Should talking to an AI chatbot be protected and privileged information, like talking to a doctor or lawyer? A new court order raises the idea

EU plans to expand its global digital partnerships  Research Professional News

Replying to images in Google Messages threads should be getting a lot easier.

Cross-Border Ecommerce Market Revenue Growth 2025, Emerging  openPR.com

On Designing National Pavilions: Power and Identity at Universal ExhibitionsSave this picture!Czech Pavilion Expo 2025 Osaka / Apropos Architects Image © boysplayniceWhat can a pavilion’s architecture reveal about its country? At major World Expos, national pavilions are designed to answer this question, transforming into spaces laden with symbolism. Though temporary, these structures are rich in meaning, functioning as architectural expressions of political identity. Their forms and materials encapsulate national ambitions. Expo Osaka 2025, the latest chapter in this ongoing narrative, showcases how nations increasingly use built space to construct global images of themselves—sustainable, technological, culturally distinct, and geopolitically relevant. Save this picture!Over the decades, these pavilions have evolved into meticulously curated narratives where architecture, politics, and culture intersect to shape national identity. At Osaka 2025, this symbolic and diplomatic function becomes even more pronounced. Pavilions communicate not only who a nation is, but who it aspires to be. The environmental agenda, for example, has become a compelling vector of soft power. Japan’s pavilion exemplifies this shift, employing local wood, parametric design, and natural ventilation not just for function, but as metaphors of circularity and harmony with nature.Save this picture!Meanwhile, countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are embracing immersive technologies—augmented reality, responsive facades, and AI—to reframe their narratives. No longer defined solely by oil economies, they seek to position themselves as innovation-driven futurescapes. In this context, national identity is staged like a multisensory installation. Materials, sounds, aromas, lighting, and spatial choreography become tools for storytelling—none of them neutral, all of them charged with intent. Related Article Are World's Fairs a Thing of the Past? The Role that Architecture Played on One of History's Biggest Stages Architecture as a Political StatementPavilions transcend cultural or technological display to become instruments of political messaging. Architectural choices convey nuanced—or at times overt—signals about values, ambitions, and worldviews. Denmark’s Expo 2020 Dubai pavilion, with open ramps and fluid circulation, subtly suggests democratic transparency and inclusion, while Russia’s monumental spiral structure evokes nationalism and technological command. Here, architecture becomes a codified discourse: every curve, void, and surface reads like a political sign.Save this picture!This language continues at Osaka 2025. Israel’s pavilion, inspired by the ecological resilience of deserts, presents a narrative of innovation and perseverance amid adversity—an architectural response to both climate challenges and regional geopolitics. Bahrain’s contribution, by Lina Ghotmeh Architecture, focuses on the adaptability of maritime cultures. South Korea’s high-tech, futuristic pavilion reinforces its position as a rising digital powerhouse.In some instances, however, absence speaks just as loudly. In previous editions, countries like North Korea and Syria have boycotted the Expo as a form of political protest. These silent gestures are part of the same strategic vocabulary, where presence, form, and even withdrawal shape the geopolitical stage set by architecture.Save this picture!Sustainability on DisplayAmid the global climate crisis, national pavilions have also become key arenas for environmental diplomacy. Sustainability—once a peripheral concern—is now central to the architectural narrative of Expos. It’s no longer only about meeting green standards, but about crafting a spatial language that embodies ecological responsibility. This shift also challenges the very notion of ephemerality: where temporariness once defined these structures, reuse, intelligent disassembly, and material reintegration now drive their conception.This ecological turn is particularly evident at Expo Osaka 2025. With the theme “Designing Future Society for Our Lives,” the event encourages models of regenerative, cooperative, and resilient living. Sweden’s and Germany’s pavilions are designed for a second life, to be repurposed as schools or community centers. The U.S. pavilion, designed by Trahan Architects, incorporates steel, fabric, and HVAC components repurposed from Tokyo 2020 Olympics structures—materials slated for further reuse across Japan. In this framework, the Expo becomes a laboratory of environmental geopolitics, where sustainability itself is a form of soft power.Save this picture!Technological Spectacle as a National StrategyIn contemporary Universal Exhibitions, technology is no longer displayed as an end in itself but has become a narrative and experiential medium. Immersive installations, sensory interfaces, and AI-driven storytelling transform pavilions into interactive ecosystems, where visitors are both spectators and agents. This shift signals a significant change: it is no longer just about showcasing innovation, but about embedding technology into the dramaturgy of space. Architecture, in this context, ceases to be a static backdrop and merges with experience design, dissolving the boundaries between the built and the digital. Moreover, the way each country orchestrates these elements reveals its ability to envision desirable futures—and to position itself as a protagonist in the global technological transformation.Save this picture!At Expo Osaka 2025, this race for technological affirmation takes clear shape in pavilions such as that of the United Arab Emirates, which offers an interactive journey through environments responsive to human presence, narrative artificial intelligence, and real-time sensors that react to visitors’ actions—demonstrating a sophisticated technical mastery with implications across multiple spheres. In a similar vein, the Uzbekistan Pavilion stands out with an exhibition focused on empowerment, highlighting the country’s openness to innovation and its commitment to preparing for the future.Yet this immersion presents a growing tension: how to balance technological spectacle with architectural integrity. In some cases, architecture risks being overshadowed by its digital overlay, losing spatial coherence. The most compelling pavilions are those that fuse form, function, and innovation into a seamless whole, where technology becomes not an add-on, but an intrinsic architectural language.Save this picture!Intercultural Collaborations: The True LegacyWhile Universal Exhibitions are organized around national representation, they have also emerged as vital platforms for cultural exchange. Increasingly, national pavilions are designed by multicultural teams, resulting in more nuanced, inclusive, and inventive expressions of identity, not as a fixed essence, but as something fluid and co-constructed.Save this picture!At Osaka 2025, this collaborative ethos is exemplified by pavilions such as Switzerland’s, designed by an international team, and Indonesia’s, which brings together local architects and foreign consultants. These collaborations offer more than design efficiency—they signal gestures of quiet diplomacy. In a climate of resurgent nationalism, such exchanges underscore that innovation thrives through openness and dialogue. Each pavilion becomes a space of mutual learning, expanding the very meaning of global belonging.Save this picture!Ultimately, the lasting value of Expos may not lie in reinforcing national brands, but in fostering encounters—shared spaces where ideas, technologies, and cultures converge to respond to urgent global challenges. As architect Manuel Herz, designer of the Swiss Pavilion, puts it: “In a moment of global tension, every possibility for us to physically meet in a shared space and celebrate something that can still be described as a cosmopolitan spirit needs to be valued and utilized.” Amid so many crises, pavilions remind us that architecture is more than shelter or style—it is a vessel for connection, a space for learning, and a rehearsal for futures we must build together.We invite you to check out ArchDaily's comprehensive coverage of the Expo Osaka 2025. Image gallerySee allShow less About this authorCamilla GhisleniAuthor••• Cite: Ghisleni, Camilla. "On Designing National Pavilions: Power and Identity at Universal Exhibitions" [Projetando Pavilhões Nacionais: Poder e Identidade nas Exposições Universais] 30 May 2025. ArchDaily. (Trans. Simões, Diogo) Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1030539/on-designing-national-pavilions-power-and-identity-at-universal-exhibitions&gt ISSN 0719-8884Save世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?是否 You've started following your first account!Did you know?You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream

Crypto criminals can’t hide The single largest cryptocurrency heist in history took place one day in late February, when hackers exploited system vulnerabilities in Bybit, a Dubai-based crypto exchange, siphoning off a whopping $1.5 billion in digital assets within minutes. Bybit’s security team immediately launched an investigation that would eventually involve the FBI and several blockchain intelligence companies. Among those involved from the beginning were the experts at TRM Labs, a San Francisco-based company of around 300 that analyzes the blockchain networks which power cryptocurrency transactions to investigate—and prevent—fraud and financial crimes. “Literally from the first minutes, we were involved,”  says Ari Redbord, the company’s global head of policy, “working with Bybit and law enforcement partners like the FBI to track and trace funds.” The attack was soon attributed to a North Korean state-sponsored hacker organization commonly known as Lazarus Group. Lazarus has been blamed for a series of high-profile cybercrimes in recent years, including the 2014 hack on Sony Pictures Entertainment, the 2016 digital heist from the Bangladeshi central bank and, more recently, billions of dollars in digital currency thefts. TRM was among the first to attribute the Bybit attack after detecting an overlap between the blockchain resources used here and those used in Lazarus’s previous thefts. Since then, the company has harnessed its expertise in tracking crypto to keep law enforcement abreast of where the stolen funds are headed, following them from blockchain to blockchain and through clever concealment mechanisms. “We were very much built for an investigation like this,” Redbord says. Today, TRM’s investigators probe cryptocurrency thefts, ransomware attacks, and phishing scams. They help investigate other crimes that involve digital currencies, from child pornography to drug trafficking. The company’s free, public platform Chainabuse, launched in 2022, helps people report fraud, hacking, blackmail, and other crypto-related crimes. Clients in the cryptocurrency and finance industries harness the company’s software and data about blockchain transactions to identify funds associated with criminal activity and to flag suspicious transactions. Law enforcement agencies around the world enlist TRM’s tools—and sometimes even the company’s own investigators. Demand for such investigators is growing. TRM—which stands for Token Relationship Management—has raised about $150 million in total funding to date, from notable backers that include the venture arms of PayPal, American Express, and Citi, as well as Goldman Sachs. The investment bank led TRM’s most recent, late-stage funding round, which closed in January for an undisclosed amount, according to the research firm PitchBook. Meanwhile, the crypto ecosystem is likely to experience positive growth throughout 2025, according to a recent analysis by PitchBook. So too will crypto crimes: Illicit operations took $40 billion worth of crypto last year, according to Chainalysis, another blockchain security company—far more than the roughly $10 billion in venture capital funding that flowed into the above-board crypto sector in the same span, and more even than crypto’s 2022 VC funding peak of $29.8 billion. Roles like TRM’s will become more urgent if the government continues to abdicate its regulatory duties. Last month, the Trump administration shuttered a Justice Department unit that targeted crypto-related crimes. Yet crypto sits at the nexus of so many of the president’s domestic interests—fentanyl, counterterrorism, border security, and fraud. For TRM and rivals like Chainalysis and Elliptic, all of which have already won millions of dollars in federal contracts, the future is bright. From NFTs to crypto fraud One paradox of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other cryptocurrency systems is that while they’re widely thought to provide anonymity, with users exchanging funds based not on real names and physical addresses, but on so-called digital addresses—unique and lengthy strings of alphanumeric characters that serve as a given account’s sole identifier—the records of those transactions are still public. A common ledger logs every payment, tying each transaction to those that came before, all the way back to the tokens’ minting. And once information becomes known about one transaction and the people or organizations behind the addresses involved, it becomes possible to trace those funds back and forth through time and from address to address. That allows clever observers to follow the money and deduce where funds came from, who other counterparties may be, and which transactions likely involved some of the same parties, like how investigators might piece together who used an anonymous burner phone based on the numbers they called. It’s a limitation to anonymity that Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto alluded to in the groundbreaking paper describing cryptocurrency’s underpinnings. And it’s one that computer scientist Sarah Meiklejohn and colleagues at the University of California San Diego showed to be a reality in a widely cited 2013 paper that demonstrated concretely how Bitcoins could be grouped by likely common owner—and how those owners could sometimes be identified from a database of known addresses. And that database, Meiklejohn and colleagues showed, could be assembled by a determined researcher simply doing ordinary business on the blockchain and recording the addresses used by the various vendors, exchanges, and other parties they transact with. While not the first company to run with Meiklejohn’s ideas on tracking the transfer of cryptocurrencies—rival Chainalysis, for one, launched in 2014—TRM offered the first-ever platform compatible with the Ethereum blockchain, widely used both for its own currency and assets like non-fungible tokens, or NFTs. At the time, “all of these blockchain intelligence companies had built their entire data architecture on the Bitcoin blockchain,” Redbord says, “because Bitcoin was entirely synonymous with cryptocurrency, and vice versa.” TRM began in 2018 as CEO Esteban Castaño and CTO Rahul Raina’s effort to capitalize on NFTs’ trendiness. After demoing an easy-to-use analytics tool they’d built to help understand NFT market movement to a friend with his own blockchain-based startup, Castaño and Raina decided to pivot. Their creation could be its own product with wide appeal—the same blockchains which track NFTs also manage cryptocurrencies—Castaño says that while “nobody had ever gotten excited about any of the other NFT applications we were building,” this was different. Describing their friend and his employees’ reactions, he says, “it was the first time they’d seen on-chain activity visualized in a way they could understand.” Talking to potential customers soon revealed a critical use case beyond basic customer analytics: understanding the flow of funds on the blockchain to avoid unwittingly participating in money laundering. A now-pivoted TRM publicly launched in 2019 with a tool it planned to sell to blockchain businesses looking to comply with anti-money-laundering regulations. But a more proactive use case soon arose that suggested even bigger opportunities. A friend reached out to say he’d fallen victim to a cryptocurrency hack and wanted to know if TRM could help find the missing money. With the company’s tool, “we could see in clear daylight where the money was,” Castaño says. “So we got in touch with the Secret Service, we got in touch with the FBI, and that was the initial pull into that market.” By the time TRM Labs emerged from Y Combinator, in 2019, fighting and preventing fraud and other crime had become its primary focus. ‘They’re threat hunters’ Many TRM senior leaders and investigators honed their expertise over years in law enforcement, working at police agencies across the world. Redbord, the global policy head, served for more than a decade as a U.S. federal prosecutor and spent two years working on money laundering and national security at the Treasury Department before joining the company. Chris Janczewski, head of global investigations, previously served as a special agent at IRS Criminal Investigations, where he was instrumental in recovering cryptocurrency stolen in the infamous 2016 hack on the Bitfinex exchange; in the time between theft and recovery, the digital coins’ value had ballooned to $3.6 billion, making it the largest federal government seizure in history. The laptop Janczewski used in the investigation is now in the Smithsonian’s permanent collection. “They’re threat hunters,” Redbord says of TRM’s investigators. “Our terror financing expert is out there communicating on password-protected Telegram channels with mujahideen, who will send him a crypto address. He’ll take that address and label it terror financing, and then we use AI and machine learning to build on that attribution.” With investigators around the globe, the company is able to track illicit funds around the clock. “Things like Bybit, you can’t have just one investigator doing that,” says TRM senior investigator Jonno Newman. Being based in Australia, in a time zone close to that of North Korea, made it easy for Newman to help out in the early days of the still-ongoing Bybit investigation. It also helped that he had previously led TRM’s investigation into an earlier hack attributed to North Korea, in 2023, where more than $100 million in cryptocurrency was reported stolen from thousands of blockchain addresses on the digital coin storage tool Atomic Wallet. Then, Newman says, the hackers began obfuscating the stolen funds’ origins and ultimate destination, shuffling their plunder between different virtual addresses and cryptocurrencies. They relied on so-called mixers, which hold and combine coins from multiple sources before disbursing them to new addresses, and cross-chain bridges, which let users convert funds from one cryptocurrency to another. Hackers would later use a similar playbook in moving the Bybit funds. As a result of TRM’s automated fund tracker across bridges, a service it has offered since 2022—an industry first, CEO Castaño says—investigators were able to closely monitor where the Atomic Wallet funds headed, tipping off law enforcement as needed about opportunities to freeze or seize them. “It was early mornings and late nights trying to keep up with the laundering process.” says Newman of the investigation. The former head of South Australia Police’s cybercrime training and prevention unit and author of a recent children’s book about the crypto world, he says “it becomes this almost cat-and-mouse game about where they are going to go next.” TRM’s products at least make the game playable. “When you’re following the money, it used to be that you would reach a dead end when the money went to a different blockchain,” Castaño says. “But with TRM, tracing across blockchains is seamless.” Cautious optimism for blockchain security Not everyone believes TRM’s tech can fully deliver on its promise, at least from a legal perspective. J.W. Verret, an associate professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School who has testified as an expert witness in crypto-related matters, cautions that most testimony based on blockchain forensics tools should be viewed as potentially fallible, “They are useful for developing leads at the start of an investigation,” he says, but can be overly relied on like “the long history of junk forensic science—handwriting analysis, bitemark analysis, stuff that’s all kind of later proven to be unreliable.” For its part, Verret says, TRM Labs offers tools that are less prone than some of its competitors to false positives because the company is more careful about how it establishes associations between blockchain addresses and criminal activity. Meanwhile, last September, TRM announced the creation of the T3 Financial Crime Unit, a partnership with the organizations behind the Tron blockchain and Tether stablecoins to combat the use of those technologies for money laundering. By January, TRM said the partnership had helped freeze more than $100 million in USDT—Tether’s stablecoin pegged in value to the U.S. dollar—found to be tied to criminal activity. That figure has since more than doubled, with the total now including nearly $9 million linked to the massive Bybit heist. “In the seven months since launch, T3 has worked with law enforcement to freeze over $200 million linked to illicit activity ranging from terror financing to money laundering to fraud,” Castaño says. “And when you think about how much crime is financially motivated, adding a $200 million expense to criminals’ balance sheet is a huge win for deterring crime.” But even as TRM jockeys for pole position in a competitive industry, cybercriminals continue to develop new methods of stealing and hiding funds through complex blockchain machinations, often by taking advantage of crypto efficiency gains that make it easier to move more money faster. That will only continue as criminals deploy AI to automate scams and potentially even money laundering—and investigators use new AI and machine learning techniques, along with ever-growing blockchain datasets, to track them more efficiently and coordinate with law enforcement to stop them and seize their funds. And since blockchain ledgers last forever, crypto criminals are risking more than perhaps they realize, according to Castaño. “You’re betting not only that TRM and law enforcement won’t be able to identify your illicit activity today, but that we won’t be able to do it in the future,” he says. “Because the record is permanent.” And that’s the most powerful advantage investigators possess.

Honey Don’t! opens in theaters August 22. This review is based on a screening at the 2025 Cannes Film Festival.Ethan Coen’s desert detective comedy Honey Don’t! is a step down from what was already a disappointing departure. When older Coen brother Joel branched out from the duo’s acclaimed collaborations, it led to Shakespearean grandeur. There’s no shame in going a more playful route, as the younger Coen and co-writer Tricia Cooke did with Honey Don’t! and its predecessor, Drive-Away Dolls. But their second film in their planned “lesbian B-movie trilogy” is flimsy and insubstantial. It reads like a brisk, star-studded romp on paper: The plot concerns small-town California private eye Honey O'Donahue (Margaret Qualley), a consummate professional summoned to investigate the suspicious roadside death of a woman who had called her not 24 hours prior. Coen and Cooke zoom out to give us the lay of the land before agonizingly connecting each dot, between the deceased’s sexually exploitative church leader, Reverend Drew Devlin (Chris Evans), Honey’s fractured family life, and her advances towards alluring policewoman MG Falcone (Aubrey Plaza).Each of these subplots has its own subplots that drag Honey Don’t! further away from its mystery, including Reverend Drew’s involvement in international drug trade and Honey’s teenage niece Corrine (Talia Ryder) confiding in her about an abusive relationship. Honey occasionally follows up on leads, moving languidly between several matter-of-fact exchanges with no real emotional trajectory. The dialogue is delivered so flatly that you might struggle to differentiate the dramatic and comedic material in any given scene. Take, for instance, Honey’s many conversations with her doting, capable assistant Spider (Gabby Beans), which feel like they’re supposed to be banter between two quick-witted women, but result in awkward dead air for extended periods. The movie’s parched, dusty setting extends infinitely in establishing shots, but the characters’ interactions feel like that, too.What’s more, none of Honey’s sleuthing ever turns up useful answers. Notable discoveries and plot turns usually fall in her lap, and the story’s disparate threads end up being tied together through sheer coincidence. This might be intentional: Coen and Cooke are more concerned with the theme of feminine trauma and anger binding their storylines. However, it results in a plot-heavy film that continuously meanders on its way toward building on (or satisfying) its intrigue. There’s no single noir tradition that dictates exactly how a modern successor should operate; some of these stories focus on the mystery, while others use their underworld escapades as vehicles for charismatic characters – but that’s the main ingredient Honey Don’t! lacks. Qualley, through no fault of her own, is stuck pounding the pavement with little more than a mild scowl on her face, while Evans strains to embody a foul-mouthed douchebag with no further dimensions, much as he did in The Gray Man. The Biggest Movies Coming in 2025If Honey Don’t! has one redeeming performance, it’s that of Charlie Day as local detective Marty Metakawich. It’s a minor role made hilarious in a retrograde, tongue-in-cheek manner, since Marty keeps desperately asking Honey out on dates, no matter how many times she clarifies her sexual orientation. Unfortunately, like much of the supporting cast, Day’s role is truncated, and written first and foremost with its function in mind. His handful of scenes are all about nudging Honey’s investigation in a different direction, even though this seldom leads to interesting developments.Honey Don’t! lacks both visual pizzazz and the kind Coen-esque edge that made the brothers’ previous capers shine. Their zaniest works, like The Big Lebowski and Raising Arizona, let their sprawling ensembles loose in a fun-house-mirror reflection of reality. But this one feels far too plodding to draw your attention. It also reads too overtly like the product of a hasty first draft influenced by the window dressing of other, better noirs – the PIs, the lurid crimes, the femmes fatale – without the time or effort to examine what drew audiences to those movies in the first place.Honey Don’t! is a step down from what was already a disappointing departure.“There’s no better summary of the difference between what Honey Don’t! promises and what it delivers than the mood of the crowd at its Cannes premiere. As the logos for the festival and studio came up on screen, they were met with the kind of deafening roars typically reserved for midnight cult movies. But once Honey Don’t! was underway, the excitement slowly dissipated. Punchlines were met with scattered chuckles, and the movie’s violent bloodshed – part-cartoonish, part-viscerally upsetting – yielded befuddlement. You can’t judge a movie by an audience’s reaction, but in this case, it’s at least instructive.

Last month, Donald Trump pushed the boundaries of government and financial ethics by announcing a contest: whoever bought and held the highest amount of the $TRUMP meme coin for an entire month would win an invite to a private dinner with the President. That dinner took place on Thursday at the Trump National Golf Course in Virginia, with attendees reportedly dropping nearly $394 million on $TRUMP in order to win the privilege. According to an analysis by The Guardian of the winners’ wallets, over half of them lost money participating in this contest. But that’s only if you’re analyzing the wallets visible on the contest site’s leaderboard. The real money was being made elsewhere.“Bet you 10 percent of dinner participants are doing this”I interviewed an enthusiastic crypto trader who figured out how to win the contest without losing any money: buy enough $TRUMP to get onto the leaderboard — and then in a separate wallet on a separate exchange, buy $TRUMP perpetual futures that would be profitable if (or as he saw it, when) the value of $TRUMP dropped. Yes, he did The Big Short, except with Donald Trump’s meme coin. “Bet you 10 percent of dinner participants are doing this,” he told me before the contest ended. “Everyone knows $TRUMP price will fall inevitably as more supply comes online in the future and gets dumped on retail.” When I spoke to him again after the dinner, he told me that “the majority of people I spoke with, particularly the crypto traders and folks who are very close to the crypto ecosystem, are like, ‘Yeah, I dumped this. I already sold the coin.’” “A lot of people put on the same hedge trade as I did, because they didn’t wanna take risk on the coin,” he added.I can’t reveal his name, his position on the leaderboard, how much he spent, or the dates of specific trades he made. I can say that he did this for shits and giggles. But as he told me, when there’s such a clear and obvious set of financial incentives behind the $TRUMP dinner contest, it’s worth making the gamble.Did it pay off? “Um, I basically was flat,” he said. “I originally wanted to make some money, but I think the shorting I did — it was okay?” He did, however, get a free dinner out of it. The following interview has been edited for clarity.Let’s just start from the beginning. What made you want to enter this? I think meme coins have a lot of staying power because humans just want things to gamble on. What was fascinating when the Trump token launched in January right before the inauguration, was that it effectively was like a black hole that sucked money away from all these other tokens in the ecosystem. That’s why the Trump token ran up to some preposterous number immediately after it was dropped. When I saw this competition launch, it was clear that there was going to be a tremendous amount of grift in this space, and the presidential family was only interested in self-enrichment and all that. 
It was clear that there was going to be a tremendous amount of grift in this spaceBut putting that aside, I’ve just been interested in the Trump token and I think I’ve just been structurally bearish, because the Trump token has a bunch of supply that’s currently controlled by, effectively, the Trump family and the associates. It’s only a matter of time before the supply unlocks. When that supply unlocks, in the crypto community, people call this dumping: they’ll just dump it onto retail and that’s how they get their exit liquidity. So that’s one way the Trump family can make money. The other way is obviously whenever there’s trades that happen, the trading fees also accrue to the family. I know that the Trump token is going to go down. If you put a gun into my head and ask, what will the price be two years from now? It’s going to be much lower than where it is today. When this contest launched, I was like, okay, this is clearly a way for the affiliates and the Trump family to find a way to drive up the price temporarily. And having been in this space for a while, it’s clear that these events only drive the price up for a period of time and then people lose interest. Unless you feed them something else, it’s going to drop. Everyone expects the token to dumpThey launched the contest right around when the first tranche of Trump tokens were going to unlock, which was supposed to be 90 days after the launch of the token back in January. And so this whole contest was kind of timed at an apt moment where it’s like, okay, supply’s going to unlock. Everyone expects the token to dump. But then, on Twitter, they agreed to delay the unlock for another 90 days. But once the unlock happens and they start dumping, that’s when the price is going to drop a lot. 
So this contest was interesting. I was like, okay, well, I feel like I can put on a trade here where I’m not taking on any real risk and I think it’ll be cool to meet random people at this dinner and see who else is interested. It seems like there are a lot of folks from out of the country who are flying in to attend the dinner, and a lot of crypto whales. There’s one that I follow, he’s mentioned in his Telegram that he’s one of the big holders. He’s talked these last few days about how he’s preparing for this dinner. So talk me through how you generated the funds to buy the Trump coin. Did you use your own personal funds?I use my personal funds. All the crypto trading I do is with my personal funds. Some of the trading I do is on Coinbase through a centralized exchange. And the rest of the trading I do is on chain through self-custody wallets. When this opportunity came up, the only way you can actually be in a position to be in the top 220 is if you own $TRUMP tokens in a self-custody wallet. Some of the exchanges, including Coinbase, allow you to buy the $TRUMP token, but that would not count towards this contest. What I did was I moved stablecoins like USDC to my Solana wallet, and then I used a decentralized exchange to buy the $TRUMP token. The way the contest works is you have to register your wallet before you are counted towards the ranking system. And unfortunately, I did that like a couple days late, so I had to size up a little bit more to ensure that I could catch up to the people who had registered a couple days prior. But that’s a nuance. So explain the process of shorting $TRUMP coin on a secondary market. Like how does one do that? I am a dumb person who only understands shorting markets through watching The Big Short. Basically when you short, you’re hoping that the price goes down, right? And the mechanism of shorting here is slightly different than shorting stocks, but we don’t need to go into the specifics here. The way to short [crypto] is, you can do it in two ways. One is through a centralized exchange that offers, effectively, shorting services. And what I mean here by shorting services is, there is a “perpetual future” that is offered at these exchanges. When I talk about exchanges that offer this, it’s mostly going to be like Binance or Bybits and some of the bigger exchanges outside of the US. Coinbase is very far behind when it comes to offering derivative products that goes above and beyond just buying the token. I couldn’t do it through Coinbase, and I can’t short through an exchange like Binance, because there’s a lot of restrictions around who can actually use Binance. I’m in the US and Binance has very strict VPN rules. I can’t just open a Binance account and short. The only real way for me was to short on a decentralized exchangeSo the only real way for me was to short on a decentralized exchange, which has actually become really popular in the last year or so. It’s like the same concept as shorting on Binance, but you can do it on chain. I use a service called Hyper Liquid, which is a very popular decentralized exchange. And on this exchange, they offer derivative products that basically track the movement of different tokens. And so they offer, effectively, $TRUMP perpetual futures, and you can effectively initiate a short position through that. I’m happy to go into the details if you want, but that’s like the high level. Yeah, yes, please please tell me these details. So that is basically how to set up the short position. Conceptually, there’s a few things to keep in mind. First thing is: because I’m shorting in a separate wallet that’s completely detached from $TRUMP, 
I have to put up additional capital in another wallet to do this. It’s not like I can just use my $TRUMP tokens as collateral and use the same pool of money to short. And the way shorting works and the way perpetual futures work in general is you put up a certain margin. So let’s keep it simple: say I put up $100k in margin and I choose to short the $TRUMP token. Now, if $TRUMP goes up in price, then I’m hurting, because I’m betting on the token falling. If the $TRUMP token doubles in price, well, then I will have lost a hundred thousand dollars in which case, my margin gets wiped out and this [futures] contract will have to be closed because I’ve lost all my money. If the token goes down in price, that’s when I profit — as long as I close out the position in the green. So you basically are juggling two wallets. One is the wallet in which you’re holding all this $TRUMP coin. 
The other one is like, how would you describe it? Is that the money that you’re generating in order to pay for participating in the contest? The most important wallet here is the Solana wallet with the $TRUMP tokens, because that’s what’s being used by the contest organizers to determine who makes the top 220. But as I mentioned earlier, I am structurally bearish on the $TRUMP token and I wouldn’t want to go for dinner and like, see my money go down when the $TRUMP token goes down in price. I decided I wanted to basically put on a hedge, where, using the other wallet and the short position, I’m basically agnostic to any sort of price movement. That’s the reason why I set up the other wallet. I could have taken on the price risk, but that’s pretty risky, because typically what happens with these events is that as we get close to the end of the contest date, people start dumping the $TRUMP tokens. The value of the $TRUMP token will have gone down — let’s say it went down to 90,000 — it would be offset by the short wallet, which would be like 110,000. And then they add up to 200,000, which is how much I hypothetically put in from the start. 
Did you make money off of this?Um, I basically was flat. I originally wanted to make some money, but I think the shorting I did — it was okay? I basically just broke even on this entire tradeLet me take a step back.
So initially I shorted the same amount as the token. But then as the time went on, as we got close to the contest end date, I decided to increase the size of the short position, because I thought that based on the thesis I had, people are going to start selling because there’s nothing to look forward to. And so I increased that size. But it just so happened that towards the end of the contest was also when the crypto markets started ripping after May 8th. So net-net, I think I basically just broke even on this entire trade.Define the crypto markets “ripping.”May 8th was basically the Thursday right before that weekend when the US representatives were going to meet the Chinese representatives in Switzerland [for tariff negotiations]. That day was also when the UK deal announcement was made. And so the market basically took that as a bullish sign, and then that got parlayed into the positive euphoria of the US-China negotiations. Everything started going up. Okay. So every market just started getting bullish. 
Yeah, all the tokens ran up a lot. If you look at the token price, $TRUMP coin on May 7th was roughly 11 bucks, and then on May 9th it was like 14 bucks. Over time that token has come down in price. But yeah, it ran up 40 percent in the span of like two days.What was the strategy going into the end game? 
Because it sounds like it was super volatile around the end and that’s why you needed to increase your short position. I thought that towards the end, I could opportunistically make some profits by shorting more than I owned, if that makes sense.[The previous week, the contest organizers announced a new incentive for winners to not sell the coin before the dinner: a rare “TRUMP DIAMOND HANDS” NFT.]What is the point of encouraging people to go diamond hands by offering this NFT? So I think this goes back to the incentives of Trump’s affiliates, right? They have a lot of supply that they own. Last I looked, they own eighty percent of the supply. But all of that, as with many other [crypto] projects, gets locked up and only gets released over time, so that you don’t have all this supply pressure on day one. Because then no one wants to buy the token. The whole point of the NFT and this subsequent rewards program that they’ve talked about, but haven’t given the details for, is to incentivize people to hold the token longer. The longer people hold the token, then the price arguably would not fall as much. 
The only way to keep the price high is if you introduce all these little games to keep retail engagedThe eventual setup, I’m sure, whether that’s in three months or in a year or two, is that the affiliates will then have their supply unlock, and they will want to sell. They obviously want to sell at a higher price. And the only way to keep the price high is if you introduce all these little games to keep retail engaged and interested in holding tokens. How do you get the NFT now? Do you have to rebuy all the coin?Yeah, my understanding based on that tweet they sent is, they basically look at your wallet holdings on the day of the dinner and compare that to your wallet holdings on the last day of the contest. And so if those match or if you own more, then they’ll give you an NFT. I was kind of dumb. What I should have done was, right before the 1:30PM cut off, I should have sold like, 90 percent of my tokens. In this way, on the dinner day, I would only have to buy 10 percent of what I bought previously, and I think I would qualify for this NFT. 
Wow. Have people done that? Well, the NFT hasn’t been dropped yet.
I don’t know the specifics. There are definitely people who sold before the end of the deadline, and that’s clear from even looking at that leaderboard page, right? There’s one column with current holdings and a bunch were zeroed out, but they are still in the top 220 because it’s a time-weighted calculation.Why did they do time-weighted calculations rather than like, just a cumulative amount of money you held at the end? I think this goes back to solving not only how much do you hold, but how long do you hold it for, and rewarding people differently. So if you held $60 over the entire stretch of the contest, you should be rewarded more than someone who held like $200 for one day on the last day. I think the time-weighted calculation effectively is trying to normalize for that. They also gave me a call the same day, which I thought was spam for a secondHow have the organizers been in their interactions with you for the contest and for the dinner and everything?They emailed me the day of, as soon as the
contest ended, saying that I had made it into the top 220. And they also gave me a call the same day, which I thought was spam for a second. But when the voicemail thing came up, I’m like, oh, this is actually a real thing. So I picked up the phone and then they just confirmed that I got the email and that I would have to do a KYC [Know Your Customer check, part of anti-money laundering regulatory compliance for banks, crypto exchanges, and other entities] in order to qualify for the dinner. Please give us your data, references, whatever. 
Yeah, nothing that sophisticated. They outsourced it to another party and I just provided my name, my nationality, where I live. No social security number or anything like that. Plus my birthday. and I think they just ran like an external check to make sure that I wasn’t a criminal or anything like that. I feel like it was pretty light vettingHow thoroughly do you think they’re been vetting you, how professional has the process been? I feel like it was pretty light vetting. I talked to someone about, let’s say, getting into the White House and it’s a lot more strict in terms of, you have to show your passport and all that. And here, you don’t really have to do that. You just have to show your ID at the door. At least that’s what they said. And as long as your ID matches the information you gave, you’re fine. So I don’t think the security is that strict, per se, but it’s good enough, I guess. Have you participated in any contests like this or heard of anything similar? No, I have not.That’s wild. This is rather innovative if one thinks about it in a “divorced from most governmental ethics” manner. Did you read about how it’s possible that Trump just doesn’t show up to this?I did see something that basically said, yeah, based on the terms and conditions, the president does not have to be there, I think. Honestly, I think a lot of people aren’t really there to see Trump. I could be totally wrong, but I get the sense from, let’s say, like looking at the crypto whales’ Telegram, that [they’re] more interested in just meeting other crypto folks so that [they] can network. If Justin Sun is there, that’s pretty good, right? Like being able to talk to him and maybe, you know, get his contact information and all that. RelatedThe many escapes of Justin SunI think for me and probably other people, we’re more interested in seeing if there’s any other interesting news that comes out of this dinner. I will have my wallet ready, and if some great news gets dropped at the dinner, that could potentially positively influence the $TRUMP token price or any other token price, I will buy it on the spot and try to profit. This is something that other attendees are thinking about doing too?I can’t say with certainty, but based on that one Telegram guy, it seemed like it was implied. Like, if they announced a rewards program for a Trump thing – say, the NFT will be used for this, and then the rewards will give you some really impressive thing in three months, that could probably move the price. Then I would take on a short-term trade literally at the dinner table. That’s why after the $TRUMP token dropped right before inauguration, I finally decided to download Truth SocialThat’s a first mover advantage right there.In crypto, half of it is just being a first mover advantage. That’s why after the $TRUMP token dropped right before inauguration, I finally decided to download Truth Social. I only follow Trump. He’s the only guy I follow and I have notifications on, which actually served me well. Was it April 9th when he sent out that tweet saying that tariffs are now delayed for 90 days? That was first out on Truth Social and I saw that immediately, and I’m like, oh, time to trade my equities, because I will be first to the news. So he’s dropped some nuggets for sure on his account. So the dinner itself is a good money making opportunity?Possibly. It’s hard to say, but in the event that it does, there is some information that gets dropped, that could be actionable.Is there anything you’re particularly proud of about the process of executing this short?I don’t know if there’s anything I’d really brag about or be like, super proud of.
I think this hedge trade, for someone who’s pretty involved in crypto, would be fairly obvious. Net-net, I think I broke even because I did basically go a bit big around my short towards the end of the contest. So that made up for some of the fees I had to pay and whatnot. I’m pretty happy.
I feel like I didn’t take on any risk and I’m able to go to this dinner. That’s probably a win in my books. One thing is, if I had real capital, I would have tried to make the top 25. That requires a lot of money, which I don’t have. I don’t really care about seeing Trump at all. I care more about seeing who else is there, of the top 25I think it’s like a couple million.I think you’d have to have 200,000 tokens, so yeah, roughly like two, three million USD. 
And if you want to not take on the risk of the token price moving, you’d want to take a short position of roughly the same size. It would be like a four or five million dollar capital outlay to make it happen. But the benefit of being in the top 25 is you get to meet Trump, and also get to be in a more intimate networking session, which I would actually enjoy being at. I don’t really care about seeing Trump at all. I care more about seeing who else is there, of the top 25. What was the minimum size of the wallet that made 220, do you know? It’s hard to say because what someone could have done is they could have bought a lot initially, and then halfway through they sold most of them, because they were pretty confident that they would make the top 220, because it’s time weighted. [Calculating out loud omitted.] I guess only fifty thousand [if you held the total amount from day one through the end].Honestly, that’s not a lot. It’s not. 
Realistically that number is probably higher. The thing is, this is not like a $50,000 disbursement where you’re never seeing that money again. After the dinner, you could choose to sell your token. Now, maybe the price will have moved from when you first bought it to when you sold it, but the actual loss, or potentially profit, is not obvious.Oh, that makes this some really interesting campaign finance implications. I guess the one thing I’ll say is, the Trump team probably won’t sell for a couple months at very least. And so whatever happens between now and then theoretically doesn’t really impact the team, right? Because if they had not launched this dinner contest and they did nothing, and then right before the unlock happens, they launch another campaign or they do something weird like this, then that will immediately pump up the price because crypto is so reflexive. And they can then sell into the strength of the price movement, theoretically. But here, I think what they want to do is actually show that this $TRUMP token has utility, and that it’s actually useful rather than just being a meme coin. And this is one way of making the $TRUMP token worth holding, because it’s not just a meme. If you buy it, you can go to dinner, you can earn points. You can get an NFT. It’s basically the playbook that a lot of folks will potentially run if they’re launching a meme coin with utility value. Oh, utility value is definitely a good way of saying it. Yeah, utility value in the sense that yeah, you can go to dinner, you can get an NFT, you can earn points that will get you something in the future. But yeah, this is a little bit different from memes like Pepe or Doge or Shiba Inu. Those have zero utility values. They’re literally just a meme. You can’t go to a dinner if you own a lot of it. It’s just a meme. The morning after the dinner:How are you? How was your crazy night out?It was good. And yeah, there was a sponsor who wanted to do an afterparty afterwards. They basically rented out the rooftop bar on top of the Marriott. I stayed out until 1 AM. But it was good. The actual event was quite interesting. The protests outside the dinner obviously were just kind of off-putting. I was like, damn, should I really walk into this thing?Activists staged an “America Is Not For Sale” protest while President Trump hosted the winners of his meme coin contest at the Trump National golf club. Getty ImagesI’ve actually never been to the Trump National. How is it as a venue? It’s on the Potomac River. When you are in the club you can see the really nice golf course and then the river is right there. The room was long and the podium was right up in the front and the tables were almost set up in a way where there were many rows of tables, but not that many columns, if it makes sense.I didn’t recognize this until maybe like, after an hour in, but people started taking seats because they wanted to be closer to the podium. And eventually, I’m like, damn, I gotta get a seat. But all that didn’t end up mattering because when Trump walked in, basically like a celebrity, everyone rushed up to the front and pulled out their phones and started recording. Who did you meet that was interesting or fun?Justin Sun was there, it was just that everyone wanted to talk to him. I guess the only thing I could do was just say hi to him. There were a bunch of international folks. A few folks were from Poland, who came all the way here from Portugal, where they now live. There was a lot of Asian people there. I met some folks from South Korea. Some guys from France, Italy. There was this hedge fund manager from Croatia who came just to check this out. Some guy from Sweden.There were also some market-making firms, like really big in crypto, like Wintermute. And then another guy who works at Kronos Research. The organizers also brought some folks, like the founder of the Moonshot app. I guess Moonshot had partnered with folks with the $TRUMP launch back in January. He said he didn’t buy any tokens because none of the employees are allowed to trade [the meme coins on their own platform, because it would be a conflict of interest], and so he was just invited by the organizers.[According to Crunchbase, Moonshot, an app that enables users to purchase meme coins, was acquired by Jupiter, a Solana trading platform. No named individuals appear to be publicly associated with either enterprise, although Jupiter’s founder is apparently someone going by the name “Meow.” The guest interviewed by The Verge did not recognize Meow from photos. – Ed.]There were a bunch of folks in the crypto ecosystem, now that I think about it, who actually had effectively insider knowledge that Trump was gonna launch a coin. They didn’t know exactly what that was gonna be, but they knew it was coming and it was gonna be a real coin.
For the first hour or two [after the announcement], people were wondering if Trump’s account got hacked. I just thought that was interesting, that it was effectively prewired to a lot of folks. Ah, so like: if those people knew, then they had that first mover advantage for that full hour – that it was a legitimate coin?Yeah, the public didn’t know whether it was an intentional drop or if some hackers hacked the Twitter account. I ended up meeting one of the top winners, and he was telling me how he hedged his tradeDid you find any really diehard MAGA people there?I’m sure that there were a couple of folks.
I just never got a chance to speak with someone who’s like, super pro-Trump. I’d say the majority of people I spoke with, particularly the crypto traders and folks who are very close to the crypto ecosystem are like, yeah, I dumped this. I already sold the coin. A lot of people put on the same hedge trade as I did, because they didn’t wanna take risk on the coin. I ended up meeting one of the top winners, and he was telling me how he hedged his trade. So effectively, he was taking on no price risk. Now the only thing is when you short these tokens, there’s a funding cost, but because he had such a big position the funding was actually pretty significant. 
So he said he paid, I don’t know, like $50,000 in funding costs, but to him it was still worth it, especially since he got a watch that’s supposedly worth $100,000 if you’re in the top four. Wait, they gave out watches?
Yeah. When Justin went up and gave the speech, after that, he got the watch.Honestly $50,000 to meet the president and get a watch that’s twice that amount, is a pretty good deal. Yeah. I had no idea yet that there’s a TrumpWatches.com. I think the host referenced this — like, if you want a watch, just go on the website. I was like, this is real? And then I actually went on the website and it turned out it is. Swiss-made chrono movement – oh my God, there are so many watches. Do you see that one on the very front page? They gave out two of those as prizes for raffle winners. Oh, that’s only $500, man.Yeah, I know, right?Lame. I guess you can’t yet buy the $100,000 watch on this website. They were specially designed and they only were able to have two ready for the event, and the other two will get shipped to the winners. 
[The website currently lists the “Crypto President Tourbillon Watch” for pre-order, claiming that “only 10” have been made. – Ed.]A commemorative hat.Did people post photos or selfies, or was there a sense of discretion?There were obviously crypto traders who didn’t wanna give their real names, and some folks who were trying to be camera shy and avoid the limelight, but I feel like for the most part, people were taking selfies and they were just having a good time. And there were photographers walking around taking photos of everyone. And then at the end, this was after Trump and after all the gifts were given out, the host was like, everyone put on your hat that you got — it’s in my bag,
it’s a Trump meme dinner hat — let’s all put it on and take a photo and then hashtag “trumpmemedinner” or whatever.[The White House is refusing to release the guest list with names of attendees. The New York Times has since said that it has acquired a copy of that list.Although photos of the gifted hats have circulated on social media, no related hashtag seems to have taken off. – Ed.] Oh, okay, so they actually encouraged you to put it on the Internet. 
I guess the host took the photo and it was like a selfie or something. The other funny moment was during the Trump speech. For the most part, it was just him talking about his campaign, and about how he beat Biden, and blah, blah, blah, how we were in a terrible place with crypto before he got elected and now we’re in a great place. That sounds exactly like a thing Trump would say. That was pretty accurate. At one point, the microphone made a cracking sound and then he was like, whoops, my ear. and he made a joke referencing the assassination attempt. A poster promoting the afterparty.How did you figure out about the afterparty? Was it the official afterparty? 
A lot of folks were saying there was gonna be some afterparty exclusive to VIPs, like the top 25 holders. There were a few folks who were trying to get into this party, but then it turns out it was actually not that exclusive. This MemeCore group, the number two holder, they rented out space at the rooftop of this Marriott and effectively invited everyone. So when you were leaving the venue, they had a couple buses that would come every 10 minutes and they were like, yeah, feel free to take this bus and we’ll take you to the after-party. A lot of people ended up going. 
[On TikTok, an attendee wearing a giant mask of what appears to be the MemeCore mascot, was accused of covering his face “to hide their identities” at “Trump’s crypto bribery event.” – Ed.] How was the afterparty? Was it well funded? They had an open bar, free drinks. It was fine, nothing like that noteworthy.
See More:

What if there were a battery that could release energy while trapping carbon dioxide? This isn’t science fiction; it’s the promise of lithium-carbon dioxide (Li-CO₂) batteries, which are currently a hot research topic. Li-CO₂ batteries could be a two-in-one solution to the current problems of storing renewable energy and taking carbon emissions out of the air. They absorb carbon dioxide and convert it into a white powder called lithium carbonate while discharging energy. These batteries could have profound implications for cutting emissions from vehicles and industry—and might even enable long-duration missions on Mars, where the atmosphere is 95% CO₂. To make these batteries commercially viable, researchers have mainly been wrestling with problems related to recharging them. Now, our team at the University of Surrey has come up with a promising way forward. So how close are these “CO₂-breathing” batteries to becoming a practical reality? Like many great scientific breakthroughs, Li-CO₂ batteries were a happy accident. Slightly over a decade ago, a U.S.-French team of researchers were trying to address problems with lithium air batteries, another frontier energy-storage technology. Whereas today’s lithium-ion batteries generate power by moving and storing lithium ions within electrodes, lithium air batteries work by creating a chemical reaction between lithium and oxygen. The problem has been the “air” part, since even the tiny (0.04%) volume of CO₂ that’s found in air is enough to disrupt this careful chemistry, producing unwanted lithium carbonate (Li₂CO₃). As many battery scientists will tell you, the presence of Li₂CO₃ can also be a real pain in regular lithium-ion batteries, causing unhelpful side reactions and electrical resistance. Nonetheless the scientists noticed something interesting about this CO₂ contamination: It improved the battery’s amount of charge. From this point on, work began on intentionally adding CO₂ gas to batteries to take advantage of this, and the lithium-CO₂ battery was born. How it works Their great potential relates to the chemical reaction at the positive side of the battery, where small holes are cut in the casing to allow CO₂ gas in. There it dissolves in the liquid electrolyte (which allows the charge to move between the two electrodes) and reacts with lithium that has already been dissolved there. During this reaction, it’s believed that four electrons are exchanged between lithium ions and carbon dioxide. This electron transfer determines the theoretical charge that can be stored in the battery. In a normal lithium-ion battery, the positive electrode exchanges just one electron per reaction. (In lithium air batteries, it’s two to four electrons.) The greater exchange of electrons in the lithium-carbon dioxide battery, combined with the high voltage of the reaction, explains their potential to greatly outperform today’s lithium-ion batteries. However, the technology has a few issues. The batteries don’t last very long. Commercial lithium-ion packs routinely survive 1,000 to 10,000 charging cycles; most LiCO₂ prototypes fade after fewer than 100. They’re also difficult to recharge. This requires breaking down the lithium carbonate to release lithium and CO₂, which can be energy intensive. This energy requirement is a little like a hill that must be cycled up before the reaction can coast, and is known as overpotential. You can reduce this requirement by printing the right catalyst material on the porous positive electrode. Yet these catalysts are typically expensive and rare noble metals, such as ruthenium and platinum, making for a significant barrier to commercial viability. Our team has found an alternative catalyst, caesium phosphomolybdate, which is far cheaper and easy to manufacture at room temperature. This material made the batteries stable for 107 cycles, while also storing 2.5 times as much charge as a lithium ion. And we significantly reduced the energy cost involved in breaking down lithium carbonate, for an overpotential of 0.67 volts, which is only about double what would be necessary in a commercial product. Our research team is now working to further reduce the cost of this technology by developing a catalyst that replaces caesium, since it’s the phosphomolybdate that is key. This could make the system more economically viable and scalable for widespread deployment. We also plan to study how the battery charges and discharges in real time. This will provide a clearer understanding of the internal mechanisms at work, helping to optimize performance and durability. A major focus of upcoming tests will be to evaluate how the battery performs under different CO₂ pressures. So far, the system has only been tested under idealized conditions (1 bar). If it can work at 0.1 bar of pressure, it will be feasible for car exhausts and gas boiler flues, meaning you could capture CO₂ while you drive or heat your home. Demonstrating that this works will be an important confirmation of commercial viability, albeit we would expect the battery’s charge capacity to reduce at this pressure. By our rough calculations, 1kg of catalyst could absorb around 18.5kg of CO₂. Since a car driving 100 miles emits around 18kg to 20kg of CO₂, that means such a battery could potentially offset a day’s drive. If the batteries work at 0.006 bar, the pressure on the Martian atmosphere, they could power anything from an exploration rover to a colony. At 0.0004 bar, Earth’s ambient air pressure, they could capture CO₂ from our atmosphere and store power anywhere. In all cases, the key question will be how it affects the battery’s charge capacity. Meanwhile, to improve the battery’s number of recharge cycles, we need to address the fact that the electrolyte dries out. We’re currently investigating solutions, which probably involve developing casings that only CO₂ can move into. As for reducing the energy required for the catalyst to work, it’s likely to require optimizing the battery’s geometry to maximize the reaction rate—and to introduce a flow of CO₂, comparable to how fuel cells work (typically by feeding in hydrogen and oxygen). If this continued work can push the battery’s cycle life above 1,000 cycles, cut overpotential below 0.3 V, and replace scarce elements entirely, commercial Li-CO₂ packs could become reality. Our experiments will determine just how versatile and far-reaching the battery’s applications might be, from carbon capture on Earth to powering missions on Mars. Daniel Commandeur is a Surrey Future Fellow at the School of Chemistry & Chemical Engineering at the University of Surrey. Mahsa Masoudi is a PhD researcher of chemical engineering at the University of Surrey. Siddharth Gadkari is a lecturer in chemical process engineering at the University of Surrey. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We made it, everybody. We’ve reached the end of HBO’s The Last of Us. Wait, sorry, I’m getting word in my earpiece that…we’re only halfway done with it because this show’s going for four seasons. At this point, I’m mostly feeling deflated. Last week’s episode was such a catastrophic bummer that it cemented for me that the show fundamentally misunderstands The Last of Us Part II, the game this season and those that are still yet to come are adapting. But you know how your mother would tell you not to play ball in the house because you might accidentally break the priceless vase on display in the living room? Well, if you’ve already broken the vase, you might as well keep playing ball, so we’ll probably be doing this song and dance into 2029. For now, we’re on the season two finale, which essentially wraps up Ellie’s side of this condensed revenge story and reveals the premise of season three. Most game fans probably assumed this was where the season would end and, if nothing else, it’s still a bold cliffhanger to leave off on.Suggested ReadingNintendo Switch 2 Price Is Set at $450 for Now, But Could Go Higher Share SubtitlesOffEnglishSuggested ReadingNintendo Switch 2 Price Is Set at $450 for Now, But Could Go Higher Share SubtitlesOffEnglishNintendo Switch 2 Price Is Set at $450 for Now, But Could Go HigherGuilty as chargedAfter last week’s flashback-heavy episode, we open on Jesse (Young Mazino) tending to wounds the Seraphites have inflicted on Dina (Isabela Merced), which means we get a real heinous scene of him doing some amateur surgeon’s work to remove the arrow she took to the knee. He douses it in alcohol and offers her a sip to dull the pain, but she staunchly refuses without explaining why. They made Jesse an asshole in this show, but he’s still a smart guy. The gears start turning in his head about why she might turn down a swig right now. Nevertheless, he takes that motherfucker out with no anesthetic, booze, or supportive bedside girlfriend to help Dina through it.Speaking of the absent girlfriend, Ellie (Bella Ramsey) finally returns to their theater base of operations. Now that she’s back, all her concern is on Dina, but Jesse is still wondering where the hell she’s been this whole time. Dina is resting backstage, and even though we only see these details for a few minutes, I once again want to shout out the set designers who recreated this little safe haven, which is covered in old show posters and graffiti from bands and artists that performed there before the cordyceps took over. I’m sure Joel would have loved to have seen it.Dina stirs awake and Ellie checks her wound. Jesse’s effort to wrap the injury leaves a lot to be desired, but it should heal in time. Ellie asks if the baby’s alright, and Dina says it’s okay.“How do you know?” Ellie asks.“I just do,” Dina replies.The one who is not okay in the room is Ellie, who is bleeding through the back of her shirt. Dina helps her undress and starts to clean the scratches on her back. As she does, she asks what happened while they were separated. Ellie says she found Nora (Tati Gabrielle), and she knew where Abby (Kaitlyn Dever) was, but only said two words: “Whale” and “Wheel.” Ellie says she doesn’t know what it meant. It could have been nonsense. She was infected, and it was already starting to affect her cognitive state.“I made her talk,” Ellie whispers. “I thought it would be harder to do, but it wasn’t. It was easy. I just kept hurting her.”Image: HBODina asks if Ellie killed her, but she says she just “left her,” meaning that somewhere in this timeline, Nora is wandering the depths of a Seattle hospital with broken legs and an infected mind. I thought the show couldn’t possibly concoct a worse fate for her than what happens in the game, but they found a way. It takes commitment to put down a character like showrunners Craig Mazin and Neil Druckmann have done for Nora across both video games and television. Personally, I think when you already know that people are wary of the way you treat one of the few Black women in your franchise as if she doesn’t deserve the same dignity as everyone else, maybe you should do better by her when given a second chance, rather than worse. But that’s just me. I’m not the one being paid a bunch of money to butcher this story on HBO Max every Sunday at 9 p.m. Eastern. So what do I know?Maybe this is just part of the contrived sadism the show has attached to Ellie. She thinks violence is easy and it comes naturally to her, so I guess she would beat a woman nearly to death until the fungal infection made her lose her mind. Meanwhile the game version is so traumatized by what she’s done in this moment, she’s practically speechless by the time she reaches the theater. God, I knew this shit was going to happen. Mazin has repeatedly insisted that Ellie is an inherently violent individual, something he’s communicated both in interviews and by having Catherine O’Hara’s Gail, the therapist who tells you what the story is about, say that she’s always been a sadist, probably. Now, when we get to moments like the post-Nora debrief which used to convey that Ellie is Not Cut Out For This Shit, the framing instead becomes “Ellie likes violence and feels bad about how much she likes violence.”Before The Last of Us Part II came out, a lot of Naughty Dog’s promotion for the game was kind of vague and even deceptive in an effort to keep its biggest twists under wraps, and some of the messaging it used to talk about the game’s themes have irrevocably set a precedent for how the game’s story is talked about years later. When the game was first revealed in 2016, the studio said the story would be “about hate,” which paints a much more destructive and myopic picture of Ellie’s journey than the one driven by love and grief she actually experiences through the course of the game.One of the most annoying things about being a Last of Us fan is that its creators love to talk about the series in ways that erase its emotional complexity, making it sound more cynical and underhanded when the actual story it’s telling is anything but. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard people reductively parroting notions that The Last of Us Part II is just about “hate” and “guilting the player” for taking part in horrifying actions when they literally have no choice but to do so, rather than cracking the text open and dissecting that nuance. Mazin’s openly-expressed belief that Ellie is an intrinsically bloodthirsty person similarly bleeds into how a lot of the public perceives her as a character, seeing her as a violent ruffian rather than a grieving daughter who was only ever taught to express her pain by inflicting it on those who made her feel it in the first place. Discussing these games as a fan means having to fight against these notions, but they’re born from a game built on subtext, and thus willingly opens itself to those interpretations.Its willingness to dwell in ambiguity only makes it a more fascinating text to unpack, or it would, if we lived in a world where discussing video games wasn’t a volatile experience in which you constantly run the risk of being targeted for performative online dunks, or running up against rabid console tribalism. Now, the Last of Us show has decided to lean into the most boring interpretation of what this story is about without an ounce of subtlety, nuance, or even sympathy for Ellie’s plight. She is a sadist who does terrible things not simply because she’s grieving her father figure, but because this is just who she is. Mazin has deemed it so, and here we are, and this vision of her will no doubt weave itself into the fabric of how we talk about Ellie Williams, even in the game.This story only has any thematic weight if Ellie’s violent outbursts are rooted in pain, not pleasure. Yeah, what we’re seeing in the show is her acting from a mix of those things but, in the game at least, the most affecting moments of Ellie’s Seattle revenge tour happen when she has to confront how she is not built for acts of violent excess in the same way Joel was. She never has been. Back in Part I, she was sick to her stomach when she committed her first kill to save Joel, and the entire point of Part II was that we see her cut off parts of herself to do what she feels she must, only to find that she’s unable to recognize herself when it’s all over. In the show, she is instead mesmerized by carnage, only to decide she doesn’t like that she feels that way, actually. But all this self-reflection is fleeting, because she’s only killed one person on her list, and there’s a lot more work to do. How many Joels is Nora’s life worth to Ellie? One-fifth?While Ellie is wrestling with these feelings, Dina is about to see things with more clarity than ever. At first, she says that Nora may have deserved this fate worse than death, to which Ellie says “Maybe she didn’t,” before telling her girlfriend everything. She tearfully recounts Joel’s massacre of the Fireflies at the base in Salt Lake City, how the group was going to use her immunity to create a cure, and how Joel killed Abby’s father to save her. Dina puts it all together and asks Ellie if she knew who Abby’s group was. She says she didn’t, but she did know what Joel did. Dina sits with that for a moment, then flatly says the group needs to go home.So I guess this is how the show gets Dina, who’s been pretty revenge-hungry thus far, back onto the track she’s on in the games. Without spoiling scenes in the late game for the uninitiated, some major points of conflict at the end of Part II require her to be less on-board with Ellie’s vendetta, so the fact that she’s been egging her girlfriend on to track down Abby was an odd choice. I wasn’t sure how the show would handle it down the line, but it seems the way HBO’s show has course-corrected was by having her condemn Joel’s actions. Dina had her own relationship with the old man in the show, so I imagine that in a later season she’ll interrogate how she feels about him in light of this new information, but having her more or less get off the ride when she learns what Joel has done sets up a contrast between her and Ellie that I’m curious to see how the show handles.The shame of it, though, is that this is just one more thing that undermines one of the core foundations of the source material, and I have to get at least one more jab in on this topic before we end the season. In The Last of Us Part II, when you look at what is actually expressed in dialogue, you see that characters are often lacking important information about each other. This lack of communication is an important part of its storytelling, but the show is instead having characters tell everyone everything. In Part II, Joel and Ellie don’t know who Abby’s father was. It’s strongly implied that no one other than Joel, Ellie, and Tommy knew about what happened in Salt Lake City, not even Dina. The more the show bridges these gaps of communication, the more senseless this entire tit-for-tat feels. To be clear, it was senseless in the game, but it was in a tragic, “these people are so blinded by their emotions that they can’t fathom another path forward” sort of way. This time around, everyone knows exactly what’s happening and chooses to partake in violence anyway. We don’t have any mystery or lack of communication to fall back on as a we struggle to understand why the characters keep making these self-destructive decisions. Everyone is just knowingly the worst version of themselves this time around, and I guess Mazin thinks that’s the point, which is the kind of boring interpretation that makes the show such an inferior version of this story.Family mattersWe now begin our third day in Seattle. Ellie and Jesse are packing up to get going in the theater lobby. The plan is to find Tommy (Gabriel Luna) somewhere in the city and then head back to Jackson. However, Jesse is a lot less talkative this morning. Dina limps into the lobby, and after a brief scolding for being on her feet, she gives Ellie a bracelet for good luck.“I’m not sure it’s been working for you,” Ellie jokes.“I’m alive,” Dina replies.Jesse is clearly uncomfortable watching his ex (or are they technically still together now? I’m not sure) give Ellie a prized possession, and says he can go alone if Dina wants Ellie to stay. Ellie says they’ll be safer together. Jesse relents and says they should be back by sundown. The tension is radiating off him, but the pair leaves Dina in the safety of the theater.Image: HBOEllie and Jesse awkwardly walk through the remains of Seattle. She finally breaks the silence by asking how he found Ellie and Dina’s theater base. He recounts his two days of tracking, giving a shoutout to the horse Shimmer who’s still vibing in the record store the girls left her at, but he’s clearly pissed. Ellie assumes it’s because he and Tommy had to cross state lines to come find them, but no, there’s something else on his mind. Why do Ellie and Dina look at each other differently? Why did Dina turn down a free drink for the first time in her life? He’s putting it all together. Dina and Ellie are no longer just gals being pals, and his (now ex?) girlfriend is pregnant.“None of this has to change things between us,” Ellie says.“Everything changing doesn’t have to change things?” Jesse asks. “Well, how about this for something new: I’m gonna be a father, which means I can’t die. But because of you, we’re stuck in a warzone. So how about we skip the apologies and just go find Tommy so I can get us and my kid the fuck out of Seattle?”Wow, okay. Judgey, much? I mean, you’re right, Jesse. This is a no good, very bad situation, and Ellie has put your kid in danger and won’t even tell you she was torturing a woman last night. But god, I miss kindhearted Jesse. I miss Ellie’s golden retriever best friend who, when finding out Dina was pregnant, firmly but gently told Ellie it was time to get the fuck out of Seattle. Now that the show has created a messy cheating love triangle out of these three, I’m once again reflecting on how The Last of Us Part II could have very easily made this storyline a dramatic, angry one, and instead it was one of the brighter spots in a dark tale. Meanwhile, in the show, the whole thing feels like it’s regressed to a rote and predictable earlier draft of the story that’s much less refreshing and compelling than the one we already know. Justice for Jesse. This is character assassination of the goodest boy in all of Jackson. Well, actually, that’s Abby’s job. Sorry, sorry. That’s actually not for another 35 minutes.As the two move further into the city, they see more art praising the Seraphite prophet on the buildings, but she looks notably different than in images we’ve seen previously. This art depicts a Black woman, whereas others have typically portrayed the prophet as white. Ellie wonders aloud if there’s “more than one of her.” Jesse says it’s possible, but ushers her forward as rain starts pouring down. I’m curious what the show might be doing here, as this is a divergence from Part II. Could the Seraphites be a kind of polytheistic group in the show that follows multiple prophets? Could they believe the Prophet was reincarnated into a different woman at some point? All we can do is theorize, but we haven’t seen much of the Seraphites this season so we don’t have much to go on. Which is by design, and feels pretty in-line with Part II, which didn’t tell you much about the group during Ellie’s three days in Seattle. We’ll pick this thread back up next season, I’m sure.The pair takes shelter but before they can catch their breath, they hear the popping sound of gunfire nearby as a W.L.F. squad corners a lone Seraphite. Ellie and Jesse watch in horror as the wolves strip and drag him away. Just as Ellie nearly gets out from cover to intervene, Jesse pulls her back. Once the coast is clear, Ellie walks away in a huff. As Jesse follows, he points out that they were outnumbered and would have lost that fight.“He was a fucking kid!” Ellie shouts.“Ellie, these people [are] shooting each other, lynching each other, ripping each other’s guts out,” Jesse says. “Even the kids? I’m not dying out here. Not for any of them. This is not our war.”Who the fuck is this man? I touched on it in episode five, but what is with this show putting all of Ellie’s unlikable traits on other characters so she keeps getting to be the hero? Jesse turns from a selfless guardian into a selfish asshole who will watch a kid get tortured to save himself while Ellie is suddenly very concerned about a war that, in the game, she seemed largely indifferent to. It’s as if The Last of Us’ second season is so concerned with us liking Ellie and feeling like we can root for her that it’s lost sight of anything else.So Jesse gets to be the belligerent asshole and Dina gets to be the revenge-driven one in the relationship. Ellie? She’s just bee-bopping through spouting cool space facts, and so when she tortures Nora, it feels like tonal whiplash. I don’t recognize Jesse. Most of the time, I don’t recognize Ellie. But really, the more I watch this show, the more I hardly recognize anyone, and I don’t have any faith in the series to figure these characters and their relationships out, even if it’s going to go on for two more seasons.Will the circle be unbroken?We shift away from the Jackson crew to check in on Isaac (Jeffrey Wright), who we haven’t seen in a few episodes. Sergeant Park (Hettienne Park) updates the W.L.F. boss that the incoming storm will get worse as the day goes on, but even so, the group is still preparing some kind of operation. She also lets him know the rank and file is a little nervous about whatever’s going on, but Isaac’s only concerned about one person: Abby. From the sound of it, she and most of her crew have all disappeared over the past few days. We’ve seen what happened to Nora, Manny is still around, but Owen and Mel are gone without a trace. Again, Isaac isn’t concerned with them. He’s nervous that they’re going into whatever operation they’re planning without Abby. Park is clearly exhausted by this lane of thinking and asks why he cares so much about the girl.Image: HBOShe starts off asking why one “great” soldier is so important when they have an army, and then gets into a weird aside where she exasperatedly asks Isaac if he’s harboring feelings for the girl when he’s at least 30 years her senior. I don’t know if this line is supposed to be a joke, but it’s not funny, even though Isaac laughs at it. She acknowledges it’s an out-of-pocket question, but says he “wouldn’t be the first old man” to make decisions based on such inappropriate impulses. As much as it’s a stupid thing for Park to say, it’s also a stupid thing for the writers room to nonchalantly whip out in a humorous fashion given The Last of Us’ history of old men preying on young women with the character of David. Why write this non-joke into your script if you don’t want viewers to possibly view his fixation on Abby as potentially untoward? Isaac’s following speech focuses on the preservation of his militia, in a very similar way to how David’s preoccupation with Ellie in season one was born from the cannibal’s warped views on longevity, and if you’re not trying to make this direct connection, why even gesture at it? Yeah, I don’t imagine anyone considered the optics of this obviously flippant, throwaway line, but Christ, if you’re that desperate for a joke or moment to cut the tension, this was the best you could come up with? Amateur shit.Isaac sits Park down and tells her why he cares so much about one soldier. He says there’s a very strong chance that the W.L.F. leadership will be dead by tomorrow morning. If that happens, who can lead the militia in their stead? He wanted it to be Abby. It was “supposed” to be her.“Well she’s fucked off, Isaac,” Park says as she leaves. “So maybe it wasn’t.”We go back to the Jackson crew as Ellie and Jesse reach the rendezvous point in a bookstore, and Tommy isn’t here. The place is in bad shape like most places are in this city, but Ellie gravitates to the children’s books section. She picks up an old Sesame Street book, the Grover classic The Monster at the End of This Book, and picks it up for the bun in the oven as Jesse says she picked a good one. As the quiet creeps in on the two, Ellie tries to break the silence by clarifying what happened, but Jesse says they have enough problems for the moment, so he wants to bury the issue.He says he loves Dina, but not in the same way Ellie does. He remembers a group that passed through Jackson, and how there was a girl he fell hard for. She asked him to leave with her to Mexico, but he declined because he’d found purpose and community in Jackson, and he was taught to put others first. People look to him to become the “next Maria” and lead the town, and he couldn’t abandon them for a girl he’d known for two weeks, even if she made him feel things he’d never felt before.Ellie immediately sees through this story. It’s not about him pointing out how he’s felt love and knows that he and Dina aren’t the real deal; it’s about how she’s putting her own needs and wants ahead of everyone else’s.“Okay, got it,” Ellie says. “So you’re Saint Jesse of Wyoming, and everyone else is a fucking asshole.”“You can make fun of me all you want,” Jesse responds. “But let me ask you this, Ellie: If I go with that girl to Mexico, who saves your ass in Seattle?”Before she can reply, they hear W.L.F. radio chatter about a sniper taking out a squad and assume it’s gotta be Tommy. The two head out to higher ground to get a better look, and Ellie sees a Ferris wheel in the distance. She finally puts Nora’s final words together: Abby is in the aquarium at the edge of the city. Immediately, her focus shifts away from Tommy as she starts trying to figure out how to reach Abby’s apparent hiding spot. Jesse is confused and says that Tommy’s got the W.L.F. pinned down in the opposite direction. Ellie starts coming up with justifications for her plan. They don’t know if that’s actually Tommy. If it is him, he’s got the group pinned down. Either way, he would want her to go after Abby to avenge Joel. Ellie doesn’t understand why Jesse is so against this. He voted to go after Abby’s crew back in Jackson, right?Image: HBONo, actually. He didn’t. He believed this vendetta was selfish and “wasn’t in the best interest of the community.” That sets Ellie off.“Fuck the community!” she screams. “All you do is talk about the fucking community, you hypocrite. You think you’re good and I’m bad? You let a kid die today, Jesse. Because why? He wasn’t in your community? Let me tell you about my community. My community was beaten to death in front of me while I was forced to fucking watch. So don’t look at me like you’re better than me, or like you’d do anything differently if you were in my shoes, because you’re not, and you wouldn’t.”Jesse takes a beat, then tells Ellie he hopes she makes it to the aquarium as he leaves. While this scene does exemplify the show’s typicalal “no subtext allowed” approach to writing that I find so irksome, the storyline of Ellie feeling ostracized by the people of Jackson while constantly being told that she must make compromises for them even as they are incapable of extending the same to her is one of the few embellishments The Last of Us makes that resonates with me. It’s easy to write off Ellie’s revenge tour as a selfish crusade that puts everyone else in harm’s way, but when she’s also one of the few out queer people in a town that mostly coddles bigotry and she’s being constantly belittled and kept from doing things she wants to do like working on the patrol team, why would she feel any kinship to this community? Now, when she’s so close to her goal that she can almost taste it, Jesse wants her to consider the people of Jackson? Why should she do that? They’re hundreds of miles away, and the only people who came to save her and Dina were the ones who already cared about her. Ellie’s disillusionment with her neighbors is one of the few additions to the story that The Last of Us manages to pull off.Ellie reaches the harbor from which she can use a boat to reach the aquarium and finds several Wolves meeting up on vessels heading somewhere off the coast. Isaac is here leading the charge, but it’s unclear where they’re going or what they’re doing. Game fans have the advantage of knowing what’s going on, but the W.L.F. storyline feels underbaked in this season, which is one of the real issues with the show dividing the game’s storyline into multiple seasons. During this section of the game, you get a sense that there’s an untold story happening in the background, and you can learn more about it through notes you can find in the environment and ambient dialogue from enemies. The show doesn’t have those same storytelling tools, so I wouldn’t be surprised if newcomers felt a little disoriented every time we hopped over to Isaac.Once the W.L.F. forces make their way wherever they’re going, Ellie finds one of the spare boats and starts to make her way to the aquarium. The storm is hitting hard, though, and the tide is not on her side. A giant tidal wave knocks her out of the boat and into the sea. (Good thing you learned how to swim, queen.) As she washes up onto the shore, Ellie hears Seraphites whistling as a group of them descends upon her. She’s too weak to get onto her feet and run, so the cultists grab her and carry her to a noose hanging from a tree in the woods. She screams that she’s not a Wolf and that she’s not from here, but they don’t listen. As they wrap the noose around her neck and start to hoist her upward, a horn sounds off in the distance. The lead Scar says to leave her, their village is in danger, so I guess that’s what the W.L.F. operation is targeting? This concludes our latest little exposition detour, as Ellie gets right back into the boat to the aquarium.Image: HBOShe manages to reach the building and finds a broken window through which to enter. Inside, she finds several makeshift beds. Whatever Abby’s doing here, she’s not alone. As Ellie makes her way deeper into the aquarium, she finds a ton of medical supplies, including bloody bandages and surgical equipment. Was Abby injured? Is that why she’s been missing in action as the W.L.F. undergoes a huge, all-hands-on-deck mission? Who’s to say?Quick sidenote: When Ellie infiltrates the aquarium in the game, she’s attacked by a guard dog named Alice. The W.L.F. used trained canines in their war against the Seraphites, but that element has been notably absent from the show. Between this and sparing Shimmer from her explosive fate, The Last of Us has been toning down the animal murder.Ellie keeps walking through the desolate aquarium and eventually finds fresh footsteps. She follows them and soon finds their source: Abby’s friends Owen (Spencer Lord) and Mel (Ariela Barer). The two are arguing about something, though it’s not clear what. Owen wants to go somewhere behind enemy lines, even in the midst of the battle Isaac has just initiated. He says he doesn’t have a choice because “it’s Abby.” Mel says he does have a choice and so does she, and the Abby of it all is why she’s not going along with whatever the plan is. Owen says he’ll do it on his own, and if Mel’s still here when they get back, she can “keep going with [them].” Either way, Owen’s leaving. Mel let’s out a hearty “fuck you, Owen” before realizing that Ellie is there. Sure seems like there’s a whole other story that’s been going on while we’ve been hanging out with Ellie, huh? I wonder if we’ll ever get any further insight into whatever this is. Perhaps in a season entirely dedicated to the other side of what’s going on in Seattle? Maybe in a couple years it might premiere on HBO Max (or whatever it’s called by then)? That would be something!Ellie holds the two at gunpoint and tells them to put their hands up. When she asks where Abby is, Owen realizes who she is and points out that he was the one who kept her alive. Ellie isn’t swayed by this, so he says they don’t know where Abby went. But, of course, they were just talking about her, so Ellie knows that’s not true. She spots a map on the table and decides to pull out an old Joel Miller standard: She tells Mel to bring her the map and point to where Abby is, saying that next she’s going to ask Owen the same question, and the answers had better match. Owen looks at Mel and says that Ellie will kill them either way, so there’s no reason to comply. Ellie says she won’t because she’s “not like” them. When she crosses state lines to torture and kill someone who killed somebody important to her, it’s very different than when they do it, of course.Owen stops Mel from grabbing the map by saying he’ll do it. He slowly turns to the table, but instead of picking up the map, he grabs a handgun stowed under it. Ellie is quick with her trigger finger and shoots him right in the throat. The bullet goes straight through him, and hits Mel in the neck as well. She falls onto her back and, instead of cursing Ellie, she asks for her help. Not to save her life, but someone else’s. She opens her jacket to reveal her pregnant belly, and asks if Ellie has a knife to cut the baby out of her before she dies. Ellie is in shock and doesn’t know what to do. Mel tells her she just needs to make one incision. That isn’t enough direction, and Ellie panics. She doesn’t know how deep or which direction to cut. As Mel starts to become delirious, she repeats “love transfers” and then asks Ellie if the baby is out. But she hasn’t even made one cut. Mel finally drifts off, and Ellie realizes it’s too late. She sits there until, eventually, Tommy and Jesse find her. Tommy attempts to comfort her, but she’s in shock and doesn’t speak. Finally they leave and head back to the theater.Naughty Dog / Cinematic GamingWhy can’t this show stop giving the audience outs to not turn against its leads? The death of Mel, specifically, feels like the show bending over backward to teach Ellie a lesson without laying blame at her feet. Mel’s death here is an accident. She’s an innocent bystander who dies because Owen and Ellie made choices, and she was, quite literally, caught in the crossfire. In Part II, by contrast, Mel “shot first.” Well, she tried to stab Ellie, but that doesn’t have the same ring to it. Ellie reacts in self-defense and stabs her right back, but she did it fully knowing she was about to send Mel to an early grave. The gut punch Ellie feels upon learning that she’s pregnant is a moment of dramatic irony, because the game’s shifting perspectives had already revealed her pregnancy to the player way back in the opening hours. So when you’re slamming the square button to fight back, you know that Mel isn’t the only one about to reach her untimely end. Here, she doesn’t even get that moment of agency to fight to protect herself. She’s just collateral damage. It’s a small but important distinction. At this point in the show, Mel’s only real trait is a clear distaste for Abby’s violence, and now, when she finally shows up again, she’s just an unintended victim of Owen pulling a gun on Ellie. Sure, season three will fill in those gaps, but the end result will be the same. Mel died not because she was fighting back, but because she was an inch too far to the left.Then there’s the matter of her pregnancy. Again, in the game players already knew about this by the time Ellie reached the aquarium, while the show kept it secret until the end. It’s hard not to see this last-minute reveal as a knife being twisted for shock value, but that’s only half the problem. My friend Eric Van Allen (co-host of the Axe of the Blood God podcast) would often joke with his college friends about how Michael Caine’s characters in Christopher Nolan films so often show up just to tell you, the viewer, in very literal terms what the story is about. Throughout most of this season, Gail has been this character, the one burdened with the heavy task of diegetic literary analysis, but Mel’s delirious “love transfers” line may be even sillier than anything Gail spouts; homegirl is bleeding out and telling Ellie that pain is not the only thing we inherit from our parents? Just one week after Joel tearfully told Ellie that he hopes she does better when she has a kid than he or his abusive cop father did?Perhaps in a show that hadn’t already spent two seasons using literalism as a writing crutch, Mel speaking her final hopes for her unborn child might have landed for me. But I think I’m just too jaded towards it now for even what should have been a genuine expression to feel like anything other than a heavy-handed, patronizing declaration of what lessons I’m supposed to take away from the story. I don’t think characters overtly communicating their beliefs and feelings about a situation is an inherently poor way of writing dialogue. In fact, some of my favorite works have managed to execute this well thanks to strong acting and stories that lent themselves well to this style of writing. The Last of Us, a series that often relishes in grounded dialogue that forced you to read between the lines and unearth that meaning yourself, the Last of Us show’s inability to let nearly any emotion, belief, or theme go unspoken feels so contrived and tiresome that even someone expressing something thematically resonate feels like being told what to feel. Mel uses her last words to tell me the themes of the story. Just in case I forgot. Thank you, Last of Us show, I don’t know how I would have ever understood your thematic richness if you didn’t make your characters tell me about it, even in their death gasps.The group makes it back to the theater and Ellie is still in shock, so much so that she doesn’t even look at Dina as she enters the building. Some time passes, and Tommy and Jesse are mapping out their route home on the stage. The storm is still pretty rough, so they’ll stay overnight and hope the sun is out when they wake up. Ellie finally joins the group, and Tommy reassures her that Mel and Owen played their part in Joel’s death, and they made the choices that brought them to that fateful end. Ellie can only fixate on what she didn’t get to do.“But Abby gets to live,” she says.“Yeah,” Tommy responds. “Are you able to make your peace with that?”“I guess I’ll have to,” she says, defeated.She looks to Jesse, who won’t even look up at her. Tommy realizes they might have something to talk about and walks to the lobby to pack. After some awkward silence, Ellie thanks Jesse for coming back for her, even though he had no reason to after the way they clashed.“Maybe I didn’t want to,” he says. “Maybe Tommy made me.”“Did he?” Ellie asks.After a second of contemplation, Jesse drops the act and says, “No.”“Because you’re a good person,” Ellie responds.“Yeah,” Jesse agrees. “But also the thought did occur, that if I were out there somewhere, lost and in trouble, you’d set the world on fire to save me.”Ellie says she would, and the two finally see one another, even if just for a moment. Jesse acknowledges that Ellie’s vendetta isn’t entirely selfish, and that when it comes to defending the people she cares about, dead or alive, you won’t find someone more loyal in all of Jackson. It’s good that they finally had this moment of connection after all this drama. But damn, I miss Ellie and Jesse being bros, and I miss her giving him shit for being a sap in these final moments. But most of all, I miss that dopey good ol’ boy with a heart of gold saying his friends “can’t get out of their own damn way.”All that understanding is short-lived, as the two hear some ruckus in the lobby, grab their guns, and book it to the entrance. The second Jesse opens the door, bam. A gunshot rings out in the lobby, and he is on the floor. We don’t even see that it was Abby who fired it until after we get a gnarly shot of him with his face blown open. He’s gone. It was instant. The Last of Us Part II tends to draw out death. It’s either long and torturous like it was for Joel or Nora, or it’s short like Owen’s and Mel’s, but in any case, the game typically lingers on the fallout for a bit. Jesse’s death, by contrast, happens so fast that you can’t even process it before you have to deal with the situation at hand. The show follows suit, and it’s recreated practically shot for shot. But that’s hardly the most disorienting (complimentary) thing that happens in these final minutes.“Stand up,” Abby growls forcefully from the other side of the desk Ellie has taken cover behind.She repeats herself: “Stand. Up. Hands in the air or I shoot this one, too.”Ellie can see Tommy on the ground with a pistol aimed right at his head. He tells Ellie to just run, but she tosses her gun where Abby can see it and crawls out from cover. Abby recognizes her immediately. Ellie asks her to let Tommy go, to which Abby replies that he killed her friends. Ellie says no, she did.“I was looking for you,” Ellie says. “I didn’t mean to hurt them. I know why you killed Joel. He did what he did to save me, I’m the one that you want. Just let him go.”Naughty Dog / VGS - Video Game SophistryHm. Okay. We’re almost at the end. I gotta get another little quibble in before the curtains close. I mean, come on, we’ve been through seven episodes of me complaining together. You can’t take one last gripe? This line from Ellie is slightly altered to account for the fact that she knows more about Abby in the show than in the game, and it means we miss one of the most important subtle interactions in all of the story. As I mentioned earlier, Ellie doesn’t know anything about Abby’s father in Part II. She assumes that Abby killed Joel because he took away any chance of the Fireflies developing a cure, so she cites that in this high-stakes moment. The original line is almost identical to the one in the show, but instead, Ellie says “there’s no cure because of me” and suggests that killing her would be the extension of Abby’s presumed vendetta. Then, we get some incredible, subtle acting from Abby actor Laura Bailey, who hears what Ellie’s saying, has a brief moment of angry disbelief on her face, and then scoffs under her breath before picking right back up where she left off. In just a few seconds, you see Abby realize that, after everything, these fuckers have no idea how much pain she’s been through over the past five years. But they’re not worth the breath it would take to explain herself. They don’t deserve to know the man her father was and what he meant to her. All that matters right now is that Ellie pays for what she’s done.Abby still views herself as the righteous one here, as she points out that she let Ellie live when she did not have to do that. It turns out that Ellie wasn’t deserving of her mercy, that she squandered it by killing her friends. Part of me has wondered if all the exposition-heavy dialogue in this show, such as Dever’s villain monologue in episode two before she murdered the shit out of Joel, was written to give its actors more words to say in front of a camera. When you’ve got big names like Kaitlyn Dever, Catherine O’Hara, and Pedro Pascal in your cast, you don’t want them to not talk, right? But all these elongated exchanges have also robbed actors like Dever of those subtle moments. Hell, she led an entire film with next to no dialogue in 2023’s No One Will Save You, and was great in it, so she has the chops to pull off that kind of acting. Communicating something through body language and expression is just as powerful as a poetic piece of dialogue (or in this show’s case, the most literal, unpoetic dialogue a person can fathom), but this show rarely, if ever, understands that.Image: HBOAnyway, Abby says that Ellie wasted the chance she was given when the ex-Fireflies spared her, and points her gun right at Ellie. We hear a bullet fire and Ellie shouts before a hard cut to black. But wait. That’s the season finale? You expect us to wait for two years, probably, to find out what happened? Well, about that. You will probably have to wait even longer.We do have one more scene this season, however: a flashback. We see Abby lying down on a comfy couch with an unfinished book resting on her stomach. She’s in a deep sleep before Manny (Danny Ramirez) loudly enters the room and wakes her up. He says Isaac wants to see them, and she stirs awake. She gets up and walks out of this cozy living space and into a giant football stadium. The entire field has been repurposed for agriculture, manufacturing, and housing. Abby takes a second to look at the whole operation before heading to Isaac’s, but the camera lingers over the field as bold white text flashes on the screen: Seattle, Day One.Alright, TV newbies, welcome to the second divisive twist of The Last of Us Part II. In the game, the player goes through Ellie’s three days in Seattle, killing Abby’s friends and mostly ignoring the war between the W.L.F. and the Seraphites. Meanwhile, Abby has been kind of an enigma the whole time. Every time Ellie finds a new lead, Abby has already come and gone. When Abby finally shows up at the theater for another round of vengeance, it’s clear that a lot of the story happening in this game has happened off-screen. That’s because you’re about to see an entirely different perspective on the last three days, and you’re going to play as Abby when you do it.As you can imagine, this shit drove some players nuts at the time, and you’ll still find angry people online complaining about it to this day. For all my problems with this season, I have to commend the show for actually going for it. HBO has taken the coward’s route in adapting this story for so long, it’s almost surprising that it’s ending here and, from the sound of it, season three will be entirely about Abby and what she’s been doing these past three days. It’s very likely we won’t see Ellie again until next season’s finale after we’ve followed Dever’s character for several episodes. Despite some ham-fisted attempts by the show to build sympathy for Abby early on, it seems like swaths of TV newbies still demand blood. Will viewers complain for an entire season as Dever takes on the lead role? I’d like to think they won’t. I hope that new audiences are more open to her than the worst people you’ve ever met were when the game launched.Despite all the golf club swings I’ve taken at this show, I’m looking forward to examining it further as HBO rolls out the next two seasons. The Last of Us Part II is one of my favorite games of all time, but I genuinely fucking hated The Last of Us’ second season. I don’t expect my feelings to improve in season three. At this point, the rot of Mazin’s poor creative decisions runs too deep for the show to be salvaged and reach the highs of the games. But if nothing else, it’s been a rewarding ride. Thank you for joining me on this seven-week journey. I think I’m due for a replay of The Last of Us Part II to wash off this stink. This shit was ass, HBO. I’ll see you in the ring again next time.