• The nine-armed octopus and the oddities of the cephalopod nervous system

    Extra-sensory perception

    The nine-armed octopus and the oddities of the cephalopod nervous system

    A mix of autonomous and top-down control manage the octopus's limbs.

    Kenna Hughes-Castleberry



    Jun 7, 2025 8:00 am

    |

    19

    Credit:

    Nikos Stavrinidis / 500px

    Credit:

    Nikos Stavrinidis / 500px

    Story text

    Size

    Small
    Standard
    Large

    Width
    *

    Standard
    Wide

    Links

    Standard
    Orange

    * Subscribers only
      Learn more

    With their quick-change camouflage and high level of intelligence, it’s not surprising that the public and scientific experts alike are fascinated by octopuses. Their abilities to recognize faces, solve puzzles, and learn behaviors from other octopuses make these animals a captivating study.
    To perform these processes and others, like crawling or exploring, octopuses rely on their complex nervous system, one that has become a focus for neuroscientists. With about 500 million neurons—around the same number as dogs—octopuses’ nervous systems are the most complex of any invertebrate. But, unlike vertebrate organisms, the octopus’s nervous system is also decentralized, with around 350 million neurons, or 66 percent of it, located in its eight arms.
    “This means each arm is capable of independently processing sensory input, initiating movement, and even executing complex behaviors—without direct instructions from the brain,” explains Galit Pelled, a professor of Mechanical Engineering, Radiology, and Neuroscience at Michigan State University who studies octopus neuroscience. “In essence, the arms have their own ‘mini-brains.’”
    A decentralized nervous system is one factor that helps octopuses adapt to changes, such as injury or predation, as seen in the case of an Octopus vulgaris, or common octopus, that was observed with nine arms by researchers at the ECOBAR lab at the Institute of Marine Research in Spain between 2021 and 2022.
    By studying outliers like this cephalopod, researchers can gain insight into how the animal’s detailed scaffolding of nerves changes and regrows over time, uncovering more about how octopuses have evolved over millennia in our oceans.
    Brains, brains, and more brains
    Because each arm of an octopus contains its own bundle of neurons, the limbs can operate semi-independently from the central brain, enabling faster responses since signals don’t always need to travel back and forth between the brain and the arms. In fact, Pelled and her team recently discovered that “neural signals recorded in the octopus arm can predict movement type within 100 milliseconds of stimulation, without central brain involvement.” She notes that “that level of localized autonomy is unprecedented in vertebrate systems.”

    Though each limb moves on its own, the movements of the octopus’s body are smooth and conducted with a coordinated elegance that allows the animal to exhibit some of the broadest range of behaviors, adapting on the fly to changes in its surroundings.
    “That means the octopus can react quickly to its environment, especially when exploring, hunting, or defending itself,” Pelled says. “For example, one arm can grab food while another is feeling around a rock, without needing permission from the brain. This setup also makes the octopus more resilient. If one arm is injured, the others still work just fine. And because so much decision-making happens at the arms, the central brain is freed up to focus on the bigger picture—like navigating or learning new tasks.”
    As if each limb weren’t already buzzing with neural activity, things get even more intricate when researchers zoom in further—to the nerves within each individual sucker, a ring of muscular tissue, which octopuses use to sense and taste their surroundings.
    “There is a sucker ganglion, or nerve center, located in the stalk of every sucker. For some species of octopuses, that’s over a thousand ganglia,” says Cassady Olson, a graduate student at the University of Chicago who works with Cliff Ragsdale, a leading expert in octopus neuroscience.
    Given that each sucker has its own nerve centers—connected by a long axial nerve cord running down the limb—and each arm has hundreds of suckers, things get complicated very quickly, as researchers have historically struggled to study this peripheral nervous system, as it’s called, within the octopus’s body.
    “The large size of the brain makes it both really exciting to study and really challenging,” says Z. Yan Wang, an assistant professor of biology and psychology at the University of Washington. “Many of the tools available for neuroscience have to be adjusted or customized specifically for octopuses and other cephalopods because of their unique body plans.”

    While each limb acts independently, signals are transmitted back to the octopus’s central nervous system. The octopus’ brain sits between its eyes at the front of its mantle, or head, couched between its two optic lobes, large bean-shaped neural organs that help octopuses see the world around them. These optic lobes are just two of the over 30 lobes experts study within the animal’s centralized brain, as each lobe helps the octopus process its environment.
    This elaborate neural architecture is critical given the octopus’s dual role in the ecosystem as both predator and prey. Without natural defenses like a hard shell, octopuses have evolved a highly adaptable nervous system that allows them to rapidly process information and adjust as needed, helping their chances of survival.

    Some similarities remain
    While the octopus’s decentralized nervous system makes it a unique evolutionary example, it does have some structures similar to or analogous to the human nervous system.
    “The octopus has a central brain mass located between its eyes, and an axial nerve cord running down each arm,” says Wang. “The octopus has many sensory systems that we are familiar with, such as vision, touch, chemosensation, and gravity sensing.”
    Neuroscientists have homed in on these similarities to understand how these structures may have evolved across the different branches in the tree of life. As the most recent common ancestor for humans and octopuses lived around 750 million years ago, experts believe that many similarities, from similar camera-like eyes to maps of neural activities, evolved separately in a process known as convergent evolution.
    While these similarities shed light on evolution's independent paths, they also offer valuable insights for fields like soft robotics and regenerative medicine.
    Occasionally, unique individuals—like an octopus with an unexpected number of limbs—can provide even deeper clues into how this remarkable nervous system functions and adapts.

    Nine arms, no problem
    In 2021, researchers from the Institute of Marine Research in Spain used an underwater camera to follow a male Octopus vulgaris, or common octopus. On its left side, three arms were intact, while the others were reduced to uneven, stumpy lengths, sharply bitten off at varying points. Although the researchers didn’t witness the injury itself, they observed that the front right arm—known as R1—was regenerating unusually, splitting into two separate limbs and giving the octopus a total of nine arms.
    “In this individual, we believe this condition was a result of abnormal regenerationafter an encounter with a predator,” explains Sam Soule, one of the researchers and the first author on the corresponding paper recently published in Animals.
    The researchers named the octopus Salvador due to its bifurcated arm coiling up on itself like the two upturned ends of Salvador Dali’s moustache. For two years, the team studied the cephalopod’s behavior and found that it used its bifurcated arm less when doing “riskier” movements such as exploring or grabbing food, which would force the animal to stretch its arm out and expose it to further injury.
    “One of the conclusions of our research is that the octopus likely retains a long-term memory of the original injury, as it tends to use the bifurcated arms for less risky tasks compared to the others,” elaborates Jorge Hernández Urcera, a lead author of the study. “This idea of lasting memory brought to mind Dalí’s famous painting The Persistence of Memory, which ultimately became the title of the paper we published on monitoring this particular octopus.”
    While the octopus acted more protective of its extra limb, its nervous system had adapted to using the extra appendage, as the octopus was observed, after some time recovering from its injuries, using its ninth arm for probing its environment.
    “That nine-armed octopus is a perfect example of just how adaptable these animals are,” Pelled adds. “Most animals would struggle with an unusual body part, but not the octopus. In this case, the octopus had a bifurcatedarm and still used it effectively, just like any other arm. That tells us the nervous system didn’t treat it as a mistake—it figured out how to make it work.”
    Kenna Hughes-Castleberry is the science communicator at JILAand a freelance science journalist. Her main writing focuses are quantum physics, quantum technology, deep technology, social media, and the diversity of people in these fields, particularly women and people from minority ethnic and racial groups. Follow her on LinkedIn or visit her website.

    19 Comments
    #ninearmed #octopus #oddities #cephalopod #nervous
    The nine-armed octopus and the oddities of the cephalopod nervous system
    Extra-sensory perception The nine-armed octopus and the oddities of the cephalopod nervous system A mix of autonomous and top-down control manage the octopus's limbs. Kenna Hughes-Castleberry – Jun 7, 2025 8:00 am | 19 Credit: Nikos Stavrinidis / 500px Credit: Nikos Stavrinidis / 500px Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more With their quick-change camouflage and high level of intelligence, it’s not surprising that the public and scientific experts alike are fascinated by octopuses. Their abilities to recognize faces, solve puzzles, and learn behaviors from other octopuses make these animals a captivating study. To perform these processes and others, like crawling or exploring, octopuses rely on their complex nervous system, one that has become a focus for neuroscientists. With about 500 million neurons—around the same number as dogs—octopuses’ nervous systems are the most complex of any invertebrate. But, unlike vertebrate organisms, the octopus’s nervous system is also decentralized, with around 350 million neurons, or 66 percent of it, located in its eight arms. “This means each arm is capable of independently processing sensory input, initiating movement, and even executing complex behaviors—without direct instructions from the brain,” explains Galit Pelled, a professor of Mechanical Engineering, Radiology, and Neuroscience at Michigan State University who studies octopus neuroscience. “In essence, the arms have their own ‘mini-brains.’” A decentralized nervous system is one factor that helps octopuses adapt to changes, such as injury or predation, as seen in the case of an Octopus vulgaris, or common octopus, that was observed with nine arms by researchers at the ECOBAR lab at the Institute of Marine Research in Spain between 2021 and 2022. By studying outliers like this cephalopod, researchers can gain insight into how the animal’s detailed scaffolding of nerves changes and regrows over time, uncovering more about how octopuses have evolved over millennia in our oceans. Brains, brains, and more brains Because each arm of an octopus contains its own bundle of neurons, the limbs can operate semi-independently from the central brain, enabling faster responses since signals don’t always need to travel back and forth between the brain and the arms. In fact, Pelled and her team recently discovered that “neural signals recorded in the octopus arm can predict movement type within 100 milliseconds of stimulation, without central brain involvement.” She notes that “that level of localized autonomy is unprecedented in vertebrate systems.” Though each limb moves on its own, the movements of the octopus’s body are smooth and conducted with a coordinated elegance that allows the animal to exhibit some of the broadest range of behaviors, adapting on the fly to changes in its surroundings. “That means the octopus can react quickly to its environment, especially when exploring, hunting, or defending itself,” Pelled says. “For example, one arm can grab food while another is feeling around a rock, without needing permission from the brain. This setup also makes the octopus more resilient. If one arm is injured, the others still work just fine. And because so much decision-making happens at the arms, the central brain is freed up to focus on the bigger picture—like navigating or learning new tasks.” As if each limb weren’t already buzzing with neural activity, things get even more intricate when researchers zoom in further—to the nerves within each individual sucker, a ring of muscular tissue, which octopuses use to sense and taste their surroundings. “There is a sucker ganglion, or nerve center, located in the stalk of every sucker. For some species of octopuses, that’s over a thousand ganglia,” says Cassady Olson, a graduate student at the University of Chicago who works with Cliff Ragsdale, a leading expert in octopus neuroscience. Given that each sucker has its own nerve centers—connected by a long axial nerve cord running down the limb—and each arm has hundreds of suckers, things get complicated very quickly, as researchers have historically struggled to study this peripheral nervous system, as it’s called, within the octopus’s body. “The large size of the brain makes it both really exciting to study and really challenging,” says Z. Yan Wang, an assistant professor of biology and psychology at the University of Washington. “Many of the tools available for neuroscience have to be adjusted or customized specifically for octopuses and other cephalopods because of their unique body plans.” While each limb acts independently, signals are transmitted back to the octopus’s central nervous system. The octopus’ brain sits between its eyes at the front of its mantle, or head, couched between its two optic lobes, large bean-shaped neural organs that help octopuses see the world around them. These optic lobes are just two of the over 30 lobes experts study within the animal’s centralized brain, as each lobe helps the octopus process its environment. This elaborate neural architecture is critical given the octopus’s dual role in the ecosystem as both predator and prey. Without natural defenses like a hard shell, octopuses have evolved a highly adaptable nervous system that allows them to rapidly process information and adjust as needed, helping their chances of survival. Some similarities remain While the octopus’s decentralized nervous system makes it a unique evolutionary example, it does have some structures similar to or analogous to the human nervous system. “The octopus has a central brain mass located between its eyes, and an axial nerve cord running down each arm,” says Wang. “The octopus has many sensory systems that we are familiar with, such as vision, touch, chemosensation, and gravity sensing.” Neuroscientists have homed in on these similarities to understand how these structures may have evolved across the different branches in the tree of life. As the most recent common ancestor for humans and octopuses lived around 750 million years ago, experts believe that many similarities, from similar camera-like eyes to maps of neural activities, evolved separately in a process known as convergent evolution. While these similarities shed light on evolution's independent paths, they also offer valuable insights for fields like soft robotics and regenerative medicine. Occasionally, unique individuals—like an octopus with an unexpected number of limbs—can provide even deeper clues into how this remarkable nervous system functions and adapts. Nine arms, no problem In 2021, researchers from the Institute of Marine Research in Spain used an underwater camera to follow a male Octopus vulgaris, or common octopus. On its left side, three arms were intact, while the others were reduced to uneven, stumpy lengths, sharply bitten off at varying points. Although the researchers didn’t witness the injury itself, they observed that the front right arm—known as R1—was regenerating unusually, splitting into two separate limbs and giving the octopus a total of nine arms. “In this individual, we believe this condition was a result of abnormal regenerationafter an encounter with a predator,” explains Sam Soule, one of the researchers and the first author on the corresponding paper recently published in Animals. The researchers named the octopus Salvador due to its bifurcated arm coiling up on itself like the two upturned ends of Salvador Dali’s moustache. For two years, the team studied the cephalopod’s behavior and found that it used its bifurcated arm less when doing “riskier” movements such as exploring or grabbing food, which would force the animal to stretch its arm out and expose it to further injury. “One of the conclusions of our research is that the octopus likely retains a long-term memory of the original injury, as it tends to use the bifurcated arms for less risky tasks compared to the others,” elaborates Jorge Hernández Urcera, a lead author of the study. “This idea of lasting memory brought to mind Dalí’s famous painting The Persistence of Memory, which ultimately became the title of the paper we published on monitoring this particular octopus.” While the octopus acted more protective of its extra limb, its nervous system had adapted to using the extra appendage, as the octopus was observed, after some time recovering from its injuries, using its ninth arm for probing its environment. “That nine-armed octopus is a perfect example of just how adaptable these animals are,” Pelled adds. “Most animals would struggle with an unusual body part, but not the octopus. In this case, the octopus had a bifurcatedarm and still used it effectively, just like any other arm. That tells us the nervous system didn’t treat it as a mistake—it figured out how to make it work.” Kenna Hughes-Castleberry is the science communicator at JILAand a freelance science journalist. Her main writing focuses are quantum physics, quantum technology, deep technology, social media, and the diversity of people in these fields, particularly women and people from minority ethnic and racial groups. Follow her on LinkedIn or visit her website. 19 Comments #ninearmed #octopus #oddities #cephalopod #nervous
    ARSTECHNICA.COM
    The nine-armed octopus and the oddities of the cephalopod nervous system
    Extra-sensory perception The nine-armed octopus and the oddities of the cephalopod nervous system A mix of autonomous and top-down control manage the octopus's limbs. Kenna Hughes-Castleberry – Jun 7, 2025 8:00 am | 19 Credit: Nikos Stavrinidis / 500px Credit: Nikos Stavrinidis / 500px Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more With their quick-change camouflage and high level of intelligence, it’s not surprising that the public and scientific experts alike are fascinated by octopuses. Their abilities to recognize faces, solve puzzles, and learn behaviors from other octopuses make these animals a captivating study. To perform these processes and others, like crawling or exploring, octopuses rely on their complex nervous system, one that has become a focus for neuroscientists. With about 500 million neurons—around the same number as dogs—octopuses’ nervous systems are the most complex of any invertebrate. But, unlike vertebrate organisms, the octopus’s nervous system is also decentralized, with around 350 million neurons, or 66 percent of it, located in its eight arms. “This means each arm is capable of independently processing sensory input, initiating movement, and even executing complex behaviors—without direct instructions from the brain,” explains Galit Pelled, a professor of Mechanical Engineering, Radiology, and Neuroscience at Michigan State University who studies octopus neuroscience. “In essence, the arms have their own ‘mini-brains.’” A decentralized nervous system is one factor that helps octopuses adapt to changes, such as injury or predation, as seen in the case of an Octopus vulgaris, or common octopus, that was observed with nine arms by researchers at the ECOBAR lab at the Institute of Marine Research in Spain between 2021 and 2022. By studying outliers like this cephalopod, researchers can gain insight into how the animal’s detailed scaffolding of nerves changes and regrows over time, uncovering more about how octopuses have evolved over millennia in our oceans. Brains, brains, and more brains Because each arm of an octopus contains its own bundle of neurons, the limbs can operate semi-independently from the central brain, enabling faster responses since signals don’t always need to travel back and forth between the brain and the arms. In fact, Pelled and her team recently discovered that “neural signals recorded in the octopus arm can predict movement type within 100 milliseconds of stimulation, without central brain involvement.” She notes that “that level of localized autonomy is unprecedented in vertebrate systems.” Though each limb moves on its own, the movements of the octopus’s body are smooth and conducted with a coordinated elegance that allows the animal to exhibit some of the broadest range of behaviors, adapting on the fly to changes in its surroundings. “That means the octopus can react quickly to its environment, especially when exploring, hunting, or defending itself,” Pelled says. “For example, one arm can grab food while another is feeling around a rock, without needing permission from the brain. This setup also makes the octopus more resilient. If one arm is injured, the others still work just fine. And because so much decision-making happens at the arms, the central brain is freed up to focus on the bigger picture—like navigating or learning new tasks.” As if each limb weren’t already buzzing with neural activity, things get even more intricate when researchers zoom in further—to the nerves within each individual sucker, a ring of muscular tissue, which octopuses use to sense and taste their surroundings. “There is a sucker ganglion, or nerve center, located in the stalk of every sucker. For some species of octopuses, that’s over a thousand ganglia,” says Cassady Olson, a graduate student at the University of Chicago who works with Cliff Ragsdale, a leading expert in octopus neuroscience. Given that each sucker has its own nerve centers—connected by a long axial nerve cord running down the limb—and each arm has hundreds of suckers, things get complicated very quickly, as researchers have historically struggled to study this peripheral nervous system, as it’s called, within the octopus’s body. “The large size of the brain makes it both really exciting to study and really challenging,” says Z. Yan Wang, an assistant professor of biology and psychology at the University of Washington. “Many of the tools available for neuroscience have to be adjusted or customized specifically for octopuses and other cephalopods because of their unique body plans.” While each limb acts independently, signals are transmitted back to the octopus’s central nervous system. The octopus’ brain sits between its eyes at the front of its mantle, or head, couched between its two optic lobes, large bean-shaped neural organs that help octopuses see the world around them. These optic lobes are just two of the over 30 lobes experts study within the animal’s centralized brain, as each lobe helps the octopus process its environment. This elaborate neural architecture is critical given the octopus’s dual role in the ecosystem as both predator and prey. Without natural defenses like a hard shell, octopuses have evolved a highly adaptable nervous system that allows them to rapidly process information and adjust as needed, helping their chances of survival. Some similarities remain While the octopus’s decentralized nervous system makes it a unique evolutionary example, it does have some structures similar to or analogous to the human nervous system. “The octopus has a central brain mass located between its eyes, and an axial nerve cord running down each arm (similar to a spinal cord),” says Wang. “The octopus has many sensory systems that we are familiar with, such as vision, touch (somatosensation), chemosensation, and gravity sensing.” Neuroscientists have homed in on these similarities to understand how these structures may have evolved across the different branches in the tree of life. As the most recent common ancestor for humans and octopuses lived around 750 million years ago, experts believe that many similarities, from similar camera-like eyes to maps of neural activities, evolved separately in a process known as convergent evolution. While these similarities shed light on evolution's independent paths, they also offer valuable insights for fields like soft robotics and regenerative medicine. Occasionally, unique individuals—like an octopus with an unexpected number of limbs—can provide even deeper clues into how this remarkable nervous system functions and adapts. Nine arms, no problem In 2021, researchers from the Institute of Marine Research in Spain used an underwater camera to follow a male Octopus vulgaris, or common octopus. On its left side, three arms were intact, while the others were reduced to uneven, stumpy lengths, sharply bitten off at varying points. Although the researchers didn’t witness the injury itself, they observed that the front right arm—known as R1—was regenerating unusually, splitting into two separate limbs and giving the octopus a total of nine arms. “In this individual, we believe this condition was a result of abnormal regeneration [a genetic mutation] after an encounter with a predator,” explains Sam Soule, one of the researchers and the first author on the corresponding paper recently published in Animals. The researchers named the octopus Salvador due to its bifurcated arm coiling up on itself like the two upturned ends of Salvador Dali’s moustache. For two years, the team studied the cephalopod’s behavior and found that it used its bifurcated arm less when doing “riskier” movements such as exploring or grabbing food, which would force the animal to stretch its arm out and expose it to further injury. “One of the conclusions of our research is that the octopus likely retains a long-term memory of the original injury, as it tends to use the bifurcated arms for less risky tasks compared to the others,” elaborates Jorge Hernández Urcera, a lead author of the study. “This idea of lasting memory brought to mind Dalí’s famous painting The Persistence of Memory, which ultimately became the title of the paper we published on monitoring this particular octopus.” While the octopus acted more protective of its extra limb, its nervous system had adapted to using the extra appendage, as the octopus was observed, after some time recovering from its injuries, using its ninth arm for probing its environment. “That nine-armed octopus is a perfect example of just how adaptable these animals are,” Pelled adds. “Most animals would struggle with an unusual body part, but not the octopus. In this case, the octopus had a bifurcated (split) arm and still used it effectively, just like any other arm. That tells us the nervous system didn’t treat it as a mistake—it figured out how to make it work.” Kenna Hughes-Castleberry is the science communicator at JILA (a joint physics research institute between the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the University of Colorado Boulder) and a freelance science journalist. Her main writing focuses are quantum physics, quantum technology, deep technology, social media, and the diversity of people in these fields, particularly women and people from minority ethnic and racial groups. Follow her on LinkedIn or visit her website. 19 Comments
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    542
    0 Commentarii 0 Distribuiri 0 previzualizare
  • On this day: June 7

    June 7

    Monument of Branimir

    879 – Pope John VIII officially recognised Croatia as an independent state, and Branimiras its duke.
    1628 – The Petition of Right, a major English constitutional document that set out specific liberties of individuals, received royal assent from King Charles I.
    1917 – First World War: The British Army detonated 19 ammonal mines under German lines, killing perhaps 10,000 in the deadliest non-nuclear man-made explosion in history during the Battle of Messines.
    1948 – Anti-Jewish riots broke out in the French protectorate in Morocco, during which 44 people were killed and 150 injured.
    1969 – In their only UK concert, the rock supergroup Blind Faith, featuring Eric Clapton, Steve Winwood and Ginger Baker, debuted in London's Hyde Park in front of 100,000 fans.
    Roderigo LopesPaul GauguinLouise ErdrichMike PenceMore anniversaries:
    June 6
    June 7
    June 8

    Archive
    By email
    List of days of the year
    About
    #this #day #june
    On this day: June 7
    June 7 Monument of Branimir 879 – Pope John VIII officially recognised Croatia as an independent state, and Branimiras its duke. 1628 – The Petition of Right, a major English constitutional document that set out specific liberties of individuals, received royal assent from King Charles I. 1917 – First World War: The British Army detonated 19 ammonal mines under German lines, killing perhaps 10,000 in the deadliest non-nuclear man-made explosion in history during the Battle of Messines. 1948 – Anti-Jewish riots broke out in the French protectorate in Morocco, during which 44 people were killed and 150 injured. 1969 – In their only UK concert, the rock supergroup Blind Faith, featuring Eric Clapton, Steve Winwood and Ginger Baker, debuted in London's Hyde Park in front of 100,000 fans. Roderigo LopesPaul GauguinLouise ErdrichMike PenceMore anniversaries: June 6 June 7 June 8 Archive By email List of days of the year About #this #day #june
    EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
    On this day: June 7
    June 7 Monument of Branimir 879 – Pope John VIII officially recognised Croatia as an independent state, and Branimir (monument pictured) as its duke. 1628 – The Petition of Right, a major English constitutional document that set out specific liberties of individuals, received royal assent from King Charles I. 1917 – First World War: The British Army detonated 19 ammonal mines under German lines, killing perhaps 10,000 in the deadliest non-nuclear man-made explosion in history during the Battle of Messines. 1948 – Anti-Jewish riots broke out in the French protectorate in Morocco, during which 44 people were killed and 150 injured. 1969 – In their only UK concert, the rock supergroup Blind Faith, featuring Eric Clapton, Steve Winwood and Ginger Baker, debuted in London's Hyde Park in front of 100,000 fans. Roderigo Lopes (d. 1594)Paul Gauguin (b. 1848)Louise Erdrich (b. 1954)Mike Pence (b. 1959) More anniversaries: June 6 June 7 June 8 Archive By email List of days of the year About
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    647
    0 Commentarii 0 Distribuiri 0 previzualizare
  • FORM Brands Studio elevates London’s Air Ambulance Charity

    FORM Brands Studio has given London’s Air Ambulance Charity a new look.
    Rather than transporting patients to hospital, the charity’s doctors and paramedics treat seriously injured people at the scene from its two helicopters and eight cars. It is the only organisation performing this role in London.
    Established in 1989, it is called to a rising number of patients across the capital every year, helping more than 2,000 people in 2024.
    London’s Air Ambulance Charityneeds £17m a year to operate, 96% which comes from donations. “But 60% of Londoners don’t know we’re a charity,” says LAAC’s director of fundraising and marketing, Jayne Clarke.
    FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity in OOH posters
    Its new organisational strategy is about raising awareness, enhancing fundraising efforts and strengthening its connection with London’s communities.
    “We’re trying to make sure the strategy is about hope and looking forward to the future,” Clarke says.
    To accompany this new strategy, the charity also decided to change up its visual identity.

    “Our previous branding was very corporate,” Clarke admits.FORM Brands Studio won the job after a pitch. Strategy director Beth Andlaw set up the east London agency in 2022 with creative director Alex Andlaw. Before that she had been in comms and PR, and had worked with LAAC on and off for about 20 years.
    FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity on stage
    FORM introduced a new wordmark, colour palette, typeface, icons, motion, creative copy, messaging, fundraising memorabilia and photography. However, the existing helicopter icon was retained. “It has a lot of love and legacy,” says Clarke.
    The agency’s brand idea, Propelling Promise, was inspired by the urgent, intense nature of the work carried out by LAAC’s clinical and operational crews. That was used to give structure to creative copy lines and the new tone of voice.
    Each lead line includes an element of “propelling” to imply urgency and momentum, and “promise” to imply warmth and hope.
    That resulted in lines including “Trauma doesn’t stop. Neither do we” and “Here for London. Today, tomorrow, always.” FORM brought in Peggy Nyamekye to work on the copywriting.
    Meanwhile, the visual identity, developed with designer Mayan Mistry, comprises a gradient design system, drawing on the rotational motion of helicopter blades. Borough names are repeated in radiating patterns and overlaid with the gradient.
    Red is still central to the charity’s identity, but FORM introduced the vivid orange worn by medics on-scene. “These colours blend in the gradient, creating a visual signature that speaks to urgency, action, optimism and hope,” says Alex Andlaw.


    With the help of motion graphics designer Matt Fowler, the agency introduced movement to the branding, to reflect the aircraft’s blades in flight.
    The logo’s new wordmark is in Barlow, inspired by the existing big white lettering on the helicopter tail booms. Before, the charity’s name was written lower case in a thinner font. “Now it’s bigger, bolder and more impactful,” says Alex Andlaw.
    FORM also redesigned the icons to have more personality but still be functional. “The icons help the team talk about quite hard subjects,” he says, such as casualties, and the designs had to balance warmth and realism.
    “We did quite a few hearts, some look too detailed and some too basic,” he explains.

    The agency also created a series of collectible badges, inspired by the embroidered badges worn by the charity’s doctors and pilots.FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity in Instagram posts
    Meanwhile, photographer James Pearson-Howes was briefed to capture real people, places and moments from across London.
    The new branding had to resonate with very different types of donors, from the charity’s collection buckets to seven-figure corporate donations, says Clarke.
    “And the doctors wearing the brand have very strong opinions, as do the pilots. FORM took in all these views and managed to make all those people happy.”

    FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity
    FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity in OOH posters
    #form #brands #studio #elevates #londons
    FORM Brands Studio elevates London’s Air Ambulance Charity
    FORM Brands Studio has given London’s Air Ambulance Charity a new look. Rather than transporting patients to hospital, the charity’s doctors and paramedics treat seriously injured people at the scene from its two helicopters and eight cars. It is the only organisation performing this role in London. Established in 1989, it is called to a rising number of patients across the capital every year, helping more than 2,000 people in 2024. London’s Air Ambulance Charityneeds £17m a year to operate, 96% which comes from donations. “But 60% of Londoners don’t know we’re a charity,” says LAAC’s director of fundraising and marketing, Jayne Clarke. FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity in OOH posters Its new organisational strategy is about raising awareness, enhancing fundraising efforts and strengthening its connection with London’s communities. “We’re trying to make sure the strategy is about hope and looking forward to the future,” Clarke says. To accompany this new strategy, the charity also decided to change up its visual identity. “Our previous branding was very corporate,” Clarke admits.FORM Brands Studio won the job after a pitch. Strategy director Beth Andlaw set up the east London agency in 2022 with creative director Alex Andlaw. Before that she had been in comms and PR, and had worked with LAAC on and off for about 20 years. FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity on stage FORM introduced a new wordmark, colour palette, typeface, icons, motion, creative copy, messaging, fundraising memorabilia and photography. However, the existing helicopter icon was retained. “It has a lot of love and legacy,” says Clarke. The agency’s brand idea, Propelling Promise, was inspired by the urgent, intense nature of the work carried out by LAAC’s clinical and operational crews. That was used to give structure to creative copy lines and the new tone of voice. Each lead line includes an element of “propelling” to imply urgency and momentum, and “promise” to imply warmth and hope. That resulted in lines including “Trauma doesn’t stop. Neither do we” and “Here for London. Today, tomorrow, always.” FORM brought in Peggy Nyamekye to work on the copywriting. Meanwhile, the visual identity, developed with designer Mayan Mistry, comprises a gradient design system, drawing on the rotational motion of helicopter blades. Borough names are repeated in radiating patterns and overlaid with the gradient. Red is still central to the charity’s identity, but FORM introduced the vivid orange worn by medics on-scene. “These colours blend in the gradient, creating a visual signature that speaks to urgency, action, optimism and hope,” says Alex Andlaw. With the help of motion graphics designer Matt Fowler, the agency introduced movement to the branding, to reflect the aircraft’s blades in flight. The logo’s new wordmark is in Barlow, inspired by the existing big white lettering on the helicopter tail booms. Before, the charity’s name was written lower case in a thinner font. “Now it’s bigger, bolder and more impactful,” says Alex Andlaw. FORM also redesigned the icons to have more personality but still be functional. “The icons help the team talk about quite hard subjects,” he says, such as casualties, and the designs had to balance warmth and realism. “We did quite a few hearts, some look too detailed and some too basic,” he explains. The agency also created a series of collectible badges, inspired by the embroidered badges worn by the charity’s doctors and pilots.FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity in Instagram posts Meanwhile, photographer James Pearson-Howes was briefed to capture real people, places and moments from across London. The new branding had to resonate with very different types of donors, from the charity’s collection buckets to seven-figure corporate donations, says Clarke. “And the doctors wearing the brand have very strong opinions, as do the pilots. FORM took in all these views and managed to make all those people happy.” FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity in OOH posters #form #brands #studio #elevates #londons
    WWW.DESIGNWEEK.CO.UK
    FORM Brands Studio elevates London’s Air Ambulance Charity
    FORM Brands Studio has given London’s Air Ambulance Charity a new look. Rather than transporting patients to hospital, the charity’s doctors and paramedics treat seriously injured people at the scene from its two helicopters and eight cars. It is the only organisation performing this role in London. Established in 1989, it is called to a rising number of patients across the capital every year, helping more than 2,000 people in 2024. London’s Air Ambulance Charity (LAAC) needs £17m a year to operate, 96% which comes from donations. “But 60% of Londoners don’t know we’re a charity,” says LAAC’s director of fundraising and marketing, Jayne Clarke. FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity in OOH posters Its new organisational strategy is about raising awareness, enhancing fundraising efforts and strengthening its connection with London’s communities. “We’re trying to make sure the strategy is about hope and looking forward to the future,” Clarke says. To accompany this new strategy, the charity also decided to change up its visual identity. “Our previous branding was very corporate,” Clarke admits.FORM Brands Studio won the job after a pitch. Strategy director Beth Andlaw set up the east London agency in 2022 with creative director Alex Andlaw. Before that she had been in comms and PR, and had worked with LAAC on and off for about 20 years. FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity on stage FORM introduced a new wordmark, colour palette, typeface, icons, motion, creative copy, messaging, fundraising memorabilia and photography. However, the existing helicopter icon was retained. “It has a lot of love and legacy,” says Clarke. The agency’s brand idea, Propelling Promise, was inspired by the urgent, intense nature of the work carried out by LAAC’s clinical and operational crews. That was used to give structure to creative copy lines and the new tone of voice. Each lead line includes an element of “propelling” to imply urgency and momentum, and “promise” to imply warmth and hope. That resulted in lines including “Trauma doesn’t stop. Neither do we” and “Here for London. Today, tomorrow, always.” FORM brought in Peggy Nyamekye to work on the copywriting. Meanwhile, the visual identity, developed with designer Mayan Mistry, comprises a gradient design system, drawing on the rotational motion of helicopter blades. Borough names are repeated in radiating patterns and overlaid with the gradient. Red is still central to the charity’s identity, but FORM introduced the vivid orange worn by medics on-scene. “These colours blend in the gradient, creating a visual signature that speaks to urgency, action, optimism and hope,” says Alex Andlaw. https://d3faj0w6aqatyx.cloudfront.net/uploads/2025/06/LAA_OOH_TUBE_1920x1080.mp4 With the help of motion graphics designer Matt Fowler, the agency introduced movement to the branding, to reflect the aircraft’s blades in flight. The logo’s new wordmark is in Barlow, inspired by the existing big white lettering on the helicopter tail booms. Before, the charity’s name was written lower case in a thinner font. “Now it’s bigger, bolder and more impactful,” says Alex Andlaw. FORM also redesigned the icons to have more personality but still be functional. “The icons help the team talk about quite hard subjects,” he says, such as casualties, and the designs had to balance warmth and realism. “We did quite a few hearts, some look too detailed and some too basic,” he explains. The agency also created a series of collectible badges, inspired by the embroidered badges worn by the charity’s doctors and pilots.FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity in Instagram posts Meanwhile, photographer James Pearson-Howes was briefed to capture real people, places and moments from across London. The new branding had to resonate with very different types of donors, from the charity’s collection buckets to seven-figure corporate donations, says Clarke. “And the doctors wearing the brand have very strong opinions, as do the pilots. FORM took in all these views and managed to make all those people happy.” https://d3faj0w6aqatyx.cloudfront.net/uploads/2025/06/LAA_OOH_BILLBOARD_1920x1080.mp4 FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity FORM Brands Studio identity for London’s Air Ambulance Charity in OOH posters
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    418
    4 Commentarii 0 Distribuiri 0 previzualizare
  • New NWS Hires Won’t Make Up for Trump Cuts, Meteorologists Say

    June 5, 20253 min readNew Hires Will Still Leave the NWS Dangerously Understaffed, Meteorologists SayNearly 600 employees left the National Weather Service or were fired in recent months. Meteorologists say 125 expected new hires will still leave the agency dangerously understaffedBy Chelsea Harvey & E&E News A tornado struck communities in Somerset and London, Ky., on May 16, 2025, leaving 19 dead and more injured. Michael Swensen/Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | New hiring efforts at the National Weather Service won’t be enough to overcome staffing shortages and potential risks to human lives this summer, meteorologists warned Wednesday at a panel hosted by Democratic Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell.NOAA will hire around 125 new employees at the NWS, the agency said in an announcement first reported Monday by CNN. But nearly 600 employees have departed the NWS over the last few months, after the Trump administration fired probationary federal employees and offered buyouts and early retirements.That means the new hires will account for less than 25 percent of the total losses.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“A quarter of the staff are not going to do the job when, let’s just say, both hurricane and fire risks are increasing,” Cantwell said during Wednesday’s panel. “approach in response to this has been a flimsy Band-Aid over a very massive cut.”Cantwell added that the National Hurricane Center is not fully staffed, as NOAA officials suggested last month when announcing their predictions for the upcoming Atlantic hurricane season outlook. The NHC has at least five vacancies, she said, representing meteorologists and technicians who help build forecasts for tropical cyclones in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.Meanwhile, NOAA is predicting above-average activity in the Atlantic this hurricane season. Updated fire maps also suggest that nearly all of Cantwell’s home state of Washington, along with Oregon and large swaths of California, will experience an above-average risk of wildfires by August.Kim Doster, NOAA’s director of communications, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on NOAA’s staffing shortages or the NHC’s vacancies.Three meteorologists speaking on the panel echoed Cantwell’s concerns, suggesting that staffing shortages at weather offices across the country risk forecasting errors and breakdowns in communication between meteorologists and emergency managers.At least eight local weather offices across the country are currently so short-staffed that they can no longer cover their overnight shifts, said Brian LaMarre, a former meteorologist-in-charge at the NWS office in Tampa Bay, Florida. Some of these offices may have to rely on “mutual aid,” or borrowed staff, from other NWS locations to cover their shifts during extreme weather events.But Cantwell and other panelists expressed concern that staff-sharing across the NWS could erode the accuracy of forecasts and warnings for local communities.Cantwell pointed to the meteorologists that specialize in fire weather forecasts. NOAA typically deploys those experts to provide forecasts and recommendations to firefighters on the ground when wildfires strike.“If you think you're gonna substitute somebody that’s gonna be somewhere else — I don’t know where, some other part of the state or some other state — and you think you're gonna give them accurate weather information? It just doesn't work that way,” she said.Washington state-based broadcast meteorologist Jeff Renner echoed her concerns.“The meteorologists that respond tohave very specific training and very specific experience that can’t be easily duplicated, particularly from those outside the area,” he said.Meanwhile, LaMarre’s former position in Tampa is vacant, and around 30 other offices across the country are also operating without a permanent meteorologist-in-charge.“That person is the main point of contact when it comes to briefing elected officials, emergency management directors, state governors, city mayors, parish officials,” LaMarre said. “They are the individual that’s gonna be implementing any new change that is needed for hurricane season, blizzards, wildfires, inland flooding.”The NWS suffered from staffing shortages prior to the Trump administration. But LaMarre said he never saw such widespread vacancies, including offices unable to operate overnight, in his 30 years at the agency.He emphasized that NWS meteorologists will do whatever it takes to ensure accurate forecasts when extreme weather strikes. But too many gaps at local offices mean that some services will inevitably suffer, LaMarre added.“Whenever you look at an office that is short-staffed, that means a piece of that larger puzzle is taken away,” he said. “That means some outreach might not be able to occur. Some trainings might not be able to occur. Some briefings to officials might not be able to occur.”Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.
    #new #nws #hires #wont #make
    New NWS Hires Won’t Make Up for Trump Cuts, Meteorologists Say
    June 5, 20253 min readNew Hires Will Still Leave the NWS Dangerously Understaffed, Meteorologists SayNearly 600 employees left the National Weather Service or were fired in recent months. Meteorologists say 125 expected new hires will still leave the agency dangerously understaffedBy Chelsea Harvey & E&E News A tornado struck communities in Somerset and London, Ky., on May 16, 2025, leaving 19 dead and more injured. Michael Swensen/Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | New hiring efforts at the National Weather Service won’t be enough to overcome staffing shortages and potential risks to human lives this summer, meteorologists warned Wednesday at a panel hosted by Democratic Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell.NOAA will hire around 125 new employees at the NWS, the agency said in an announcement first reported Monday by CNN. But nearly 600 employees have departed the NWS over the last few months, after the Trump administration fired probationary federal employees and offered buyouts and early retirements.That means the new hires will account for less than 25 percent of the total losses.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“A quarter of the staff are not going to do the job when, let’s just say, both hurricane and fire risks are increasing,” Cantwell said during Wednesday’s panel. “approach in response to this has been a flimsy Band-Aid over a very massive cut.”Cantwell added that the National Hurricane Center is not fully staffed, as NOAA officials suggested last month when announcing their predictions for the upcoming Atlantic hurricane season outlook. The NHC has at least five vacancies, she said, representing meteorologists and technicians who help build forecasts for tropical cyclones in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.Meanwhile, NOAA is predicting above-average activity in the Atlantic this hurricane season. Updated fire maps also suggest that nearly all of Cantwell’s home state of Washington, along with Oregon and large swaths of California, will experience an above-average risk of wildfires by August.Kim Doster, NOAA’s director of communications, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on NOAA’s staffing shortages or the NHC’s vacancies.Three meteorologists speaking on the panel echoed Cantwell’s concerns, suggesting that staffing shortages at weather offices across the country risk forecasting errors and breakdowns in communication between meteorologists and emergency managers.At least eight local weather offices across the country are currently so short-staffed that they can no longer cover their overnight shifts, said Brian LaMarre, a former meteorologist-in-charge at the NWS office in Tampa Bay, Florida. Some of these offices may have to rely on “mutual aid,” or borrowed staff, from other NWS locations to cover their shifts during extreme weather events.But Cantwell and other panelists expressed concern that staff-sharing across the NWS could erode the accuracy of forecasts and warnings for local communities.Cantwell pointed to the meteorologists that specialize in fire weather forecasts. NOAA typically deploys those experts to provide forecasts and recommendations to firefighters on the ground when wildfires strike.“If you think you're gonna substitute somebody that’s gonna be somewhere else — I don’t know where, some other part of the state or some other state — and you think you're gonna give them accurate weather information? It just doesn't work that way,” she said.Washington state-based broadcast meteorologist Jeff Renner echoed her concerns.“The meteorologists that respond tohave very specific training and very specific experience that can’t be easily duplicated, particularly from those outside the area,” he said.Meanwhile, LaMarre’s former position in Tampa is vacant, and around 30 other offices across the country are also operating without a permanent meteorologist-in-charge.“That person is the main point of contact when it comes to briefing elected officials, emergency management directors, state governors, city mayors, parish officials,” LaMarre said. “They are the individual that’s gonna be implementing any new change that is needed for hurricane season, blizzards, wildfires, inland flooding.”The NWS suffered from staffing shortages prior to the Trump administration. But LaMarre said he never saw such widespread vacancies, including offices unable to operate overnight, in his 30 years at the agency.He emphasized that NWS meteorologists will do whatever it takes to ensure accurate forecasts when extreme weather strikes. But too many gaps at local offices mean that some services will inevitably suffer, LaMarre added.“Whenever you look at an office that is short-staffed, that means a piece of that larger puzzle is taken away,” he said. “That means some outreach might not be able to occur. Some trainings might not be able to occur. Some briefings to officials might not be able to occur.”Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals. #new #nws #hires #wont #make
    WWW.SCIENTIFICAMERICAN.COM
    New NWS Hires Won’t Make Up for Trump Cuts, Meteorologists Say
    June 5, 20253 min readNew Hires Will Still Leave the NWS Dangerously Understaffed, Meteorologists SayNearly 600 employees left the National Weather Service or were fired in recent months. Meteorologists say 125 expected new hires will still leave the agency dangerously understaffedBy Chelsea Harvey & E&E News A tornado struck communities in Somerset and London, Ky., on May 16, 2025, leaving 19 dead and more injured. Michael Swensen/Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | New hiring efforts at the National Weather Service won’t be enough to overcome staffing shortages and potential risks to human lives this summer, meteorologists warned Wednesday at a panel hosted by Democratic Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell.NOAA will hire around 125 new employees at the NWS, the agency said in an announcement first reported Monday by CNN. But nearly 600 employees have departed the NWS over the last few months, after the Trump administration fired probationary federal employees and offered buyouts and early retirements.That means the new hires will account for less than 25 percent of the total losses.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“A quarter of the staff are not going to do the job when, let’s just say, both hurricane and fire risks are increasing,” Cantwell said during Wednesday’s panel. “[The Trump administration’s] approach in response to this has been a flimsy Band-Aid over a very massive cut.”Cantwell added that the National Hurricane Center is not fully staffed, as NOAA officials suggested last month when announcing their predictions for the upcoming Atlantic hurricane season outlook. The NHC has at least five vacancies, she said, representing meteorologists and technicians who help build forecasts for tropical cyclones in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.Meanwhile, NOAA is predicting above-average activity in the Atlantic this hurricane season. Updated fire maps also suggest that nearly all of Cantwell’s home state of Washington, along with Oregon and large swaths of California, will experience an above-average risk of wildfires by August.Kim Doster, NOAA’s director of communications, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on NOAA’s staffing shortages or the NHC’s vacancies.Three meteorologists speaking on the panel echoed Cantwell’s concerns, suggesting that staffing shortages at weather offices across the country risk forecasting errors and breakdowns in communication between meteorologists and emergency managers.At least eight local weather offices across the country are currently so short-staffed that they can no longer cover their overnight shifts, said Brian LaMarre, a former meteorologist-in-charge at the NWS office in Tampa Bay, Florida. Some of these offices may have to rely on “mutual aid,” or borrowed staff, from other NWS locations to cover their shifts during extreme weather events.But Cantwell and other panelists expressed concern that staff-sharing across the NWS could erode the accuracy of forecasts and warnings for local communities.Cantwell pointed to the meteorologists that specialize in fire weather forecasts. NOAA typically deploys those experts to provide forecasts and recommendations to firefighters on the ground when wildfires strike.“If you think you're gonna substitute somebody that’s gonna be somewhere else — I don’t know where, some other part of the state or some other state — and you think you're gonna give them accurate weather information? It just doesn't work that way,” she said.Washington state-based broadcast meteorologist Jeff Renner echoed her concerns.“The meteorologists that respond to [wildfires] have very specific training and very specific experience that can’t be easily duplicated, particularly from those outside the area,” he said.Meanwhile, LaMarre’s former position in Tampa is vacant, and around 30 other offices across the country are also operating without a permanent meteorologist-in-charge.“That person is the main point of contact when it comes to briefing elected officials, emergency management directors, state governors, city mayors, parish officials,” LaMarre said. “They are the individual that’s gonna be implementing any new change that is needed for hurricane season, blizzards, wildfires, inland flooding.”The NWS suffered from staffing shortages prior to the Trump administration. But LaMarre said he never saw such widespread vacancies, including offices unable to operate overnight, in his 30 years at the agency.He emphasized that NWS meteorologists will do whatever it takes to ensure accurate forecasts when extreme weather strikes. But too many gaps at local offices mean that some services will inevitably suffer, LaMarre added.“Whenever you look at an office that is short-staffed, that means a piece of that larger puzzle is taken away,” he said. “That means some outreach might not be able to occur. Some trainings might not be able to occur. Some briefings to officials might not be able to occur.”Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    386
    0 Commentarii 0 Distribuiri 0 previzualizare
  • BirdAid concept brings biodegradable splint for injured urban birds

    I grew up in urban areas where seeing birds “in the wild” are a rarity. That’s why I’m always amazed when I travel and I see different species just flying and hanging around window sills, the park, picnic tables, and some even perch on people. But urban areas are dangerous places for birds as they are filled with hazards for them like tall buildings, glass windows, and artificial structures. People who live in areas like this will probably see injured birds every once in a while but we don’t really know how to treat them on our own. What if giving first aid to these injured birds is as easy as treating mild human injuries?
    BirdAid is an innovative, biodegradable splint designed to provide immediate first aid to injured wild birds, particularly in urban environments. The project emphasizes sustainability and compassionate care for wildlife. It is made from natural materials including eggshell calcium, agar, and potato starch. The materials, specifically the eggshells, were chosen since they provide natural calcium for bone recovery while the rest are to control the decomposition rate.
    Designers: Zay Kim, Chaewon Lee, and Jungmin Park

    They developed three splint variants with different decomposition rates to help users identify the severity of the injury and which to apply to that wound. Each material has a different color, including gardenia, basil, and beetroot, and this intuitive system helps non-experts still render first aid when needed. Using it is pretty easy as you just have to take the pack from the kit and then crush it. Then you just gently wrap it around the bird’s wound and wait for it to do its work.

    If you’re still confused about what to do, you just need to scan the QR code on the kit and read and follow the instructions indicated. The QR code links to a simple, step-by-step guide—complete with visuals—to help anyone, regardless of medical or veterinary background, confidently provide first aid to an injured bird. This ensures that even in stressful or unfamiliar situations, users can take quick and effective action without hesitation.

    BirdAid represents a small yet significant gesture towards integrating compassionate care into daily urban life. It bridges the gap between professional wildlife rescue and ordinary citizens, empowering people to make a difference in moments that truly matter. By enabling city dwellers to aid injured birds using a tool that is both intuitive and environmentally friendly, BirdAid not only supports animal welfare but also fosters a deeper sense of empathy, responsibility, and connection to the natural world within bustling city environments.

    The post BirdAid concept brings biodegradable splint for injured urban birds first appeared on Yanko Design.
    #birdaid #concept #brings #biodegradable #splint
    BirdAid concept brings biodegradable splint for injured urban birds
    I grew up in urban areas where seeing birds “in the wild” are a rarity. That’s why I’m always amazed when I travel and I see different species just flying and hanging around window sills, the park, picnic tables, and some even perch on people. But urban areas are dangerous places for birds as they are filled with hazards for them like tall buildings, glass windows, and artificial structures. People who live in areas like this will probably see injured birds every once in a while but we don’t really know how to treat them on our own. What if giving first aid to these injured birds is as easy as treating mild human injuries? BirdAid is an innovative, biodegradable splint designed to provide immediate first aid to injured wild birds, particularly in urban environments. The project emphasizes sustainability and compassionate care for wildlife. It is made from natural materials including eggshell calcium, agar, and potato starch. The materials, specifically the eggshells, were chosen since they provide natural calcium for bone recovery while the rest are to control the decomposition rate. Designers: Zay Kim, Chaewon Lee, and Jungmin Park They developed three splint variants with different decomposition rates to help users identify the severity of the injury and which to apply to that wound. Each material has a different color, including gardenia, basil, and beetroot, and this intuitive system helps non-experts still render first aid when needed. Using it is pretty easy as you just have to take the pack from the kit and then crush it. Then you just gently wrap it around the bird’s wound and wait for it to do its work. If you’re still confused about what to do, you just need to scan the QR code on the kit and read and follow the instructions indicated. The QR code links to a simple, step-by-step guide—complete with visuals—to help anyone, regardless of medical or veterinary background, confidently provide first aid to an injured bird. This ensures that even in stressful or unfamiliar situations, users can take quick and effective action without hesitation. BirdAid represents a small yet significant gesture towards integrating compassionate care into daily urban life. It bridges the gap between professional wildlife rescue and ordinary citizens, empowering people to make a difference in moments that truly matter. By enabling city dwellers to aid injured birds using a tool that is both intuitive and environmentally friendly, BirdAid not only supports animal welfare but also fosters a deeper sense of empathy, responsibility, and connection to the natural world within bustling city environments. The post BirdAid concept brings biodegradable splint for injured urban birds first appeared on Yanko Design. #birdaid #concept #brings #biodegradable #splint
    WWW.YANKODESIGN.COM
    BirdAid concept brings biodegradable splint for injured urban birds
    I grew up in urban areas where seeing birds “in the wild” are a rarity. That’s why I’m always amazed when I travel and I see different species just flying and hanging around window sills, the park, picnic tables, and some even perch on people. But urban areas are dangerous places for birds as they are filled with hazards for them like tall buildings, glass windows, and artificial structures. People who live in areas like this will probably see injured birds every once in a while but we don’t really know how to treat them on our own. What if giving first aid to these injured birds is as easy as treating mild human injuries? BirdAid is an innovative, biodegradable splint designed to provide immediate first aid to injured wild birds, particularly in urban environments. The project emphasizes sustainability and compassionate care for wildlife. It is made from natural materials including eggshell calcium, agar, and potato starch. The materials, specifically the eggshells, were chosen since they provide natural calcium for bone recovery while the rest are to control the decomposition rate. Designers: Zay Kim, Chaewon Lee, and Jungmin Park They developed three splint variants with different decomposition rates to help users identify the severity of the injury and which to apply to that wound. Each material has a different color, including gardenia (yellow), basil (green), and beetroot (red), and this intuitive system helps non-experts still render first aid when needed. Using it is pretty easy as you just have to take the pack from the kit and then crush it. Then you just gently wrap it around the bird’s wound and wait for it to do its work. If you’re still confused about what to do, you just need to scan the QR code on the kit and read and follow the instructions indicated. The QR code links to a simple, step-by-step guide—complete with visuals—to help anyone, regardless of medical or veterinary background, confidently provide first aid to an injured bird. This ensures that even in stressful or unfamiliar situations, users can take quick and effective action without hesitation. BirdAid represents a small yet significant gesture towards integrating compassionate care into daily urban life. It bridges the gap between professional wildlife rescue and ordinary citizens, empowering people to make a difference in moments that truly matter. By enabling city dwellers to aid injured birds using a tool that is both intuitive and environmentally friendly, BirdAid not only supports animal welfare but also fosters a deeper sense of empathy, responsibility, and connection to the natural world within bustling city environments. The post BirdAid concept brings biodegradable splint for injured urban birds first appeared on Yanko Design.
    0 Commentarii 0 Distribuiri 0 previzualizare
  • This giant microwave may change the future of war

    Imagine: China deploys hundreds of thousands of autonomous drones in the air, on the sea, and under the water—all armed with explosive warheads or small missiles. These machines descend in a swarm toward military installations on Taiwan and nearby US bases, and over the course of a few hours, a single robotic blitzkrieg overwhelms the US Pacific force before it can even begin to fight back. 

    Maybe it sounds like a new Michael Bay movie, but it’s the scenario that keeps the chief technology officer of the US Army up at night.

    “I’m hesitant to say it out loud so I don’t manifest it,” says Alex Miller, a longtime Army intelligence official who became the CTO to the Army’s chief of staff in 2023.

    Even if World War III doesn’t break out in the South China Sea, every US military installation around the world is vulnerable to the same tactics—as are the militaries of every other country around the world. The proliferation of cheap drones means just about any group with the wherewithal to assemble and launch a swarm could wreak havoc, no expensive jets or massive missile installations required. 

    While the US has precision missiles that can shoot these drones down, they don’t always succeed: A drone attack killed three US soldiers and injured dozens more at a base in the Jordanian desert last year. And each American missile costs orders of magnitude more than its targets, which limits their supply; countering thousand-dollar drones with missiles that cost hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars per shot can only work for so long, even with a defense budget that could reach a trillion dollars next year.

    The US armed forces are now hunting for a solution—and they want it fast. Every branch of the service and a host of defense tech startups are testing out new weapons that promise to disable drones en masse. There are drones that slam into other drones like battering rams; drones that shoot out nets to ensnare quadcopter propellers; precision-guided Gatling guns that simply shoot drones out of the sky; electronic approaches, like GPS jammers and direct hacking tools; and lasers that melt holes clear through a target’s side.

    Then there are the microwaves: high-powered electronic devices that push out kilowatts of power to zap the circuits of a drone as if it were the tinfoil you forgot to take off your leftovers when you heated them up. 

    That’s where Epirus comes in. 

    When I went to visit the HQ of this 185-person startup in Torrance, California, earlier this year, I got a behind-the-scenes look at its massive microwave, called Leonidas, which the US Army is already betting on as a cutting-edge anti-drone weapon. The Army awarded Epirus a million contract in early 2023, topped that up with another million last fall, and is currently deploying a handful of the systems for testing with US troops in the Middle East and the Pacific. 

    Up close, the Leonidas that Epirus built for the Army looks like a two-foot-thick slab of metal the size of a garage door stuck on a swivel mount. Pop the back cover, and you can see that the slab is filled with dozens of individual microwave amplifier units in a grid. Each is about the size of a safe-deposit box and built around a chip made of gallium nitride, a semiconductor that can survive much higher voltages and temperatures than the typical silicon. 

    Leonidas sits on top of a trailer that a standard-issue Army truck can tow, and when it is powered on, the company’s software tells the grid of amps and antennas to shape the electromagnetic waves they’re blasting out with a phased array, precisely overlapping the microwave signals to mold the energy into a focused beam. Instead of needing to physically point a gun or parabolic dish at each of a thousand incoming drones, the Leonidas can flick between them at the speed of software.

    The Leonidas contains dozens of microwave amplifier units and can pivot to direct waves at incoming swarms of drones.EPIRUS

    Of course, this isn’t magic—there are practical limits on how much damage one array can do, and at what range—but the total effect could be described as an electromagnetic pulse emitter, a death ray for electronics, or a force field that could set up a protective barrier around military installations and drop drones the way a bug zapper fizzles a mob of mosquitoes.

    I walked through the nonclassified sections of the Leonidas factory floor, where a cluster of engineers working on weaponeering—the military term for figuring out exactly how much of a weapon, be it high explosive or microwave beam, is necessary to achieve a desired effect—ran tests in a warren of smaller anechoic rooms. Inside, they shot individual microwave units at a broad range of commercial and military drones, cycling through waveforms and power levels to try to find the signal that could fry each one with maximum efficiency. 

    On a live video feed from inside one of these foam-padded rooms, I watched a quadcopter drone spin its propellers and then, once the microwave emitter turned on, instantly stop short—first the propeller on the front left and then the rest. A drone hit with a Leonidas beam doesn’t explode—it just falls.

    Compared with the blast of a missile or the sizzle of a laser, it doesn’t look like much. But it could force enemies to come up with costlier ways of attacking that reduce the advantage of the drone swarm, and it could get around the inherent limitations of purely electronic or strictly physical defense systems. It could save lives.

    Epirus CEO Andy Lowery, a tall guy with sparkplug energy and a rapid-fire southern Illinois twang, doesn’t shy away from talking big about his product. As he told me during my visit, Leonidas is intended to lead a last stand, like the Spartan from whom the microwave takes its name—in this case, against hordes of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. While the actual range of the Leonidas system is kept secret, Lowery says the Army is looking for a solution that can reliably stop drones within a few kilometers. He told me, “They would like our system to be the owner of that final layer—to get any squeakers, any leakers, anything like that.”

    Now that they’ve told the world they “invented a force field,” Lowery added, the focus is on manufacturing at scale—before the drone swarms really start to descend or a nation with a major military decides to launch a new war. Before, in other words, Miller’s nightmare scenario becomes reality. 

    Why zap?

    Miller remembers well when the danger of small weaponized drones first appeared on his radar. Reports of Islamic State fighters strapping grenades to the bottom of commercial DJI Phantom quadcopters first emerged in late 2016 during the Battle of Mosul. “I went, ‘Oh, this is going to be bad,’ because basically it’s an airborne IED at that point,” he says.

    He’s tracked the danger as it’s built steadily since then, with advances in machine vision, AI coordination software, and suicide drone tactics only accelerating. 

    Then the war in Ukraine showed the world that cheap technology has fundamentally changed how warfare happens. We have watched in high-definition video how a cheap, off-the-shelf drone modified to carry a small bomb can be piloted directly into a faraway truck, tank, or group of troops to devastating effect. And larger suicide drones, also known as “loitering munitions,” can be produced for just tens of thousands of dollars and launched in massive salvos to hit soft targets or overwhelm more advanced military defenses through sheer numbers. 

    As a result, Miller, along with large swaths of the Pentagon and DC policy circles, believes that the current US arsenal for defending against these weapons is just too expensive and the tools in too short supply to truly match the threat.

    Just look at Yemen, a poor country where the Houthi military group has been under constant attack for the past decade. Armed with this new low-tech arsenal, in the past 18 months the rebel group has been able to bomb cargo ships and effectively disrupt global shipping in the Red Sea—part of an effort to apply pressure on Israel to stop its war in Gaza. The Houthis have also used missiles, suicide drones, and even drone boats to launch powerful attacks on US Navy ships sent to stop them.

    The most successful defense tech firm selling anti-drone weapons to the US military right now is Anduril, the company started by Palmer Luckey, the inventor of the Oculus VR headset, and a crew of cofounders from Oculus and defense data giant Palantir. In just the past few months, the Marines have chosen Anduril for counter-drone contracts that could be worth nearly million over the next decade, and the company has been working with Special Operations Command since 2022 on a counter-drone contract that could be worth nearly a billion dollars over a similar time frame. It’s unclear from the contracts what, exactly, Anduril is selling to each organization, but its weapons include electronic warfare jammers, jet-powered drone bombs, and propeller-driven Anvil drones designed to simply smash into enemy drones.

    In this arsenal, the cheapest way to stop a swarm of drones is electronic warfare: jamming the GPS or radio signals used to pilot the machines. But the intense drone battles in Ukraine have advanced the art of jamming and counter-jamming close to the point of stalemate. As a result, a new state of the art is emerging: unjammable drones that operate autonomously by using onboard processors to navigate via internal maps and computer vision, or even drones connected with 20-kilometer-long filaments of fiber-optic cable for tethered control.

    But unjammable doesn’t mean unzappable. Instead of using the scrambling method of a jammer, which employs an antenna to block the drone’s connection to a pilot or remote guidance system, the Leonidas microwave beam hits a drone body broadside. The energy finds its way into something electrical, whether the central flight controller or a tiny wire controlling a flap on a wing, to short-circuit whatever’s available.Tyler Miller, a senior systems engineer on Epirus’s weaponeering team, told me that they never know exactly which part of the target drone is going to go down first, but they’ve reliably seen the microwave signal get in somewhere to overload a circuit. “Based on the geometry and the way the wires are laid out,” he said, one of those wires is going to be the best path in. “Sometimes if we rotate the drone 90 degrees, you have a different motor go down first,” he added.

    The team has even tried wrapping target drones in copper tape, which would theoretically provide shielding, only to find that the microwave still finds a way in through moving propeller shafts or antennas that need to remain exposed for the drone to fly. 

    EPIRUS

    Leonidas also has an edge when it comes to downing a mass of drones at once. Physically hitting a drone out of the sky or lighting it up with a laser can be effective in situations where electronic warfare fails, but anti-drone drones can only take out one at a time, and lasers need to precisely aim and shoot. Epirus’s microwaves can damage everything in a roughly 60-degree arc from the Leonidas emitter simultaneously and keep on zapping and zapping; directed energy systems like this one never run out of ammo.

    As for cost, each Army Leonidas unit currently runs in the “low eight figures,” Lowery told me. Defense contract pricing can be opaque, but Epirus delivered four units for its million initial contract, giving a back-of-napkin price around million each. For comparison, Stinger missiles from Raytheon, which soldiers shoot at enemy aircraft or drones from a shoulder-mounted launcher, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop, meaning the Leonidas could start costing lessafter it downs the first wave of a swarm.

    Raytheon’s radar, reversed

    Epirus is part of a new wave of venture-capital-backed defense companies trying to change the way weapons are created—and the way the Pentagon buys them. The largest defense companies, firms like Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin, typically develop new weapons in response to research grants and cost-plus contracts, in which the US Department of Defense guarantees a certain profit margin to firms building products that match their laundry list of technical specifications. These programs have kept the military supplied with cutting-edge weapons for decades, but the results may be exquisite pieces of military machinery delivered years late and billions of dollars over budget.

    Rather than building to minutely detailed specs, the new crop of military contractors aim to produce products on a quick time frame to solve a problem and then fine-tune them as they pitch to the military. The model, pioneered by Palantir and SpaceX, has since propelled companies like Anduril, Shield AI, and dozens of other smaller startups into the business of war as venture capital piles tens of billions of dollars into defense.

    Like Anduril, Epirus has direct Palantir roots; it was cofounded by Joe Lonsdale, who also cofounded Palantir, and John Tenet, Lonsdale’s colleague at the time at his venture fund, 8VC. 

    While Epirus is doing business in the new mode, its roots are in the old—specifically in Raytheon, a pioneer in the field of microwave technology. Cofounded by MIT professor Vannevar Bush in 1922, it manufactured vacuum tubes, like those found in old radios. But the company became synonymous with electronic defense during World War II, when Bush spun up a lab to develop early microwave radar technology invented by the British into a workable product, and Raytheon then began mass-producing microwave tubes—known as magnetrons—for the US war effort. By the end of the war in 1945, Raytheon was making 80% of the magnetrons powering Allied radar across the world.

    From padded foam chambers at the Epirus HQ, Leonidas devices can be safely tested on drones.EPIRUS

    Large tubes remained the best way to emit high-power microwaves for more than half a century, handily outperforming silicon-based solid-state amplifiers. They’re still around—the microwave on your kitchen counter runs on a vacuum tube magnetron. But tubes have downsides: They’re hot, they’re big, and they require upkeep.By the 2000s, new methods of building solid-state amplifiers out of materials like gallium nitride started to mature and were able to handle more power than silicon without melting or shorting out. The US Navy spent hundreds of millions of dollars on cutting-edge microwave contracts, one for a project at Raytheon called Next Generation Jammer—geared specifically toward designing a new way to make high-powered microwaves that work at extremely long distances.

    Lowery, the Epirus CEO, began his career working on nuclear reactors on Navy aircraft carriers before he became the chief engineer for Next Generation Jammer at Raytheon in 2010. There, he and his team worked on a system that relied on many of the same fundamentals that now power the Leonidas—using the same type of amplifier material and antenna setup to fry the electronics of a small target at much closer range rather than disrupting the radar of a target hundreds of miles away. 

    The similarity is not a coincidence: Two engineers from Next Generation Jammer helped launch Epirus in 2018. Lowery—who by then was working at the augmented-reality startup RealWear, which makes industrial smart glasses—joined Epirus in 2021 to run product development and was asked to take the top spot as CEO in 2023, as Leonidas became a fully formed machine. Much of the founding team has since departed for other projects, but Raytheon still runs through the company’s collective CV: ex-Raytheon radar engineer Matt Markel started in January as the new CTO, and Epirus’s chief engineer for defense, its VP of engineering, its VP of operations, and a number of employees all have Raytheon roots as well.

    Markel tells me that the Epirus way of working wouldn’t have flown at one of the big defense contractors: “They never would have tried spinning off the technology into a new application without a contract lined up.” The Epirus engineers saw the use case, raised money to start building Leonidas, and already had prototypes in the works before any military branch started awarding money to work on the project.

    Waiting for the starting gun

    On the wall of Lowery’s office are two mementos from testing days at an Army proving ground: a trophy wing from a larger drone, signed by the whole testing team, and a framed photo documenting the Leonidas’s carnage—a stack of dozens of inoperative drones piled up in a heap. 

    Despite what seems to have been an impressive test show, it’s still impossible from the outside to determine whether Epirus’s tech is ready to fully deliver if the swarms descend. 

    The Army would not comment specifically on the efficacy of any new weapons in testing or early deployment, including the Leonidas system. A spokesperson for the Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, or RCCTO, which is the subsection responsible for contracting with Epirus to date, would only say in a statement that it is “committed to developing and fielding innovative Directed Energy solutions to address evolving threats.” 

    But various high-ranking officers appear to be giving Epirus a public vote of confidence. The three-star general who runs RCCTO and oversaw the Leonidas testing last summer told Breaking Defense that “the system actually worked very well,” even if there was work to be done on “how the weapon system fits into the larger kill chain.”

    And when former secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, then the service’s highest-ranking civilian, gave a parting interview this past January, she mentioned Epirus in all but name, citing “one company” that is “using high-powered microwaves to basically be able to kill swarms of drones.” She called that kind of capability “critical for the Army.” 

    The Army isn’t the only branch interested in the microwave weapon. On Epirus’s factory floor when I visited, alongside the big beige Leonidases commissioned by the Army, engineers were building a smaller expeditionary version for the Marines, painted green, which it delivered in late April. Videos show that when it put some of its microwave emitters on a dock and tested them out for the Navy last summer, the microwaves left their targets dead in the water—successfully frying the circuits of outboard motors like the ones propelling Houthi drone boats. 

    Epirus is also currently working on an even smaller version of the Leonidas that can mount on top of the Army’s Stryker combat vehicles, and it’s testing out attaching a single microwave unit to a small airborne drone, which could work as a highly focused zapper to disable cars, data centers, or single enemy drones. 

    Epirus’s microwave technology is also being tested in devices smaller than the traditional Leonidas. EPIRUS

    While neither the Army nor the Navy has yet to announce a contract to start buying Epirus’s systems at scale, the company and its investors are actively preparing for the big orders to start rolling in. It raised million in a funding round in early March to get ready to make as many Leonidases as possible in the coming years, adding to the more than million it’s raised since opening its doors in 2018.

    “If you invent a force field that works,” Lowery boasts, “you really get a lot of attention.”

    The task for Epirus now, assuming that its main customers pull the trigger and start buying more Leonidases, is ramping up production while advancing the tech in its systems. Then there are the more prosaic problems of staffing, assembly, and testing at scale. For future generations, Lowery told me, the goal is refining the antenna design and integrating higher-powered microwave amplifiers to push the output into the tens of kilowatts, allowing for increased range and efficacy. 

    While this could be made harder by Trump’s global trade war, Lowery says he’s not worried about their supply chain; while China produces 98% of the world’s gallium, according to the US Geological Survey, and has choked off exports to the US, Epirus’s chip supplier uses recycled gallium from Japan. 

    The other outside challenge may be that Epirus isn’t the only company building a drone zapper. One of China’s state-owned defense companies has been working on its own anti-drone high-powered microwave weapon called the Hurricane, which it displayed at a major military show in late 2024. 

    It may be a sign that anti-electronics force fields will become common among the world’s militaries—and if so, the future of war is unlikely to go back to the status quo ante, and it might zag in a different direction yet again. But military planners believe it’s crucial for the US not to be left behind. So if it works as promised, Epirus could very well change the way that war will play out in the coming decade. 

    While Miller, the Army CTO, can’t speak directly to Epirus or any specific system, he will say that he believes anti-drone measures are going to have to become ubiquitous for US soldiers. “Counter-UASunfortunately is going to be like counter-IED,” he says. “It’s going to be every soldier’s job to think about UAS threats the same way it was to think about IEDs.” 

    And, he adds, it’s his job and his colleagues’ to make sure that tech so effective it works like “almost magic” is in the hands of the average rifleman. To that end, Lowery told me, Epirus is designing the Leonidas control system to work simply for troops, allowing them to identify a cluster of targets and start zapping with just a click of a button—but only extensive use in the field can prove that out.

    Epirus CEO Andy Lowery sees the Leonidas as providing a last line of defense against UAVs.EPIRUS

    In the not-too-distant future, Lowery says, this could mean setting up along the US-Mexico border. But the grandest vision for Epirus’s tech that he says he’s heard is for a city-scale Leonidas along the lines of a ballistic missile defense radar system called PAVE PAWS, which takes up an entire 105-foot-tall building and can detect distant nuclear missile launches. The US set up four in the 1980s, and Taiwan currently has one up on a mountain south of Taipei. Fill a similar-size building full of microwave emitters, and the beam could reach out “10 or 15 miles,” Lowery told me, with one sitting sentinel over Taipei in the north and another over Kaohsiung in the south of Taiwan.

    Riffing in Greek mythological mode, Lowery said of drones, “I call all these mischief makers. Whether they’re doing drugs or guns across the border or they’re flying over Langleythey’re spying on F-35s, they’re all like Icarus. You remember Icarus, with his wax wings? Flying all around—‘Nobody’s going to touch me, nobody’s going to ever hurt me.’”

    “We built one hell of a wax-wing melter.” 

    Sam Dean is a reporter focusing on business, tech, and defense. He is writing a book about the recent history of Silicon Valley returning to work with the Pentagon for Viking Press and covering the defense tech industry for a number of publications. Previously, he was a business reporter at the Los Angeles Times.

    This piece has been updated to clarify that Alex Miller is a civilian intelligence official. 
    #this #giant #microwave #change #future
    This giant microwave may change the future of war
    Imagine: China deploys hundreds of thousands of autonomous drones in the air, on the sea, and under the water—all armed with explosive warheads or small missiles. These machines descend in a swarm toward military installations on Taiwan and nearby US bases, and over the course of a few hours, a single robotic blitzkrieg overwhelms the US Pacific force before it can even begin to fight back.  Maybe it sounds like a new Michael Bay movie, but it’s the scenario that keeps the chief technology officer of the US Army up at night. “I’m hesitant to say it out loud so I don’t manifest it,” says Alex Miller, a longtime Army intelligence official who became the CTO to the Army’s chief of staff in 2023. Even if World War III doesn’t break out in the South China Sea, every US military installation around the world is vulnerable to the same tactics—as are the militaries of every other country around the world. The proliferation of cheap drones means just about any group with the wherewithal to assemble and launch a swarm could wreak havoc, no expensive jets or massive missile installations required.  While the US has precision missiles that can shoot these drones down, they don’t always succeed: A drone attack killed three US soldiers and injured dozens more at a base in the Jordanian desert last year. And each American missile costs orders of magnitude more than its targets, which limits their supply; countering thousand-dollar drones with missiles that cost hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars per shot can only work for so long, even with a defense budget that could reach a trillion dollars next year. The US armed forces are now hunting for a solution—and they want it fast. Every branch of the service and a host of defense tech startups are testing out new weapons that promise to disable drones en masse. There are drones that slam into other drones like battering rams; drones that shoot out nets to ensnare quadcopter propellers; precision-guided Gatling guns that simply shoot drones out of the sky; electronic approaches, like GPS jammers and direct hacking tools; and lasers that melt holes clear through a target’s side. Then there are the microwaves: high-powered electronic devices that push out kilowatts of power to zap the circuits of a drone as if it were the tinfoil you forgot to take off your leftovers when you heated them up.  That’s where Epirus comes in.  When I went to visit the HQ of this 185-person startup in Torrance, California, earlier this year, I got a behind-the-scenes look at its massive microwave, called Leonidas, which the US Army is already betting on as a cutting-edge anti-drone weapon. The Army awarded Epirus a million contract in early 2023, topped that up with another million last fall, and is currently deploying a handful of the systems for testing with US troops in the Middle East and the Pacific.  Up close, the Leonidas that Epirus built for the Army looks like a two-foot-thick slab of metal the size of a garage door stuck on a swivel mount. Pop the back cover, and you can see that the slab is filled with dozens of individual microwave amplifier units in a grid. Each is about the size of a safe-deposit box and built around a chip made of gallium nitride, a semiconductor that can survive much higher voltages and temperatures than the typical silicon.  Leonidas sits on top of a trailer that a standard-issue Army truck can tow, and when it is powered on, the company’s software tells the grid of amps and antennas to shape the electromagnetic waves they’re blasting out with a phased array, precisely overlapping the microwave signals to mold the energy into a focused beam. Instead of needing to physically point a gun or parabolic dish at each of a thousand incoming drones, the Leonidas can flick between them at the speed of software. The Leonidas contains dozens of microwave amplifier units and can pivot to direct waves at incoming swarms of drones.EPIRUS Of course, this isn’t magic—there are practical limits on how much damage one array can do, and at what range—but the total effect could be described as an electromagnetic pulse emitter, a death ray for electronics, or a force field that could set up a protective barrier around military installations and drop drones the way a bug zapper fizzles a mob of mosquitoes. I walked through the nonclassified sections of the Leonidas factory floor, where a cluster of engineers working on weaponeering—the military term for figuring out exactly how much of a weapon, be it high explosive or microwave beam, is necessary to achieve a desired effect—ran tests in a warren of smaller anechoic rooms. Inside, they shot individual microwave units at a broad range of commercial and military drones, cycling through waveforms and power levels to try to find the signal that could fry each one with maximum efficiency.  On a live video feed from inside one of these foam-padded rooms, I watched a quadcopter drone spin its propellers and then, once the microwave emitter turned on, instantly stop short—first the propeller on the front left and then the rest. A drone hit with a Leonidas beam doesn’t explode—it just falls. Compared with the blast of a missile or the sizzle of a laser, it doesn’t look like much. But it could force enemies to come up with costlier ways of attacking that reduce the advantage of the drone swarm, and it could get around the inherent limitations of purely electronic or strictly physical defense systems. It could save lives. Epirus CEO Andy Lowery, a tall guy with sparkplug energy and a rapid-fire southern Illinois twang, doesn’t shy away from talking big about his product. As he told me during my visit, Leonidas is intended to lead a last stand, like the Spartan from whom the microwave takes its name—in this case, against hordes of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. While the actual range of the Leonidas system is kept secret, Lowery says the Army is looking for a solution that can reliably stop drones within a few kilometers. He told me, “They would like our system to be the owner of that final layer—to get any squeakers, any leakers, anything like that.” Now that they’ve told the world they “invented a force field,” Lowery added, the focus is on manufacturing at scale—before the drone swarms really start to descend or a nation with a major military decides to launch a new war. Before, in other words, Miller’s nightmare scenario becomes reality.  Why zap? Miller remembers well when the danger of small weaponized drones first appeared on his radar. Reports of Islamic State fighters strapping grenades to the bottom of commercial DJI Phantom quadcopters first emerged in late 2016 during the Battle of Mosul. “I went, ‘Oh, this is going to be bad,’ because basically it’s an airborne IED at that point,” he says. He’s tracked the danger as it’s built steadily since then, with advances in machine vision, AI coordination software, and suicide drone tactics only accelerating.  Then the war in Ukraine showed the world that cheap technology has fundamentally changed how warfare happens. We have watched in high-definition video how a cheap, off-the-shelf drone modified to carry a small bomb can be piloted directly into a faraway truck, tank, or group of troops to devastating effect. And larger suicide drones, also known as “loitering munitions,” can be produced for just tens of thousands of dollars and launched in massive salvos to hit soft targets or overwhelm more advanced military defenses through sheer numbers.  As a result, Miller, along with large swaths of the Pentagon and DC policy circles, believes that the current US arsenal for defending against these weapons is just too expensive and the tools in too short supply to truly match the threat. Just look at Yemen, a poor country where the Houthi military group has been under constant attack for the past decade. Armed with this new low-tech arsenal, in the past 18 months the rebel group has been able to bomb cargo ships and effectively disrupt global shipping in the Red Sea—part of an effort to apply pressure on Israel to stop its war in Gaza. The Houthis have also used missiles, suicide drones, and even drone boats to launch powerful attacks on US Navy ships sent to stop them. The most successful defense tech firm selling anti-drone weapons to the US military right now is Anduril, the company started by Palmer Luckey, the inventor of the Oculus VR headset, and a crew of cofounders from Oculus and defense data giant Palantir. In just the past few months, the Marines have chosen Anduril for counter-drone contracts that could be worth nearly million over the next decade, and the company has been working with Special Operations Command since 2022 on a counter-drone contract that could be worth nearly a billion dollars over a similar time frame. It’s unclear from the contracts what, exactly, Anduril is selling to each organization, but its weapons include electronic warfare jammers, jet-powered drone bombs, and propeller-driven Anvil drones designed to simply smash into enemy drones. In this arsenal, the cheapest way to stop a swarm of drones is electronic warfare: jamming the GPS or radio signals used to pilot the machines. But the intense drone battles in Ukraine have advanced the art of jamming and counter-jamming close to the point of stalemate. As a result, a new state of the art is emerging: unjammable drones that operate autonomously by using onboard processors to navigate via internal maps and computer vision, or even drones connected with 20-kilometer-long filaments of fiber-optic cable for tethered control. But unjammable doesn’t mean unzappable. Instead of using the scrambling method of a jammer, which employs an antenna to block the drone’s connection to a pilot or remote guidance system, the Leonidas microwave beam hits a drone body broadside. The energy finds its way into something electrical, whether the central flight controller or a tiny wire controlling a flap on a wing, to short-circuit whatever’s available.Tyler Miller, a senior systems engineer on Epirus’s weaponeering team, told me that they never know exactly which part of the target drone is going to go down first, but they’ve reliably seen the microwave signal get in somewhere to overload a circuit. “Based on the geometry and the way the wires are laid out,” he said, one of those wires is going to be the best path in. “Sometimes if we rotate the drone 90 degrees, you have a different motor go down first,” he added. The team has even tried wrapping target drones in copper tape, which would theoretically provide shielding, only to find that the microwave still finds a way in through moving propeller shafts or antennas that need to remain exposed for the drone to fly.  EPIRUS Leonidas also has an edge when it comes to downing a mass of drones at once. Physically hitting a drone out of the sky or lighting it up with a laser can be effective in situations where electronic warfare fails, but anti-drone drones can only take out one at a time, and lasers need to precisely aim and shoot. Epirus’s microwaves can damage everything in a roughly 60-degree arc from the Leonidas emitter simultaneously and keep on zapping and zapping; directed energy systems like this one never run out of ammo. As for cost, each Army Leonidas unit currently runs in the “low eight figures,” Lowery told me. Defense contract pricing can be opaque, but Epirus delivered four units for its million initial contract, giving a back-of-napkin price around million each. For comparison, Stinger missiles from Raytheon, which soldiers shoot at enemy aircraft or drones from a shoulder-mounted launcher, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop, meaning the Leonidas could start costing lessafter it downs the first wave of a swarm. Raytheon’s radar, reversed Epirus is part of a new wave of venture-capital-backed defense companies trying to change the way weapons are created—and the way the Pentagon buys them. The largest defense companies, firms like Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin, typically develop new weapons in response to research grants and cost-plus contracts, in which the US Department of Defense guarantees a certain profit margin to firms building products that match their laundry list of technical specifications. These programs have kept the military supplied with cutting-edge weapons for decades, but the results may be exquisite pieces of military machinery delivered years late and billions of dollars over budget. Rather than building to minutely detailed specs, the new crop of military contractors aim to produce products on a quick time frame to solve a problem and then fine-tune them as they pitch to the military. The model, pioneered by Palantir and SpaceX, has since propelled companies like Anduril, Shield AI, and dozens of other smaller startups into the business of war as venture capital piles tens of billions of dollars into defense. Like Anduril, Epirus has direct Palantir roots; it was cofounded by Joe Lonsdale, who also cofounded Palantir, and John Tenet, Lonsdale’s colleague at the time at his venture fund, 8VC.  While Epirus is doing business in the new mode, its roots are in the old—specifically in Raytheon, a pioneer in the field of microwave technology. Cofounded by MIT professor Vannevar Bush in 1922, it manufactured vacuum tubes, like those found in old radios. But the company became synonymous with electronic defense during World War II, when Bush spun up a lab to develop early microwave radar technology invented by the British into a workable product, and Raytheon then began mass-producing microwave tubes—known as magnetrons—for the US war effort. By the end of the war in 1945, Raytheon was making 80% of the magnetrons powering Allied radar across the world. From padded foam chambers at the Epirus HQ, Leonidas devices can be safely tested on drones.EPIRUS Large tubes remained the best way to emit high-power microwaves for more than half a century, handily outperforming silicon-based solid-state amplifiers. They’re still around—the microwave on your kitchen counter runs on a vacuum tube magnetron. But tubes have downsides: They’re hot, they’re big, and they require upkeep.By the 2000s, new methods of building solid-state amplifiers out of materials like gallium nitride started to mature and were able to handle more power than silicon without melting or shorting out. The US Navy spent hundreds of millions of dollars on cutting-edge microwave contracts, one for a project at Raytheon called Next Generation Jammer—geared specifically toward designing a new way to make high-powered microwaves that work at extremely long distances. Lowery, the Epirus CEO, began his career working on nuclear reactors on Navy aircraft carriers before he became the chief engineer for Next Generation Jammer at Raytheon in 2010. There, he and his team worked on a system that relied on many of the same fundamentals that now power the Leonidas—using the same type of amplifier material and antenna setup to fry the electronics of a small target at much closer range rather than disrupting the radar of a target hundreds of miles away.  The similarity is not a coincidence: Two engineers from Next Generation Jammer helped launch Epirus in 2018. Lowery—who by then was working at the augmented-reality startup RealWear, which makes industrial smart glasses—joined Epirus in 2021 to run product development and was asked to take the top spot as CEO in 2023, as Leonidas became a fully formed machine. Much of the founding team has since departed for other projects, but Raytheon still runs through the company’s collective CV: ex-Raytheon radar engineer Matt Markel started in January as the new CTO, and Epirus’s chief engineer for defense, its VP of engineering, its VP of operations, and a number of employees all have Raytheon roots as well. Markel tells me that the Epirus way of working wouldn’t have flown at one of the big defense contractors: “They never would have tried spinning off the technology into a new application without a contract lined up.” The Epirus engineers saw the use case, raised money to start building Leonidas, and already had prototypes in the works before any military branch started awarding money to work on the project. Waiting for the starting gun On the wall of Lowery’s office are two mementos from testing days at an Army proving ground: a trophy wing from a larger drone, signed by the whole testing team, and a framed photo documenting the Leonidas’s carnage—a stack of dozens of inoperative drones piled up in a heap.  Despite what seems to have been an impressive test show, it’s still impossible from the outside to determine whether Epirus’s tech is ready to fully deliver if the swarms descend.  The Army would not comment specifically on the efficacy of any new weapons in testing or early deployment, including the Leonidas system. A spokesperson for the Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, or RCCTO, which is the subsection responsible for contracting with Epirus to date, would only say in a statement that it is “committed to developing and fielding innovative Directed Energy solutions to address evolving threats.”  But various high-ranking officers appear to be giving Epirus a public vote of confidence. The three-star general who runs RCCTO and oversaw the Leonidas testing last summer told Breaking Defense that “the system actually worked very well,” even if there was work to be done on “how the weapon system fits into the larger kill chain.” And when former secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, then the service’s highest-ranking civilian, gave a parting interview this past January, she mentioned Epirus in all but name, citing “one company” that is “using high-powered microwaves to basically be able to kill swarms of drones.” She called that kind of capability “critical for the Army.”  The Army isn’t the only branch interested in the microwave weapon. On Epirus’s factory floor when I visited, alongside the big beige Leonidases commissioned by the Army, engineers were building a smaller expeditionary version for the Marines, painted green, which it delivered in late April. Videos show that when it put some of its microwave emitters on a dock and tested them out for the Navy last summer, the microwaves left their targets dead in the water—successfully frying the circuits of outboard motors like the ones propelling Houthi drone boats.  Epirus is also currently working on an even smaller version of the Leonidas that can mount on top of the Army’s Stryker combat vehicles, and it’s testing out attaching a single microwave unit to a small airborne drone, which could work as a highly focused zapper to disable cars, data centers, or single enemy drones.  Epirus’s microwave technology is also being tested in devices smaller than the traditional Leonidas. EPIRUS While neither the Army nor the Navy has yet to announce a contract to start buying Epirus’s systems at scale, the company and its investors are actively preparing for the big orders to start rolling in. It raised million in a funding round in early March to get ready to make as many Leonidases as possible in the coming years, adding to the more than million it’s raised since opening its doors in 2018. “If you invent a force field that works,” Lowery boasts, “you really get a lot of attention.” The task for Epirus now, assuming that its main customers pull the trigger and start buying more Leonidases, is ramping up production while advancing the tech in its systems. Then there are the more prosaic problems of staffing, assembly, and testing at scale. For future generations, Lowery told me, the goal is refining the antenna design and integrating higher-powered microwave amplifiers to push the output into the tens of kilowatts, allowing for increased range and efficacy.  While this could be made harder by Trump’s global trade war, Lowery says he’s not worried about their supply chain; while China produces 98% of the world’s gallium, according to the US Geological Survey, and has choked off exports to the US, Epirus’s chip supplier uses recycled gallium from Japan.  The other outside challenge may be that Epirus isn’t the only company building a drone zapper. One of China’s state-owned defense companies has been working on its own anti-drone high-powered microwave weapon called the Hurricane, which it displayed at a major military show in late 2024.  It may be a sign that anti-electronics force fields will become common among the world’s militaries—and if so, the future of war is unlikely to go back to the status quo ante, and it might zag in a different direction yet again. But military planners believe it’s crucial for the US not to be left behind. So if it works as promised, Epirus could very well change the way that war will play out in the coming decade.  While Miller, the Army CTO, can’t speak directly to Epirus or any specific system, he will say that he believes anti-drone measures are going to have to become ubiquitous for US soldiers. “Counter-UASunfortunately is going to be like counter-IED,” he says. “It’s going to be every soldier’s job to think about UAS threats the same way it was to think about IEDs.”  And, he adds, it’s his job and his colleagues’ to make sure that tech so effective it works like “almost magic” is in the hands of the average rifleman. To that end, Lowery told me, Epirus is designing the Leonidas control system to work simply for troops, allowing them to identify a cluster of targets and start zapping with just a click of a button—but only extensive use in the field can prove that out. Epirus CEO Andy Lowery sees the Leonidas as providing a last line of defense against UAVs.EPIRUS In the not-too-distant future, Lowery says, this could mean setting up along the US-Mexico border. But the grandest vision for Epirus’s tech that he says he’s heard is for a city-scale Leonidas along the lines of a ballistic missile defense radar system called PAVE PAWS, which takes up an entire 105-foot-tall building and can detect distant nuclear missile launches. The US set up four in the 1980s, and Taiwan currently has one up on a mountain south of Taipei. Fill a similar-size building full of microwave emitters, and the beam could reach out “10 or 15 miles,” Lowery told me, with one sitting sentinel over Taipei in the north and another over Kaohsiung in the south of Taiwan. Riffing in Greek mythological mode, Lowery said of drones, “I call all these mischief makers. Whether they’re doing drugs or guns across the border or they’re flying over Langleythey’re spying on F-35s, they’re all like Icarus. You remember Icarus, with his wax wings? Flying all around—‘Nobody’s going to touch me, nobody’s going to ever hurt me.’” “We built one hell of a wax-wing melter.”  Sam Dean is a reporter focusing on business, tech, and defense. He is writing a book about the recent history of Silicon Valley returning to work with the Pentagon for Viking Press and covering the defense tech industry for a number of publications. Previously, he was a business reporter at the Los Angeles Times. This piece has been updated to clarify that Alex Miller is a civilian intelligence official.  #this #giant #microwave #change #future
    WWW.TECHNOLOGYREVIEW.COM
    This giant microwave may change the future of war
    Imagine: China deploys hundreds of thousands of autonomous drones in the air, on the sea, and under the water—all armed with explosive warheads or small missiles. These machines descend in a swarm toward military installations on Taiwan and nearby US bases, and over the course of a few hours, a single robotic blitzkrieg overwhelms the US Pacific force before it can even begin to fight back.  Maybe it sounds like a new Michael Bay movie, but it’s the scenario that keeps the chief technology officer of the US Army up at night. “I’m hesitant to say it out loud so I don’t manifest it,” says Alex Miller, a longtime Army intelligence official who became the CTO to the Army’s chief of staff in 2023. Even if World War III doesn’t break out in the South China Sea, every US military installation around the world is vulnerable to the same tactics—as are the militaries of every other country around the world. The proliferation of cheap drones means just about any group with the wherewithal to assemble and launch a swarm could wreak havoc, no expensive jets or massive missile installations required.  While the US has precision missiles that can shoot these drones down, they don’t always succeed: A drone attack killed three US soldiers and injured dozens more at a base in the Jordanian desert last year. And each American missile costs orders of magnitude more than its targets, which limits their supply; countering thousand-dollar drones with missiles that cost hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars per shot can only work for so long, even with a defense budget that could reach a trillion dollars next year. The US armed forces are now hunting for a solution—and they want it fast. Every branch of the service and a host of defense tech startups are testing out new weapons that promise to disable drones en masse. There are drones that slam into other drones like battering rams; drones that shoot out nets to ensnare quadcopter propellers; precision-guided Gatling guns that simply shoot drones out of the sky; electronic approaches, like GPS jammers and direct hacking tools; and lasers that melt holes clear through a target’s side. Then there are the microwaves: high-powered electronic devices that push out kilowatts of power to zap the circuits of a drone as if it were the tinfoil you forgot to take off your leftovers when you heated them up.  That’s where Epirus comes in.  When I went to visit the HQ of this 185-person startup in Torrance, California, earlier this year, I got a behind-the-scenes look at its massive microwave, called Leonidas, which the US Army is already betting on as a cutting-edge anti-drone weapon. The Army awarded Epirus a $66 million contract in early 2023, topped that up with another $17 million last fall, and is currently deploying a handful of the systems for testing with US troops in the Middle East and the Pacific. (The Army won’t get into specifics on the location of the weapons in the Middle East but published a report of a live-fire test in the Philippines in early May.)  Up close, the Leonidas that Epirus built for the Army looks like a two-foot-thick slab of metal the size of a garage door stuck on a swivel mount. Pop the back cover, and you can see that the slab is filled with dozens of individual microwave amplifier units in a grid. Each is about the size of a safe-deposit box and built around a chip made of gallium nitride, a semiconductor that can survive much higher voltages and temperatures than the typical silicon.  Leonidas sits on top of a trailer that a standard-issue Army truck can tow, and when it is powered on, the company’s software tells the grid of amps and antennas to shape the electromagnetic waves they’re blasting out with a phased array, precisely overlapping the microwave signals to mold the energy into a focused beam. Instead of needing to physically point a gun or parabolic dish at each of a thousand incoming drones, the Leonidas can flick between them at the speed of software. The Leonidas contains dozens of microwave amplifier units and can pivot to direct waves at incoming swarms of drones.EPIRUS Of course, this isn’t magic—there are practical limits on how much damage one array can do, and at what range—but the total effect could be described as an electromagnetic pulse emitter, a death ray for electronics, or a force field that could set up a protective barrier around military installations and drop drones the way a bug zapper fizzles a mob of mosquitoes. I walked through the nonclassified sections of the Leonidas factory floor, where a cluster of engineers working on weaponeering—the military term for figuring out exactly how much of a weapon, be it high explosive or microwave beam, is necessary to achieve a desired effect—ran tests in a warren of smaller anechoic rooms. Inside, they shot individual microwave units at a broad range of commercial and military drones, cycling through waveforms and power levels to try to find the signal that could fry each one with maximum efficiency.  On a live video feed from inside one of these foam-padded rooms, I watched a quadcopter drone spin its propellers and then, once the microwave emitter turned on, instantly stop short—first the propeller on the front left and then the rest. A drone hit with a Leonidas beam doesn’t explode—it just falls. Compared with the blast of a missile or the sizzle of a laser, it doesn’t look like much. But it could force enemies to come up with costlier ways of attacking that reduce the advantage of the drone swarm, and it could get around the inherent limitations of purely electronic or strictly physical defense systems. It could save lives. Epirus CEO Andy Lowery, a tall guy with sparkplug energy and a rapid-fire southern Illinois twang, doesn’t shy away from talking big about his product. As he told me during my visit, Leonidas is intended to lead a last stand, like the Spartan from whom the microwave takes its name—in this case, against hordes of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. While the actual range of the Leonidas system is kept secret, Lowery says the Army is looking for a solution that can reliably stop drones within a few kilometers. He told me, “They would like our system to be the owner of that final layer—to get any squeakers, any leakers, anything like that.” Now that they’ve told the world they “invented a force field,” Lowery added, the focus is on manufacturing at scale—before the drone swarms really start to descend or a nation with a major military decides to launch a new war. Before, in other words, Miller’s nightmare scenario becomes reality.  Why zap? Miller remembers well when the danger of small weaponized drones first appeared on his radar. Reports of Islamic State fighters strapping grenades to the bottom of commercial DJI Phantom quadcopters first emerged in late 2016 during the Battle of Mosul. “I went, ‘Oh, this is going to be bad,’ because basically it’s an airborne IED at that point,” he says. He’s tracked the danger as it’s built steadily since then, with advances in machine vision, AI coordination software, and suicide drone tactics only accelerating.  Then the war in Ukraine showed the world that cheap technology has fundamentally changed how warfare happens. We have watched in high-definition video how a cheap, off-the-shelf drone modified to carry a small bomb can be piloted directly into a faraway truck, tank, or group of troops to devastating effect. And larger suicide drones, also known as “loitering munitions,” can be produced for just tens of thousands of dollars and launched in massive salvos to hit soft targets or overwhelm more advanced military defenses through sheer numbers.  As a result, Miller, along with large swaths of the Pentagon and DC policy circles, believes that the current US arsenal for defending against these weapons is just too expensive and the tools in too short supply to truly match the threat. Just look at Yemen, a poor country where the Houthi military group has been under constant attack for the past decade. Armed with this new low-tech arsenal, in the past 18 months the rebel group has been able to bomb cargo ships and effectively disrupt global shipping in the Red Sea—part of an effort to apply pressure on Israel to stop its war in Gaza. The Houthis have also used missiles, suicide drones, and even drone boats to launch powerful attacks on US Navy ships sent to stop them. The most successful defense tech firm selling anti-drone weapons to the US military right now is Anduril, the company started by Palmer Luckey, the inventor of the Oculus VR headset, and a crew of cofounders from Oculus and defense data giant Palantir. In just the past few months, the Marines have chosen Anduril for counter-drone contracts that could be worth nearly $850 million over the next decade, and the company has been working with Special Operations Command since 2022 on a counter-drone contract that could be worth nearly a billion dollars over a similar time frame. It’s unclear from the contracts what, exactly, Anduril is selling to each organization, but its weapons include electronic warfare jammers, jet-powered drone bombs, and propeller-driven Anvil drones designed to simply smash into enemy drones. In this arsenal, the cheapest way to stop a swarm of drones is electronic warfare: jamming the GPS or radio signals used to pilot the machines. But the intense drone battles in Ukraine have advanced the art of jamming and counter-jamming close to the point of stalemate. As a result, a new state of the art is emerging: unjammable drones that operate autonomously by using onboard processors to navigate via internal maps and computer vision, or even drones connected with 20-kilometer-long filaments of fiber-optic cable for tethered control. But unjammable doesn’t mean unzappable. Instead of using the scrambling method of a jammer, which employs an antenna to block the drone’s connection to a pilot or remote guidance system, the Leonidas microwave beam hits a drone body broadside. The energy finds its way into something electrical, whether the central flight controller or a tiny wire controlling a flap on a wing, to short-circuit whatever’s available. (The company also says that this targeted hit of energy allows birds and other wildlife to continue to move safely.) Tyler Miller, a senior systems engineer on Epirus’s weaponeering team, told me that they never know exactly which part of the target drone is going to go down first, but they’ve reliably seen the microwave signal get in somewhere to overload a circuit. “Based on the geometry and the way the wires are laid out,” he said, one of those wires is going to be the best path in. “Sometimes if we rotate the drone 90 degrees, you have a different motor go down first,” he added. The team has even tried wrapping target drones in copper tape, which would theoretically provide shielding, only to find that the microwave still finds a way in through moving propeller shafts or antennas that need to remain exposed for the drone to fly.  EPIRUS Leonidas also has an edge when it comes to downing a mass of drones at once. Physically hitting a drone out of the sky or lighting it up with a laser can be effective in situations where electronic warfare fails, but anti-drone drones can only take out one at a time, and lasers need to precisely aim and shoot. Epirus’s microwaves can damage everything in a roughly 60-degree arc from the Leonidas emitter simultaneously and keep on zapping and zapping; directed energy systems like this one never run out of ammo. As for cost, each Army Leonidas unit currently runs in the “low eight figures,” Lowery told me. Defense contract pricing can be opaque, but Epirus delivered four units for its $66 million initial contract, giving a back-of-napkin price around $16.5 million each. For comparison, Stinger missiles from Raytheon, which soldiers shoot at enemy aircraft or drones from a shoulder-mounted launcher, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop, meaning the Leonidas could start costing less (and keep shooting) after it downs the first wave of a swarm. Raytheon’s radar, reversed Epirus is part of a new wave of venture-capital-backed defense companies trying to change the way weapons are created—and the way the Pentagon buys them. The largest defense companies, firms like Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin, typically develop new weapons in response to research grants and cost-plus contracts, in which the US Department of Defense guarantees a certain profit margin to firms building products that match their laundry list of technical specifications. These programs have kept the military supplied with cutting-edge weapons for decades, but the results may be exquisite pieces of military machinery delivered years late and billions of dollars over budget. Rather than building to minutely detailed specs, the new crop of military contractors aim to produce products on a quick time frame to solve a problem and then fine-tune them as they pitch to the military. The model, pioneered by Palantir and SpaceX, has since propelled companies like Anduril, Shield AI, and dozens of other smaller startups into the business of war as venture capital piles tens of billions of dollars into defense. Like Anduril, Epirus has direct Palantir roots; it was cofounded by Joe Lonsdale, who also cofounded Palantir, and John Tenet, Lonsdale’s colleague at the time at his venture fund, 8VC. (Tenet, the son of former CIA director George Tenet, may have inspired the company’s name—the elder Tenet’s parents were born in the Epirus region in the northwest of Greece. But the company more often says it’s a reference to the pseudo-mythological Epirus Bow from the 2011 fantasy action movie Immortals, which never runs out of arrows.)  While Epirus is doing business in the new mode, its roots are in the old—specifically in Raytheon, a pioneer in the field of microwave technology. Cofounded by MIT professor Vannevar Bush in 1922, it manufactured vacuum tubes, like those found in old radios. But the company became synonymous with electronic defense during World War II, when Bush spun up a lab to develop early microwave radar technology invented by the British into a workable product, and Raytheon then began mass-producing microwave tubes—known as magnetrons—for the US war effort. By the end of the war in 1945, Raytheon was making 80% of the magnetrons powering Allied radar across the world. From padded foam chambers at the Epirus HQ, Leonidas devices can be safely tested on drones.EPIRUS Large tubes remained the best way to emit high-power microwaves for more than half a century, handily outperforming silicon-based solid-state amplifiers. They’re still around—the microwave on your kitchen counter runs on a vacuum tube magnetron. But tubes have downsides: They’re hot, they’re big, and they require upkeep. (In fact, the other microwave drone zapper currently in the Pentagon pipeline, the Tactical High-power Operational Responder, or THOR, still relies on a physical vacuum tube. It’s reported to be effective at downing drones in tests but takes up a whole shipping container and needs a dish antenna to zap its targets.) By the 2000s, new methods of building solid-state amplifiers out of materials like gallium nitride started to mature and were able to handle more power than silicon without melting or shorting out. The US Navy spent hundreds of millions of dollars on cutting-edge microwave contracts, one for a project at Raytheon called Next Generation Jammer—geared specifically toward designing a new way to make high-powered microwaves that work at extremely long distances. Lowery, the Epirus CEO, began his career working on nuclear reactors on Navy aircraft carriers before he became the chief engineer for Next Generation Jammer at Raytheon in 2010. There, he and his team worked on a system that relied on many of the same fundamentals that now power the Leonidas—using the same type of amplifier material and antenna setup to fry the electronics of a small target at much closer range rather than disrupting the radar of a target hundreds of miles away.  The similarity is not a coincidence: Two engineers from Next Generation Jammer helped launch Epirus in 2018. Lowery—who by then was working at the augmented-reality startup RealWear, which makes industrial smart glasses—joined Epirus in 2021 to run product development and was asked to take the top spot as CEO in 2023, as Leonidas became a fully formed machine. Much of the founding team has since departed for other projects, but Raytheon still runs through the company’s collective CV: ex-Raytheon radar engineer Matt Markel started in January as the new CTO, and Epirus’s chief engineer for defense, its VP of engineering, its VP of operations, and a number of employees all have Raytheon roots as well. Markel tells me that the Epirus way of working wouldn’t have flown at one of the big defense contractors: “They never would have tried spinning off the technology into a new application without a contract lined up.” The Epirus engineers saw the use case, raised money to start building Leonidas, and already had prototypes in the works before any military branch started awarding money to work on the project. Waiting for the starting gun On the wall of Lowery’s office are two mementos from testing days at an Army proving ground: a trophy wing from a larger drone, signed by the whole testing team, and a framed photo documenting the Leonidas’s carnage—a stack of dozens of inoperative drones piled up in a heap.  Despite what seems to have been an impressive test show, it’s still impossible from the outside to determine whether Epirus’s tech is ready to fully deliver if the swarms descend.  The Army would not comment specifically on the efficacy of any new weapons in testing or early deployment, including the Leonidas system. A spokesperson for the Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, or RCCTO, which is the subsection responsible for contracting with Epirus to date, would only say in a statement that it is “committed to developing and fielding innovative Directed Energy solutions to address evolving threats.”  But various high-ranking officers appear to be giving Epirus a public vote of confidence. The three-star general who runs RCCTO and oversaw the Leonidas testing last summer told Breaking Defense that “the system actually worked very well,” even if there was work to be done on “how the weapon system fits into the larger kill chain.” And when former secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, then the service’s highest-ranking civilian, gave a parting interview this past January, she mentioned Epirus in all but name, citing “one company” that is “using high-powered microwaves to basically be able to kill swarms of drones.” She called that kind of capability “critical for the Army.”  The Army isn’t the only branch interested in the microwave weapon. On Epirus’s factory floor when I visited, alongside the big beige Leonidases commissioned by the Army, engineers were building a smaller expeditionary version for the Marines, painted green, which it delivered in late April. Videos show that when it put some of its microwave emitters on a dock and tested them out for the Navy last summer, the microwaves left their targets dead in the water—successfully frying the circuits of outboard motors like the ones propelling Houthi drone boats.  Epirus is also currently working on an even smaller version of the Leonidas that can mount on top of the Army’s Stryker combat vehicles, and it’s testing out attaching a single microwave unit to a small airborne drone, which could work as a highly focused zapper to disable cars, data centers, or single enemy drones.  Epirus’s microwave technology is also being tested in devices smaller than the traditional Leonidas. EPIRUS While neither the Army nor the Navy has yet to announce a contract to start buying Epirus’s systems at scale, the company and its investors are actively preparing for the big orders to start rolling in. It raised $250 million in a funding round in early March to get ready to make as many Leonidases as possible in the coming years, adding to the more than $300 million it’s raised since opening its doors in 2018. “If you invent a force field that works,” Lowery boasts, “you really get a lot of attention.” The task for Epirus now, assuming that its main customers pull the trigger and start buying more Leonidases, is ramping up production while advancing the tech in its systems. Then there are the more prosaic problems of staffing, assembly, and testing at scale. For future generations, Lowery told me, the goal is refining the antenna design and integrating higher-powered microwave amplifiers to push the output into the tens of kilowatts, allowing for increased range and efficacy.  While this could be made harder by Trump’s global trade war, Lowery says he’s not worried about their supply chain; while China produces 98% of the world’s gallium, according to the US Geological Survey, and has choked off exports to the US, Epirus’s chip supplier uses recycled gallium from Japan.  The other outside challenge may be that Epirus isn’t the only company building a drone zapper. One of China’s state-owned defense companies has been working on its own anti-drone high-powered microwave weapon called the Hurricane, which it displayed at a major military show in late 2024.  It may be a sign that anti-electronics force fields will become common among the world’s militaries—and if so, the future of war is unlikely to go back to the status quo ante, and it might zag in a different direction yet again. But military planners believe it’s crucial for the US not to be left behind. So if it works as promised, Epirus could very well change the way that war will play out in the coming decade.  While Miller, the Army CTO, can’t speak directly to Epirus or any specific system, he will say that he believes anti-drone measures are going to have to become ubiquitous for US soldiers. “Counter-UAS [Unmanned Aircraft System] unfortunately is going to be like counter-IED,” he says. “It’s going to be every soldier’s job to think about UAS threats the same way it was to think about IEDs.”  And, he adds, it’s his job and his colleagues’ to make sure that tech so effective it works like “almost magic” is in the hands of the average rifleman. To that end, Lowery told me, Epirus is designing the Leonidas control system to work simply for troops, allowing them to identify a cluster of targets and start zapping with just a click of a button—but only extensive use in the field can prove that out. Epirus CEO Andy Lowery sees the Leonidas as providing a last line of defense against UAVs.EPIRUS In the not-too-distant future, Lowery says, this could mean setting up along the US-Mexico border. But the grandest vision for Epirus’s tech that he says he’s heard is for a city-scale Leonidas along the lines of a ballistic missile defense radar system called PAVE PAWS, which takes up an entire 105-foot-tall building and can detect distant nuclear missile launches. The US set up four in the 1980s, and Taiwan currently has one up on a mountain south of Taipei. Fill a similar-size building full of microwave emitters, and the beam could reach out “10 or 15 miles,” Lowery told me, with one sitting sentinel over Taipei in the north and another over Kaohsiung in the south of Taiwan. Riffing in Greek mythological mode, Lowery said of drones, “I call all these mischief makers. Whether they’re doing drugs or guns across the border or they’re flying over Langley [or] they’re spying on F-35s, they’re all like Icarus. You remember Icarus, with his wax wings? Flying all around—‘Nobody’s going to touch me, nobody’s going to ever hurt me.’” “We built one hell of a wax-wing melter.”  Sam Dean is a reporter focusing on business, tech, and defense. He is writing a book about the recent history of Silicon Valley returning to work with the Pentagon for Viking Press and covering the defense tech industry for a number of publications. Previously, he was a business reporter at the Los Angeles Times. This piece has been updated to clarify that Alex Miller is a civilian intelligence official. 
    0 Commentarii 0 Distribuiri 0 previzualizare
  • Bioprinted organs ‘10–15 years away,’ says startup regenerating dog skin

    Human organs could be bioprinted for transplants within 10 years, according to Lithuanian startup Vital3D. But before reaching human hearts and kidneys, the company is starting with something simpler: regenerating dog skin.
    Based in Vilnius, Vital3D is already bioprinting functional tissue constructs. Using a proprietary laser system, the startup deposits living cells and biomaterials in precise 3D patterns. The structures mimic natural biological systems — and could one day form entire organs tailored to a patient’s unique anatomy.
    That mission is both professional and personal for CEO Vidmantas Šakalys. After losing a mentor to urinary cancer, he set out to develop 3D-printed kidneys that could save others from the same fate. But before reaching that goal, the company needs a commercial product to fund the long road ahead.
    That product is VitalHeal — the first-ever bioprinted wound patch for pets. Dogs are the initial target, with human applications slated to follow.
    Šakalys calls the patch “a first step” towards bioprinted kidneys. “Printing organs for transplantation is a really challenging task,” he tells TNW after a tour of his lab. “It’s 10 or 15 years away from now, and as a commercial entity, we need to have commercially available products earlier. So we start with simpler products and then move into more difficult ones.”
    Register Now

    The path may be simpler, but the technology is anything but.
    Bioprinting goes to the vet
    VitalHeal is embedded with growth factors that accelerate skin regeneration.
    Across the patch’s surface, tiny pores about one-fifth the width of a human hair enable air circulation while blocking bacteria. Once applied, VitalHeal seals the wound and maintains constant pressure while the growth factors get to work.
    According to Vital3D, the patch can reduce healing time from 10–12 weeks to just four to six. Infection risk can drop from 30% to under 10%, vet visits from eight to two or three, and surgery times by half.
    Current treatments, the startup argues, can be costly, ineffective, and distressing for animals. VitalHeal is designed to provide a safer, faster, and cheaper alternative.
    Vital3D says the market is big — and the data backs up the claim.
    Vital3D’s FemtoBrush system promises high-speed and high-precision bioprinting. Credit: Vital3D
    Commercial prospects
    The global animal wound care market is projected to grow from bnin 2024 to bnby 2030, fuelled by rising pet ownership and demand for advanced veterinary care. Vital3D forecasts an initial serviceable addressable marketof €76.5mn across the EU and US. By 2027-2028, the company aims to sell 100,000 units.
    Dogs are a logical starting point. Their size, activity levels, and surgeries raise their risk of wounds. Around half of dogs over age 10 are also affected by cancer, further increasing demand for effective wound care.
    At €300 retail, the patches won’t be cheap. But Vital3D claims they could slash treatment costs for pet owners from €3,000 to €1,500. Production at scale is expected to bring prices down further. 
    After strong results in rats, trials on dogs will begin this summer in clinics in Lithuania and the UK — Vital3D’s pilot markets.
    If all goes to plan, a non-degradable patch will launch in Europe next year. The company will then progress to a biodegradable version.
    From there, the company plans to adapt the tech for humans. The initial focus will be wound care for people with diabetes, 25% of whom suffer from impaired healing. Future versions could support burn victims, injured soldiers, and others in need of advanced skin restoration.
    Freshly printed fluids in a bio-ink droplet. Credit: Vital3D
    Vital3D is also exploring other medical frontiers. In partnership with Lithuania’s National Cancer Institute, the startup is building organoids — mini versions of organs — for cancer drug testing. Another project involves bioprinted stents, which are showing promise in early animal trials. But all these efforts serve a bigger mission.
    “Our final target is to move to organ printing for transplants,” says Šakalys.
    Bioprinting organs
    A computer engineer by training, Šakalys has worked with photonic innovations for over 10 years. 
    At his previous startup, Femtika, he harnessed lasers to produce tiny components for microelectronics, medical devices, and aerospace engineering. He realised they could also enable precise bioprinting. 
    In 2021, he co-founded Vital3D to advance the concept. The company’s printing system directs light towards a photosensitive bio-ink. The material is hardened and formed into a structure, with living cells and biomaterials moulded into intricate 3D patterns.
    The shape of the laser beam can be adjusted to replicate complex biological forms — potentially even entire organs.
    But there are still major scientific hurdles to overcome. One is vascularisation, the formation of blood vessels in intricate networks. Another is the diverse variety of cell types in many organs. Replicating these sophisticated natural structures will be challenging.
    “First of all, we want to solve the vasculature. Then we will go into the differentiation of cells,” Šakalys says.
    “Our target is to see if we can print from fewer cells, but try to differentiate them while printing into different types of cells.” 
    If successful, Vital3D could help ease the global shortage of transplantable organs. Fewer than 10% of patients who need a transplant receive one each year, according to the World Health Organisation. In the US alone, around 90,000 people are waiting for a kidney — a shortfall that’s fuelling a thriving black market.
    Šakalys believes that could be just the start. He envisions bioprinting not just creating organs, but also advancing a new era of personalised medicine.
    “It can bring a lot of benefits to society,” he says. “Not just bioprinting for transplants, but also tissue engineering as well.”
    Want to discover the next big thing in tech? Then take a trip to TNW Conference, where thousands of founders, investors, and corporate innovators will share their ideas. The event takes place on June 19–20 in Amsterdam and tickets are on sale now. Use the code TNWXMEDIA2025 at the checkout to get 30% off.

    Story by

    Thomas Macaulay

    Managing editor

    Thomas is the managing editor of TNW. He leads our coverage of European tech and oversees our talented team of writers. Away from work, he eThomas is the managing editor of TNW. He leads our coverage of European tech and oversees our talented team of writers. Away from work, he enjoys playing chessand the guitar.

    Get the TNW newsletter
    Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.

    Also tagged with
    #bioprinted #organs #years #away #says
    Bioprinted organs ‘10–15 years away,’ says startup regenerating dog skin
    Human organs could be bioprinted for transplants within 10 years, according to Lithuanian startup Vital3D. But before reaching human hearts and kidneys, the company is starting with something simpler: regenerating dog skin. Based in Vilnius, Vital3D is already bioprinting functional tissue constructs. Using a proprietary laser system, the startup deposits living cells and biomaterials in precise 3D patterns. The structures mimic natural biological systems — and could one day form entire organs tailored to a patient’s unique anatomy. That mission is both professional and personal for CEO Vidmantas Šakalys. After losing a mentor to urinary cancer, he set out to develop 3D-printed kidneys that could save others from the same fate. But before reaching that goal, the company needs a commercial product to fund the long road ahead. That product is VitalHeal — the first-ever bioprinted wound patch for pets. Dogs are the initial target, with human applications slated to follow. Šakalys calls the patch “a first step” towards bioprinted kidneys. “Printing organs for transplantation is a really challenging task,” he tells TNW after a tour of his lab. “It’s 10 or 15 years away from now, and as a commercial entity, we need to have commercially available products earlier. So we start with simpler products and then move into more difficult ones.” Register Now The path may be simpler, but the technology is anything but. Bioprinting goes to the vet VitalHeal is embedded with growth factors that accelerate skin regeneration. Across the patch’s surface, tiny pores about one-fifth the width of a human hair enable air circulation while blocking bacteria. Once applied, VitalHeal seals the wound and maintains constant pressure while the growth factors get to work. According to Vital3D, the patch can reduce healing time from 10–12 weeks to just four to six. Infection risk can drop from 30% to under 10%, vet visits from eight to two or three, and surgery times by half. Current treatments, the startup argues, can be costly, ineffective, and distressing for animals. VitalHeal is designed to provide a safer, faster, and cheaper alternative. Vital3D says the market is big — and the data backs up the claim. Vital3D’s FemtoBrush system promises high-speed and high-precision bioprinting. Credit: Vital3D Commercial prospects The global animal wound care market is projected to grow from bnin 2024 to bnby 2030, fuelled by rising pet ownership and demand for advanced veterinary care. Vital3D forecasts an initial serviceable addressable marketof €76.5mn across the EU and US. By 2027-2028, the company aims to sell 100,000 units. Dogs are a logical starting point. Their size, activity levels, and surgeries raise their risk of wounds. Around half of dogs over age 10 are also affected by cancer, further increasing demand for effective wound care. At €300 retail, the patches won’t be cheap. But Vital3D claims they could slash treatment costs for pet owners from €3,000 to €1,500. Production at scale is expected to bring prices down further.  After strong results in rats, trials on dogs will begin this summer in clinics in Lithuania and the UK — Vital3D’s pilot markets. If all goes to plan, a non-degradable patch will launch in Europe next year. The company will then progress to a biodegradable version. From there, the company plans to adapt the tech for humans. The initial focus will be wound care for people with diabetes, 25% of whom suffer from impaired healing. Future versions could support burn victims, injured soldiers, and others in need of advanced skin restoration. Freshly printed fluids in a bio-ink droplet. Credit: Vital3D Vital3D is also exploring other medical frontiers. In partnership with Lithuania’s National Cancer Institute, the startup is building organoids — mini versions of organs — for cancer drug testing. Another project involves bioprinted stents, which are showing promise in early animal trials. But all these efforts serve a bigger mission. “Our final target is to move to organ printing for transplants,” says Šakalys. Bioprinting organs A computer engineer by training, Šakalys has worked with photonic innovations for over 10 years.  At his previous startup, Femtika, he harnessed lasers to produce tiny components for microelectronics, medical devices, and aerospace engineering. He realised they could also enable precise bioprinting.  In 2021, he co-founded Vital3D to advance the concept. The company’s printing system directs light towards a photosensitive bio-ink. The material is hardened and formed into a structure, with living cells and biomaterials moulded into intricate 3D patterns. The shape of the laser beam can be adjusted to replicate complex biological forms — potentially even entire organs. But there are still major scientific hurdles to overcome. One is vascularisation, the formation of blood vessels in intricate networks. Another is the diverse variety of cell types in many organs. Replicating these sophisticated natural structures will be challenging. “First of all, we want to solve the vasculature. Then we will go into the differentiation of cells,” Šakalys says. “Our target is to see if we can print from fewer cells, but try to differentiate them while printing into different types of cells.”  If successful, Vital3D could help ease the global shortage of transplantable organs. Fewer than 10% of patients who need a transplant receive one each year, according to the World Health Organisation. In the US alone, around 90,000 people are waiting for a kidney — a shortfall that’s fuelling a thriving black market. Šakalys believes that could be just the start. He envisions bioprinting not just creating organs, but also advancing a new era of personalised medicine. “It can bring a lot of benefits to society,” he says. “Not just bioprinting for transplants, but also tissue engineering as well.” Want to discover the next big thing in tech? Then take a trip to TNW Conference, where thousands of founders, investors, and corporate innovators will share their ideas. The event takes place on June 19–20 in Amsterdam and tickets are on sale now. Use the code TNWXMEDIA2025 at the checkout to get 30% off. Story by Thomas Macaulay Managing editor Thomas is the managing editor of TNW. He leads our coverage of European tech and oversees our talented team of writers. Away from work, he eThomas is the managing editor of TNW. He leads our coverage of European tech and oversees our talented team of writers. Away from work, he enjoys playing chessand the guitar. Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week. Also tagged with #bioprinted #organs #years #away #says
    THENEXTWEB.COM
    Bioprinted organs ‘10–15 years away,’ says startup regenerating dog skin
    Human organs could be bioprinted for transplants within 10 years, according to Lithuanian startup Vital3D. But before reaching human hearts and kidneys, the company is starting with something simpler: regenerating dog skin. Based in Vilnius, Vital3D is already bioprinting functional tissue constructs. Using a proprietary laser system, the startup deposits living cells and biomaterials in precise 3D patterns. The structures mimic natural biological systems — and could one day form entire organs tailored to a patient’s unique anatomy. That mission is both professional and personal for CEO Vidmantas Šakalys. After losing a mentor to urinary cancer, he set out to develop 3D-printed kidneys that could save others from the same fate. But before reaching that goal, the company needs a commercial product to fund the long road ahead. That product is VitalHeal — the first-ever bioprinted wound patch for pets. Dogs are the initial target, with human applications slated to follow. Šakalys calls the patch “a first step” towards bioprinted kidneys. “Printing organs for transplantation is a really challenging task,” he tells TNW after a tour of his lab. “It’s 10 or 15 years away from now, and as a commercial entity, we need to have commercially available products earlier. So we start with simpler products and then move into more difficult ones.” Register Now The path may be simpler, but the technology is anything but. Bioprinting goes to the vet VitalHeal is embedded with growth factors that accelerate skin regeneration. Across the patch’s surface, tiny pores about one-fifth the width of a human hair enable air circulation while blocking bacteria. Once applied, VitalHeal seals the wound and maintains constant pressure while the growth factors get to work. According to Vital3D, the patch can reduce healing time from 10–12 weeks to just four to six. Infection risk can drop from 30% to under 10%, vet visits from eight to two or three, and surgery times by half. Current treatments, the startup argues, can be costly, ineffective, and distressing for animals. VitalHeal is designed to provide a safer, faster, and cheaper alternative. Vital3D says the market is big — and the data backs up the claim. Vital3D’s FemtoBrush system promises high-speed and high-precision bioprinting. Credit: Vital3D Commercial prospects The global animal wound care market is projected to grow from $1.4bn (€1.24bn) in 2024 to $2.1bn (€1.87bn) by 2030, fuelled by rising pet ownership and demand for advanced veterinary care. Vital3D forecasts an initial serviceable addressable market (ISAM) of €76.5mn across the EU and US. By 2027-2028, the company aims to sell 100,000 units. Dogs are a logical starting point. Their size, activity levels, and surgeries raise their risk of wounds. Around half of dogs over age 10 are also affected by cancer, further increasing demand for effective wound care. At €300 retail (or €150 wholesale), the patches won’t be cheap. But Vital3D claims they could slash treatment costs for pet owners from €3,000 to €1,500. Production at scale is expected to bring prices down further.  After strong results in rats, trials on dogs will begin this summer in clinics in Lithuania and the UK — Vital3D’s pilot markets. If all goes to plan, a non-degradable patch will launch in Europe next year. The company will then progress to a biodegradable version. From there, the company plans to adapt the tech for humans. The initial focus will be wound care for people with diabetes, 25% of whom suffer from impaired healing. Future versions could support burn victims, injured soldiers, and others in need of advanced skin restoration. Freshly printed fluids in a bio-ink droplet. Credit: Vital3D Vital3D is also exploring other medical frontiers. In partnership with Lithuania’s National Cancer Institute, the startup is building organoids — mini versions of organs — for cancer drug testing. Another project involves bioprinted stents, which are showing promise in early animal trials. But all these efforts serve a bigger mission. “Our final target is to move to organ printing for transplants,” says Šakalys. Bioprinting organs A computer engineer by training, Šakalys has worked with photonic innovations for over 10 years.  At his previous startup, Femtika, he harnessed lasers to produce tiny components for microelectronics, medical devices, and aerospace engineering. He realised they could also enable precise bioprinting.  In 2021, he co-founded Vital3D to advance the concept. The company’s printing system directs light towards a photosensitive bio-ink. The material is hardened and formed into a structure, with living cells and biomaterials moulded into intricate 3D patterns. The shape of the laser beam can be adjusted to replicate complex biological forms — potentially even entire organs. But there are still major scientific hurdles to overcome. One is vascularisation, the formation of blood vessels in intricate networks. Another is the diverse variety of cell types in many organs. Replicating these sophisticated natural structures will be challenging. “First of all, we want to solve the vasculature. Then we will go into the differentiation of cells,” Šakalys says. “Our target is to see if we can print from fewer cells, but try to differentiate them while printing into different types of cells.”  If successful, Vital3D could help ease the global shortage of transplantable organs. Fewer than 10% of patients who need a transplant receive one each year, according to the World Health Organisation. In the US alone, around 90,000 people are waiting for a kidney — a shortfall that’s fuelling a thriving black market. Šakalys believes that could be just the start. He envisions bioprinting not just creating organs, but also advancing a new era of personalised medicine. “It can bring a lot of benefits to society,” he says. “Not just bioprinting for transplants, but also tissue engineering as well.” Want to discover the next big thing in tech? Then take a trip to TNW Conference, where thousands of founders, investors, and corporate innovators will share their ideas. The event takes place on June 19–20 in Amsterdam and tickets are on sale now. Use the code TNWXMEDIA2025 at the checkout to get 30% off. Story by Thomas Macaulay Managing editor Thomas is the managing editor of TNW. He leads our coverage of European tech and oversees our talented team of writers. Away from work, he e (show all) Thomas is the managing editor of TNW. He leads our coverage of European tech and oversees our talented team of writers. Away from work, he enjoys playing chess (badly) and the guitar (even worse). Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week. Also tagged with
    0 Commentarii 0 Distribuiri 0 previzualizare
  • Netflix’s Dept. Q Ending Explained: Merritt Lingard, the Kidnappers, the Leith Park Shooting

    Warning: contains finale spoilers for Dept. Q
    See it? Blink and you won’t have, but it was there for a good half second: a smile on the face of DCI Carl Morck. It’s a rare enough occurrence across nine episodes of this Netflix crime drama to make it worthy of note. Matthew Goode’s irascible detective frowned, scowled and spitted out sarcasm through his new department’s search for missing prosecutor Merritt Lingard, until the show’s very last moment, when he smiled.
    He’d earned it. Three months earlier, Morck’s cold case unit had rescued Lingard and used dirt dug up during the investigation to blackmail the Lord Advocateinto a funding hike, a new work car, and fast-tracked DI status for Syrian copper and calmly proficient muscle Akram Salim. And now, Morck’s partner Hardy, formerly thought to have permanently lost the use of his legs after they were both shot in the line of duty, was walking again. It was a happy ending, or at least as happy as things get in a dank Edinburgh basement filled with unsolved case files detailing terrible crimes.

    With major Dept. Q finale spoilers, let’s dig into the revelations about Merritt’s kidnappers, what we learned about the Leith Park shooting, and more.

    Who Kidnapped Merritt Lingard and Why?
    Merritt’s kidnappers were Lyle and Ailsa Jennings, respectively the younger brother and mother of Harry Jennings, Merritt’s boyfriend as a teenager. She was being held on their property on her childhood island home of Mhòr, in a pressurised hyperbaric chamber inside a condemned building that was formerly part of Ailsa’s husband’s oceanography business Shorebird Ocean Systems – the logo for which was the cormorant symbol identified by Merritt’s brother William as on the hat of her stalker and kidnapper.
    Ailsa was a twisted and abusive mother to Harry and Lyle, as well as a murderer who killed her husband by burning the house down by flicking lighted matches at him while he slept. As a result, Lyle grew up to be a violent psychopath whose teenage crimes were covered up by the family and by the island’s police officer John Cunningham. John knew that Lyle was responsible for Merritt’s disappearance, but didn’t know she was still alive, having believed Lyle when he lied that Merritt had died by falling off the ferry from the mainland, just like Lyle’s brother Harry had done years earlier.
    Lyle and Ailsa blamed Merritt for Harry’s death because he jumped from the ferry while being pursued by John, who was chasing him because he was suspected of having severely beaten Merritt’s brother William into a coma during an interrupted robbery of the Lingard home. The robbery plan had been seeded by Merritt to steal her mother’s jewellery from her alcoholic father in order to sell for money to run away from home.
    In fact, Lyle was the one who had attacked William, being unhinged and thinking that he was protecting his brother. Harry and Ailsa covered up Lyle’s guilt and before his death, Harry took the blame.
    Lyle Jennings, Godhaven, and Sam Haig
    Lyle, who had a history of stalking, breaking-and-entering, and animal murder, spent time in youth psychiatric facility Godhaven, where he stalked another patient named Sam Haig. The pair fought, and Sam injured Lyle’s eye so severely that it was left permanently discoloured. Years later as an adult who had become an investigative journalist with no online presence, Sam sought Lyle out to apologise for the injury and invite him to come climbing at his favourite spot.
    Lyle used the information he had on Sam to assume his identity and stalk Merritt Lingard, who didn’t recognise him as an adult. He pretended to be investigating corruption at Merritt’s workplace, and targeted her, eventually starting a sexual relationship still pretending to be Sam. When Merritt told Lyle-as-Sam that she was leaving to go to Mhòr on the 10am ferry the next day, Lyle used that information to kidnap her during the crossing.

    Merritt’s brother William, who had been unable to speak since his teenage coma, had spotted Lyle on the ferry and because of Lyle’s distinctive hat, recognised him as the man who’d been stalking their house. He tried to communicate this to Merritt by throwing his own hat, and then struck her when he became afraid. It was when Merritt went to retrieve William’s hat that she was taken.

    Join our mailing list
    Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox!

    Two days after Lyle kidnapped Merritt, he returned to the mainland to tie up loose ends and kill the real Sam Haig. He lured Sam to a remote spot, beat him to death, staged his corpse to look as though he had been climbing, and threw it off a cliff. Eventually, Morck and co. worked out that somebody else was pretending to be Sam Haig when they had evidence that Merritt had been with “Sam” at a hotel at the same time that the real Sam was having an affair with his friend’s wife at a different hotel.
    What Happened to Lyle and Ailsa Jennings?
    Merritt’s kidnappers both died – Ailsa by her own hand as she shot herself in her car before being taken into custody by the police, and Lyle by Akram’s hand, or rather, his trigger finger. After Lyle shot buckshot into Morck’s shoulder, Akram threw a knife at him, disarmed and shot him. Previously, Lyle had brutally killed Constable John Cunningham with a hammer when he learned that Merritt was still alive.
    Mark Bonnar’s character Stephen Burns had disallowed the appearance of a key witness in the Graham Finch murder trial after Burns’ daughter was run off the road by one of Finch’s goons as an intimidation tactic. Prisoner Kirsty Atkins was willing to testify that she had previously met Finch’s now-dead wife at a shelter for survivors of domestic violence, and that Finch routinely hit her. Because Burns wouldn’t allow her testimony, Finch was acquitted of his wife’s murder despite clearly having been guilty of it. Perhaps he also passed on the information about Kirsty Atkins to Finch’s lawyer, which led to Kirsty being viciously attacked and partially blinded in prison on Finch’s orders to keep her quiet.
    Who Is the Leith Park Shooter?
    We still don’t know who shot PC Anderson dead, and attempted to shoot Morck and Hardy dead at the Leith Park flat. If we can take the contents of Morck’s dream as gospel, then the shooting was done on the orders of Leith Park criminal kingpin Eugene Errington, whom we’ve yet to meet. According to Morck’s dream, in which he shot Errington’s muscle Charlie Bell in the head, Errington has a baby with Caroline Kerr – the witness who was intimidated into withdrawing her statement about the shooting.
    We also know, or at least have a pretty good idea, that PC Anderson was a corrupt officer working for Errington, and that he may even have been the one to stab the victim – thought to have been a police informant – in the head. Anderson was a top recruit pretending to be a klutz, Morck realised, in order to cover up the fact that his fingerprints were all over the victim’s flat. He also lied about being at the flat for a routine welfare check after being alerted by the victim’s daughter – that was a quick-thinking ruse to explain his presence when Morck and Hardy showed up there unexpectedly.

    The last we saw of the Leith Park case, Moira looked to be taking it away from its lead investigator and possibly closing it, unsolved, which may point to her also having been compromised by Errington. As Hardy was one of the shooting’s victims, surely that can’t be the case file that she gave to Hardy to investigate without Morck in the season’s closing moments?

    Dept. Q is streaming now on Netflix.
    #netflixs #dept #ending #explained #merritt
    Netflix’s Dept. Q Ending Explained: Merritt Lingard, the Kidnappers, the Leith Park Shooting
    Warning: contains finale spoilers for Dept. Q See it? Blink and you won’t have, but it was there for a good half second: a smile on the face of DCI Carl Morck. It’s a rare enough occurrence across nine episodes of this Netflix crime drama to make it worthy of note. Matthew Goode’s irascible detective frowned, scowled and spitted out sarcasm through his new department’s search for missing prosecutor Merritt Lingard, until the show’s very last moment, when he smiled. He’d earned it. Three months earlier, Morck’s cold case unit had rescued Lingard and used dirt dug up during the investigation to blackmail the Lord Advocateinto a funding hike, a new work car, and fast-tracked DI status for Syrian copper and calmly proficient muscle Akram Salim. And now, Morck’s partner Hardy, formerly thought to have permanently lost the use of his legs after they were both shot in the line of duty, was walking again. It was a happy ending, or at least as happy as things get in a dank Edinburgh basement filled with unsolved case files detailing terrible crimes. With major Dept. Q finale spoilers, let’s dig into the revelations about Merritt’s kidnappers, what we learned about the Leith Park shooting, and more. Who Kidnapped Merritt Lingard and Why? Merritt’s kidnappers were Lyle and Ailsa Jennings, respectively the younger brother and mother of Harry Jennings, Merritt’s boyfriend as a teenager. She was being held on their property on her childhood island home of Mhòr, in a pressurised hyperbaric chamber inside a condemned building that was formerly part of Ailsa’s husband’s oceanography business Shorebird Ocean Systems – the logo for which was the cormorant symbol identified by Merritt’s brother William as on the hat of her stalker and kidnapper. Ailsa was a twisted and abusive mother to Harry and Lyle, as well as a murderer who killed her husband by burning the house down by flicking lighted matches at him while he slept. As a result, Lyle grew up to be a violent psychopath whose teenage crimes were covered up by the family and by the island’s police officer John Cunningham. John knew that Lyle was responsible for Merritt’s disappearance, but didn’t know she was still alive, having believed Lyle when he lied that Merritt had died by falling off the ferry from the mainland, just like Lyle’s brother Harry had done years earlier. Lyle and Ailsa blamed Merritt for Harry’s death because he jumped from the ferry while being pursued by John, who was chasing him because he was suspected of having severely beaten Merritt’s brother William into a coma during an interrupted robbery of the Lingard home. The robbery plan had been seeded by Merritt to steal her mother’s jewellery from her alcoholic father in order to sell for money to run away from home. In fact, Lyle was the one who had attacked William, being unhinged and thinking that he was protecting his brother. Harry and Ailsa covered up Lyle’s guilt and before his death, Harry took the blame. Lyle Jennings, Godhaven, and Sam Haig Lyle, who had a history of stalking, breaking-and-entering, and animal murder, spent time in youth psychiatric facility Godhaven, where he stalked another patient named Sam Haig. The pair fought, and Sam injured Lyle’s eye so severely that it was left permanently discoloured. Years later as an adult who had become an investigative journalist with no online presence, Sam sought Lyle out to apologise for the injury and invite him to come climbing at his favourite spot. Lyle used the information he had on Sam to assume his identity and stalk Merritt Lingard, who didn’t recognise him as an adult. He pretended to be investigating corruption at Merritt’s workplace, and targeted her, eventually starting a sexual relationship still pretending to be Sam. When Merritt told Lyle-as-Sam that she was leaving to go to Mhòr on the 10am ferry the next day, Lyle used that information to kidnap her during the crossing. Merritt’s brother William, who had been unable to speak since his teenage coma, had spotted Lyle on the ferry and because of Lyle’s distinctive hat, recognised him as the man who’d been stalking their house. He tried to communicate this to Merritt by throwing his own hat, and then struck her when he became afraid. It was when Merritt went to retrieve William’s hat that she was taken. Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox! Two days after Lyle kidnapped Merritt, he returned to the mainland to tie up loose ends and kill the real Sam Haig. He lured Sam to a remote spot, beat him to death, staged his corpse to look as though he had been climbing, and threw it off a cliff. Eventually, Morck and co. worked out that somebody else was pretending to be Sam Haig when they had evidence that Merritt had been with “Sam” at a hotel at the same time that the real Sam was having an affair with his friend’s wife at a different hotel. What Happened to Lyle and Ailsa Jennings? Merritt’s kidnappers both died – Ailsa by her own hand as she shot herself in her car before being taken into custody by the police, and Lyle by Akram’s hand, or rather, his trigger finger. After Lyle shot buckshot into Morck’s shoulder, Akram threw a knife at him, disarmed and shot him. Previously, Lyle had brutally killed Constable John Cunningham with a hammer when he learned that Merritt was still alive. Mark Bonnar’s character Stephen Burns had disallowed the appearance of a key witness in the Graham Finch murder trial after Burns’ daughter was run off the road by one of Finch’s goons as an intimidation tactic. Prisoner Kirsty Atkins was willing to testify that she had previously met Finch’s now-dead wife at a shelter for survivors of domestic violence, and that Finch routinely hit her. Because Burns wouldn’t allow her testimony, Finch was acquitted of his wife’s murder despite clearly having been guilty of it. Perhaps he also passed on the information about Kirsty Atkins to Finch’s lawyer, which led to Kirsty being viciously attacked and partially blinded in prison on Finch’s orders to keep her quiet. Who Is the Leith Park Shooter? We still don’t know who shot PC Anderson dead, and attempted to shoot Morck and Hardy dead at the Leith Park flat. If we can take the contents of Morck’s dream as gospel, then the shooting was done on the orders of Leith Park criminal kingpin Eugene Errington, whom we’ve yet to meet. According to Morck’s dream, in which he shot Errington’s muscle Charlie Bell in the head, Errington has a baby with Caroline Kerr – the witness who was intimidated into withdrawing her statement about the shooting. We also know, or at least have a pretty good idea, that PC Anderson was a corrupt officer working for Errington, and that he may even have been the one to stab the victim – thought to have been a police informant – in the head. Anderson was a top recruit pretending to be a klutz, Morck realised, in order to cover up the fact that his fingerprints were all over the victim’s flat. He also lied about being at the flat for a routine welfare check after being alerted by the victim’s daughter – that was a quick-thinking ruse to explain his presence when Morck and Hardy showed up there unexpectedly. The last we saw of the Leith Park case, Moira looked to be taking it away from its lead investigator and possibly closing it, unsolved, which may point to her also having been compromised by Errington. As Hardy was one of the shooting’s victims, surely that can’t be the case file that she gave to Hardy to investigate without Morck in the season’s closing moments? Dept. Q is streaming now on Netflix. #netflixs #dept #ending #explained #merritt
    WWW.DENOFGEEK.COM
    Netflix’s Dept. Q Ending Explained: Merritt Lingard, the Kidnappers, the Leith Park Shooting
    Warning: contains finale spoilers for Dept. Q See it? Blink and you won’t have, but it was there for a good half second: a smile on the face of DCI Carl Morck. It’s a rare enough occurrence across nine episodes of this Netflix crime drama to make it worthy of note. Matthew Goode’s irascible detective frowned, scowled and spitted out sarcasm through his new department’s search for missing prosecutor Merritt Lingard, until the show’s very last moment, when he smiled. He’d earned it. Three months earlier, Morck’s cold case unit had rescued Lingard and used dirt dug up during the investigation to blackmail the Lord Advocate (the most senior law officer in Scotland) into a funding hike, a new work car, and fast-tracked DI status for Syrian copper and calmly proficient muscle Akram Salim. And now, Morck’s partner Hardy, formerly thought to have permanently lost the use of his legs after they were both shot in the line of duty, was walking again. It was a happy ending, or at least as happy as things get in a dank Edinburgh basement filled with unsolved case files detailing terrible crimes. With major Dept. Q finale spoilers, let’s dig into the revelations about Merritt’s kidnappers, what we learned about the Leith Park shooting, and more. Who Kidnapped Merritt Lingard and Why? Merritt’s kidnappers were Lyle and Ailsa Jennings, respectively the younger brother and mother of Harry Jennings, Merritt’s boyfriend as a teenager. She was being held on their property on her childhood island home of Mhòr, in a pressurised hyperbaric chamber inside a condemned building that was formerly part of Ailsa’s husband’s oceanography business Shorebird Ocean Systems – the logo for which was the cormorant symbol identified by Merritt’s brother William as on the hat of her stalker and kidnapper. Ailsa was a twisted and abusive mother to Harry and Lyle, as well as a murderer who killed her husband by burning the house down by flicking lighted matches at him while he slept. As a result, Lyle grew up to be a violent psychopath whose teenage crimes were covered up by the family and by the island’s police officer John Cunningham. John knew that Lyle was responsible for Merritt’s disappearance, but didn’t know she was still alive, having believed Lyle when he lied that Merritt had died by falling off the ferry from the mainland, just like Lyle’s brother Harry had done years earlier. Lyle and Ailsa blamed Merritt for Harry’s death because he jumped from the ferry while being pursued by John, who was chasing him because he was suspected of having severely beaten Merritt’s brother William into a coma during an interrupted robbery of the Lingard home. The robbery plan had been seeded by Merritt to steal her mother’s jewellery from her alcoholic father in order to sell for money to run away from home. In fact, Lyle was the one who had attacked William, being unhinged and thinking that he was protecting his brother. Harry and Ailsa covered up Lyle’s guilt and before his death, Harry took the blame. Lyle Jennings, Godhaven, and Sam Haig Lyle, who had a history of stalking, breaking-and-entering, and animal murder, spent time in youth psychiatric facility Godhaven, where he stalked another patient named Sam Haig. The pair fought, and Sam injured Lyle’s eye so severely that it was left permanently discoloured. Years later as an adult who had become an investigative journalist with no online presence, Sam sought Lyle out to apologise for the injury and invite him to come climbing at his favourite spot. Lyle used the information he had on Sam to assume his identity and stalk Merritt Lingard, who didn’t recognise him as an adult. He pretended to be investigating corruption at Merritt’s workplace, and targeted her, eventually starting a sexual relationship still pretending to be Sam. When Merritt told Lyle-as-Sam that she was leaving to go to Mhòr on the 10am ferry the next day, Lyle used that information to kidnap her during the crossing. Merritt’s brother William, who had been unable to speak since his teenage coma, had spotted Lyle on the ferry and because of Lyle’s distinctive hat, recognised him as the man who’d been stalking their house. He tried to communicate this to Merritt by throwing his own hat, and then struck her when he became afraid. It was when Merritt went to retrieve William’s hat that she was taken. Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox! Two days after Lyle kidnapped Merritt, he returned to the mainland to tie up loose ends and kill the real Sam Haig. He lured Sam to a remote spot, beat him to death, staged his corpse to look as though he had been climbing, and threw it off a cliff. Eventually, Morck and co. worked out that somebody else was pretending to be Sam Haig when they had evidence that Merritt had been with “Sam” at a hotel at the same time that the real Sam was having an affair with his friend’s wife at a different hotel. What Happened to Lyle and Ailsa Jennings? Merritt’s kidnappers both died – Ailsa by her own hand as she shot herself in her car before being taken into custody by the police, and Lyle by Akram’s hand, or rather, his trigger finger. After Lyle shot buckshot into Morck’s shoulder, Akram threw a knife at him, disarmed and shot him. Previously, Lyle had brutally killed Constable John Cunningham with a hammer when he learned that Merritt was still alive. Mark Bonnar’s character Stephen Burns had disallowed the appearance of a key witness in the Graham Finch murder trial after Burns’ daughter was run off the road by one of Finch’s goons as an intimidation tactic. Prisoner Kirsty Atkins was willing to testify that she had previously met Finch’s now-dead wife at a shelter for survivors of domestic violence, and that Finch routinely hit her. Because Burns wouldn’t allow her testimony, Finch was acquitted of his wife’s murder despite clearly having been guilty of it. Perhaps he also passed on the information about Kirsty Atkins to Finch’s lawyer, which led to Kirsty being viciously attacked and partially blinded in prison on Finch’s orders to keep her quiet. Who Is the Leith Park Shooter? We still don’t know who shot PC Anderson dead, and attempted to shoot Morck and Hardy dead at the Leith Park flat. If we can take the contents of Morck’s dream as gospel, then the shooting was done on the orders of Leith Park criminal kingpin Eugene Errington, whom we’ve yet to meet. According to Morck’s dream, in which he shot Errington’s muscle Charlie Bell in the head, Errington has a baby with Caroline Kerr – the witness who was intimidated into withdrawing her statement about the shooting. We also know, or at least have a pretty good idea, that PC Anderson was a corrupt officer working for Errington, and that he may even have been the one to stab the victim – thought to have been a police informant – in the head. Anderson was a top recruit pretending to be a klutz, Morck realised, in order to cover up the fact that his fingerprints were all over the victim’s flat. He also lied about being at the flat for a routine welfare check after being alerted by the victim’s daughter – that was a quick-thinking ruse to explain his presence when Morck and Hardy showed up there unexpectedly. The last we saw of the Leith Park case, Moira looked to be taking it away from its lead investigator and possibly closing it, unsolved, which may point to her also having been compromised by Errington. As Hardy was one of the shooting’s victims, surely that can’t be the case file that she gave to Hardy to investigate without Morck in the season’s closing moments? Dept. Q is streaming now on Netflix.
    8 Commentarii 0 Distribuiri 0 previzualizare
  • Turtle’s mysterious injury caused by a golf ball

    Earlier this month, an anonymous rescuer brought a painted turtlewith a strange injury to the New England Wildlife Center in Massachusetts: a perfectly round crater in its shell. Painted turtles are reptiles with smooth shells and bright yellow or orange markings found throughout North America, where they thrive in shallow freshwater. In fact, this reptile had made its home in a golf course’s water features, which helped clue-in the wildlife center’s employees on what happened. 

    The injured painted turtle was brought to the New England Wildlife Center in South Weymouth, Massachusetts. CREDIT: New England Wildlife Center via Facebook.

    “After assessing the injury, we are convinced there is only one logical cause, he was struck by a golf ball!” the New England Wildlife Center wrote in a Facebook post. “Thankfully, a good Samaritan noticed the injury and picked him up, bringing him to our hospital in a shoebox he happened to have from some old golf shoes. No word on if the turtle appreciated the irony of this situation.” 

    Based on the scar left behind, the painted turtle was likely injured by a golf ball. CREDIT: New England Wildlife Center via Facebook.

    After taking X-rays, animal experts confirmed that the impact had spared the turtle’s vital organs and spine by just a few centimeters. What’s more, the injury is likely old, given that new tissue  is already forming over the wound. The turtle is reportedly doing fine and the golf ball impact doesn’t seem to have caused long-term consequences besides a pretty unique scar.

    Just in case, the team will keep an eye on the turtle for a couple of days before releasing him “back to the links, where we expect he’ll be back on top of his game in no time.” According to the Tamarack Wildlife Center in Pennsylvania, turtles are very resistant creatures and often bounce back from shocking injuries. However, they’re no match for cars, and are particularly vulnerable when they emerge from hibernation in the spring to search for resources and mates. 

    “As humans, we should always do our best to help out where possible,” the post concluded. “Whether it’s on the back 9 or on the roadways, turtles are very active this time of year. Keep an eye out and feel free to give us a call if you come across an animal in need of help!”

    The post Turtle’s mysterious injury caused by a golf ball appeared first on Popular Science.
    #turtles #mysterious #injury #caused #golf
    Turtle’s mysterious injury caused by a golf ball
    Earlier this month, an anonymous rescuer brought a painted turtlewith a strange injury to the New England Wildlife Center in Massachusetts: a perfectly round crater in its shell. Painted turtles are reptiles with smooth shells and bright yellow or orange markings found throughout North America, where they thrive in shallow freshwater. In fact, this reptile had made its home in a golf course’s water features, which helped clue-in the wildlife center’s employees on what happened.  The injured painted turtle was brought to the New England Wildlife Center in South Weymouth, Massachusetts. CREDIT: New England Wildlife Center via Facebook. “After assessing the injury, we are convinced there is only one logical cause, he was struck by a golf ball!” the New England Wildlife Center wrote in a Facebook post. “Thankfully, a good Samaritan noticed the injury and picked him up, bringing him to our hospital in a shoebox he happened to have from some old golf shoes. No word on if the turtle appreciated the irony of this situation.”  Based on the scar left behind, the painted turtle was likely injured by a golf ball. CREDIT: New England Wildlife Center via Facebook. After taking X-rays, animal experts confirmed that the impact had spared the turtle’s vital organs and spine by just a few centimeters. What’s more, the injury is likely old, given that new tissue  is already forming over the wound. The turtle is reportedly doing fine and the golf ball impact doesn’t seem to have caused long-term consequences besides a pretty unique scar. Just in case, the team will keep an eye on the turtle for a couple of days before releasing him “back to the links, where we expect he’ll be back on top of his game in no time.” According to the Tamarack Wildlife Center in Pennsylvania, turtles are very resistant creatures and often bounce back from shocking injuries. However, they’re no match for cars, and are particularly vulnerable when they emerge from hibernation in the spring to search for resources and mates.  “As humans, we should always do our best to help out where possible,” the post concluded. “Whether it’s on the back 9 or on the roadways, turtles are very active this time of year. Keep an eye out and feel free to give us a call if you come across an animal in need of help!” The post Turtle’s mysterious injury caused by a golf ball appeared first on Popular Science. #turtles #mysterious #injury #caused #golf
    WWW.POPSCI.COM
    Turtle’s mysterious injury caused by a golf ball
    Earlier this month, an anonymous rescuer brought a painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) with a strange injury to the New England Wildlife Center in Massachusetts: a perfectly round crater in its shell. Painted turtles are reptiles with smooth shells and bright yellow or orange markings found throughout North America, where they thrive in shallow freshwater. In fact, this reptile had made its home in a golf course’s water features, which helped clue-in the wildlife center’s employees on what happened.  The injured painted turtle was brought to the New England Wildlife Center in South Weymouth, Massachusetts. CREDIT: New England Wildlife Center via Facebook. “After assessing the injury, we are convinced there is only one logical cause, he was struck by a golf ball!” the New England Wildlife Center wrote in a Facebook post. “Thankfully, a good Samaritan noticed the injury and picked him up, bringing him to our hospital in a shoebox he happened to have from some old golf shoes. No word on if the turtle appreciated the irony of this situation.”  Based on the scar left behind, the painted turtle was likely injured by a golf ball. CREDIT: New England Wildlife Center via Facebook. After taking X-rays, animal experts confirmed that the impact had spared the turtle’s vital organs and spine by just a few centimeters. What’s more, the injury is likely old, given that new tissue  is already forming over the wound. The turtle is reportedly doing fine and the golf ball impact doesn’t seem to have caused long-term consequences besides a pretty unique scar. Just in case, the team will keep an eye on the turtle for a couple of days before releasing him “back to the links, where we expect he’ll be back on top of his game in no time.”  [ Related: Sea turtle with ‘bubble butt syndrome’ gets a 3D-printed custom harness. ] According to the Tamarack Wildlife Center in Pennsylvania, turtles are very resistant creatures and often bounce back from shocking injuries. However, they’re no match for cars, and are particularly vulnerable when they emerge from hibernation in the spring to search for resources and mates.  “As humans, we should always do our best to help out where possible,” the post concluded. “Whether it’s on the back 9 or on the roadways, turtles are very active this time of year. Keep an eye out and feel free to give us a call if you come across an animal in need of help!” The post Turtle’s mysterious injury caused by a golf ball appeared first on Popular Science.
    0 Commentarii 0 Distribuiri 0 previzualizare
  • Why we need a Memorial Day for civilian victims of war

    The first observance of what came to be known as Memorial Day was on May 30, 1868, when a Civil War general called on Americans to commemorate the sacrifices of Union soldiers. It was initially called Decoration Day, for the practice of decorating graves with wreaths and flags. And there were so many graves — more than 300,000 men had died on the Union side, and nearly as many for the Confederacy. In total, more died on both sides of the Civil War than in every other US conflict through the Korean War, combined. It wasn’t long, though, before remembrance began to be overshadowed by celebration. Within a year, the New York Times opined the holiday would no longer be “sacred” if parades and speeches became more central than the act of memorializing the dead. Which is precisely what happened, especially after Congress in 1971 fixed Memorial Day as the last Monday in May, making it the perfect launchpad for summer, with an increasingly perfunctory nod to the holiday’s original purpose.The gap between those for whom Memorial Day is a moment of remembrance versus three days of hot dogs and hamburgers will likely only grow in the future, as veterans of previous wars pass away and the divide between America’s all-volunteer military and its civilians deepens. Fewer than 1 percent of the US adult population serves in the military, and those still signing up increasingly come from a small handful of regions and families with a history of military service.With ever-inflating military spending — now nearing trillion, according to one estimate — the footprint of the US military is hardly shrinking, but the number of those who will potentially be called on to give what Abraham Lincoln called the “last full measure of devotion” is.Yet there’s a greater gap embedded in Memorial Day: It’s between those who died as warfighters, and the far greater number around the world who have died not as war’s participants, but as its victims. When civilians die in warThe past is not just a foreign country to us, but a bloody one. From the interpersonal to the international, conflict was a constant throughout much of human history. Between 1500 and 1800, there was hardly a year when great powers weren’t enmeshed in some kind of war. Though war became somewhat less common as we entered the 1900s, it did not become less deadly. Far from it — while the death toll of war in the past was more chiefly concentrated among combatants, the 20th century saw the awful blossoming of total war, where little to no distinction was made between those fighting the war and the civilians on the sidelines, and new weapons enabled mass, indiscriminate killing.Go back to the Civil War, which sits at the junction between battle as it had long been practiced and the greater horror it would become. Over 600,000 soldiers were killed in the conflict, against at least 50,000 civilians, ranging from those killed directly to the many who died in the wake of war, from starvation and disease. That number was terrible, yet in the wars to come, it would only grow.In the First World War, a roughly equal number of combatants and civilians were killed globally — approximately 10 million on each side. In the Second World War, more combatants were killed than in any other conflict in human history, a toll nearing 15 million. Yet for every soldier, sailor, or airman who was killed, nearly one and a half civilians would die, totaling, by one count, almost 40 million. The last of the dead would come in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when as many as 210,000 people — nearly all of them Japanese civilians — died in the first and so far only atomic bombings. Not only were these new weapons capable of murdering at a vastly larger scale than ever before, but they existed chiefly to threaten the lives of noncombatants. Thankfully, given the weapons militaries now had at their disposal, World War II was the high mark for war deaths. In the decades that followed, deaths in battle for both combatants and civilians sharply declined, minus the occasional spike in conflicts like the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Even with the recent resurgence of conflict, people around the world today are much less likely to die in war than their ancestors, which is one of the most undeniable — if tenuous — markers of our species’ under-appreciated progress.Yet even in this era of comparative peace, civilians still bear the brunt of war when it comes, including when it is fought by the United States. According to Brown University’s Costs of War project, more civilians were likely directly killed in post-9/11 conflicts than fighters on either side — and when the number of indirect deaths from starvation and destruction are included, that gulf only widens. In Ukraine, at least 12,910 civilians have been killed in the war as of March 31, including nearly 700 children, while nearly 31,000 civilians have been injured. In a single large-scale Russian missile attack on April 24, at least nine civilians were killed and 90 were injured, including 12 children.In Gaza, accurately counting the civilian death toll has been all but impossible, but the most recent UN estimates put the number of dead children, women, and elderly people at north of 27,000, with thousands of dead bodies still unidentified. Even those civilians who have escaped death face the real risk of starvation, with Israel only now allowing trickled of aid in after a blockade that has lasted more than two months. And of course, Israel itself lost nearly 700 civilians in the October 7 attacks, while many noncombatants are still held hostage by Hamas and other militant groups.And the ongoing war in Sudan — which has received only a fraction of the global attention of Ukraine and Gaza — has led to horrifying levels of civilian death. Last year Tom Perriello, then the US envoy for Sudan, estimated that at least 150,000 people had died of war-related causes, while 13 million people have been forced to flee their homes.A new kind of Memorial DayThe US has its Memorial Day to honor fallen soldiers, while other countries have their Remembrance Day, their Victory Day. Yet there are only a handful of monuments to honor the countlessly greater number of civilians killed in war.It’s not hard to imagine why. As the shift in perception around the Vietnam Veterans Memorial has shown — from unpatriotic atrocity to a celebrated work of national mourning — we can honor the sacrifice of service members who died in a war, even if we don’t believe in the war. But the death of those who died without a rifle in hand, who died in childhood and infancy, who died because they could not fight and could not be protected, shows war for what it ultimately is: a waste. And we can’t begin to know how to mark the unmarked.America has been a historical exception in many ways, but perhaps no more so than that its civilian citizens have largely escaped the scourge of war.Americans have fought and Americans have died, but at an ever-increasing remove, a distance that grows with each Memorial Day. The general decline of war is one of our great accomplishments as humans, something to be unequivocally celebrated. Perhaps we would feel that more if we gave the deaths of civilians the same honor as that of soldiers — a new kind of Memorial Day that can begin here. A version of this story was initially published in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to subscribe!Update, May 26, 2025, 8 am ET: This story was first published on May 31, 2023, has been updated to include new data on civilian deaths in Gaza, Israel, Sudan, and Ukraine.You’ve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you — join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:
    #why #need #memorial #day #civilian
    Why we need a Memorial Day for civilian victims of war
    The first observance of what came to be known as Memorial Day was on May 30, 1868, when a Civil War general called on Americans to commemorate the sacrifices of Union soldiers. It was initially called Decoration Day, for the practice of decorating graves with wreaths and flags. And there were so many graves — more than 300,000 men had died on the Union side, and nearly as many for the Confederacy. In total, more died on both sides of the Civil War than in every other US conflict through the Korean War, combined. It wasn’t long, though, before remembrance began to be overshadowed by celebration. Within a year, the New York Times opined the holiday would no longer be “sacred” if parades and speeches became more central than the act of memorializing the dead. Which is precisely what happened, especially after Congress in 1971 fixed Memorial Day as the last Monday in May, making it the perfect launchpad for summer, with an increasingly perfunctory nod to the holiday’s original purpose.The gap between those for whom Memorial Day is a moment of remembrance versus three days of hot dogs and hamburgers will likely only grow in the future, as veterans of previous wars pass away and the divide between America’s all-volunteer military and its civilians deepens. Fewer than 1 percent of the US adult population serves in the military, and those still signing up increasingly come from a small handful of regions and families with a history of military service.With ever-inflating military spending — now nearing trillion, according to one estimate — the footprint of the US military is hardly shrinking, but the number of those who will potentially be called on to give what Abraham Lincoln called the “last full measure of devotion” is.Yet there’s a greater gap embedded in Memorial Day: It’s between those who died as warfighters, and the far greater number around the world who have died not as war’s participants, but as its victims. When civilians die in warThe past is not just a foreign country to us, but a bloody one. From the interpersonal to the international, conflict was a constant throughout much of human history. Between 1500 and 1800, there was hardly a year when great powers weren’t enmeshed in some kind of war. Though war became somewhat less common as we entered the 1900s, it did not become less deadly. Far from it — while the death toll of war in the past was more chiefly concentrated among combatants, the 20th century saw the awful blossoming of total war, where little to no distinction was made between those fighting the war and the civilians on the sidelines, and new weapons enabled mass, indiscriminate killing.Go back to the Civil War, which sits at the junction between battle as it had long been practiced and the greater horror it would become. Over 600,000 soldiers were killed in the conflict, against at least 50,000 civilians, ranging from those killed directly to the many who died in the wake of war, from starvation and disease. That number was terrible, yet in the wars to come, it would only grow.In the First World War, a roughly equal number of combatants and civilians were killed globally — approximately 10 million on each side. In the Second World War, more combatants were killed than in any other conflict in human history, a toll nearing 15 million. Yet for every soldier, sailor, or airman who was killed, nearly one and a half civilians would die, totaling, by one count, almost 40 million. The last of the dead would come in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when as many as 210,000 people — nearly all of them Japanese civilians — died in the first and so far only atomic bombings. Not only were these new weapons capable of murdering at a vastly larger scale than ever before, but they existed chiefly to threaten the lives of noncombatants. Thankfully, given the weapons militaries now had at their disposal, World War II was the high mark for war deaths. In the decades that followed, deaths in battle for both combatants and civilians sharply declined, minus the occasional spike in conflicts like the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Even with the recent resurgence of conflict, people around the world today are much less likely to die in war than their ancestors, which is one of the most undeniable — if tenuous — markers of our species’ under-appreciated progress.Yet even in this era of comparative peace, civilians still bear the brunt of war when it comes, including when it is fought by the United States. According to Brown University’s Costs of War project, more civilians were likely directly killed in post-9/11 conflicts than fighters on either side — and when the number of indirect deaths from starvation and destruction are included, that gulf only widens. In Ukraine, at least 12,910 civilians have been killed in the war as of March 31, including nearly 700 children, while nearly 31,000 civilians have been injured. In a single large-scale Russian missile attack on April 24, at least nine civilians were killed and 90 were injured, including 12 children.In Gaza, accurately counting the civilian death toll has been all but impossible, but the most recent UN estimates put the number of dead children, women, and elderly people at north of 27,000, with thousands of dead bodies still unidentified. Even those civilians who have escaped death face the real risk of starvation, with Israel only now allowing trickled of aid in after a blockade that has lasted more than two months. And of course, Israel itself lost nearly 700 civilians in the October 7 attacks, while many noncombatants are still held hostage by Hamas and other militant groups.And the ongoing war in Sudan — which has received only a fraction of the global attention of Ukraine and Gaza — has led to horrifying levels of civilian death. Last year Tom Perriello, then the US envoy for Sudan, estimated that at least 150,000 people had died of war-related causes, while 13 million people have been forced to flee their homes.A new kind of Memorial DayThe US has its Memorial Day to honor fallen soldiers, while other countries have their Remembrance Day, their Victory Day. Yet there are only a handful of monuments to honor the countlessly greater number of civilians killed in war.It’s not hard to imagine why. As the shift in perception around the Vietnam Veterans Memorial has shown — from unpatriotic atrocity to a celebrated work of national mourning — we can honor the sacrifice of service members who died in a war, even if we don’t believe in the war. But the death of those who died without a rifle in hand, who died in childhood and infancy, who died because they could not fight and could not be protected, shows war for what it ultimately is: a waste. And we can’t begin to know how to mark the unmarked.America has been a historical exception in many ways, but perhaps no more so than that its civilian citizens have largely escaped the scourge of war.Americans have fought and Americans have died, but at an ever-increasing remove, a distance that grows with each Memorial Day. The general decline of war is one of our great accomplishments as humans, something to be unequivocally celebrated. Perhaps we would feel that more if we gave the deaths of civilians the same honor as that of soldiers — a new kind of Memorial Day that can begin here. A version of this story was initially published in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to subscribe!Update, May 26, 2025, 8 am ET: This story was first published on May 31, 2023, has been updated to include new data on civilian deaths in Gaza, Israel, Sudan, and Ukraine.You’ve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you — join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More: #why #need #memorial #day #civilian
    WWW.VOX.COM
    Why we need a Memorial Day for civilian victims of war
    The first observance of what came to be known as Memorial Day was on May 30, 1868, when a Civil War general called on Americans to commemorate the sacrifices of Union soldiers. It was initially called Decoration Day, for the practice of decorating graves with wreaths and flags. And there were so many graves — more than 300,000 men had died on the Union side, and nearly as many for the Confederacy. In total, more died on both sides of the Civil War than in every other US conflict through the Korean War, combined. It wasn’t long, though, before remembrance began to be overshadowed by celebration. Within a year, the New York Times opined the holiday would no longer be “sacred” if parades and speeches became more central than the act of memorializing the dead. Which is precisely what happened, especially after Congress in 1971 fixed Memorial Day as the last Monday in May, making it the perfect launchpad for summer, with an increasingly perfunctory nod to the holiday’s original purpose.The gap between those for whom Memorial Day is a moment of remembrance versus three days of hot dogs and hamburgers will likely only grow in the future, as veterans of previous wars pass away and the divide between America’s all-volunteer military and its civilians deepens. Fewer than 1 percent of the US adult population serves in the military, and those still signing up increasingly come from a small handful of regions and families with a history of military service. (You can include my own family in that ever rarer number: My brother is a retired Army captain who served in Iraq.)With ever-inflating military spending — now nearing $1 trillion, according to one estimate — the footprint of the US military is hardly shrinking, but the number of those who will potentially be called on to give what Abraham Lincoln called the “last full measure of devotion” is.Yet there’s a greater gap embedded in Memorial Day: It’s between those who died as warfighters (to use one of the Pentagon’s terms), and the far greater number around the world who have died not as war’s participants, but as its victims. When civilians die in warThe past is not just a foreign country to us, but a bloody one. From the interpersonal to the international, conflict was a constant throughout much of human history. Between 1500 and 1800, there was hardly a year when great powers weren’t enmeshed in some kind of war. Though war became somewhat less common as we entered the 1900s, it did not become less deadly. Far from it — while the death toll of war in the past was more chiefly concentrated among combatants, the 20th century saw the awful blossoming of total war, where little to no distinction was made between those fighting the war and the civilians on the sidelines, and new weapons enabled mass, indiscriminate killing.Go back to the Civil War, which sits at the junction between battle as it had long been practiced and the greater horror it would become. Over 600,000 soldiers were killed in the conflict, against at least 50,000 civilians, ranging from those killed directly to the many who died in the wake of war, from starvation and disease. That number was terrible, yet in the wars to come, it would only grow.In the First World War, a roughly equal number of combatants and civilians were killed globally — approximately 10 million on each side. In the Second World War, more combatants were killed than in any other conflict in human history, a toll nearing 15 million. Yet for every soldier, sailor, or airman who was killed, nearly one and a half civilians would die, totaling, by one count, almost 40 million. The last of the dead would come in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when as many as 210,000 people — nearly all of them Japanese civilians — died in the first and so far only atomic bombings. Not only were these new weapons capable of murdering at a vastly larger scale than ever before, but they existed chiefly to threaten the lives of noncombatants. Thankfully, given the weapons militaries now had at their disposal, World War II was the high mark for war deaths. In the decades that followed, deaths in battle for both combatants and civilians sharply declined, minus the occasional spike in conflicts like the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Even with the recent resurgence of conflict, people around the world today are much less likely to die in war than their ancestors, which is one of the most undeniable — if tenuous — markers of our species’ under-appreciated progress.Yet even in this era of comparative peace, civilians still bear the brunt of war when it comes, including when it is fought by the United States. According to Brown University’s Costs of War project, more civilians were likely directly killed in post-9/11 conflicts than fighters on either side — and when the number of indirect deaths from starvation and destruction are included, that gulf only widens. In Ukraine, at least 12,910 civilians have been killed in the war as of March 31, including nearly 700 children, while nearly 31,000 civilians have been injured. In a single large-scale Russian missile attack on April 24, at least nine civilians were killed and 90 were injured, including 12 children.In Gaza, accurately counting the civilian death toll has been all but impossible, but the most recent UN estimates put the number of dead children, women, and elderly people at north of 27,000, with thousands of dead bodies still unidentified. Even those civilians who have escaped death face the real risk of starvation, with Israel only now allowing trickled of aid in after a blockade that has lasted more than two months. And of course, Israel itself lost nearly 700 civilians in the October 7 attacks, while many noncombatants are still held hostage by Hamas and other militant groups.And the ongoing war in Sudan — which has received only a fraction of the global attention of Ukraine and Gaza — has led to horrifying levels of civilian death. Last year Tom Perriello, then the US envoy for Sudan, estimated that at least 150,000 people had died of war-related causes, while 13 million people have been forced to flee their homes.A new kind of Memorial DayThe US has its Memorial Day to honor fallen soldiers, while other countries have their Remembrance Day, their Victory Day. Yet there are only a handful of monuments to honor the countlessly greater number of civilians killed in war.It’s not hard to imagine why. As the shift in perception around the Vietnam Veterans Memorial has shown — from unpatriotic atrocity to a celebrated work of national mourning — we can honor the sacrifice of service members who died in a war, even if we don’t believe in the war. But the death of those who died without a rifle in hand, who died in childhood and infancy, who died because they could not fight and could not be protected, shows war for what it ultimately is: a waste. And we can’t begin to know how to mark the unmarked.America has been a historical exception in many ways, but perhaps no more so than that its civilian citizens have largely escaped the scourge of war. (Though the same, of course, can hardly be said for its Indigenous populations, so long treated as enemy combatants in their own land.) Americans have fought and Americans have died, but at an ever-increasing remove, a distance that grows with each Memorial Day. The general decline of war is one of our great accomplishments as humans, something to be unequivocally celebrated. Perhaps we would feel that more if we gave the deaths of civilians the same honor as that of soldiers — a new kind of Memorial Day that can begin here. A version of this story was initially published in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to subscribe!Update, May 26, 2025, 8 am ET: This story was first published on May 31, 2023, has been updated to include new data on civilian deaths in Gaza, Israel, Sudan, and Ukraine.You’ve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you — join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:
    0 Commentarii 0 Distribuiri 0 previzualizare
Sponsorizeaza Paginile
CGShares https://cgshares.com