began with Biden’s 2021 cyber order and gained strength in 2024, and then Biden officials tried to add teeth to the initiative before leaving office in January. But as it eliminated that project on Friday, the Trump administration castigated Biden’s efforts as “imposing unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance checklists over genuine security investments.” Trump’s order eliminates provisions from Biden’s directive that would have required federal contractors to submit “secure software development attestations,” along with technical data to back up those attestations. Also now eradicated are provisions that would have required the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to verify vendors’ attestations, required the Office of the National Cyber Director to publish the results of those reviews and encouraged ONCD to refer companies whose attestations fail a review to the Justice Department “for action as appropriate.” Trump’s order leaves in place a National Institute of Standards and Technology collaboration with industry to update NIST’s Software Software Development Framework, but it eliminates parts of Biden’s order that would have incorporated those SSDF updates into security requirements for federal vendors. In a related move, Trump eliminated provisions of his predecessor’s order that would have required NIST to “issue guidance identifying minimum cybersecurity practices” (based on a review of globally accepted standards) and required federal contractors to follow those practices. AI security cut Trump also took an axe to Biden requirements related to AI and its ability to help repel cyberattacks. He scrapped a Biden initiative to test AI’s power to “enhance cyber defense of critical infrastructure in the energy sector,” as well as one that would have directed federal research programs to prioritize topics like the security of AI-powered coding and “methods for designing secure AI systems.” The EO also killed a provision would have required the Pentagon to “use advanced AI models for cyber defense.” On quantum computing, Trump’s directive significantly pares back Biden’s attempts to accelerate the government’s adoption of post-quantum cryptography. Biden told agencies to start using quantum-resistant encryption “as soon as practicable” and to start requiring vendors to use it when technologically possible. Trump eliminated those requirements, leaving only a Biden requirement that CISA maintain “a list of product categories in which products that support post-quantum cryptography … are widely available.” Trump also eliminated instructions for the departments of State and Commerce to encourage key foreign allies and overseas industries to adopt NIST’s PQC algorithms. The EO dropped many other provisions of Biden’s January directive, including one requiring agencies to start testing phishing-resistant authentication technologies, one requiring NIST to advise other agencies on internet routing security and one requiring agencies to use strong email encryption. Trump also cut language directing the Office of Management and Budget to advise agencies on addressing risks related to IT vendor concentration. In his January order, Biden ordered agencies to explore and encourage the use of digital identity documents to prevent fraud, including in public benefits programs. Trump eliminated those initiatives, calling them “inappropriate.”  Trump also tweaked the language of Obama-era sanctions authorities targeting people involved in cyberattacks on the U.S., specifying that the Treasury Department can only sanction foreigners for these activities. The White House said Trump’s change would prevent the power’s “misuse against domestic political opponents.” Amid the whirlwind of changes, Trump left one major Biden-era cyber program intact: a Federal Communications Commission project, modeled on the Energy Star program, that will apply government seals of approval to technology products that undergo security testing by federally accredited labs. Trump preserved the language in Biden’s order that requires companies selling internet-of-things devices to the federal government to go through the FCC program by January 2027.

It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

The American bullfrog is native to the eastern United States but was introduced in the West. Voracious eaters with large mouths, their diets can include birds, bats, rodents, newts, snakes, and turtles. CREDIT: National Park Service. Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. Listening to frogs croak at night might sound like the perfect nature-focused getaway. But if those vocal amphibians are American bullfrogs and the place is in Yosemite National Park in California, that’s not really a good thing.  American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) are large frogs originally from the eastern United States, meaning that in California, they’re considered an invasive species. Humans introduced them in Yosemite in the 1950s, and within two decades they had become well established in the region.  “One reason American bullfrogs are among the top worst globally introduced pests is because they eat everything — anything that fits into their mouth,” Brian Todd, a professor at the University of California (UC), Davis’ Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, said in a statement.  The problem is that a lot of things can fit into the frogs’ mouths, from snakes and birds to rodents and baby turtles. “They’ve been causing declines to native species everywhere they’re introduced, which is around the world,” Todd added. A northwestern pond turtle hatchling at a study site in Yosemite. CREDIT: Sidney Woodruff/UC Davis. Northwestern pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) are one of only two native freshwater turtles in California, and they have seen a particularly dramatic population decline. Todd and colleagues thus decided to investigate whether this could also be linked to American bullfrogs.  In a study published recently in the journal Biological Conservation, the team monitored four native turtle habitats in Yosemite National Park, two of which also hosted the bullfrog. They immediately saw that native turtles sharing their habitat with American bullfrogs were fewer, older, larger, and heavier than those in habitats without them. In other words, adult turtles that can’t fit in the frog’s mouth.  An American bullfrog tadpole (left) is bigger than the young native northwestern pond turtle on the right of this photo. Bullfrogs often prey on native turtles in the western U.S., contributing to their decline. CREDIT: Sidney Woodruff/UC Davis. “The evidence so far suggests that bullfrogs are physically eating young western Pond turtles, which means the baby western pond turtles never grow up to become adults and the population will eventually disappear as adults are not replaced,” Todd tells Popular Science.  The researchers started removing American bullfrogs to see how this might impact the native turtle populations. Low and behold, when the researchers had almost completely eliminated the invasive species from both sites, baby northwestern pond turtles made a comeback. [ Related: It’s raining tiny toxic frogs. ] Furthermore, “as bullfrog presence declined, we started to hear other native frogs call and see native salamanders walking around,” Sidney Woodruff, lead-author of the study and an ecology PhD student at UC Davis, explained in the statement. “It’s nice to be able to go back to these sites and hear a chorus of native frogs calling again that previously would not have been heard.” As such, the study suggests that this could be a winning approach for supporting pond turtle populations in priority conservation areas where non-native bullfrogs are unlikely to make an unwelcome comeback.  “The best reason to eradicate invasive species or to prevent them from establishing in the first place is because of how damaging they can be to native ecosystems,” Todd tells Popular Science. “Invasive species can outcompete and eliminate desirable native species and cause declines in many endangered species. Invasive species can even damage human livelihoods by affecting crops or domesticated animals and they can spread diseases.” 

Apex predators are on the move in Call of Duty®: Mobile Season 5 — Primal Reckoning. Deploy to the Zoo Multiplayer map, apply new skins to your Combat Axe and Smoke Grenade, and wield the new VMP SMG. In Battle Royale, visit Buy Stations around the map; eliminate enemies to take their cash for your next purchase. The new Battle Pass brings a collection of Operator Skins, Weapon Blueprints, and more with a futuristic dystopian theme inspired by the season’s collaboration with NieR: Automata, including a themed event featuring the Kui Ji - YoRHa No. 9 Type S operator and two Draws featuring the operators Kestrel - YoRHa No. 2 Type B and Fiona St. George - Commander White. Season 5 — Primal Reckoning launches on May 28 at 5PM PT. Multiplayer: New Map First making its appearance in the original Call of Duty®: Black Ops, Zoo returns for its debut on mobile. The mid-sized map challenges Operators to survive in an abandoned zoo featuring a massive monorail track cutting through the aging facility. Well suited to the season’s dystopian theme, Zoo offers a creative layout incorporating animal pens, gift shops, and other attractions in an overgrown, dilapidated setting. Gear Up With Buy Machines Buy Machines are deploying in Battle Royale on the Isolated Map in Season 5, offering another means of getting ahead of the competition! Purchase weapons, Perks, and Scorestreaks from the multiple Buy Stations that spawn across the map. Loot the environment for cash to purchase useful items like armor and ammo refills, unique weapons like the Purifier flamethrower, and different types of Perks. Eliminated Operators will drop their currency, so scoop it up and buy something nice for yourself. Don’t forget to watch your back while shopping! NieR: Automata Take command of the elite YorHa Unit as they launch a counteroffensive against the Machine Lifeforms in an exciting collaborative event with NieR: Automata. Complete objectives to earn action points which can be spent to move through a branching path.     Reach checkpoints, navigate counterattack routes, and collect Skill Chips to unlock exclusive routes. Conduct the counterattack successfully to earn rewards like the Kui Ji - YoRHa No. 9 Type S operator and four different melee weapons themed around NieR. New Weapon, Combat Axe Reskin The Primal Reckoning Pass features free and premium items including new Operator Skins, Weapon Blueprints, Calling Cards, and additional Call of Duty® Points to spend on your next Premium Pass or Store purchase. Battle Pass Free Tiers Keep the enemy at bay with the new VMP SMG, a versatile weapon with a high fire rate, high magazine capacity, and moderate recoil. Apply a new look to the Combat Axe with a reskin for the deadly throwable and earn other free tier rewards including a variety of Skins, Weapons Blueprints, Vault Coins, and more. Purchase the Premium Pass for the chance to earn all the content in the Primal Reckoning stream, including relentless hunters like Gustavo — Viciousness, Lazarus — Scrim Net, American Bulldog — Tentacles, and Kitsune – Blue Line Optic. Track your prey and eliminate the target with Weapon Blueprints like the Koshka — Snow Leopard, Hades — Scales, ASM10 — Birds of Prey, LW3-Tundra — Hunter Tracker, and the VMP — Stun Slash, based on the new Season 5 weapon. Battle Pass Subscription: Enlist with the Ground Forces by purchasing a Battle Pass Subscription, granting additional monthly rewards along with a 10% boost to Player and Weapon XP, discount coupons, and limited discounts on 10x crate pulls. The Season 5 Ground Forces will unlock the Baker — Cobra Hunter Operator Skin, MSMC — Snake Weapon Blueprint, and Backpack 4 — Snake. Complete Standard, Special, and Elite Missions to progress through the Season 5 Challenge Pass. Use your earned Challenge Tokens to purchase items in the Exchange including a reskin for the Smoke Grenade, an epic Bathysphere – Killer Whale operator skin, camo crates, and over a dozen Secret Cache of varying rarities. Secret Caches have been updated in Season 5 with a new legendary AK-47 – ICB Rifle replacing the previously available legendary Stun Baton. This new weapon comes alongside new updates to the system with Universal Shards being introduced. These shards can be used for future cache rewards based on the type, so if you’ve already completed the Mythic AK117 you’ll now earn Universal Mythic Shards to use for the next Mythic we release. Check the in-game Events tab throughout the season for new Missions and rewards. For more intel on seasonal activities, check the Mission Board or general Events space located in the main menu. New Mythic Weapon Draw: Leader and weaponsmith Rin Yoshida is prepared to do whatever it takes to come out on top. This Draw features the Operator as well as the new Mythic VMP — Toxic Blooms Weapon Blueprint, forged with hardened plasma crystals and designed to eradicate enemies with otherworldly precision.  NieR: Automata: Get the chance to acquire NieR: Automata themed content across two Draws, each led by a featured character. Kestrel - YoRHa No. 2 Type B leads one Draw which also includes the themed legendary PP19 Bizon – Morph Symphony and two melee weapons.  For the other draw, it is led by Fiona St. George - Commander White and with several themed weapons including the legendary AK-47 – Final Apocalypact and two unique melee weapons.New Legendary Draws: Look out for other incoming Draws including the Rainbow Death Legendary Weapon Draw featuring Bulldozer as a tactical unicorn. Battle Pass Vault: Revisit Season 8 — Train to Nowhere as it arrives in the Vault. Claim Epic Operator Skins like Vanguard — Nocturnal Elite, Misty — Undercover Agent, and Adler — Dapper. Get Epic Weapon Blueprints you might have missed out on like the M4 — Prince of Time and the AK-47 — Monster Crash. Season 5 — Primal Reckoning launches on Call of Duty: Mobile on May 28 at 5PM PT. See you online. For the latest Call of Duty Mobile news, visit the Call of Duty: Mobile website, as well as Call of Duty: Mobile on YouTube. Also follow Call of Duty: Mobile on X, Instagram, and Facebook. For the latest Call of Duty intel, visit Call of Duty, as well as Call of Duty on YouTube. Also follow Call of Duty on X, Instagram and Facebook. © 2019-2025 Activision Publishing, Inc. ACTIVISION , CALL OF DUTY and CALL OF DUTY BLACK OPS are trademarks of Activision Publishing, Inc. All other trademarks and trade names are the properties of their respective owners. (C) Square Enix For more information on Activision games, visit the Activision Games Blog. Also follow @Activision on X, Instagram, and Facebook.

All products featured on Architectural Digest are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links.Overwater bungalows are now deeply embedded in our collective consciousness, but are still a relatively newer phenomenon in the world of hospitality characterized by sublime seascapes on all sides, water glittering like gemstones beneath your bed, and steps leading directly into the ocean.There was a time when cruise ships, yachts, and other sailing vessels were your primary options for housing right on the sea, when comfort was subject to swells and storms, not to mention space constraints. Now, as planes—both the standard and float version—descend into destinations such as the Maldives and French Polynesia, passengers can spot long, often gracefully arching lineups of bungalows that cut across famously crystalline cerulean waters. This type of villa has become so prolific it’s now found from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia, Belize to Switzerland.It all started in 1967, on the island of Raiatea—which, without a sandy beach, was proving a challenging sell for tourists. A trio of Californians known as the Bali Hai Boys conceived of a new type of accommodation: the overwater bungalow. At the time they assured the government that, like traditional Tahitians’ fishing huts, they would not harm the coral with their pandanus-leaf-thatched-roof structures, and that edict still holds true. Their trio of bungalows at Bali Hai Hotel became a craze that spread to Bora Bora and beyond; after all, the charming stilted cottages offered immersion into the magic of the sea, sans snorkel mask or air tank. Now nearly 60 years old, the iconic honeymoon hideaways, sought-after spots for not just romance but easy access to throngs of Technicolor sea creatures below, are looking better than ever.Over more than a half century, but especially in the last decade, the overwater villa has gone from strikingly simple to, in some cases, over-the-top opulent—though there are still plenty of affordable, modest versions around the world. Its homeland, French Polynesia, lays claim to somewhere around 1,000 properties, from Moorea to Rangiroa and Bora Bora. Of any destination, overwater villas are most abundant in the Maldives, with more than 170 resorts in the same category.Wherever they stand, overwater accommodations often feature similar elements, such as thatched roofs made of natural, indigenous materials. Bungalows are usually attached to a wooden pontoon walkway unless we’re talking about one very special overwater villa in the Maldives that floats, can be moved to different locations, and (thanks to state-of-the-art engineering) doesn’t rock and roll with the ocean’s swell. As interiors go, barefoot island rustic with lots of wood is a popular aesthetic, while some spots, like JOALI MALDIVES and Nujuma, a Ritz-Carlton Reserve, are incredibly glamorous. Panoramic views of the countless shades of blue outside are requisite, while overwater pools, jacuzzis, and suspended hammocks have become popular amenities, too.Because these revolutionary structures make for fun daydream fodder, here we look at some of the most heavenly modern overwater bungalows from around the world.Photo: Courtesy of Nujuma, a Ritz-Carlton Reserve1/30Nujuma, a Ritz-Carlton Reserve, Saudi ArabiaPerks: Private beach with cabanas, spa, watercraft rental, kids’ club, Bang & Olufson speakers, stargazing experiences, nature walksThe birds soaring above have perhaps the best view of Nujuma, Saudi Arabia’s solar-powered Red Sea villas which debuted in 2024—20 of which are of the overwater persuasion. The walkway connecting them is circular, evoking a string of pearls, while each of the dwellings is vaguely seashell-esque, with sculpted, shapely rounded roofs. Inside, those graceful curves are intact, arching over the bedrooms and bathrooms tinted in sandy hues and embellished with locally made artifacts. Even the swimming pools are devoid of any sharp edges or corners, which is all in keeping with the soft, sweeping lines that are so pleasing to the eye. From $1,999 per night.Book NowPhoto: Courtesy of Joali Being2/30JOALI Being, Bodufushi Island Raa Atoll, MaldivesPerks: Hydrotherapy hall, herbarium, yoga and fitness classes, wine cellar, multi-generational play zone, sound pathThere’s a heavy emphasis on wellbeing at this Maldives private island resort, and that ethos extends to its strikingly-hued villas, each of which has its own pool and comes with bicycles for guests, plus meditative musical instruments and mindful games. Curvy, arcing, and spiraling, like nature herself, the biophilic overwater villas reference seashells and waves and take their palette from the island’s foliage and sand. With soaring ceilings and tubs you’d want to spend all evening in, there would be seemingly no reason to leave, yet among the resort’s extra-comprehensive spa and hydrotherapy hall are two sanctuary-like watsu (water massage) pools and an inspiring yoga pavilion, not to mention Edenic open-air restaurants and an ocean-view tea bar. From $1,851 per night.BOOK NOWPhoto: Gili Lankanfushi3/30Gili Lankanfushi, North Malé Atoll, MaldivesPerks: The world’s largest standalone overwater villa, Mr/Mrs Friday private butler service, sunset cruises, Coral Lines project and coral nurseryIt’s not only the overwater bungalows but the attitude on Gili Lankanfushi that makes it a unique proposition. Shoes go in a bag at the outset of the boat ride to the resort and are literally not worn again until departure, and it even exists in its own special time zone to maximize sunshine hours. A Robinson Crusoe vibe pervades the 45 villas that fan out around a North Male Atoll private island, operated ultrasustainably down to an extensive plant-based menu featuring island-grown ingredients. The overwater bungalows have rooftop terraces, al fresco bathrooms, and water hammocks, with the world’s largest overwater villa, dubbed the Private Reserve, also featuring a gym, cinema, steam and sauna, and a water slide that delivers guests directly into the sparkling sea. From $1,796 per night.Book NowPhoto: Le Taha’a by Pearl Resorts4/30Le Taha’a by Pearl Resorts, Leeward Islands, French PolynesiaPerks: Local art, tennis, swimming pool, spa, three restaurants and two bars, wedding coordinator, vanilla plantation visits, Tahitian pearl jewelry shopTraditional Polynesian architecture and its natural materiality—see thatch, mother of pearl, wood, bamboo, pandanus leaves, coconut fiber, coral, and stone—feature heavily in this lush resort within view of Bora Bora but peacefully set apart from it. The panoramas are what differentiate the bungalows; guests can choose to gaze at Taha’a, Bora Bora or the west for the sunset, however the Taha’a Overwater Suite has perhaps the best perspective toward the first, known also as Vanilla Island. From $1,352 per night.Book NowPhoto: Patina Maldives, Fari Island5/30Patina Maldives, Fari Islands, MaldivesPerks: 13 culinary concepts, including plant-based and Nordic-Japanese fusion, spa, art and creative workshops, visiting practitioners, marina, beach clubAt this Maldives resort, modernist architecture by Marcio Kogan of Studio MK27—think clean lines; low, flat roofs that hold solar panels; expanses of glass that open fully on three sides; and concrete infinity pools that bleed into the seascape—contrasts the majority of overwater bungalows beautifully. The serene one- and two-bedroom hideaways were built with sustainably sourced materials and are outfitted with custom millwork, free-standing double bathtubs, earthly palettes of rattan, linen, and fiber, as well as furniture by the likes of Vitra, Bassam Fellows and Paola Lenti. Beyond showcasing the natural resources surrounding it, the resort’s ethos embraces wellness, responsible and innovative dining, and art from global names as well as the artist-in-residence program. From $2,630 per night.Book NowPhoto: Courtesy of Anantara Mina Al Arab Ras Al Khaimah Resort6/30Anantara Mina Al Arab Ras Al Khaimah Resort, Emirate of Ras Al KhaimahPerks: Mangrove lagoon sanctuary, six F&B outlets, curated experiences, cruising, padel, kids’ and teens’ clubs, spa with seen treatment roomsWhen it debuted in early 2024, Anantara’s new Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah resort became the first in the Emirates with overwater villas, and they’re as decadent as one would imagine for the deluxe destination. The Maldives’ dhoni-shaped thatched roofs inspired these, which feature vaulted ceilings, large decks, Arabesque flourishes, mashrabiya motifs and infinity swimming pools, naturally, across layouts that sprawl from 880 to 2,200 square feet. Free-standing bathtubs plus dual rain showers in the indoor-outdoor shower maximize enjoyment of the turquoise Persian Gulf and might even result in guests watching sea turtles swim in the protected mangrove lagoon while bathing. From $240 per night.Book NowPhoto: Courtesy of Bawah Reserve7/30Bawah Reserve, IndonesiaPerks: Seaplane arrival, plastic free, private overwater dinners, included activities, 13 beaches and two lagoons across six private islandsAn Earth-first attitude pervades Bawah Reserve, where among treehouse lodges, beaches, suites, and pool villas, the 11 overwater suites give guests the most intimacy with the Indian Ocean. Refined wood-shingled roofs, rustic timber railings, warm recycled teak walls, recycled copper bathrooms and tables and chairs made from flotsam with mural walls—designed by Sim Boon Yang—provide a new fresh feeling take on the concept, in Indonesia’s Anambas Islands in the Riau Archipelago. The private island escape is all-inclusive, so although the suites are a paradisiacal world in and of themselves, there are many activities as well as 13 beaches and two lagoons to explore. From $1,628 per night.Book NowPhoto: Stevie Mann for Soneva8/30Soneva Secret, Makunudhoo Atoll, MaldivesPerks: Remote, dedicated team for each villa of Barefoot Guardian, Barefoot Assistant and private chef, in-house marine biologist, astronomical dinner cruise, retractable roofsThirty years of experience went into the creation of Soneva’s new-in-2024 ultra-luxe, uber-bespoke, super-secluded concept in the remote Haa Dhaalu atoll. It has just 14 total villas across beach and water, with some on a lagoon that can only reached by boat, and each comes with three dedicated staff including a private chef and a Barefoot Guardian butler who can plan astronomical dinner cruises, snorkeling with manta rays or “secret day” options for surprise personalized itineraries. The villas themselves—built of FSC-certified wood with open-air bathrooms—are an exercise in thinking of everything: bedroom roofs that retract with a touch for sleeping under the stars, adventurous roof deck slides for splashing into the crystalline lagoon, and massage beds for private therapies. Coming online in 2025 is a perhaps even more immersive accommodation than the overwater villa: the Maldives’ first floating villa, a two-story wonder designed to eradicate movement from waves, as well as three floating solar farms. From $3,300 per night.Book NowPhoto: Courtesy of TA’AKTANA9/30Ta’aktana, a Luxury Collection Resort & Spa, Labuan Bajo, Flores, IndonesiaPerks: Spa and salon, water sports, overland and water-based explorations (including to Komodo dragons), cocktail masterclasses, high tea, lap poolThe emerging destination of Labuan Bajo—gateway to Komodo National Park—on Flores had never seen overwater villas until seven of them opened in 2024 with Ta’aktana, a luxurious resort that draws from the region’s unique culture as much as it does its land- and seascapes. Still, the genre isn’t totally unknown. The seven circular bungalows with rounded interiors reference Labuan Bajo’s historical sea nomads who once lived in stilt houses, and they include fossil wood from antique phinisi sailing ships, upcycled stingray leather detailing, hand-carved patterns inspired by Flores’ lingko cancar rice field, and local macrame. From $431 per night.Book NowPhoto: Courtesy of Nayara10/30Nayara Bocas del Toro, PanamaPerks: Solar-powered treehouses, 70-foot freshwater pool, 100-year-old Elephant House restaurant, elevated oversea sandy beach on stilts, 100% off-gridSixteen overwater villas at this sustainable adults-only resort in Panama’s Bocas del Toro province hug the mangrove-thronged coastline of a lush private island that also includes a collection of solar-powered treehouses designed by IBUKU. Highlighting traditional materials such as thatched roofs, timber walls, and glass floor panels, they invite intimacy between guests and the aquamarine water, which is easily accessible via stairs for kayaking, SUP, or snorkeling excursions. The resort also boasts the world’s first overwater beach, a 90-by-20-foot tray of creamy sand with steps descending into the sea. From $1,077 per night.Book NowPhoto: Moeava de Rosemont11/30Four Seasons Bora Bora, French PolynesiaPerks: Private islet, tennis courts, sunset cruises, beach bar, spa with signature rituals, ATV excursions, kids’ club, vegan and vegetarian menusWhile all the overwater bungalows at this impeccable property epitomize the genius of the genre with their celebration of the gorgeous environs, the four Otemanu Overwater Bungalow Suites are truly awe-inspiring. Whether you're in the airy living room, noshing at the dining table, bathing in the sculptural tub, lounging in the palapa, or swimming at the edge of the infinity pool, the lagoon’s beautiful blues are staring back, truly the star of the scene. From $1,967 per night.Book NowPhoto: Courtesy of Song Saa Private Island12/30Song Saa Private Island, CambodiaPerks: Open-air spa, diving and snorkeling, scenic boat trips, meditation sessions, sea kayaking, spa and wellness programs, private beachCambodia might not be the last place you’d expect a breathtaking resort of overwater bungalows, but it’s probably surprising. In 2012, the Koh Rong Archipelago became home to this sustainable Robinson Crusoe–chic property with, among other layouts, a two-bedroom overwater Royal Villa of rough-hewn timber, with a vast glass floor in the living room (alongside driftwood furnishings), a half-moon infinity pool with an expansive terrace, dual oversize sunken bathtubs, a personal chef, and a private jetty complete with a boat for the guests’ exclusive use. From $1,338 per night.Book NowPhoto: Laucala Island Photographer13/30COMO Laucala Island, FijiPerks: 240-acre organic farm, glass-sided infinity pool, hilltop spa and yoga pavilion, three bars, private 18-hole, par-72 championship golf course, horseback riding, surfingThe Overwater Villa on this private island property is more like an overwater estate. It’s distinctive not just for its split-level design, but its dramatic outdoor spaces—massive terraces and a large pool carved directly into the rocks on the shore. Guests of the two-bedroom stunner are transported to and from the main resort facilities by private yacht (or they can walk on a wooden pathway), but with 3,000 square feet of flawlessly curated luxury and the emerald lagoon at their feet, there’s not much reason to go anywhere at all, except maybe to the signature COMO Shambhala Spa. From $6,500 per night.Book NowPhoto: Mel Yates14/30One&Only Reethi Rah, North Malé Atoll, MaldivesPerks: beach club, treehouse, beach cruisers, wellness activities and spa, adults-only pool, outdoor movie theater, kids’ clubThere are hundreds of overwater bungalows in the Maldives, but these have the distinction of being some of the most private, since only a couple connect to each pontoon, each facing a different direction in the unbelievably turquoise Indian Ocean for an edge-of-the-earth feel. Lofty wood-beam ceilings keep things light and airy in the Grand Water Villa, but understandably extras like the long infinity pool (complete with built-in submerged chaise), separate jacuzzi, draped outdoor daybed and lounge areas minimize time spent inside. (It’s also worth booking a visit to one of the spa’s overwater couples'-treatment suites.) From $2,680 per night.Book NowPhoto: Courtesy of Cayo Espanto15/30Cayo Espanto, BelizePerks: Personal butler, private dock, just seven villas, customized meals by private chef, scuba diving, yacht, helipad, fly fishingAs island paradises go, this one—featuring the first overwater bungalow in Belize—is up there. While all the recently refreshed villas are luxe, Casa Ventanas, at 1,100 square feet and more than 150 feet of privacy, goes above and beyond with custom-crafted furnishings, a glass floor featuring a light that can be switched to different colors to filter the sea-creature-filled waters below and new glass shower walls for taking in ocean panoramas while bathing. From $2,295 per night.Book NowPhoto: Courtesy of Hotel Palafitte16/30Hôtel Palafitte, Neuchâtel, SwitzerlandPerks: Lakeview restaurant, bar with live music, cycling adventures, seasonal outdoor terrace lounge, Sunday brunchThe overwater craze is not confined to tropical climes. This Swiss bolthole became the first and only hotel in Europe built on stilts when it was constructed as part of the National Expo 2002 as a “surprising work” by architect Kurt Hoffmann with a group of students. Actually, the stilts reference ancient Swiss construction techniques, but also give guests of the 26 over-lake bungalows (each with a private terrace) the sense of being on a remote island, complete with access to stand-up paddling, boating, and waterskiing to make up for the lack of tropical fish. From $382 per night.Book NowPhoto: Courtesy of St. Regis Hotels & Resorts17/30The St. Regis Bora Bora Resort, French PolynesiaPerks: Lagoonarium sanctuary, spa and fitness center, 24/7 butler service, sailing and diving, swim-up bar, complimentary non-motorized watersportsAt a low-season rate of more than $4,500 per night, the Overwater Royal Otemanu Villa with Pool—it’s worth noting the 20-by-16-foot infinity edge pond is the largest suspended pool in the South Pacific—is one of the more extravagant ways to vacation at this St. Regis resort. Crafted of exotic noble woods with vibrant accents, the nearly 3,000-square-foot bungalow is a prime place to watch neon lagoon fish either behind glass portholes or in the flesh via private ladder access. From $2,013 per night.Book NowPhoto: Courtesy of Six Senses18/30Six Senses, Ninh Van Bay, VietnamPerks: Six Senses Spa and Alchemy Bar, yoga pavilion, kids club, Earth Lab sustainability center, outdoor cinema, private beachOne of the beautiful things about overwater bungalows is that, to a large degree, they allow nature meld with the indoors, and tend to act as frames for their postcard-perfect surrounds. An ideal example is this destination on the bucolic coast of Vietnam, where excessively private 1,600-square-foot Water Pool Villas overlook the bay’s coral formations and give way to flawless sunset vistas, not to mention boasting plunge pools, outdoor showers, handcrafted wooden bathtubs, and steps into the water for snorkeling. From $770 per night.Book NowPhoto: Courtesy of Conrad Hotels19/30Conrad Bora Bora Nui, French PolynesiaPerks: Private beach, infinity pool with swim-up bar; gratis snorkeling equipment, paddleboards and kayaks; private island for picnics and dining, spa and hammam, floating helipadThe former Hilton Bora Bora Nui, fully and beautifully reimagined to become a more sumptuous Conrad is set on arguably the most spectacular part of Bora Bora, and is home to the only two-story overwater bungalow in French Polynesia. With a palette that reflects their azure surroundings, the Presidential Villas (there are two)—outfitted with a well-being room with sauna, three bedrooms, a private sundeck, a pool, and a bar—are like the ultimate playgrounds in one of the planet’s prettiest neighborhoods. From $1,588 per night.Book NowPhoto: Courtesy of Six Senses20/30Six Senses Laamu, Laamu Atoll, MaldivesPerks: A well-known surf wave, wellness programs, spa and salon, two restaurants, ice cream parlor, sandbank dining, scuba diving, library, volleyballThe over-ocean villas at Six Senses Laamu have at least one thing most don’t: a sunken glass bathtub over the turquoise saltwater. A soak there is one time to skip the bubbles for an experience akin to an ocean bath. The timber-clad bungalows with signature pops of color also have their own treetop deck for appreciating the sun-soaked seascape or vibrant sunset. Other signature hallmarks of the genre are present here, too: net overwater hammocks, wide timber terraces, sun loungers, and outdoor showers. There are also offerings with personal swimming pools. From $1,056 per night.Book Now

Microsoft, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), took a major step in dismantling one of the most prolific cybercrime tools currently in circulation. Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit (DCU) collaborated with the DOJ, Europol, and several global cybersecurity firms to disrupt the Lumma Stealer malware network — a malware-as-a-service (MaaS) platform implicated in hundreds of thousands of digital breaches worldwide. According to Microsoft, Lumma Stealer infected over 394,000 Windows machines between March and mid-May 2025. The malware has been a favored tool amongst cybercriminals for stealing login credentials and sensitive financial information including cryptocurrency wallets. It’s been used for extortion campaigns against schools, hospitals, and infrastructure providers. According to the DOJ website, “the FBI has identified at least 1.7 million instances where LummaC2 was used to steal this type of information.” Recommended Videos With a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Northern Districts of Georgia, Microsoft took down roughly 2,300 malicious domains associated with Lumma’s infrastructure. The DOJ simultaneously took down five critical LummaC2 domains, which acted as command-and-control centers for cybercriminals deploying the malware. These domains now redirect to a government seizure notice. International assistance came from Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) and Japan’s JC3, who coordinated efforts to block regional servers. Cybersecurity firms like Bitsight, Cloudflare, ESET, Lumen, CleanDNS, and GMO Registry assisted in identifying and dismantling web infrastructure. Inside the Lumma operation Lumma, also known as LummaC2, has been operating since 2022, possibly earlier, and makes its info-stealing malware available for sale through encrypted forums and Telegram channels. The malware is designed for ease of use and is often bundled with obfuscation tools to help it bypass antivirus software. Distribution techniques include spear-phishing emails, spoofed brand websites, and malicious online ads known as “malvertising.” Cybersecurity researchers say Lumma is particularly dangerous because it allows criminals to rapidly scale attacks. Buyers can customize payloads, track stolen data, and even get customer support via a dedicated user panel. Microsoft Threat Intelligence previously linked Lumma to notorious Octo Tempest gang, also known as “Scattered Spider.” In one phishing campaign earlier this year, hackers were able to spoof Booking.com and used Lumma to harvest financial credentials from unsuspecting victims. Who’s behind it? Authorities believe the developer of Lumma goes by the alias “Shamel” and operates out of Russia. In a 2023 interview, Shamel claimed to have 400 active clients and even bragged about branding Lumma with a dove logo and the slogan: “Making money with us is just as easy.” Long-term disruption, not a knockout Image used with permission by copyright holder While the takedown is significant, experts warn that Lumma and tools like it are rarely eradicated for good. Still, Microsoft and the DOJ say these actions severely hinder and disrupt criminal operations by cutting off their infrastructure and revenue streams. Microsoft will use the seized domains as sinkholes to gather intelligence and further protect victims. This situation highlights the need for international cooperation in cybercrime enforcement. DOJ officials emphasized the value of public-private partnerships, while the FBI noted that court-authorized disruptions remain a critical tool in the government’s cybersecurity playbook. As Microsoft’s DCU continues its work, this Lumma crackdown sets a strong precedent for what can be accomplished when industry and government specialists collaborate to eliminate threats. As more of these organizations are uncovered and disrupted, remember to protect yourself by changing your passwords frequently and avoid clicking links from unknown senders.

Three prominent U.S. senators warned Paramount Global and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone that they might be breaking a federal anti-bribery law if they agree to settle President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS over a “60 Minutes” segment. In a letter addressed to Redstone that was posted publicly, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) cited reports that Paramount has been in settlement talks with Trump’s lawyers in the case. The Trump suit, which seeks at least $20 billion in damages, alleges CBS’s “60 Minutes” deceptively edited an interview with Kamala Harris and thereby violated a Texas consumer protection law. Paramount and CBS have argued that they did nothing wrong; in a motion to dismiss Trump’s suit Paramount called the legal action “an affront to the First Amendment” that is “without basis in law or fact.” CBS News has maintained that the “60 Minutes” broadcast and promotion of the Harris interview was “not doctored or deceitful.” Related Stories Now, the senators wrote in the letter dated May 19, “Paramount appears to be walking back its commitments to defend CBS’s First Amendment rights.” They said they were writing “to express serious concern regarding the possibility that media company Paramount Global (Paramount) may be engaging in improper conduct involving the Trump Administration in exchange for approval of its megamerger with Skydance Media” — and the senators suggested any monetary settlement in the case could be illegal. Popular on Variety “Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,” the senators wrote. “If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law.” A copy of the letter is at this link. Warren and Sanders were among nine senators who urged Redstone in a May 6 open letter to not settle the lawsuit, calling it “an attack on the United States Constitution and the First Amendment.” A spokesperson for Paramount declined to comment but referred to the company’s previous statement saying: “This lawsuit is completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process. We will abide by the legal process to defend our case.” A rep for Redstone declined to comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. SEE ALSO: Shari Redstone’s Impossible Choice: She Can’t Save Both ‘60 Minutes’ and Paramount Global The $8 billion Paramount-Skydance deal is currently pending FCC approval. Earlier this month, Trump-appointed FCC chairman Brendan Carr said the approval of Paramount-Skydance is not connected to the president’s “60 Minutes” lawsuit. Last November, he said in a Fox News interview that a conservative group’s “news distortion” complaint against CBS over the “60 Minutes” Harris interview was “likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of [the Paramount-Skydance] transaction.” One issue Paramount and the FCC reportedly are in discussions about: securing a commitment from Paramount and Skydance to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as part of the Trump administration’s attack on DEI. In February, Paramount said it was changing some of its DEI programs to comply with the Trump administration’s directives. But Carr may be seeking a more ironclad guarantee. The FCC last week approved Verizon’s $20 billion deal to acquire Frontier Communications after Verizon pledged to eradicate DEI initiatives. On Monday, CBS News president Wendy McMahon announced her resignation, writing in a memo to staff “It’s become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward.” That came less than a month after “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens quit, also citing conflicts with Paramount execs. Warren, Sanders and Wyden drew a connection between the exits of McMahon and Owens and the Trump lawsuit: “Paramount’s scheme to curry favor with the Trump Administration has compromised journalistic independence and raises serious concerns of corruption and improper conduct,” they wrote. In the letter to Redstone, the senators requested answers to specific questions regarding the situation by June 2, including “Does Paramount believe the lawsuit filed by then-candidate Trump against CBS has merit?”, “Has Paramount evaluated the risk of shareholder derivative litigation from settling the lawsuit?”; and “Has 60 Minutes made changes to its content at the request of anyone at Paramount to facilitate approval of the merger?” The three senators also asked pointedly: “Does Paramount have any policies and procedures related to compliance with 18 U.S.C. 201 and any other laws governing public corruption? If so, please provide a copy of those policies and procedures.” In February, Redstone asked Paramount’s board to resolve the Trump lawsuit, including by exploring the possibility of mediation, Variety has reported. Redstone has recused herself from the board’s discussions about a settlement with Trump.  Trump, on his Truth Social social media account last month, said his lawsuit against CBS was “a true WINNER” and falsely claimed that Paramount, CBS and “60 Minutes” admitted to committing “this crime” of deceptively editing Harris’ answer. Trump alleged “60 Minutes” edited the interview to eliminate her “bad and incompetent” response to a question about whether Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “listening to the Biden-Harris administration.” Trump asserted the version of the “60 Minutes” interview that aired “cheated and defrauded the American People at levels never seen before in the Political Arena.” The senators’ letter to Redstone was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

How can we practice creativity and conversation to enhance futures literacy and co-creation efforts?Still from my design research project, Maybe We’re Creative. Partial quote from artist, educator and interview participant, Jason Lujan.Last year, I completed my major research project for my Master’s of Design in Strategic Foresight and Innovation, titled "Maybe We’re Creative: What I Learned about Co-Creation in Design by Dancing with My Dad." The project was a short documentary and a corresponding research report. Last month, several themes from my work were explored during a workshop with Riel Miller, the former Head of Futures Literacy at UNESCO in Paris, France. I’m still finding the right words to sum up the depth of theory and the ongoing experiences that guide my research, but I decided this was a good moment to publicly expand on and share some of the process that went into my project last year and the outcomes.Ultimately, Maybe We’re Creative brought me closer to my belief that being creative is not just an act for artists or those with a knack for a craft; it’s a practice that allows us to perceive and hold complexity in relationships and the world around us. Creativity is a deeply human practice that can take many shapes and connect us with genuine feelings inside of us that we might otherwise overlook. In systems design, we are constantly trying to make sense, organize, and somewhat solve, but creativity, in practice with others, reorients the designer and generates possibilities of getting to know complexity in a different way, in seemingly simple, innocent yet deeply intentional and meaningful ways. Creativity offers a way out of old patterns and a way back into possibility.Still from my design research project, Maybe We’re Creative.The power of changing imaginationsIn a 2016 On Being interview, Remembering Nikki Giovanni — ‘We Go Forward With a Sanity and a Love’, host Krista Tippett said that Giovanni’s imagination has always changed as she ages. Giovanni responded,“Everyone’s does, the only difference is I’m not afraid to talk about it”Giovanni’s words reminded me of what I heard again and again in my interviews for Maybe We’re Creative. Participants shared that imagination isn’t a fixed trait but something personal that we can nurture and be curious about over time, given the environment to do so.I chose to focus my research project on creativity because it’s a practice that accepts I change; in fact, it relies on it. Every time I write or dance, I deepen my relationship and awareness with where I’m at that moment, knowing how I arrive at the page or studio will be different in some way, shape, or form from the day before. Because I can better expect and welcome change in myself, I can better expect change in others. Thus, when I dance and write, I build my capacity to engage with change and differences in the world. I can better move through internal conflicts and external uncertainty, not by solving anything, but by accepting change as a constant truth. To an outsider, it might seem like a cop out, framing my design approach not to solve but to better live amongst change, but in practice, I’ve learned that the simplest statements, i.e. change is truth, are some of the hardest to design with effectively. The temptation to convert change into a variable I can control, instead of a constant state I can’t, never dies. My project reinforced this learning, and further reinforced that some of the most important experiences in our lives, relationships with ourselves and others, are prime examples of complexity that we can only hope to exist within more fully; they’re not to be solved.The current challenge of changing imaginationsAccepting change holds a deep tension with the limits built into public spaces and policy. Humans love to control, place structure on, or push back against the reality of change. Specifically, in various public gatherings, I’m sensing a waning disconnect between people and, notably, our ability to imagine a future other than ones already played out. It seems that no information about our collective history, no exposure to harm or progress, changes our ability to make different decisions that would bring about new current states and futures. This reckoning is sometimes making for many collective, melancholic moments as of late. Many academics have noted this disconnect throughout the last century. Toni Morrison (2019), in The War on Error, wrote,“Oddly enough it is in the West — where advance, progress and change have been signatory features — where confidence in an enduring future is at its slightest.”Despite our communal resources in the West, specifically Toronto, where I am based, I’m sensing this lack of confidence as most palpable.Sentiments such as Giovanni’s instill hope in me that much imagination, innovation, and life exist in all of us, but might be settled or hidden beneath our surface. In Maybe We’re Creative, I chose to expand on all forms of creativity, and dance, specifically between my dad and me, as a practice to potentially bring us back to the present, as a starting point, and expose some of that buried life.Still from Maybe We’re Creative.Building a relationship with the unknownFour years ago, my dad came to me acknowledging for the first time in our relationship that things could have been different if he had acted differently. He had recently returned home from what would be his last military deployment, was released from the military as he was now undeployable due to various reasons, mental health included, and from what I could see, he was taking a long look at the reflection of his past self.Reflecting on our relationship and the impact of his choices exposed a humility in my dad that I had never seen before. He freed himself from the singular narrative he had been glued to previously. This old narrative only had room for his experience, which prevented my experience from being seen and prevented me from participating in our relationship in a way that felt true to me. It was interesting; in that moment, my dad simply, and not-so-simply, acknowledged that things could have been different, the trajectory for our relationship as I had known it, almost immediately, changed.Last year, when I began my research journey in my last year of school, he asked if we could learn a dance together as a way of reconnecting and in an attempt to make up for time he was absent from my life. This moment marks something I now understand as essential to building alternative futures: not only do we have to recognize a shared history, but if we can genuinely recognize that the past could have been different, the future, somewhat suddenly, can be too.Until then, I had been clinging to the idea that our relationship would be somewhat tainted forever because my dad always said that the past “was what it was.” This approach, from us both, locked us in place. But when he, sitting on my couch during a visit I initially thought would be a quick hi and bye, said that if he knew then what he understood of the repercussions of his actions now, he would have done it all differently, something shifted.Co-creating futures through storyThis reframing of the past was an important moment for me. I had to confront that my dad’s new perspective on our past meant I no longer knew what our future held. This was terrifying at times. What we imagined, or failed to imagine, would shape what was possible for us. I was scared of my dad falling back into his old narrative, I was scared of being hurt or abandoned again, I was scared of how my changing relationship with my dad would change my relationships with the rest of my family, and the list goes on. Part of what motivated me to move through these fears is the underlying, I think natural, truth that no matter the rupture in our relationships, there are always pieces of what's left over in our bodies that we hope we might one day repair.I always wanted a relationship with my dad, but I wasn’t willing to sacrifice myself to have one. Now that he was proposing a genuine relationship, one I could show up in, I had to confront my fears and ask myself: Am I ready for this relationship? I’d love to say it was easy to step into a joyful new chapter with my dad. In reality, I had to let go of a version of myself I had been training for a long time, who believed love to be a struggle, one-sided, or that people you love will leave. Those thoughts were painful for me to hold onto, but they also kept me safe in a repeating pattern that I could predict.I saw this experience as my dad offering me an opportunity to grow and deepen my understanding of him and myself. My commitment to honouring growth in relationship and in the unknown outweighed all of the fear I was experiencing. I also had been doing a lot of work on myself, and something told me that not only did this feel different, but I was different. I didn’t want to act out of fear or old narratives; I was open to something new.Why include my personal life in my professional life?None of the challenges my dad and I experienced were exclusive to our relationship alone. People navigate interpersonal conflicts in every facet of their lives, whether or not they want to address them as such. Our survival instincts don’t discriminate between our relationships. These modes show up with work colleagues with whom we don’t get along, our boss who doesn’t listen to us, the reaction we have to the passive-aggressive stranger at the grocery store, our inability to have conversations with those who disagree with us without it erupting into an argument, and the list goes on. We write off these relationships, claiming to know that they “just won’t work” or we “just don’t vibe.” We fill in the blanks of the stories that haven’t yet happened because “we know what’s going to happen.” Sometimes, we’re right, but what about the times we’re wrong? What if things could go differently? When do our predictions or assumptions not protect but actually prevent change?Zooming in on the process of co-creating futures through storyMy dad and I’s relationship was ripe with opposition, politically, professionally, and personally. I could have clung to the idea that I knew this journey would end the same way all my previous experiences with him had. However, we had one vital ingredient that propelled our relationship forward that had never been present before: we were both open to being vulnerable together and letting that vulnerability and honesty guide our direction into an unknown place. We had a mutual desire to be seen by the other, and in turn, whether we knew it or not at the time, we were open to seeing ourselves in a new way, too. We both let go of control to the extent we needed to, and this dance project gave us a blueprint for moving forward.The beginner mindsetDance allowed us to confront our differences and vulnerabilities through movement, a kind we were not specialized in (though I had experience in other forms of dance, House was new to me), making us both beginners. House Dance was also my dad’s idea. He had been repeatedly listening to some songs during his morning workouts, the time he admittedly ruminated about the past, and felt a connection with a couple of house tracks. He wanted to explore a response, a feeling that came up in him. We were both willing to be seen making mistakes and exposing our amateur selves.The willingness to try something new in an unknown area translates into relationships just the same. This is another vital ingredient to foster new future possibilities. When we are exposed as beginners to something, we have no choice but to surrender to only the possibility of progress with active practice. You don’t know if you’ll be “good” at something when you first start. We have to let go of the fear of being perceived a certain way, a way we can control. For better or worse, when we feel confident and comfortable in our environment, we tend to live self-fulfilling prophecies and relive what we already know. Feeling unsure, insecure, and fearful is all human. What’s beautiful about this process in a relationship is when we witness someone else in those vulnerable feelings that mirror our own. We have the opportunity to say “me too” and courageously move through fear and transform it into something else. We create possible futures in these moments versus remaining stuck in the same place.A dance reflection from myself, included in my final report of Maybe We’re Creative.Trust and futures literacyThis brings me to the futures literacy workshop with Miller from last month. About 20 of us (mostly design students or practitioners) were separated into smaller groups and asked to discuss the future of trust in 2100, the probable future and our desired future. We were then asked to consider a scenario in which, by 2100, every time a person lied, their nose would grow longer, and everyone would have telepathy. How does trust function if everyone is exposed in one way or another? How does truth function? We built sculptures in our groups to represent what we considered, and presented them to the room. Miller encouraged a beginner mindset here, as none of us could know what 2100 will be like. We were equally, collectively, looking into the unknown.Miller noted that when we collectively discuss and contemplate designing the future, we’re confronting a process intertwined with something deep: people’s hopes and fears. Our assumptions are brought to the surface in these collective exercises, our survival mechanisms, and, if we’re willing, our imaginations. Building capacity for futures literacy can be emotionally charged for those open to being moved by it. This realization reshaped how I saw my work, not just as a designer, but as someone making space for others to feel, imagine, and respond in real time.What is the imaginary, and why is it useful?We discussed ‘futures literacy’ as a practice of the imaginary in relation to the world around us. Miller noted that the imaginary does not exist. I don’t imagine a 5% increase in wealth over the next x number of years when I imagine a future. What exists are our images of the future and what those images allow, or do not allow, us to perceive in the present. I found this identification useful as I began to see and understand my relationship with the imaginary not as a fantasy, but as a perceptual frame, a way to hold what hasn’t yet materialized but is shaping our actions in the present. When my dad and I expanded our perception and imagination of what was possible between us by reframing our past, our relationship, in the present, changed, which meant our relationship in the future could inevitably be different, too, if we kept imagining or believing it could.When I envision the future, I generally feel hopeful that what we do matters, and this hope expands when I’m in the presence of others. However, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t concerned and scared about the many people I know who are unhappy and struggling in their day-to-day lives. I feel concerned about the lack of trust people have in themselves to navigate difficult times. I’m seeing people shut down and push others away, being unkind, isolating, and saying “it’s fine” when truthfully, it isn't.These feelings, hopes and fears are not inherent to me, and futures literacy, specifically this workshop, helped me uncover where my mind pulls from when they reach the surface. Through the collective and in contrast to group members, I uncovered how I’ve been managing fear or anticipation, specifically regarding uncertainty and complexity. I’ve come to understand that futures literacy, like creativity, begins not with certainty but with the courage to enter unfamiliar terrain together. It isn’t as simple as “being courageous”, of course. Getting to that place of courage isn’t easy, especially in a capitalist society based on a collective acceptance of scarcity.Still from Maybe We’re Creative. Partial quote from interview participant, Chris Wilson.Ancestry and designIn the interviews I conducted for my research, trauma came up multiple times, as well as the tension between wanting to be creative but living in a structure that doesn’t support creation, but rather consumption. This is another space where I found Miller’s framing of the imaginary particularly useful. When we feel limited, like we can’t make anything new, or that what we make isn’t valued, we tend to surrender or outsource our imagination and creation to others. In our society, creation is increasingly outsourced to those with power, wealth, or at the top of the hierarchy. Creation and imagination in the hands of only a few limit collective future possibilities.When my dad came to me in earnest, I felt the hierarchy between us dissolve. Again, I find it important to note that nothing had to change about the past events we lived through physically, and my dad didn’t know how things could have been different, but just that they could have been. He imagined previously unimagined possibilities, which were not easy. This came with regret, sadness, and shame he never fully confronted, but, instead of being in his own, isolated narrative, the narrative we both knew quite well, it opened a complex, relational reality.A dance reflection from my Dad, included in my final report of Maybe We’re CreativeI never wanted my dad to be perfect, but I sometimes wished he would change, be different. By shifting his perceptual framing of the past and courageously wondering, “what if”, he may not have changed the past or himself, but he confronted the past and the spectrum of experiences that existed there, not only his own. As a result of this reframing, what I, in turn, valued in our relationship changed. I wasn’t fixated on my dad changing as a person, but refocused on how our relationship functioned and how it could change moving forward, thus healing and shaping each of us as individuals. I could accept and love my dad in a new way because he, just like me, was exposing himself as an imperfect, changing human being trying his best in a world that, despite us wanting it to, doesn’t have any instructions.Complexity is a state, not a variableI don’t think, as designers, we fully grasp how complex things are, and I don’t say this to suggest we can or should. But perhaps accepting complexity as a state, that we can’t funnel into something simpler, is our true starting point, befriending humility and a desire to build capacity for complexity, not simplicity. For example, if health is being able to experience the spectrum of emotions, not just one emotion, maybe a desirable future could be designed with the capacity to welcome the same. I read the other day that the opposite of depression is not joy or happiness, which one might assume, but the opposite of depression is expression. I want a future that is not focused on chasing singular emotions or goals but one where we all feel capable of moving through our expressions, even when those expressions are at odds with others, perhaps especially then. A designer-as-human can be with complexity instead of a human-centred design, simplifying or solving complexity.I think what we’re witnessing and experiencing in society is the downfall of simplifying for speed or “productivity,” and what I keep asking myself about this process, in the simplest way, is, what are we racing towards? I wonder how varied our answers would be. I’m also wondering how much of our imagination we are losing by continuously speeding up.I wanted a relationship so badly with my dad so many times before this experience, but each time he came to me, I knew in my heart that nothing had changed. I knew this because when I shared my experiences with him, he couldn’t incorporate them into his version of our story. If I had tried a relationship in those moments, we would have forced his narrative on something far more complex. If I had rushed it, we would have replayed the same future we were already playing. I’ve heard this pattern referred to as remembering the future just as we remember the past. When we act in a way that is so intertwined with what we already know, we aren’t creating something new; we are reinforcing something old.Miller shared that complexity is a state, not a variable. This phrase keeps echoing throughout my thinking, not as a metaphor, but as a reframing of how we live, relate, and design. It resonated particularly strongly as I reflected on my experience with my dad, my interviews on creativity, and the corresponding conceptual model I began last year, trying to map out what the complexity of lived experiences looks like in groups.Seeing possibility in the complexity of the pastAs the problems we’re facing, locally and globally, arguably, continue to worsen, I wonder if we might consider pausing to adjust how our previous approaches to problems might not be creating new results and instead reinforcing the problems themselves. If we pause to ask ourselves where these approaches are rooted, we might unravel a new way of seeing and approaching problems altogether. We might not even see previous problems as problems; perhaps they were just evidence of complexity, and perhaps the problem has more to do with our capacity to be present in them. Miller added that when we uncover that the universe can continually surprise us, for better or worse, complexity might become something we welcome.I’ve been exploring the space of creation and complexity through building a tool called Lived Experience Cartography. This dialogic framework maps stories, emotions, and relationships to help groups make meaning together. It doesn’t seek immediate convergence or simplicity. Instead, it asks: What becomes possible when we deepen our awareness of ourselves and others and linger in complexity together?The current state of co-design: static story sharingCo-design is often celebrated for its ability to include many voices. But we know from experience that inclusion alone isn’t enough. The complexity of individual designers multiplies when co-designing, and this reality of difference demands more than the idea of inclusion or a check-box approach in our work. It calls for a deliberate practice. As I previously mentioned, when my dad came to me before, I could feel there still wasn’t room for him to incorporate my story into his lived reality. If I took him up on his previous offers, I was afraid I would be living his reality, not a shared reality. I also didn’t want to force my reality onto him or erase his experiences. I wanted us both to acknowledge that we co-existed, that our actions and expressions were interconnected, and that we had impacted each other’s experiences. In his previous state, his offers meant my voice might have been present in our relationship, but not included.Static and dynamic story sharingIdeas remain static when group work focuses on ideas stacking up without interaction and engagement (see above re: story sharing). Bartels et al. (2019) compare this to a kaleidoscope with many colours, but the cylinder doesn’t turn. Technically, the pieces are there, but the magic of seeing interwoven colours change as they move together never happens. Complexity is the magic. Engagement with complexity is the magic. When more people are present, more information might be present, but if it can’t be meaningfully engaged with, it will not mean change or new possibilities.We can feel the contrasts between static and dynamic group work in society today. Baharak Yousefi in the essay, “On the Disparity Between What We Say And What We Do In Libraries,” described this beautifully (albeit, tragically) when she wrote about the growing disconnect between professional value statements and what is being done or not done in our public institutions. She cites academic Keller Easterling’s spatial analysis of object and active forms to aid the differentiation. To be able to examine both our words and actions/character is derived from taking stock of the interconnections and totality of our activities, both the influential buildings, strategic plans, and value statements (object forms) and undeclared movements, rules, and activities (active forms) that create our societal infrastructure.On the surface, many people are involved in changing laws, value statements, and policies for the public good; however, as we know, just because society appears to apply those changes in writing, it does not mean that our underlying beliefs also change throughout that process. This is sadly understood when a law changes back, and we revert to old patterns, or when a new value statement is plastered on every document in an institution, but it results in few meaningful cultural shifts. Despite this disconnect, we still highly believe in and value the object form. This back-and-forth begs a question: Does the appearance of new information stacking on top of old information effectively disguise and eradicate the fact that there is more work to be done beneath the surface? Are some of us genuinely satisfied with appearing one way and acting another? Or perhaps more worrisome, do some not even recognize the disconnect? Our increasing ability to dissociate ourselves personally and professionally, individually and collectively, is, as Yousefi describes, disconcerting.With Lived Experience Cartography and creativity, I want to explore how we can build a capacity to merge stories and lived experiences, to better articulate an interconnection in groups while preserving individuals’ sense of self. Could we develop our listening skills to be present with others’ experiences while still being connected to our own? Or further, could we allow our relationship to our own experiences to change through engagement with another, and vice versa? If this is a mutual understanding, meaningful co-design becomes more possible, as well as closing the gap between what we say and do, combining our object and active forms.A curriculum of conversation and listeningA way forward, I believe, lies in embedding active conversational engagement at the heart of design processes. In my current work, I use conversation-activated reflection as a powerful mode of learning, unlearning and engagement.Similarly, Alia Weston and Miguel Imas describe a “dialogical imagination” in Communities of Art-Spaces, Imaginations and Resistances, as a kind of exploration where people construct meaning together in an in-between space, a conversation. Easterling also notes that talking is a tool for decentering power and creating alternative narratives. In my work, creativity acts as another form of dialogue. It's practice is about deep, meaningful sharing, getting as close as possible to complexity and remaining open to an unknown path forward.Still from Maybe We’re Creative. Partial quote from interview participant, Cami Boyko.This need for dialogue and a curriculum of conversation extends beyond design and into every area of society. Rising polarity and binaries in the media are shaping our opinions and social circles, making conversation and maintaining deep social interactions feel more difficult now than ever before. One participant in my thesis research, Cami Boyko, an elementary school teacher, captured this beautifully:“You really have to look at this idea of extremism, and talk to kids about how it’s their role to take a step towards the centre, at least far enough to hear what’s going on. I think I’m convincing myself that we need this sort of curriculum of conversation and listening. Because it’s been interesting how that [extremism] shut down some things in the classroom where it should be about being able to talk.”To echo Cami’s insight, design schools and workplaces alike have an opportunity to become sites of openness, play, and collective sensemaking. The cost of ignoring the complexity of thoughts and opinions and our lived experiences is not just creative disconnection; it’s social fragmentation and power imbalances. As Audre Lorde wrote,“Unacknowledged difference robs all of us of each other’s energy and creative insight, and creates a false hierarchy.”Not only are we increasing the distance between one another when we resist interacting with differences, but we unknowingly reinforce a hierarchical system. This, perhaps subconscious, moral superiority further disconnects our relationships, making it harder to step towards the centre.Conversation as a tool to move beyond survivalObviously, dialogue as a tool for learning is not new. Throughout history, the act of asking sincere, open-ended questions has been viewed as liberatory and, as such, dangerous to some leadership. In May 2024, researcher Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman shared that the United Nations had recently reached out to her and her husband, Dr. John Gottman, desperate, begging for a simple way for their organization to discuss and navigate problems. She reminded us of the power of dialogue and its historical roots, citing the 300 BC philosopher, Socrates, who introduced dialogue to the youth to encourage critical thinking. Authorities saw the power it wielded when people were thinking for themselves, and they threatened to condemn him to death if he didn’t stop teaching.Emily Wood, a Toronto organizer and poet, and another participant in my thesis research, reflected on how our culture resists creativity, in conversation or otherwise:“I just don’t think that we live in a culture currently that wants people to even be creative… It’s challenging for people to be around unconventional thinkers… that’s uncomfortable and challenging to the status quo. If you are creative and you’re trying to see things differently and you imagine a way something could be versus like what it currently is, then that’s kind of bad to more powerful entities.”Remembering that elites have suppressed the power of dialogue since 300 BC helps explain why today’s monopolies sell every new tool, technological or otherwise, as somewhat of a substitute for conversation. Today, in AI and the age of the internet, algorithms create a world where our surroundings are affirmed and validated. Contrary to the plurality of human differences outside, the world we make online can coincide with the singular world in our head. This isn’t just about efficiency, it’s about control. When conversation is inconvenient or unpredictable, it threatens centralized systems of power that prefer scripted interactions and outcomes. Algorithms in the hands of big tech encourage our longing for comfort, convenience and control. The more we battle the complexities of life outside algorithms, the more we’re tempted to rely on and trust institutions that promise to simplify and solve the complexity.Why do we resist difference?Algorithms and corporations only emphasize a pre-existing trait of the human psyche. The Gottmans describe a biological tendency toward a ‘symbiotic consciousness’, the deep, often unconscious desire to feel seen and understood by others in the exact way we see ourselves. Confronted with difference, we grow anxious, defensive, and frequently default to survival instincts. They describe this as a tragic dimension to human consciousness: we struggle to fully accept the reality that others may experience the world in radically different ways. Ancestral trauma and the absence of healing only deepen this resistance.This would be fine and dandy if connection were something we did, but undoubtedly, connection makes us who we are. Without interrupting this symbiotic reflex or doomscrolling, we miss the gifts that connection offers: wonder, growth and the ability to embrace and create life rather than passively react through it with isolation and control mechanisms. This internal conflict or tension often emerges in group settings or relationships where we long for connection but resist what makes it real, turning to comfort in the face of discomfort and disconnection on the brink of unconditional love. In many professional settings, moments ripe for deeper conversation are dismissed. We rush past uncertainty, clinging to agendas, outcomes, and the often invisible guest, fear.Still from Maybe We’re Creative. Partial quote from inverview participant, Dr. Bhandari.Designing for differences is designing capacity for discomfortTo design for true inclusion, we must understand how to manage conflict, not erase it. Examples lie in co-op housing initiatives or public senior housing. Individuals might not get along or align politically in either structure. Still, everyone’s basic needs are met, allowing them to disagree and co-exist as one individual does not wield power over another. Everyone has their own space in the collective structure. These systems remind us that it isn’t the absence of conflict that enables safety, but the security of all participants’ basic needs.As Lorde reminds us,“there is no separate survival.”We cannot begin to live differently, beyond theory, without being in relationship with the individuals and communities around us. The Gottmans say that we are born into relationships, are wounded in relationships, and heal in relationships. None of this happens in isolation. It’s in relationships, in creating safety and in regulating our fears and anxiety, where possibility dissolves the limiting narratives of the past and allows us the freedom to create something new with each other. Again, this is an active practice of working together.Lived Experience Cartography in practiceLived Experience Cartography is not a linear tool or checklist, but a conversation starter that helps designers and communities explore how their memories, identities, perceptions, translations, etc. inform their ideas, needs, and fears, how they remember and frame their lived experiences and, in turn, what they can remember or create in the future. This Cartography can be explored individually as self-exploration work or in collectives. In groups, the outside categories of lived experiences stack on top of each other to emphasize our need to preserve individual experiences and our sense of self. These individual parts merge in the centre area of collective expression.Conceptual model: Lived Experience CartographyThe idea is not to solve but to explore and acknowledge the existence of differences. This sounds simpler than it is, but it is not the number of outside experiences or the fact that experiences are constantly changing that pose the main challenge for group work. It is in the denial of the existence of parts that disconnects groups. Designers need to acknowledge their full selves and others if they want to collaborate in productive, holistic ways and design systems that express the same.UX designer and researcher, Florence Okoye, asks a powerful question:“How can one envision the needs of the other when one doesn’t even realize the other exists?”The model encourages a shift from extraction to exploration, from gathering data to building shared meaning. It slows down the process so a group’s social, dynamic, embodied presence can emerge. If designers recognize that each person in a co-design effort comes with various lived experiences that are in relationship with how they express themselves, groups might be able to start co-creation projects from a more open place of understanding. It won’t form a perfect equation, but mapping experience and expression systems enable designers to make the invisible more visible, and this process alone is worthwhile. Nikki Giovanni nodded towards this when she said everyone’s imagination changes as they grow. Those changes remain unknown when we don’t engage in ongoing awareness of those changes, and in turn, share them.Giovanni had a deep knowing of the importance of sharing her changing imagination with us. Through sharing, poems, speeches, or otherwise, she facilitates experiences that invite individuals to share parts of themselves they have not acknowledged for whatever reason, fear or otherwise. Modelling vulnerability with the invitation to join in is a courageous, powerful way of showing the rest of the world that being human is okay. Most importantly, Giovanni exemplified that there is no other way for us to be.Embracing our imperfect humannessInvesting in ways of conversing and developing our capacity for dialogue in practice is one way to remind us of the generative potential that fumbling through the unknown with another can bring about. Starting the conversational process, knowing it might be imperfect and expecting it to be, softens the expectations and pressure we place on ourselves. When navigating conversations, we might start to feel uncomfortable (*uncomfortable, not unsafe*), but it isn’t a sign we’re going in the wrong direction; it can be a sign we’re getting at something real.As researcher Legacy Russell so powerfully describes in Glitch Feminism, when we feel discomfort in a society that works very hard to disguise the disturbances it houses, it’s a sign of us returning to ourselves. Discomfort is our body attempting to correct the underlying error: our inherited, not chosen, default programming. Through curiosity, we begin to see more. Through listening, we begin to know more. Through conversation, we can grow and change in ways we might not yet know exist.Some conversation offeringsBelow are possible considerations for each outer experience of Lived Experience Cartography, in the form of questions. There are no strict definitions of each category, so not every question might make exact “sense” to the reader.If the sentiment doesn’t make sense in the part identified, explore why, and ask where the question makes more sense. Compare and converse with others.Lived Experience Cartography category breakdownDesigners can break down these questions by asking themselves about the different facets of their lives and the parts of their experiences explored above. Lived experiences are powerful knowledge. Through reflective work, Professor Natalie Loveless (2019) writes,“we seriously attend to and recognize the constitutive power of the stories through which we come to understand the world.”When designers become more aware of their lived experiences and all of the parts of themselves, we can start to map how parts change over time, in different contexts, and in relationship to others. Further, through developing this self-knowledge, designers can explore what is limiting them or what they want to adjust when working alongside others with different experiences.The purpose of this Cartography is not to have an answer to every question or share every question’s answers. It was built by my acknowledgement of the reality that there is so much that we don’t know about the people and places that we design with and for, and there is much we don’t know about ourselves as designers. It emphasizes some glitches and discomfort necessary to explore if we want the future to be different from our past. It emphasizes the abundance of newness and unanswered questions that are right below the surface of most of us.Quote from Interview Participant, Chris Wilson. Included in my final report of Maybe We’re CreativeLearning to listen to create a new futureI now know that my previous choice to disengage with my dad wasn’t just about him. It was about all the things I had absorbed and survived and how those things had narrowed what felt imaginable to me. To my knowledge, no amount of positive thinking or design thinking could change my dad, so I stopped thinking about change. I effectively controlled my future by setting a boundary. I still believe this boundary was necessary for a time, but equally necessary was my willingness to acknowledge when holding onto control was no longer protecting me but rather preventing change and growth. I stopped focusing on a singular outcome of my dad changing, instead building a relationship around noticing, naming, and existing in real-time space together. Our future shifted from being about a solution to strengthening, building, and feeling through a relationship. This relationship is ongoing and ever-changing.This whole experience caused me to ask, what if we saw failure, slowness, and discomfort not as risks to avoid, but as signals that we are in the presence of a departure from what we already know? What if these are signs of life, or, as Russell notes, a positive departure?Dr. Bhandari, Chair of Surgery at McMaster University, and another participant in my thesis research, described the energy of conversation like this:“Talking, like we’re doing now, energizes you, it does…That has to happen every day. And we don’t do that. I think … we don’t allow ourselves to [talk] because we feel that’s not a productive use of our time. And that is really where I think the shift has to happen.”In this moment of fragmentation, what we design will inevitably reflect how well we relate. What do your relationships say about our designs? And what do our designs say about our relationships? Are we engaged in processes creating new relationships and futures, or are we remembering and re-living old patterns in real time?Conversation, imagination and complexity are not entities outside ourselves that need to be managed; they are survival tools for collective transformation. Once we recognize them as such, we can see the possibilities of how we might use them differently.This, I’ve come to understand, is the heart of co-creation and futures literacy: not predicting what comes next but learning to stay present with what is, truly present, so that the path ahead disappears, and something new can then emerge.Designing in and for a world we don’t yet know was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The Trump administration is not known for particularly prioritizing animal welfare. But in its first few months, alongside announcements that it would seek to gut federal funding for scientific research, Trump officials have taken steps toward a goal that animal advocates have been championing for decades: the end of animal experimentation. On April 10, the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to phase out animal testing requirements for the development of monoclonal antibodies — used to treat a variety of diseases, including cancer and Covid-19 — and a range of other drugs.The Environmental Protection Agency, which has long required animal testing for substances including pesticides and fuel additives, also plans to revive an agency ban on animal testing that dates back to the first Trump administration. The agency had set deadlines under President Donald Trump in 2019 to reduce animal testing 30 percent by 2025, then eradicate it altogether by 2035. The Biden administration eliminated those deadlines, but now, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin “is wholly committed to getting the agency back on track,” spokesperson Molly Vaseliou told Vox in an email.Late last month came perhaps the most consequential announcement: a major new initiative from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, to reduce the use of animals in research and accelerate the development of novel, animal-free methods. Estimates suggest NIH-funded research relies on millions of animals every year in the US. That includes mostly rodents, but also monkeys, dogs, pigs, rabbits, and others. But Trump’s NIH cited scientific literature that finds animal models can have limited relevance to human outcomes.Advocacy groups that oppose animal testing, including PETA and Humane World for Animals (formerly known as the Humane Society of the United States), celebrated the news as the most significant commitment ever made by NIH to reduce its dependence on animal experimentation. The recent announcements are “among the biggest news there’s ever been for animals in laboratories,” Elizabeth Baker, director of research policy for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), told me. Together, these moves represent a potentially monumental shift in American science — one that could spare millions of animals from painful experiments and, advocates hope, speed up the adoption of cutting-edge technologies to produce better, more reliable research than animal models ever did. But if the goal is not just to benefit animals, but also to make science better, the Trump administration is surely going about it in a strange way. It’s waging war on scientific institutions, seeking to slash research budgets — massively, seemingly indiscriminately, and questionably legally — at the NIH and the National Science Foundation, undermining decades of American leadership in science and medicine. It hasn’t committed any new funding toward its goal of advancing animal-free research methods.In this light, scientists are understandably skeptical that research policy coming from this administration could benefit science, rather than just sabotage it. Putting animal research on the chopping block, many believe, could merely be a convenient and popular way to slash support for science across the board. Yet those seeking to phase out government-funded animal research aren’t just anti-science radicals — they’re also animal testing critics who correctly point out that animal experiments are expensive, often ineffective, and come at a steep ethical cost. This has created a diverse, sometimes-uneasy coalition of animal welfare advocates, science reformers, and far-right political figures — some are willing to accept reforms any way they can get them; others are more wary of moves made by this administration, even when their agendas align. In Vox’s Future Perfect section, you’ll find some of the deepest reporting and analysis available anywhere of the scientific, ethical, and political dimensions of animal experimentation.• The harrowing lives of animal researchers• Animal rights advocates are ready for Trump’s war on science• What can caged lab monkeys tell us about free human beings?• What went wrong with autism research? Let’s start with lab mice.• The US uses endangered monkeys to test drugs. This law could free them.• 43 lab monkeys escaped in South Carolina. They have a legal claim to freedom.The Trump administration’s NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya, embodies this alliance: An established scientist, albeit one who’s publicly aligned himself with the political right in recent years, he has praised the watchdog group White Coat Waste, which campaigns aggressively against animal research, as “heroes.” Now, with the NIH’s plan to reduce animal research, he’s arguing for the need to transition to animal-free methods in the language of scientific progress rather than the tear-it-all-down approach of other members of the Trump administration. Money and resources are powerful incentives in scientific research; allocate them in the right way, and scientists will be pushed to innovate in whatever direction is deemed important for societal progress. Evolving beyond the pervasive use of animals in science undoubtedly ought to be one of those priorities: Lab animals experience immense suffering in labs, living in intensive confinement and undergoing painful experiments involving blood draws, tube feeding, forced inhalation of substances, and other procedures. Finding alternatives that would end this agony would be one of American science’s most important achievements.It’s unclear whether a moonshot for alternatives to animal research can emerge from an administration that’s imposing widespread austerity on science. And there may be reason to worry that the Trump administration’s broader anti-regulatory approach could have negative consequences for the welfare of animals that still remain in labs. But many advocates of animal-free methods are willing to take the bet, hoping that they can use this uncertain, unsettled moment in American science policy to help usher in a paradigm shift in how the US uses animals in science. What will these policy changes actually do?For decades, animal advocates, and a growing number of scientists, have disputed whether animal trials are the most effective tools available in modern science. Historically, animal dissection laid the groundwork for early medicine, and breakthroughs from animal research have helped lead to polio vaccines, the preventative HIV medication PrEP, and treatments for Parkinson’s disease. But animals are not necessarily suitable proxies for humans, and more than 90 percent of drug trials fail between animal and human testing trials, according to a 2023 review by animal welfare advocates. It’s a problem many scientists acknowledge, albeit not always publicly. Former NIH director Francis Collins in 2014 privately discussed “the pointlessness of much of the research being conducted on non-human primates” in emails obtained by PETA via public records request.That the government is now planning cuts to animal research is undeniably groundbreaking. But how these planned cutbacks and phase-outs will actually unfold is more complex. In its announcement, the NIH said it will establish an Office of Research Innovation, Validation, and Application to scale the use of non-animal methods, expand funding for these approaches, evaluate human relevance, and include experts in alternative animal-free methods on grant review panels so that more of the agency’s funding is allocated toward those methods. Scientists are often incentivized to use animals in their research, as Celia Ford wrote for Voxearlier this year, a phenomenon sometimes called “animal methods bias.” Academic journals prefer to publish studies using animals, and internal research ethics review boards are mostly comprised of animal researchers. Advancing technologies, such as computational modeling or organ-on-a-chip technology, offer alternatives to animal testing, and many scientists around the world are embracing these new methods. But the scientific community has been slow to adopt them. To change that, the NIH’s new initiative will “address any possible bias towards animal studies” among its grant review staff. The agency will also publicly report on its annual research spending, something it hasn’t done in the past, “to measure progress toward reduction of funding for animal studies and an increase in funding for human-based approaches,” according to the recent announcement. The EPA, meanwhile, requires toxicology tests on animals for many substances that it regulates, including fuel and fuel additives, certain pesticides, and wastewater from industrial facilities. It has not yet announced an official plan to reduce animal research, though a 2016 agency reform required increased reliance on non-animal methods. Many are hoping the agency — which previously estimated that between 20,000 and 100,000 or more animals are used in toxicology testing every year — will recommit to its 2019 directive to end animal testing requirements by 2035, Baker says. Of course, announcements are meaningless without plans — and the FDA is the only agency to announce a plan that lays out a three-year timeline and alternative testing strategies. The FDA’s current requirements for animal testing in new drug approvals are somewhat unclear. The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, which Congress passed in 2022, authorized the use of non-animal alternatives in place of animal studies for FDA-regulated drugs, but some of the FDA’s regulations and nonbinding guidelines specifically mention animal tests. Pharmaceutical companies that have tried to obtain drug approval without animal testing have faced expensive delays. As a result, in practice, most drugs approved by the FDA are still tested on animals.According to the FDA, current regulations still require animal testing for monoclonal antibodies, which are lab-made proteins that can bind to and kill specific targets in the body. The FDA’s phaseout of animal tests will start with these antibodies and expand to other treatments. Lab animals’ immune responses are not predictive of human responses “due to interspecies differences,” the agency’s plan states. Safety risks may go undetected in animals, and the stress of laboratory life can affect their immune function and responses, a significant confounding factor in animal research that scientists have noted before. Animal testing is also very expensive: Monoclonal antibody development often involves monkeys, which can cost up to $50,000 per animal, according to the FDA; its plan notes it can cost $650 million to $750 million and take up to nine years to develop monoclonal antibody treatments, delaying delivery of new therapies to patients.While advancements like organ-on-a-chip and computer modeling are both exciting and laudable, counting on them to replace animals may be premature, Naomi Charalambakis, director of communications and science policy for Americans for Medical Progress, a nonprofit that supports the use of animals in research, said in an email. These tools, many of which are still under development, can’t fully replicate “the complexity of living organisms” — which is why she says they should be integrated “alongside traditional animal studies.”“Animal models remain vital for answering complex biomedical questions — particularly those involving whole-body systems, long-term effects, and unpredictable immune responses,” she says.A monkey used for research at the University of Muenster in Germany. Friso Gentsch/Getty ImagesScientists have also pointed out that the FDA’s promise that animal testing will be “reduced, refined, or potentially replaced” is not new. In 2022, the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 paved the way for alternatives to animal testing, and in December 2023, an NIH advisory committee made similar recommendations to develop non-animal methods. Regardless, the FDA’s and NIH’s recent announcements are among the first public statements by government organizations questioning the efficacy of animal testing. Can massive cuts to research funding help animals?In February, the Trump administration took the highly controversial step of capping “indirect costs,” the portion of universities’ research grants that cover administrative and operations expenses not directly tied to the research itself, at 15 percent of an institution’s grant. The research community has warned that the decision would be catastrophic for science — budgets will be slashed, young researchers may be laid off and see their careers ruined, and important science may fall by the wayside. But for animals, the news is “fantastic,” argues Jeremy Beckham, a law student and animal advocate who’s worked for organizations including PETA, PCRM, and the Beagle Freedom Project.While indirect costs are not a “meritless concept,” Beckham says, he believes universities renew research grants that harm animals while yielding little to no benefit in order to continue receiving operational funding. Universities “are allowing a lot of extremely pointless and cruel animal experiments to happen, because it’s such a gravy train for them for these indirect costs,” he says.Oregon Health & Science University, for example, which receives 56 percent of its grant in indirect costs for animal studies, has racked up several critical Animal Welfare Act citations for 14 animal deaths at its research labs since 2018. At Wayne State University in Michigan, researchers have induced heart failure in hundreds of dogs in a cardiac research experiment that has been running since 1991 but has “failed to help a single patient,” according to PCRM. Wayne State receives an indirect cost rate of 54 percent, according to a recent statement from the university. In a statement about its dog experiments, Wayne State argued that it’s important to continue the cardiovascular research, even if “science does not move at the pace we would like.” Critics of the cuts to indirect costs, including Harvard immunologist Sarah Fortune, have argued that funding cuts will mean labs are forced to euthanize their animals. But many, if not all, were already going to be killed in experiments, Delcianna Winders, director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School, points out.In March, a federal judge blocked the NIH’s proposed cap on indirect costs, and universities are looking to negotiate. But if the proposal does go forward, “the number of animals in laboratories will plummet,” Beckham says.Despite its promises to reduce the number of animals in labs, the Trump administration’s disdain for regulation may mean those animals that still remain in labs will suffer more. During Trump’s first presidency, enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, the federal law that governs the welfare of animals used in research, took a nosedive. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the agency tasked with implementing that law, removed thousands of animal welfare reports, which had previously been publicly posted for decades, from its website. Given this precedent, Winders fears that going forward, the research industry will violate animal welfare laws “with complete impunity.”Research animals are already at a disadvantage under the Animal Welfare Act, and critics have insisted for decades that the act is insufficient and poorly enforced. The proverbial lab rat is not protected by the law — most mice and rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act’s definition of “animal.” By some estimates, it covers as little as 5 percent of research animals.Nor does the law place any legal limits on what can be done to animals in experiments. “That’s left completely to the research facility,” Winders says.A beagle used for research in Spain. Beagles are widely used in experiments in the US and around the world. Jo-Anne McArthur/Animal Equality/We AnimalsWhen a researcher violates the Animal Welfare Act, the USDA has few options for enforcement. Because inspectors cannot confiscate animals that are required for research, they can really only levy monetary fines. But for facilities that receive millions in funding and spend billions on research, fines — most of which are less than $15,000 — are so low that they’re considered a “cost of doing business,” according to a 2014 USDA Office of Inspector General report. The USDA calculates these fines using an internal penalty worksheet, which factors in a facility’s size, compliance history, and the severity of its violations. The worksheet was recently obtained by Eric Kleiman, founder of research accountability group Chimps to Chinchillas, and it revealed that the USDA does not take a research institution’s revenue or assets into account when calculating fines. The USDA instead measures a facility’s size via the number of animals it uses, according to the worksheet, which divides research facilities into four size categories, the largest being facilities with 3,500 or more animals. But this metric is flawed, Kleiman says, since many labs don’t keep their animals on-site, instead contracting out with research organizations that perform the experiments on their behalf.In a statement, USDA spokesperson Richard Bell said the agency “carries out enforcement actions consistent with the authority granted under the Animal Welfare Act and associated regulations.”And in recent months, there have been alarming signs of an anti-regulation shift. A 2024 Supreme Court decision, SEC vs. Jarkesy, calls government agencies’ ability to issue fines into question. It’s possible this ruling could be interpreted in a way that bars the USDA from assessing fines, Winders says. “We’re still waiting to see how broadly the government interprets it,” she says. “Given that other enforcement mechanisms are not available against research facilities…civil fines were really the only pathway, and now that’s on the chopping block.” Since the June 2024 ruling, the USDA has issued few fines. The USDA is “still assessing the impact of the Jarkesy ruling,” Bell said. In the past, the Office of Inspector General has held the USDA accountable for poor enforcement — but in January, the USDA inspector general was fired and escorted out of her office, Reuters reported. The next month, the USDA OIG released a report on inspections of dog breeders — some of which supply dogs to research facilities. The report was critical of the USDA’s enforcement, but key information including the number of facilities inspected, the number of animal welfare violations, and photos was redacted “due to privacy concerns.” Winders has “never, ever seen that before,” she says, and it could set a new precedent for decreased transparency.About 15 percent of USDA’s workforce has accepted the Trump administration’s buyout to leave the agency, including more than 1,300 people in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which inspects and enforces the Animal Welfare Act, Reuters reported on May 5.“If inspectors aren’t there, how are they going to have a window into what needs to be done?” says Sara Amundson, chief government relations officer for Humane World for Animals.Regardless, the US is witnessing a seismic shift in how we use animals for research — or even whether we use them at all. It’s too soon to say what the Trump administration’s reforms to animal testing will accomplish, or whether they’ll produce durable changes in American science that manage to outlive an administration that has declared war on the scientific community. Although animal welfare is a bipartisan issue, it’s rarely been a priority for previous administrations, Republican or Democrat. To have an administration that, within months of taking power, is already meeting with animal welfare groups, holding congressional hearings, and taking strong stances on animal research issues is unprecedented, experts say. “I am optimistic,” Baker says.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:

You can trust VideoGamer. Our team of gaming experts spend hours testing and reviewing the latest games, to ensure you're reading the most comprehensive guide possible. Rest assured, all imagery and advice is unique and original. Check out how we test and review games here Warhammer 40K: Space Marine 2 has become a haven for PC modders, especially as Saber Interactive officially releases the game’s internal tools to make any mod possible. While modders work on creating entirely new operations as well as new Tau and Necron factions, one modder has made the game’s entire campaign playable with a massive crew of 12 players. Crush Space Marine 2 with 12 players Available right now on Nexus Mods, the “Campaign Missions as Operations – 12 Player Edition” does exactly what is says on the tin. Based on the recent 12-player Operations mod for Astartes Overhaul, this mod allows every campaign mission to be played in the larger co-op squads. Installing the mod does remove the ability for you to play normal operations and play with others who simply don’t have the mod installed. However, reverting back to normal is as easy as disabling the mod. Due to the game’s mission setup, the 8 mission Space Marine 2 campaign is split into 11 Operations. The Operations are as follows: Mission 1 Part 1 Mission 1 Part 2 (Shows as Exfiltration Op) Mission 2 Part 1 Mission 2 Part 2 (Shows as Inferno Op) Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Part 1 (Skips Orbital Drop sequence) Mission 6 Part 2 (Shows as Decapitation Op) Mission 7 Mission 8 (Finale) With Saber Interactive unlocking the gates for unlimited modding, Space Marine 2 has a very long life ahead of it. As the studio also works on more official content for the game, including a new Horde Mode, there’s a lot of new stuff for all players. Additionally, Saber has officially started work on the game’s sequel: Space Marine 3. Still in very early stages of development at the studio, the new game is described as a “bigger and better” follow-up with a focus on larger-scale battles. Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2 Platform(s): PC, PlayStation 5, Xbox Series S, Xbox Series X Genre(s): Action Subscribe to our newsletters! By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and may receive occasional deal communications; you can unsubscribe anytime. Share