Posted on : June 13, 2025 By Tech World Times Development and Testing  Rate this post Sorting helps organize data in a specific order. It is used in search, reports, and efficient storage. Different sorting algorithms offer different performance. In this article, we will explain the Time Complexity of Sorting Algorithms in simple words. We will cover Python, Java, and C++ examples. 1. What Is Time Complexity? Time complexity tells how fast an algorithm runs. It measures the number of steps as input grows. It is written in Big-O notation. For example, O(n²) means steps grow with the square of inputs. 2. Types of Time Complexity Here are common types: O(1): Constant time O(n): Linear time O(n log n): Log-linear time O(n²): Quadratic time We will now apply these to sorting. 3. Bubble Sort Bubble Sort compares two numbers and swaps them if needed. It repeats until the list is sorted. Time Complexity: Best Case: O(n) (if already sorted) Average Case: O(n²) Worst Case: O(n²) Python Example: pythonCopyEditdef bubble_sort(arr): n = len(arr) for i in range(n): for j in range(n - i - 1): if arr[j] > arr[j+1]: arr[j], arr[j+1] = arr[j+1], arr[j] Java Example: javaCopyEditvoid bubbleSort(int arr[]) { int n = arr.length; for (int i = 0; i < n-1; i++) for (int j = 0; j < n-i-1; j++) if (arr[j] > arr[j+1]) { int temp = arr[j]; arr[j] = arr[j+1]; arr[j+1] = temp; } } C++ Example: cppCopyEditvoid bubbleSort(int arr[], int n) { for (int i = 0; i < n-1; i++) for (int j = 0; j < n-i-1; j++) if (arr[j] > arr[j+1]) swap(arr[j], arr[j+1]); } 4. Selection Sort This sort picks the smallest number and places it at the front. Time Complexity: Best Case: O(n²) Average Case: O(n²) Worst Case: O(n²) Python Example: pythonCopyEditdef selection_sort(arr): for i in range(len(arr)): min_idx = i for j in range(i+1, len(arr)): if arr[j] < arr[min_idx]: min_idx = j arr[i], arr[min_idx] = arr[min_idx], arr[i] 5. Insertion Sort This algorithm builds the final list one item at a time. Time Complexity: Best Case: O(n) Average Case: O(n²) Worst Case: O(n²) Java Example: javaCopyEditvoid insertionSort(int arr[]) { for (int i = 1; i < arr.length; i++) { int key = arr[i]; int j = i - 1; while (j >= 0 && arr[j] > key) { arr[j + 1] = arr[j]; j = j - 1; } arr[j + 1] = key; } } 6. Merge Sort Merge Sort splits the array into halves and merges them back in order. Time Complexity of Sorting Algorithms like Merge Sort is usually better. Best Case: O(n log n) Average Case: O(n log n) Worst Case: O(n log n) Python Example: pythonCopyEditdef merge_sort(arr): if len(arr) > 1: mid = len(arr) // 2 left = arr[:mid] right = arr[mid:] merge_sort(left) merge_sort(right) i = j = k = 0 while i < len(left) and j < len(right): if left[i] < right[j]: arr[k] = left[i] i += 1 else: arr[k] = right[j] j += 1 k += 1 arr[k:] = left[i:] + right[j:] 7. Quick Sort Quick Sort picks a pivot and places smaller numbers before it. Time Complexity: Best Case: O(n log n) Average Case: O(n log n) Worst Case: O(n²) C++ Example: cppCopyEditint partition(int arr[], int low, int high) { int pivot = arr[high]; int i = low - 1; for (int j = low; j < high; j++) { if (arr[j] < pivot) { i++; swap(arr[i], arr[j]); } } swap(arr[i+1], arr[high]); return i + 1; } void quickSort(int arr[], int low, int high) { if (low < high) { int pi = partition(arr, low, high); quickSort(arr, low, pi - 1); quickSort(arr, pi + 1, high); } } 8. Built-in Sort Methods Languages have built-in sort functions. These are well-optimized. Python: sorted() or list.sort() uses TimSort Time Complexity: O(n log n) Java: Arrays.sort() uses Dual-Pivot QuickSort Time Complexity: O(n log n) C++: std::sort() uses IntroSort Time Complexity: O(n log n) These are better for most real-world tasks. 9. Time Complexity Comparison Table AlgorithmBestAverageWorstStableBubble SortO(n)O(n²)O(n²)YesSelection SortO(n²)O(n²)O(n²)NoInsertion SortO(n)O(n²)O(n²)YesMerge SortO(n log n)O(n log n)O(n log n)YesQuick SortO(n log n)O(n log n)O(n²)NoTimSort (Python)O(n)O(n log n)O(n log n)YesIntroSort (C++)O(n log n)O(n log n)O(n log n)No 10. How to Choose the Right Algorithm? Use Merge Sort for large stable data. Use Quick Sort for faster average speed. Use Insertion Sort for small or nearly sorted lists. Use built-in sort functions unless you need control. Conclusion The Time Complexity of Sorting Algorithms helps us pick the right tool. Bubble, Selection, and Insertion Sort are simple but slow. Merge and Quick Sort are faster and used often. Built-in functions are highly optimized. Python, Java, and C++ each have their strengths. Understand your problem and input size. Then pick the sorting method. This ensures better speed and performance in your code. Tech World TimesTech World Times (TWT), a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com

Posted on : June 13, 2025 By Tech World Times Uncategorized  Rate this post Sorting is important in programming. It helps organize data. Sorting improves performance in searching, analysis, and reporting. There are many sorting algorithms. One of the simplest is Insertion Sort. In this article, we will learn how to implement Insertion Sort in Java. We will explain each step in simple words. You will see examples and understand how it works. What Is Insertion Sort? Insertion Sort is a simple sorting algorithm. It works like how you sort playing cards. You take one card at a time and place it in the right position. It compares the current element with those before it. If needed, it shifts elements to the right. Then, it inserts the current element at the correct place. How Insertion Sort Works Let’s understand with a small list: Example List: [8, 3, 5, 1] Steps: First element (8) is already sorted. Compare 3 with 8. Move 8 right. Insert 3 before it → [3, 8, 5, 1] Compare 5 with 8. Move 8 right. Insert 5 after 3 → [3, 5, 8, 1] Compare 1 with 8, 5, 3. Move them right. Insert 1 at start → [1, 3, 5, 8] Now the list is sorted! Why Use Insertion Sort? Insertion Sort is simple and easy to code. It works well for: Small datasets Nearly sorted lists Educational purposes and practice However, it is not good for large datasets. It has a time complexity of O(n²). Time Complexity of Insertion Sort Best Case (already sorted): O(n) Average Case: O(n²) Worst Case (reversed list): O(n²) It performs fewer steps in nearly sorted data. How to Implement Insertion Sort in Java Now let’s write the code for Insertion Sort in Java. We will explain each part. Step 1: Define a Class javaCopyEditpublic class InsertionSortExample { // Code goes here } We create a class named InsertionSortExample. Step 2: Create the Sorting Method javaCopyEditpublic static void insertionSort(int[] arr) { int n = arr.length; for (int i = 1; i < n; i++) { int key = arr[i]; int j = i - 1; while (j >= 0 && arr[j] > key) { arr[j + 1] = arr[j]; j = j - 1; } arr[j + 1] = key; } } Let’s break it down: arr[i] is the current value (called key). j starts from the previous index. While arr[j] > key, shift arr[j] to the right. Insert the key at the correct position. This logic sorts the array step by step. Step 3: Create the Main Method Now we test the code. javaCopyEditpublic static void main(String[] args) { int[] numbers = {9, 5, 1, 4, 3}; System.out.println("Before sorting:"); printArray(numbers); insertionSort(numbers); System.out.println("After sorting:"); printArray(numbers); } This method: Creates an array of numbers Prints the array before sorting Calls the sort method Prints the array after sorting Step 4: Print the Array Let’s add a helper method to print the array. javaCopyEditpublic static void printArray(int[] arr) { for (int number : arr) { System.out.print(number + " "); } System.out.println(); } Now you can see how the array changes before and after sorting. Full Code Example javaCopyEditpublic class InsertionSortExample { public static void insertionSort(int[] arr) { int n = arr.length; for (int i = 1; i < n; i++) { int key = arr[i]; int j = i - 1; while (j >= 0 && arr[j] > key) { arr[j + 1] = arr[j]; j = j - 1; } arr[j + 1] = key; } } public static void printArray(int[] arr) { for (int number : arr) { System.out.print(number + " "); } System.out.println(); } public static void main(String[] args) { int[] numbers = {9, 5, 1, 4, 3}; System.out.println("Before sorting:"); printArray(numbers); insertionSort(numbers); System.out.println("After sorting:"); printArray(numbers); } } Sample Output yamlCopyEditBefore sorting: 9 5 1 4 3 After sorting: 1 3 4 5 9 This confirms that the sorting works correctly. Advantages of Insertion Sort in Java Easy to implement Works well with small inputs Stable sort (keeps equal items in order) Good for educational use When Not to Use Insertion Sort Avoid Insertion Sort when: The dataset is large Performance is critical Better algorithms like Merge Sort or Quick Sort are available Real-World Uses Sorting small records in a database Teaching algorithm basics Handling partially sorted arrays Even though it is not the fastest, it is useful in many simple tasks. Final Tips Practice with different inputs Add print statements to see how it works Try sorting strings or objects Use Java’s built-in sort methods for large arrays Conclusion Insertion Sort in Java is a great way to learn sorting. It is simple and easy to understand. In this guide, we showed how to implement it step-by-step. We covered the logic, code, and output. We also explained when to use it. Now you can try it yourself. Understanding sorting helps in coding interviews and software development. Keep practicing and exploring other sorting methods too. The more you practice, the better you understand algorithms. Tech World TimesTech World Times (TWT), a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com

Development and Testing  Rate this post Sorting is a basic task in programming. It arranges data in order. There are many sorting algorithms. Selection Sort is one of the simplest sorting methods. It is easy to understand and code. But it is not the fastest. In this guide, we will explain the Selection Sort Time Complexity. We will cover best, worst, and average cases. What Is Selection Sort? Selection Sort works by selecting the smallest element from the list. It places it in the correct position. It repeats this process for all elements. One by one, it moves the smallest values to the front. Let’s see an example: Input: [5, 3, 8, 2]Step 1: Smallest is 2 → swap with 5 → [2, 3, 8, 5]Step 2: Smallest in remaining is 3 → already correctStep 3: Smallest in remaining is 5 → swap with 8 → [2, 3, 5, 8] Now the list is sorted.How Selection Sort Works Selection Sort uses two loops. The outer loop moves one index at a time. The inner loop finds the smallest element. After each pass, the smallest value is moved to the front. The position is fixed. Selection Sort does not care if the list is sorted or not. It always does the same steps. Selection Sort Algorithm Here is the basic algorithm: Start from the first element Find the smallest in the rest of the list Swap it with the current element Repeat for each element This repeats until all elements are sorted. Selection Sort Code (Java Example) javaCopyEditpublic class SelectionSort { public static void sort(int[] arr) { int n = arr.length; for (int i = 0; i < n - 1; i++) { int min = i; for (int j = i + 1; j < n; j++) { if (arr[j] < arr[min]) { min = j; } } int temp = arr[min]; arr[min] = arr[i]; arr[i] = temp; } } } This code uses two loops. The outer loop runs n-1 times. The inner loop finds the minimum. Selection Sort Time Complexity Now let’s understand the main topic. Let’s analyze Selection Sort Time Complexity in three cases. 1. Best Case Even if the array is already sorted, Selection Sort checks all elements. It keeps comparing and swapping. Time Complexity: O(n²) Reason: Inner loop runs fully, regardless of the order Example Input: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Even here, every comparison still happens. Only fewer swaps occur, but comparisons remain the same. 2. Worst Case This happens when the array is in reverse order. But Selection Sort does not optimize for this. Time Complexity: O(n²) Reason: Still needs full comparisons Example Input: [5, 4, 3, 2, 1] Even in reverse, the steps are the same. It compares and finds the smallest element every time. 3. Average Case This is when elements are randomly placed. It is the most common scenario in real-world problems. Time Complexity: O(n²) Reason: Still compares each element in the inner loop Example Input: [3, 1, 4, 2, 5] Selection Sort does not change behavior based on input order. So the complexity remains the same. Why Is It Always O(n²)? Selection Sort compares all pairs of elements. The number of comparisons does not change. Total comparisons = n × (n – 1) / 2 That’s why the time complexity is always O(n²).It does not reduce steps in any case. It does not take advantage of sorted elements. Space Complexity Selection Sort does not need extra space. It sorts in place. Space Complexity: O(1) Only a few variables are used No extra arrays or memory needed This is one good point of the Selection Sort. Comparison with Other Algorithms Let’s compare Selection Sort with other basic sorts: AlgorithmBest CaseAverage CaseWorst CaseSpaceSelection SortO(n²)O(n²)O(n²)O(1)Bubble SortO(n)O(n²)O(n²)O(1)Insertion SortO(n)O(n²)O(n²)O(1)Merge SortO(n log n)O(n log n)O(n log n)O(n)Quick SortO(n log n)O(n log n)O(n²)O(log n) As you see, Selection Sort is slower than Merge Sort and Quick Sort. Advantages of Selection Sort Very simple and easy to understand Works well with small datasets Needs very little memory Good for learning purposes Disadvantages of Selection Sort Slow on large datasets Always takes the same time, even if sorted Not efficient for real-world use When to Use Selection Sort Use Selection Sort when: You are working with a very small dataset You want to teach or learn sorting logic You want stable, low-memory sorting Avoid it for: Large datasets Performance-sensitive programs Conclusion Selection Sort Time Complexity is simple to understand. But it is not efficient for big problems. It always takes O(n²) time, no matter the case. That is the same for best, worst, and average inputs. Still, it is useful in some cases. It’s great for learning sorting basics. It uses very little memory. If you’re working with small arrays, Selection Sort is fine. For large data, use better algorithms. Understanding its time complexity helps you choose the right algorithm. Always pick the tool that fits your task. Tech World TimesTech World Times (TWT), a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com

Architects: Want to have your project featured? Showcase your work by uploading projects to Architizer and sign up for our inspirational newsletters.   Is an architecture firm designing its own studio the equivalent of an artist painting a self-portrait? (Should we coin the term “auto-architecture?”) Perhaps this isn’t a perfect analogy, but it certainly contains parallels that are productive to parse… Studio spaces are distinct from offices in that they not only shape daily rituals and structure relationships between colleagues but also act as an expression of the values at the core of the firm’s design philosophies. Freed from the usual constraints of client briefs, for many firms, designing their own workspace offers a unique opportunity for experimentation and self-expression. The studios featured in this collection span diverse geographies and contexts — from a vaulted school library repurposed as an “anti-office,” to a carbon-neutral warehouse conversion in Sydney, to a minimalist tiled atelier in Casablanca. Despite their differences, each workspace shares a commitment to thoughtful design that blurs the line between functions and offers a vision for cultivating creativity. More than places of production, these studios are active expressions of architectural identity; spaces that support not only what architects make, but how they make it. They also challenge outdated typologies and embrace the hybrid realities of contemporary practice. Skylab HQ By Skylab, Portland, Oregon After spending years in a historic structure in downtown Portland, the Skylab team decided the time had come to create a space that reflected the dynamic nature of their practice. They asked themselves: “How can our studio evolve from a dedicated workspace to a playground for the art and design community? Where can we find a space to integrate gardens, an event venue, and a fabrication shop, as well as our studio?” Leaving the downtown core, they opted to transform a pair of WWII-era prefabricated steel warehouses into a hybrid studio, fabrication lab and cultural venue supporting both architectural production and artistic exchange. Strategic insertions — like a 60-foot-long (18-meter) ridge skylight, 10-foot (3-meter) operable window walls and CLT-framed meeting rooms — maximize daylight and material contrast, balancing industrial grit with biophilic warmth. The adaptive reuse reflects the firm’s ethos of experimentation, extending their design process into the very architecture that houses it. Alexander House By Alexander &CO., Sydney, Australia Jury Winner, Architecture +Workspace, 10th Annual A+Awards Alexander House functions as both studio and experimental prototype, integrating low-carbon construction with hybrid live/work spatial typologies tailored to an evolving architectural practice. While functioning as an architectural residential showcase, the team also works from this home, and their clients meet with them there; the project challenges preconceptions of home, land, family and work. From a voluminous material library in the basement to a concrete mezzanine bench designed for quiet focus, the layout supports varied modes of design work while challenging conventional boundaries between domestic and professional space. Crafted in collaboration with local makers, the building also pioneers sustainability through reclaimed timber linings, carbon-neutral bricks, and a solar system supplying up to 80% of daily energy demand. say architects Community Office By say architects, Hangzhou, China Say Architects’ office reimagines workplace architecture as a life-oriented, materially expressive environment, where exposed I-beams structure both the building and the studio’s daily rhythms. Cantilevered volumes, rope-grown greenery, and integrated misting systems animate the exterior, while steel-framed shelving and model rooms of rich timber textures create a tactile, inspiration-driven interior. Prioritizing adaptability and sensory comfort, the space dissolves traditional partitions in favor of spatial arrangements that align with design habits, offering a studio that is both tool and manifesto. Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, Philadelphia Studio By Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Bohlin Cywinski Jackson’s Philadelphia studio transforms a historic social club (founded in 1923) into a contemporary workspace through adaptive reuse, prioritizing flexibility, daylight and material economy. The goal was to create a highly flexible work environment that would allow designers to move quickly between individual work, impromptu discussions and group meetings throughout the day. Restored terrazzo floors and ornamental detailing anchor a modern layout featuring hoteling desks, collaborative mezzanine zones and panoramic views of the city center.  The design supports agile workflows and hybrid collaboration while integrating repurposed custom furnishings to extend the life cycle of past projects. ADND OFFICE By Atelier Design N Domain, Mumbai, India ADND’s new Bombay headquarters is a richly layered adaptive reuse of a century-old industrial warehouse, reimagined as an expressive design laboratory charged with material experimentation and symbolic nuance. The studio’s soaring central bay reaches 26 feet (8 meters) in height, punctuated by 7-foot (2-meter) pivoting porthole windows that flood the workspace with southern light, evoking a cathedral-like ambiance. Throughout, bespoke interventions — from terrazzo-cast floors and mirrored reception desks to hand-sketched upholstery and looped oak chairs — translate the founders’ personal design dialects into architectural form, creating a space where industrial memory and contemporary authorship converge. Studio Cays X Studio BO By Studio CAYS, Casablanca, Morocco In this Casablanca-based studio, minimalist rigor meets material clarity through tiled walls and seamless epoxy flooring, crafting a luminous, low-maintenance workspace. At its core, a central bench anchors the open-plan layout, fostering daily collaboration and reinforcing the studio’s emphasis on shared ideation within a purified architectural envelope. Smart Design Studio By smart design studio, Alexandria, Australia Jury Winner, Office Interiors (<25,000 sq ft); Jury Winner, Office Building Low Rise, 10th Annual A+Awards Smart Design Studio’s headquarters fuses industrial heritage with cutting-edge sustainability, transforming a conserved warehouse into a carbon-neutral workspace powered by on-site energy and water collection systems. The studio’s open-plan interior is crowned by a mezzanine framed by original steel trusses, while a striking vaulted residence above features self-supporting brick catenary arches — an elegant synthesis of structural economy and sculptural ambition. Designed to reflect the material restraint and innovation of early industrial architecture, the building is a working manifesto for the studio’s interdisciplinary ethos. Architect’s Office at Kim Yam Road By Park + Associates, Singapore Popular Choice Winner, Office Interiors, 10th Annual A+Awards Photos by Edward Hendricks Occupying a former library hall atop a repurposed 1960s school, this studio embraces the latent grandeur of its barrel-vaulted, column-free volume to craft a boundary-less, anti-office environment. Full-height louvered windows invite daylight and breeze through the arching space, while the design resists conventional programming in favor of layered, informal settings that foster creativity and fluid collaboration. Rather than overwrite its past, the intervention amplifies the building’s inherent spatial expression; through adaptive reuse, the architects position atmosphere as architecture. Architects: Want to have your project featured? Showcase your work by uploading projects to Architizer and sign up for our inspirational newsletters.   The post Self-Portrait in Plan: 8 Architecture Studios Designed By Their Owners appeared first on Journal.

Intrauterine devices, or IUDs, are an extremely effective and convenient form of birth control for many people—but it can also very painful to get one inserted. Current medical guidelines say that your doctor should be discussing pain management with you, and they also give advice to doctors on what methods tend to work best for most people. The newest set of guidelines is from ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. These guidelines actually cover a variety of procedures, including endometrial and cervical biopsies, but today I'll be talking about the IUD insertion portions. And in 2024, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's released new contraceptive recommendations that include a section on how and why providers should help you with pain relief. Before we get into the new recommendations and what they say, it’s important to keep in mind that that not everybody feels severe pain with insertion—the estimate is that insertion is severely painful for 50% of people who haven't given birth, and only 10% of people who have, according to Rachel Flink, the OB-GYN I spoke with for my article on what to expect when you get an IUD. (She also gave me a great rundown of pain management options and their pros and cons, which I included in the article.)  I’m making sure to point this out because I’ve met people who are terrified at the thought of getting an IUD, because they think that severe pain is guaranteed and that doctors are lying if they say otherwise. In reality, there’s a whole spectrum of possible experiences, and both you and your provider should be informed and prepared for anything along that spectrum.Your provider should discuss pain management with youThe biggest thing in both sets of guidelines is not just the pain management options they discuss, but the guideline that says there is a place for this discussion and that it is important! You’ve always been able to ask about pain management, but providers are now expected to know that they need to discuss this with their patients. The ACOG guidelines say: "Options to manage pain should be discussed with and offered to all patients seeking in-office gynecologic procedures." And the CDC says: Before IUD placement, all patients should be counseled on potential pain during placement as well as the risks, benefits, and alternatives of different options for pain management. A person-centered plan for IUD placement and pain management should be made based on patient preference.“Person-centered” means that the plan should take into account what you want and need, not just what the provider is used to doing or thinks will be easiest. (This has sometimes been called “patient-centered” care, but “person-centered” is meant to convey that you and your provider understand that they are treating a whole person, with concerns outside of just their health, and you’re not only a patient who exists in a medical context.) The CDC guidelines also say: “When considering patient pain, it is important to recognize that the experience of pain is individualized and might be influenced by previous experiences including trauma and mental health conditions, such as depression or anxiety.” The ACOG guidelines, similarly, say that talking over the procedure and what to expect can help make the procedure more tolerable, regardless of how physically painful it ends up being. (Dr. Flink told me that anti-anxiety medications during insertion are helpful for some of her patients, and that she’ll discuss them alongside options for physical pain relief.)Lidocaine paracervical blocks may relieve painThere’s good news and bad news about the recommended pain medications. The good news is that there are recommendations. The bad news is that none of them are guaranteed to work for everyone, and it’s not clear if they work very well at all. The CDC says that a paracervical block (done by injection, similar to the numbing injections used for dental work) “might” reduce pain with insertion. Three studies showed that the injections worked to reduce pain, while three others found they did not. The CDC rates the certainty of evidence as “low” for pain and for satisfaction with the procedure. The ACOG guidelines also mention local anesthetics, including lidocaine paracervical blocks, as one of the best options for pain management. Dr. Flink told me that while some of her patients appreciate this option, it’s often impossible to numb all of the nerves in the cervix, and the injection itself can be painful—so in many cases, patients decide it’s not worth it. Still, it’s worth discussing with your provider if this sounds like something you would like to try.Topical lidocaine may also helpLidocaine, the same numbing medication, can also be applied to the cervix as a cream, spray, or gel. Again, evidence is mixed, with six trials finding that it helped, and seven finding that it did not. The ACOG guidelines note that sometimes topical lidocaine has worked better than the injected kind. Unfortunately, they also say that it can be hard for doctors to find an appropriate spray-on product that can be used on the cervix.The CDC judged the certainty of to be a bit better here compared to the injection—moderate for reducing pain, and high for improving placement success (meaning that the provider was able to get the IUD inserted properly). Other methods aren’t well supported by the evidence (yet?)For the other pain management methods that the CDC group studied, there wasn’t enough evidence to say whether they work. These included analgesics like ibuprofen, and smooth-muscle-relaxing medications. The ACOG guidelines say that taking NSAIDS (like ibuprofen) before insertion doesn't seem to help with insertion pain, even though that's commonly recommended. That approach does seem to work for some other procedures, though, and may help with pain that occurs after an IUD insertion. So it may not be a bad idea to take those four Advil if that's what your doc recommends, but it shouldn't be your only option. Or as the ACOG paper puts it: "Although recommending preprocedural NSAIDs is a benign, low-risk intervention unlikely to cause harm, relying on NSAIDs alone for pain management during IUD insertion is ineffective and does not provide the immediate pain control patients need at the time of the procedure." Both sets of guidelines also don't recommend misoprostol, which is sometimes used to soften and open the cervix before inserting an IUD. The ACOG guidelines describe the evidence as mixed, and the CDC guidelines specifically recommend against it. Moderate certainty evidence says that misoprostol doesn’t help with pain, and low certainty evidence says that it may increase the risk of adverse events like cramping and vomiting. What this means for youThe publication of these guidelines won’t change anything overnight at your local OB-GYN office, but it’s a good sign that discussions about pain management with IUD placement are happening more openly. The new guidelines also don’t necessarily take any options off the table. Even misoprostol, which the CDC now says not to use for routine insertions, “might be useful in selected circumstances (e.g., in patients with a recent failed placement),” it writes.Don’t be afraid to ask about pain management before your appointment; as we discussed before, some medications and procedures require that you and your provider plan ahead. And definitely don’t accept a dismissive reply about how taking a few Advil should be enough; it may help for some people, but that shouldn't be the end of the discussion. You deserve to have your provider take your concerns seriously.

Outlets 8, Conghua | © Wu Siming In the landscape of contemporary Chinese urbanism, few typologies encapsulate the contradictions of late-capitalist development more vividly than the pseudo-European commercial complex. These replicated enclaves, constructed en masse in the early 2000s, were once marketed as symbols of international sophistication. Over time, however, many were abandoned, becoming architectural vestiges of speculative urbanism. Outlets 8 in Conghua, Guangzhou, is one such project that has undergone a radical architectural reinterpretation. Originally completed in 2018 but long dormant, it has been reimagined by E Plus Design in collaboration with URBANUS/LXD Studio. Through a precise, light-touch intervention, the project avoids wholesale demolition and reprograms space through color, rhythm, and landscape strategy. Outlets 8, Conghua Technical Information Architects1-14: E Plus Design Central Plaza Design: URBANUS / LXD Studio Location: Conghua District, Guangzhou, China Gross Area: 80,882 m2 | 870,000 Sq. Ft. Project Years: 2022 – 2023 Photographs: © Wu Siming This approach is like a contemporary remix of classical music. The four blocks correspond to four movements. Without extensive demolition or altering the European-style architectural rhythm, we reinterpreted the emotional tones, chords, and cadenzas. Through a blend of color and modern gestures, the outdated and disproportionate ‘faux-antique’ complex has been reorchestrated into a contemporary architectural symphony. – Li Fu, Chief Architect at E Plus Design Outlets 8, Conghua Photographs Aerial View | © Wu Siming © Wu Siming © Wu Siming © Wu Siming © Wu Siming © Wu Siming © Wu Siming © Chen Liang Liu Shan © Chen Liang Liu Shan © Chen Liang Liu Shan Outlets 8 Context and Typological Challenge Outlets 8 was initially conceived as a 110,000-square-meter faux-European outlet village. Despite its scale and investment, it struggled to resonate with local cultural dynamics and remained idle. The typology itself, rooted in nostalgic mimicry, was already facing obsolescence. The challenge, then, was not only architectural but also conceptual: how to resuscitate a typology that had become both spatially and culturally inert. The design team chose a strategy of minimal physical intervention coupled with maximal perceptual impact. Rather than demolish or drastically reconstruct, they aimed to re-signify the existing structures. This approach reflects a growing trend in urban renewal across China, where sustainability, cost-efficiency, and cultural specificity take precedence over spectacle. Spatial Transformation Through Chromatic Reprogramming After | © Wu Siming Before | Original Facade, © E+ At the intervention’s core is using color as a spatial and psychological agent. The ornament-heavy facades were stripped of their polychromatic excess and repainted in low-saturation hues. This chromatic cleansing revealed the formal rhythms of the architecture beneath. By doing so, the design avoids mimicry and opts for abstraction, reintroducing clarity to the site’s visual language. The design framework is structured as a musical metaphor, with each of the four blocks conceived as a separate movement in a visual symphony. The street-facing facades, now unified through a golden “variation,” establish a new urban frontage that is both legible and symbolically rich. A ribbon-like golden band traces across the main elevations, creating continuity and contrast between old and new volumes. In contrast, the sports block adopts a cooler, blue-toned palette, offering a different spatial and functional rhythm. New architectural insertions are rendered in transparent materials, signaling temporal and programmatic distinctions. At the center, the elliptical plaza becomes a spatial crescendo, defined by a sculptural intervention inspired by Roman aqueducts. This feature functions as a landmark and a temporal break, juxtaposing historical references with performative landscape elements. Rewriting Landscape as Urban Ecology After | © Wu Siming Before | Original Facade, © E+ Water, derived from the nearby Liuxi River, serves as the thematic and material backbone of the landscape design. Its integration is not symbolic but functional. Water flows through constructed channels, interactive fountains, and sculptural cascades that encourage observation and participation. These elements create a multisensory environment that enhances the spatial experience while reinforcing ecological awareness. The planting strategy emphasizes native species capable of withstanding Guangzhou’s subtropical climate. The design maximizes greenery wherever regulatory conditions allow, particularly along the main entrance, central corridors, and arcaded walkways. The result is a layered landscape that balances visual density with ecological resilience. Integrating landscape and architecture as a singular design operation, the project shifts away from ornamental greening toward environmental synthesis. This approach foregrounds interaction and immersion, aligning with broader shifts in landscape architecture toward performative and participatory ecologies. Programmatic Rebirth and Urban Implications After | © Wu Siming Before | Original Facade, © E+ Beyond formal and material considerations, the project redefines the programmatic potential of large-scale retail environments. Positioned as a “micro-vacation” destination, Outlets 8 is a hybrid typology. It combines retail, leisure, and outdoor experience within a cohesive spatial narrative. This reprogramming responds to changing patterns of consumption and leisure in Chinese cities, particularly among younger demographics seeking experiential value over transactional efficiency. Statistical metrics underscore the project’s social impact. In its first nine days, the outlet attracted over half a million visitors and became a trending location across multiple digital platforms. While not the focus of architectural critique, these figures reflect a successful alignment between spatial renewal and public resonance. More importantly, the project offers a replicable model for dealing with the vast inventory of misaligned commercial developments across China. The intervention avoids nostalgia and cynicism by foregrounding perceptual clarity, ecological integration, and cultural recontextualization. Instead, it offers a clear path forward for reimagining the built remnants of a prior urban paradigm. Outlets 8, Conghua Plans Elevations | © E Plus Design Floor Plan | © E Plus Design Floor Plan | © E Plus Design Floor Plan | © E Plus Design Floor Plan | © E Plus Design Sections | © E Plus Design Outlets 8, Conghua Image Gallery About E Plus Design E Plus Design is a multidisciplinary architecture studio based in Shenzhen, China, known for its innovative approaches to urban renewal, adaptive reuse, and large-scale public space transformations. The firm emphasizes minimal intervention strategies, spatial clarity, and contextual sensitivity, often working at the intersection of architecture, landscape, and urban design to create integrated environments that are both socially responsive and experientially rich. Credits and Additional Notes Chief Design Consultant: Liu Xiaodu Master Plan, Architecture, and Landscape Schemes: E Plus Design Lead Architects: Li Fu, Coco Zhou Project Managers (Architecture): Guo Sibo, Huang Haifeng Architectural Design Team: Wang Junli, Zhang Yan, Cai Yidie, Zhu Meng, Lin Zhaomei, Li Geng, Stephane Anil Mamode, Liu Shan, Zhou Yubo Central Plaza Design: URBANUS / LXD Studio Architect of Central Plaza: Liu Xiaodu Project Manager: Li An’hong Facade Design: Song Baolin, Li Minggang Lighting Design (Concept): Fang Yuhui Lighting Consultant: Han Du Associates Client: Guangzhou Outlets 8 Commercial Management Co., Ltd. Client Design Management Team: Yin Mingyue, Zhao Xiong Landscape Area: 29,100 m² Chief Landscape Architect: Gao Yan Project Manager (Landscape): Zhang Yufeng Landscape Design Team: Yu Xiaolei, Li Zhaozhan, Liu Chenghua Landscape Construction Drawings: E Plus Design Project Manager: Wang Bin Design Team: Wang Bin (Landscape Architecture). Huang Jinxiong (Greening Design). Li Gen (Water & Electricity Design) Structural Design Team: Wang Kaiming, Yang Helin, Wu Xingwei, Zhuang Dengfa Electrical Design Team: Sun Wei, Yang Ying Interior Design Concept Design: Shenzhen Juanshi Design Co., Ltd. Chief Interior Designer: Feng Feifan Project Manager: Liu Hongwei Design Team: Niu Jingxian, Shi Meitao Construction Drawings: Shenzhen Shiye Design Co., Ltd. Project Manager: Shen Kaizhen Design Team: Yao Yijian, Yang Hao, Liu Chen Wayfinding Design Studio: Hexi Brand Design Co., Ltd. Curtain Wall Design Firm: Positive Attitude Group (PAG)

Pros Excellent cooling performanceBrilliantly designed front fan bracketsBeautiful lighting effects in tested Ambience Pro RGB versionElaborate, web-accessible software controls for lighting, fans Cons Only minimal dust filtrationHigh price for our Ambience Pro test model Fractal Design Meshify 3 Specs 120mm or 140mm Fan Positions 6 120mm to 200mm Fans Included 3 Dimensions (HWD) 20.1 by 9.1 by 17.2 inches Fan Controller Included? Front Panel Ports HD Audio Front Panel Ports USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A (2) Front Panel Ports USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C Included Fan Lighting Color Addressable RGB Internal 2.5-Inch Bays 6 Internal 3.5-Inch Bays 2 Internal Chassis Lighting Color None Maximum CPU Cooler Height 173 Maximum GPU Length 349 Motherboard Form Factors Supported ATX Motherboard Form Factors Supported MicroATX Motherboard Form Factors Supported Mini-ITX PCI Expansion Slot Positions 7 Power Supply Form Factor Supported ATX Power Supply Maximum Length 180 Power Supply Mounting Location Bottom Side Window(s)? Yes (Tempered Glass) Weight 20.2 All Specs Fractal Design boosts its latest Meshify PC case with a trio of 140mm ARGB fans behind its now-iconic “crumpled mesh” front face. Starting at a mid-market $139.99 for its base model, the Meshify 3 also comes in upgraded versions with nifty extras that creep up the price. These include items like ARGB fan trim, ARGB side panel lighting, an ARGB strip surrounding the face panel, and even an ARGB controller that connects to the web. Taken together, all that can bump the price as high as the $219.99 MSRP for the deluxe, spectacular Ambience Pro RGB version of the case we tested. Whatever the feature mix you opt for, the case’s robust cooling performance shines. At the high end of the range, though, factor in the case’s biggest shortfall—its lack of inlet-air dust filtration—given what competitors deliver in $200-plus cases. Our current ATX tower favorite, the NZXT H7 Flow, isn't much better equipped with filters and isn't as striking as the Ambience Pro case in all its lit glory, but it costs much less.Design: A Crumpled ClassicPC-case feature trends have changed a bit in the eight years that Fractal Design has been putting its signature crumpled-mesh faces on classic mid-tower cases. (The aesthetic crumpling is easier to see in photos of the shinier black finish, such as the Meshify 2 we reviewed in 2021.) This latest version adds an air deflector at the front of the power supply shroud to force a bit more airflow past your hot graphics card. This Ambience Pro RGB variant’s feature set, as noted, has a USB-based ARGB controller, as well as lighting around the front face, along the bottom of the left side panel’s window, and on the three fans. Buyers willing to forgo most of the lit-up bling can get the basic “RGB” version with just the fan lighting for $159.99, and those willing to give up even that helping of ARGB can get the base “TG” version for $139.99. Our sample was in white; all three models are also available in black, and buyers who yearn for further simplification will find an additional “Solid” variant sold exclusively in black, with a painted steel panel on the left side in place of the window.Fractal Design has merged the headphone and microphone jacks of previous versions into a single four-pole connector on the Meshify 3. This connector functions as a normal headphone jack when one is plugged in; the extra pole serves the monaural microphone of a combined headset plug. Fractal also ditched the reset button of previous cases, but kept the twin USB 3 Type-A and a single Type-C port. And, this time around, the lighted power-on indicator ring that surrounds the power button is ARGB.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Though the mesh that covers the face and top panel could potentially filter out some inbound dust, the only part of the Meshify 3 that’s explicitly designed as a dust trap is under the power supply’s air inlet. Sliding out from the case’s side, it’s partially disguised as a portion of the rear case foot.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The Meshify 3’s back panel features a pattern of vent slots spaced to allow a fan to be screwed directly into the slots. Also back here are surface-mounted PCI Express expansion-card slots with replaceable covers, a plastic screw-tab cover with a built-in push tab at the bottom to ease its removal, and a removable power supply bracket that’s secured with two large knurled screws. Power supply insertion is through the case’s rear panel; the design lacks the space to slide in the power supply from the side.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Both side panels are secured at the top with snaps, and Fractal Design added a pair of tabs to make that task a little easier. Those tabs also have screw holes, enabling you to further secure your side panels against accidental removal.A nylon pull tab at the center of the top panel’s back edge serves a similar function. To release that panel and lift it off, you must first slide it back a quarter inch or so.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The front ARGB fans have 140mm frames, but there’s too little space behind them to mount a 420mm-format radiator vertically. That’s because radiator end caps tend to extend the total size by around 40mm (give or take 6mm).(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)On the other hand, those really motivated to place a radiator behind the front panel’s fans will find that a 360mm-format unit will work, but only by removing the 140mm fans and flipping the fan-mount brackets over. (They are visible in the image below.) Fractal Design’s brilliance shines through with these very basic sheet-metal brackets that flip to support either 120mm or 140mm fans without hindering airflow.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The top panel is fully removable to ease radiator installation and removal, but it does not benefit from the front panel’s design wizardry. While its straight-edged brackets will cover a portion of the fan’s blades when fans are mounted directly on them, its 330mm-plus of length is sufficient to support every 280mm-format radiator we can think of.Also, notice the removable cable shroud running up and down the case near the front. It is adjustable to fit motherboards up to 10.9 inches deep. That is less than the 13-inch max depth of Extended ATX, but it’s still sufficient to fit the slightly oversized enthusiast-class motherboard models that sometimes still get called EATX.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The lower front fan’s air deflector is removable and sits far enough above the case’s floor to be used in conjunction with a pair of 2.5-inch drive bays hidden beneath it. (We don’t even want to think about how we’d manage the cables in that configuration, however.)We removed the cable shroud for a clearer shot of this area. Keen observers might note the mounting slot for its lower edge at the top of the photo.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Two drive trays, three push-in cable clips, and the ARGB controller are all found behind the motherboard tray. The card bracket’s removable covers and the removable power supply bracket are shown in the image below detached and in front of the case, and the photo also shows the gap beneath the removable front fan duct into which some builders may want to install a pair of 2.5-inch drives.Recommended by Our Editors(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)More drive storage is visible here on the back of the motherboard tray. Configured from the factory to hold two 3.5-inch drives, these brackets on the back of the motherboard tray can be repositioned to hold four 2.5-inch drives instead.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Held in place by a hook-and-loop Velcro-style strap, the included ARGB controller has USB and PWM input on the top, proprietary combination connectors on the side, and an old-fashioned SATA power connector on its bottom to power it up.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Note that Fractal designed special outer shells on the proprietary ARGB/PWM combo connectors. This design is to prevent them from being mistakenly connected to anything USB Type-C, from which they appear to borrow their form. As with several others, this photo again shows the 10mm gap between the bottom panel’s 2.5-inch drive mounts and the underside of the front fan’s air guide.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)As for the controller box itself, here’s a shot of the connectors that we couldn’t see in the ARGB controller’s previous photos, including the SATA power inlet.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Of the two output cables we did see, one is for the case's chain of fans, and the other is for this version of the case’s “Ambience Pro” lighting. Four telescoping contact pins allow the front panel’s portion to separate easily from the rest of that latter cable without an awkward tether.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Building With the Fractal Design Meshify 3: Perfect Parts PacksFractal's accessory kits are hard to top in terms of neatness and clear labeling. Start with the screws: The Meshify 3 includes 24 M3 mounting screws, nine #6-32 screws to attach the motherboard to case standoffs, four #6-32 screws with hex/Phillips combo heads for power supply installation, and eight #6-32 shoulder screws for mounting 3.5-inch drives on damping grommets. (Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)You also get eight damping grommets, four cable ties, and an extra motherboard standoff. (But no extra screw for it! Such is life.) Our case being the Ambience Pro RGB version, it also includes a breakout cable that goes from the case’s proprietary ARGB/PWM connector to a standard ARGB strip and a standard PWM fan, along with an extension cable for the proprietary connector.Connecting the case to our motherboard are a power-button lead, an HD Audio header cable for the headset combo jack, a 19-pin USB 3.x for the Type-A ports, and a Gen 2x2 Type-E internal cable for the single Type-C external port. The case’s RGB controller also connects to one our motherboard’s USB 2.0 breakout headers and one of its PWM fan headers.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The white version of the Meshify 3 includes chrome hardware, but since our standard Asus ATX test motherboard is black, I flexed my design chops and used black screws to attach it. I can also divulge that I initially forgot to reinstall the cable shroud, which required me later in the build to remove the graphics card, install the shroud, and reinstall the card. Oops!(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The RGB controller uses a web interface to select its various lighting and fan modes, rather than forcing users to install software, and it stores those settings on the controller rather than leaving components in the OS. You can dictate a "startup" lighting effect separately from the regular run of lighting that the case cycles through. Using it allowed us to switch from the case’s soft blue default to something a little more, shall we say, festive.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)The light controller’s “Sunset” mode looked like a softer variation of our CPU cooler’s Rainbow mode in this test. Nice.(Credit: Thomas Soderstrom)Testing the Fractal Design Meshify 3: Cool It, ManToday’s build leverages the ATX hardware from our most recent case evaluation platform, including its full-sized Cooler Master GX III Gold 850W power supply and mid-size Corsair iCue H100i RGB Pro XT CPU cooler.Apparently, that little scoop that pushes air upward from the lower of the three front fans does have some positive effect on overall case temperature. Our CPU, motherboard (voltage-regulator), and GPU numbers all show slightly lower temperatures than its five most closely-matched recently reviewed rivals. (These include the Corsair Frame 4000D, the SilverStone Fara 514X, and the MSI Velox 300R.)And just in case you thought that Fractal Design might have gotten its high score by overspeeding its fans a bit…it didn’t. Fan noise is tied for second place in this test group, behind the Super Flower Zillion Direct.The biggest nit we can pick is that some of the Meshify 3’s airflow enhancement might be due to its lack of flow-restricting dust filters.

Cabin in Woods | © Egemen Karakaya Set on the Kozak Plateau near Pergamon in western Turkey, Cabin in Woods by Ediz Demirel Works presents a compelling investigation into the relationship between architecture, landscape, and inhabitation. Modest in scale but conceptually rigorous, the 36-square-meter structure explores dualities in materiality, spatial experience, and construction technique. Its design resists conventional tropes of vernacular mimicry, opting instead for conscious contrast. This architectural gesture neither disappears into the land nor dominates it but negotiates a dynamic tension between embeddedness and autonomy. Cabin in Woods Technical Information Architects1-2: Ediz Demirel Works Location: Kozak Plateau, Pergamon, Izmir, Turkey Area: 36 m2 | 387 Sq. Ft. Completion Year: 2025 Photographs: © Egemen Karakaya The identity of the structure is shaped by the interplay of two opposing tectonic approaches in terms of materials, construction techniques, production methods, and the contrast between locality and foreignness. – Ediz Demirel  Cabin in Woods Photographs © Egemen Karakaya © Egemen Karakaya © Egemen Karakaya © Egemen Karakaya © Egemen Karakaya © Egemen Karakaya © Egemen Karakaya © Egemen Karakaya © Egemen Karakaya © Egemen Karakaya © Egemen Karakaya © Egemen Karakaya © Egemen Karakaya Design Intent and Conceptual Framework The cabin occupies a terrace wall from a former vineyard, utilizing the dry stone retaining wall as a literal and conceptual foundation. This gesture roots the project within the existing agricultural topography, establishing a minimal intervention approach. Yet from this grounded base, the cabin rises as an artificial insertion. Its steel frame and corten cladding introduce a formal and material vocabulary foreign to the rural surroundings, underscoring a deliberate dialectic between context and object. At the heart of the project is a sunken conversation pit, an introspective space that anchors the plan and serves as the primary social node. This recessed area draws the inhabitant downward into the landscape, offering a tactile and spatial contrast to the protective shell above. The lowered core reframes domesticity in spatial terms, allowing for a gathering space that privileges horizontality, intimacy, and thermal mass. Around this core, other functional programs such as wet areas, storage, and circulation are deployed as appendages. Above, a mezzanine floor is delicately inserted within the steel shell, creating zones for sleeping and working without compromising the spatial clarity of the core below. Spatial Organization and Experiential Strategy Despite its compact footprint, the cabin achieves a high degree of spatial complexity. This is accomplished not through planimetric manipulation but through sectional richness and the careful calibration of views, light, and thresholds. A singular horizontal aperture cuts through the shell, framing a panoramic view of the forested hills. This gesture provides more than visual access; it actively orchestrates a dialogue between the interior and the broader ecological context. The facade, punctuated with small cantilevered openings, introduces sculptural moments that protrude into the landscape. These elements operate simultaneously as light sources, thermal breaks, and spatial cues. They animate the exterior envelope while mediating the inhabitant’s sensory experience from within. The strategy reveals an architectural sensibility attuned to the nuances of perception, perspective, and phenomenology. The sunken core, in particular, reinforces this experiential ambition. It is not merely a spatial curiosity but a site of temporal deceleration, a hearth-like void where fire, conversation, and reflection converge. In this sense, the project subtly reinvigorates domestic rituals through spatial articulation, encouraging modes of living that prioritize gathering and grounding over visual spectacle. Material Strategy and Construction Logic The architectural language of Cabin in Woods is structured around a deliberate contrast between local, irregular materials and prefabricated, controlled systems. The foundation, comprising a reinforced concrete slab cast directly into the existing dry stone terrace, extends the material logic of the landscape. This decision grounds the structure physically and symbolically, linking it to the region’s vernacular heritage. Conversely, the corten steel cladding and the structural steel frame are fabricated off-site and assembled locally. This bifurcation in construction methods aligns with the project’s conceptual division. The base engages the earth and honors the irregularity of place, while the shell expresses a technological detachment and formal precision. With its evolving patina and atmospheric depth, the use of corten adds a layer of temporal expression to the architectural language. It ages, oxidizes, and marks time, introducing a poetic dimension to the otherwise industrial envelope. Such a contrast is not merely aesthetic. It reflects a broader interrogation of architectural identity—how buildings can simultaneously belong, estrange, settle, and provoke. The tectonic opposition between ground and shell becomes a vehicle for this inquiry, inviting reflection on how architecture positions itself in relation to site and memory. Contextual and Critical Significance Beyond its immediate programmatic function as a short-term rental, Cabin in Woods engages with urgent disciplinary questions. How should contemporary architecture respond to rural contexts without defaulting to nostalgia? How can compact dwellings foster depth of experience without resorting to over-programming? And how might architecture embrace contradiction as a generative force rather than a problem to be resolved? Ediz Demirel’s response is measured yet assertive. Rather than dissolving into the landscape, the cabin asserts its autonomy while acknowledging the terrain. The project frames its site not as a passive backdrop but as an active participant in the architectural narrative. Its minimal footprint, precise detailing, and tectonic clarity demonstrate how small-scale interventions can yield disproportionately rich spatial and conceptual outcomes. Cabin in Woods Plans Floor Plan | © Ediz Demirel Works Section | © Ediz Demirel Works Elevations | © Ediz Demirel Works Details | © Ediz Demirel Works © Ediz Demirel Works Cabin in Woods Image Gallery About Ediz Demirel Works Ediz Demirel Works (EDWorks) is an Istanbul-based architectural studio founded in 2022 by Ediz Demirel. The practice focuses on small to medium-scale projects integrating design, construction, and development. EDWorks emphasizes material experimentation, site-specific strategies, and balancing traditional craftsmanship and contemporary tectonics. Notable projects include Cabin in Woods and Pergamon House in the Izmir region. The studio’s approach reflects a commitment to architectural clarity and contextual sensitivity. Credits and Additional Notes Design Architect: Ediz Demirel Site Architects: Ediz Demirel, Tuna Ökten

Observation Rocket Report: SpaceX’s expansion at Vandenberg; India’s PSLV fails in flight China's diversity in rockets was evident this week, with four types of launchers in action. Stephen Clark – May 23, 2025 7:00 am | 7 Dawn Aerospace's Mk-II Aurora airplane in flight over New Zealand last year. Credit: Dawn Aerospace Dawn Aerospace's Mk-II Aurora airplane in flight over New Zealand last year. Credit: Dawn Aerospace Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Welcome to Edition 7.45 of the Rocket Report! Let's talk about spaceplanes. Since the Space Shuttle, spaceplanes have, at best, been a niche part of the space transportation business. The US Air Force's uncrewed X-37B and a similar vehicle operated by China's military are the only spaceplanes to reach orbit since the last shuttle flight in 2011, and both require a lift from a conventional rocket. Virgin Galactic's suborbital space tourism platform is also a spaceplane of sorts. A generation or two ago, one of the chief arguments in favor of spaceplanes was that they were easier to recover and reuse. Today, SpaceX routinely reuses capsules and rockets that look much more like conventional space vehicles than the winged designs of yesteryear. Spaceplanes are undeniably alluring in appearance, but they have the drawback of carrying extra weight (wings) into space that won't be used until the final minutes of a mission. So, do they have a future? As always, we welcome reader submissions. If you don't want to miss an issue, please subscribe using the box below (the form will not appear on AMP-enabled versions of the site). Each report will include information on small-, medium-, and heavy-lift rockets, as well as a quick look ahead at the next three launches on the calendar. One of China's commercial rockets returns to flight. The Kinetica-1 rocket launched Wednesday for the first time since a failure doomed its previous attempt to reach orbit in December, according to the vehicle's developer and operator, CAS Space. The Kinetica-1 is one of several small Chinese solid-fueled launch vehicles managed by a commercial company, although with strict government oversight and support. CAS Space, a spinoff of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said its Kinetica-1 rocket deployed multiple payloads with "excellent orbit insertion accuracy." This was the seventh flight of a Kinetica-1 rocket since its debut in 2022. Back in action ... "Kinetica-1 is back!" CAS Space posted on X. "Mission Y7 has just successfully sent six satellites into designated orbits, making a total of 63 satellites or 6 tons of payloads since its debut. Lots of missions are planned for the coming months. 2025 is going to be awesome." The Kinetica-1 is designed to place up to 2 metric tons of payload into low-Earth orbit. A larger liquid-fueled rocket, Kinetica-2, is scheduled to debut later this year. The Ars Technica Rocket Report The easiest way to keep up with Eric Berger's and Stephen Clark's reporting on all things space is to sign up for our newsletter. We'll collect their stories and deliver them straight to your inbox. Sign Me Up! French government backs a spaceplane startup. French spaceplane startup AndroMach announced May 15 that it received a contract from CNES, the French space agency, to begin testing an early prototype of its Banger v1 rocket engine, European Spaceflight reports. Founded in 2023, AndroMach is developing a pair of spaceplanes that will be used to perform suborbital and orbital missions to space. A suborbital spaceplane will utilize turbojet engines for horizontal takeoff and landing, and a pressure-fed biopropane/liquid oxygen rocket engine to reach space. Test flights of this smaller vehicle will begin in early 2027. A risky proposition ... A larger ÉTOILE "orbital shuttle" is designed to be launched by various small launch vehicles and will be capable of carrying payloads of up to 100 kilograms (220 pounds). According to the company, initial test flights of ÉTOILE are expected to begin at the beginning of the next decade. It's unclear how much CNES is committing to AndroMach through this contract, but the company says the funding will support testing of an early demonstrator for its propane-fueled engine, with a focus on evaluating its thermodynamic performance. It's good to see European governments supporting developments in commercial space, but the path to a small commercial orbital spaceplane is rife with risk. (submitted by EllPeaTea) Dawn Aerospace is taking orders. Another spaceplane company in a more advanced stage of development says it is now taking customer orders for flights to the edge of space. New Zealand-based Dawn Aerospace said it is beginning to take orders for its remotely piloted, rocket-powered suborbital spaceplane, known as Aurora, with first deliveries expected in 2027, Aviation Week & Space Technology reports. "This marks a historic milestone: the first time a space-capable vehicle—designed to fly beyond the Kármán line (100 kilometers or 328,000 feet)—has been offered for direct sale to customers," Dawn Aerospace said in a statement. While it hasn't yet reached space, Dawn's Aurora spaceplane flew to supersonic speed for the first time last year and climbed to an altitude of 82,500 feet (25.1 kilometers), setting a record for the fastest climb from a runway to 20 kilometers. Further along ... Aurora is small in stature, measuring just 15.7 feet (4.8 meters) long. It's designed to loft a payload of up to 22 pounds (10 kilograms) above the Kármán line for up to three minutes of microgravity, before returning to a runway landing. Eventually, Dawn wants to reduce the turnaround time between Aurora flights to less than four hours. "Aurora is set to become the fastest and highest-flying aircraft ever to take off from a conventional runway, blending the extreme performance of rocket propulsion with the reusability and operational simplicity of traditional aviation," Dawn said. The company's business model is akin to commercial airlines, where operators can purchase an aircraft directly from a manufacturer and manage their own operations. (submitted by EllPeaTea) India's workhorse rocket falls short of orbit. In a rare setback, Indian Space Research Organisation's (ISRO) launch vehicle PSLV-C61 malfunctioned and failed to place a surveillance satellite into the intended orbit last weekend, the Times of India reported. The Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle lifted off from a launch pad on the southeastern coast of India early Sunday, local time, with a radar reconnaissance satellite named EOS-09, or RISAT-1B. The satellite was likely intended to gather intelligence for the Indian military. "The country's military space capabilities, already hindered by developmental challenges, have suffered another setback with the loss of a potential strategic asset," the Times of India wrote. What happened? ... V. Narayanan, ISRO's chairman, later said that the rocket’s performance was normal until the third stage. The PSLV's third stage, powered by a solid rocket motor, suffered a "fall in chamber pressure" and the mission could not be accomplished, Narayanan said. Investigators are probing the root cause of the failure. Telemetry data indicated the rocket deviated from its planned flight path around six minutes after launch, when it was traveling more than 12,600 mph (5.66 kilometers per second), well short of the speed it needed to reach orbital velocity. The rocket and its payload fell into the Indian Ocean south of the launch site. This was the first PSLV launch failure in eight years, ending a streak of 21 consecutive successful flights. (submitted by EllPeaTea) SES makes a booking with Impulse Space. SES, owner of the world's largest fleet of geostationary satellites, plans to use Impulse Space’s Helios kick stage to take advantage of lower-cost, low-Earth-orbit (LEO) launch vehicles and get its satellites quickly into higher orbits, Aviation Week & Space Technology reports. SES hopes the combination will break a traditional launch conundrum for operators of medium-Earth-orbit (MEO) and geostationary orbit (GEO). These operators often must make a trade-off between a lower-cost launch that puts them farther from their satellite's final orbit, or a more expensive launch that can expedite their satellite's entry into service. A matter of hours ... On Thursday, SES and Impulse Space announced a multi-launch agreement to use the methane-fueled Helios kick stage. "The first mission, currently planned for 2027, will feature a dedicated deployment from a medium-lift launcher in LEO, followed by Helios transferring the 4-ton-class payload directly to GEO within eight hours of launch," Impulse said in a statement. Typically, this transit to GEO takes several weeks to several months, depending on the satellite's propulsion system. "Today, we’re not only partnering with Impulse to bring our satellites faster to orbit, but this will also allow us to extend their lifetime and accelerate service delivery to our customers," said Adel Al-Saleh, CEO of SES. "We're proud to become Helios' first dedicated commercial mission." Unpacking China's spaceflight patches. There's a fascinating set of new patches Chinese officials released for a series of launches with top-secret satellites over the last two months, Ars reports. These four patches depict Buddhist gods with a sense of artistry and sharp colors that stand apart from China's previous spaceflight emblems, and perhaps—or perhaps not—they can tell us something about the nature of the missions they represent. The missions launched so-called TJS satellites toward geostationary orbit, where they most likely will perform missions in surveillance, signals intelligence, or missile warning.  Making connections ... It's not difficult to start making connections between the Four Heavenly Gods and the missions that China's TJS satellites likely carry out in space. A protector with an umbrella? An all-seeing entity? This sounds like a possible link to spy craft or missile warning, but there's a chance Chinese officials approved the patches to misdirect outside observers, or there's no connection at all. China aims for an asteroid. China is set to launch its second Tianwen deep space exploration mission late May, targeting both a near-Earth asteroid and a main belt comet, Space News reports. The robotic Tianwen-2 spacecraft is being integrated with a Long March 3B rocket at the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in southwest China, the country's top state-owned aerospace contractor said. Airspace closure notices indicate a four-hour-long launch window opening at noon EDT (16:00–20:00 UTC) on May 28. Backup launch windows are scheduled for May 29 and 30. New frontiers ... Tianwen-2's first goal is to collect samples from a near-Earth asteroid designated 469219 Kamoʻoalewa, or 2016 HO3, and return them to Earth in late 2027 with a reentry module. The Tianwen-2 mothership will then set a course toward a comet for a secondary mission. This will be China's first sample return mission from beyond the Moon. The asteroid selected as the target for Tianwen-2 is believed by scientists to be less than 100 meters, or 330 feet, in diameter, and may be made of material thrown off the Moon some time in its ancient past. Results from Tianwen-2 may confirm that hypothesis. (submitted by EllPeaTea) Upgraded methalox rocket flies from Jiuquan. Another one of China's privately funded launch companies achieved a milestone this week. Landspace launched an upgraded version of its Zhuque-2E rocket Saturday from the Jiuquan launch base in northwestern China, Space News reports. The rocket delivered six satellites to orbit for a range of remote sensing, Earth observation, and technology demonstration missions. The Zhuque-2E is an improved version of the Zhuque-2, which became the first liquid methane-fueled rocket in the world to reach orbit in 2023. Larger envelope ... This was the second flight of the Zhuque-2E rocket design, but the first to utilize a wider payload fairing to provide more volume for satellites on their ride into space. The Zhuque-2E is a stepping stone toward a much larger rocket Landspace is developing called the Zhuque-3, a stainless steel launcher with a reusable first stage booster that, at least outwardly, bears some similarities to SpaceX's Falcon 9. (submitted by EllPeaTea) FAA clears SpaceX for Starship Flight 9. The Federal Aviation Administration gave the green light Thursday for SpaceX to launch the next test flight of its Starship mega-rocket as soon as next week, following two consecutive failures earlier this year, Ars reports. The failures set back SpaceX's Starship program by several months. The company aims to get the rocket's development back on track with the upcoming launch, Starship's ninth full-scale test flight since its debut in April 2023. Starship is central to SpaceX's long-held ambition to send humans to Mars and is the vehicle NASA has selected to land astronauts on the Moon under the umbrella of the government's Artemis program. Targeting Tuesday, for now ... In a statement Thursday, the FAA said SpaceX is authorized to launch the next Starship test flight, known as Flight 9, after finding the company "meets all of the rigorous safety, environmental and other licensing requirements." SpaceX has not confirmed a target launch date for the next launch of Starship, but warning notices for pilots and mariners to steer clear of hazard areas in the Gulf of Mexico suggest the flight might happen as soon as the evening of Tuesday, May 27. The rocket will lift off from Starbase, Texas, SpaceX's privately owned spaceport near the US-Mexico border. The FAA's approval comes with some stipulations, including that the launch must occur during "non-peak" times for air traffic and a larger closure of airspace downrange from Starbase. Space Force is fed up with Vulcan delays. In recent written testimony to a US House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees the military, the senior official responsible for purchasing launches for national security missions blistered one of the country's two primary rocket providers, Ars reports. The remarks from Major General Stephen G. Purdy, acting assistant secretary of the Air Force for Space Acquisition and Integration, concerned United Launch Alliance and its long-delayed development of the large Vulcan rocket. "The ULA Vulcan program has performed unsatisfactorily this past year," Purdy said in written testimony during a May 14 hearing before the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. This portion of his testimony did not come up during the hearing, and it has not been reported publicly to date. Repairing trust ... "Major issues with the Vulcan have overshadowed its successful certification resulting in delays to the launch of four national security missions," Purdy wrote. "Despite the retirement of highly successful Atlas and Delta launch vehicles, the transition to Vulcan has been slow and continues to impact the completion of Space Force mission objectives." It has widely been known in the space community that military officials, who supported Vulcan with development contracts for the rocket and its engines that exceeded $1 billion, have been unhappy with the pace of the rocket's development. It was originally due to launch in 2020. At the end of his written testimony, Purdy emphasized that he expected ULA to do better. As part of his job as the Service Acquisition Executive for Space (SAE), Purdy noted that he has been tasked to transform space acquisition and to become more innovative. "For these programs, the prime contractors must re-establish baselines, establish a culture of accountability, and repair trust deficit to prove to the SAE that they are adopting the acquisition principles necessary to deliver capabilities at speed, on cost and on schedule." SpaceX's growth on the West Coast. SpaceX is moving ahead with expansion plans at Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, that will double its West Coast launch cadence and enable Falcon Heavy rockets to fly from California, Spaceflight Now reports. Last week, the Department of the Air Force issued its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which considers proposed modifications from SpaceX to Space Launch Complex 6 (SLC-6) at Vandenberg. These modifications will include changes to support launches of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, the construction of two new landing pads for Falcon boosters adjacent to SLC-6, the demolition of unneeded structures at SLC-6, and increasing SpaceX’s permitted launch cadence from Vandenberg from 50 launches to 100. Doubling the fun ... The transformation of SLC-6 would include quite a bit of overhaul. Its most recent tenant, United Launch Alliance, previously used it for Delta IV rockets from 2006 through its final launch in September 2022. The following year, the Space Force handed over the launch pad to SpaceX, which lacked a pad at Vandenberg capable of supporting Falcon Heavy missions. The estimated launch cadence between SpaceX’s existing Falcon 9 pad at Vandenberg, known as SLC-4E, and SLC-6 would be a 70-11 split for Falcon 9 rockets in 2026, with one Falcon Heavy at SLC-6, for a total of 82 launches. That would increase to a 70-25 Falcon 9 split in 2027 and 2028, with an estimated five Falcon Heavy launches in each of those years. (submitted by EllPeaTea) Next three launches May 23: Falcon 9 | Starlink 11-16 | Vandenberg Space Force Base, California | 20:36 UTC May 24: Falcon 9 | Starlink 12-22 | Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida | 17:19 UTC May 27: Falcon 9 | Starlink 17-1 | Vandenberg Space Force Base, California | 16:14 UTC Stephen Clark Space Reporter Stephen Clark Space Reporter Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet. 7 Comments