Daniel Pearson , CEO, KnownHostJune 12, 20253 Min ReadBusiness success concept. Cubes with arrows and target on the top.Cyber incidents are expected to cost the US $639 billion in 2025. According to the latest estimates, this dynamic will continue to rise, reaching approximately 1.82 trillion US dollars in cybercrime costs by 2028. These figures highlight the crucial importance of strong cybersecurity strategies, which businesses must build to reduce the likelihood of risks. As technology evolves at a dramatic pace, businesses are increasingly dependent on utilizing digital infrastructure, exposing themselves to threats such as ransomware, accidental data loss, and corruption.  Despite the 3-2-1 backup rule being invented in 2009, this strategy has stayed relevant for businesses over the years, ensuring that the loss of data is minimized under threat, and will be a crucial method in the upcoming years to prevent major data loss.   What Is the 3-2-1 Backup Rule? The 3-2-1 backup rule is a popular backup strategy that ensures resilience against data loss. The setup consists of keeping your original data and two backups.  The data also needs to be stored in two different locations, such as the cloud or a local drive.  The one in the 3-2-1 backup rule represents storing a copy of your data off site, and this completes the setup.  This setup has been considered a gold standard in IT security, as it minimizes points of failure and increases the chance of successful data recovery in the event of a cyber-attack.  Related:Why Is This Rule Relevant in the Modern Cyber Threat Landscape? Statistics show that in 2024, 80% of companies have seen an increase in the frequency of cloud attacks.  Although many businesses assume that storing data in the cloud is enough, it is certainly not failsafe, and businesses are in bigger danger than ever due to the vast development of technology and AI capabilities attackers can manipulate and use.  As the cloud infrastructure has seen a similar speed of growth, cyber criminals are actively targeting these, leaving businesses with no clear recovery option. Therefore, more than ever, businesses need to invest in immutable backup solutions.  Common Backup Mistakes Businesses Make A common misstep is keeping all backups on the same physical network. If malware gets in, it can quickly spread and encrypt both the primary data and the backups, wiping out everything in one go. Another issue is the lack of offline or air-gapped backups. Many businesses rely entirely on cloud-based or on-premises storage that's always connected, which means their recovery options could be compromised during an attack. Related:Finally, one of the most overlooked yet crucial steps is testing backup restoration. A backup is only useful if it can actually be restored. Too often, companies skip regular testing. This can lead to a harsh reality check when they discover, too late, that their backup data is either corrupted or completely inaccessible after a breach. How to Implement the 3-2-1 Backup Rule? To successfully implement the 3-2-1 backup strategy as part of a robust cybersecurity framework, organizations should start by diversifying their storage methods. A resilient approach typically includes a mix of local storage, cloud-based solutions, and physical media such as external hard drives.  From there, it's essential to incorporate technologies that support write-once, read-many functionalities. This means backups cannot be modified or deleted, even by administrators, providing an extra layer of protection against threats. To further enhance resilience, organizations should make use of automation and AI-driven tools. These technologies can offer real-time monitoring, detect anomalies, and apply predictive analytics to maintain the integrity of backup data and flag any unusual activity or failures in the process. Lastly, it's crucial to ensure your backup strategy aligns with relevant regulatory requirements, such as GDPR in the UK or CCPA in the US. Compliance not only mitigates legal risk but also reinforces your commitment to data protection and operational continuity. Related:By blending the time-tested 3-2-1 rule with modern advances like immutable storage and intelligent monitoring, organizations can build a highly resilient backup architecture that strengthens their overall cybersecurity posture. About the AuthorDaniel Pearson CEO, KnownHostDaniel Pearson is the CEO of KnownHost, a managed web hosting service provider. Pearson also serves as a dedicated board member and supporter of the AlmaLinux OS Foundation, a non-profit organization focused on advancing the AlmaLinux OS -- an open-source operating system derived from RHEL. His passion for technology extends beyond his professional endeavors, as he actively promotes digital literacy and empowerment. Pearson's entrepreneurial drive and extensive industry knowledge have solidified his reputation as a respected figure in the tech community. See more from Daniel Pearson ReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future.  Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos. While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction.  “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.” “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology, [and] to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow.  A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in?  I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideology [a mashup of countercultural, libertarian, and neoliberal values] and through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization.  What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry.  Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share?  They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity.  In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics. You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so? Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end. The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen.  Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” [from 2023] is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth.  Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed? Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law. “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.” My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Moore [who first articulated it] knew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over.  These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins? You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care.  I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control.  You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is?  I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals. More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that? It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that senseof inevitability vanish pretty fast.  This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 

Graduate Student Develops an A.I.-Based Approach to Restore Time-Damaged Artwork to Its Former Glory The method could help bring countless old paintings, currently stored in the back rooms of galleries with limited conservation budgets, to light Scans of the painting retouched with a new technique during various stages in the process. On the right is the restored painting with the applied laminate mask. Courtesy of the researchers via MIT In a contest for jobs requiring the most patience, art restoration might take first place. Traditionally, conservators restore paintings by recreating the artwork’s exact colors to fill in the damage, one spot at a time. Even with the help of X-ray imaging and pigment analyses, several parts of the expensive process, such as the cleaning and retouching, are done by hand, as noted by Artnet’s Jo Lawson-Tancred. Now, a mechanical engineering graduate student at MIT has developed an artificial intelligence-based approach that can achieve a faithful restoration in just hours—instead of months of work. In a paper published Wednesday in the journal Nature, Alex Kachkine describes a new method that applies digital restorations to paintings by placing a thin film on top. If the approach becomes widespread, it could make art restoration more accessible and help bring countless damaged paintings, currently stored in the back rooms of galleries with limited conservation budgets, back to light. The new technique “is a restoration process that saves a lot of time and money, while also being reversible, which some people feel is really important to preserving the underlying character of a piece,” Kachkine tells Nature’s Amanda Heidt. Meet the engineer who invented an AI-powered way to restore art Watch on While filling in damaged areas of a painting would seem like a logical solution to many people, direct retouching raises ethical concerns for modern conservators. That’s because an artwork’s damage is part of its history, and retouching might detract from the painter’s original vision. “For example, instead of removing flaking paint and retouching the painting, a conservator might try to fix the loose paint particles to their original places,” writes Hartmut Kutzke, a chemist at the University of Oslo’s Museum of Cultural History, for Nature News and Views. If retouching is absolutely necessary, he adds, it should be reversible. As such, some institutions have started restoring artwork virtually and presenting the restoration next to the untouched, physical version. Many art lovers might argue, however, that a digital restoration printed out or displayed on a screen doesn’t quite compare to seeing the original painting in its full glory. That’s where Kachkine, who is also an art collector and amateur conservator, comes in. The MIT student has developed a way to apply digital restorations onto a damaged painting. In short, the approach involves using pre-existing A.I. tools to create a digital version of what the freshly painted artwork would have looked like. Based on this reconstruction, Kachkine’s new software assembles a map of the retouches, and their exact colors, necessary to fill the gaps present in the painting today. The map is then printed onto two layers of thin, transparent polymer film—one with colored retouches and one with the same pattern in white—that attach to the painting with conventional varnish. This “mask” aligns the retouches with the gaps while leaving the rest of the artwork visible. “In order to fully reproduce color, you need both white and color ink to get the full spectrum,” Kachkine explains in an MIT statement. “If those two layers are misaligned, that’s very easy to see. So, I also developed a few computational tools, based on what we know of human color perception, to determine how small of a region we can practically align and restore.” The method’s magic lies in the fact that the mask is removable, and the digital file provides a record of the modifications for future conservators to study. Kachkine demonstrated the approach on a 15th-century oil painting in dire need of restoration, by a Dutch artist whose name is now unknown. The retouches were generated by matching the surrounding color, replicating similar patterns visible elsewhere in the painting or copying the artist’s style in other paintings, per Nature News and Views. Overall, the painting’s 5,612 damaged regions were filled with 57,314 different colors in 3.5 hours—66 hours faster than traditional methods would have likely taken. Overview of Physically-Applied Digital Restoration Watch on “It followed years of effort to try to get the method working,” Kachkine tells the Guardian’s Ian Sample. “There was a fair bit of relief that finally this method was able to reconstruct and stitch together the surviving parts of the painting.” The new process still poses ethical considerations, such as whether the applied film disrupts the viewing experience or whether A.I.-generated corrections to the painting are accurate. Additionally, Kutzke writes for Nature News and Views that the effect of the varnish on the painting should be studied more deeply. Still, Kachkine says this technique could help address the large number of damaged artworks that live in storage rooms. “This approach grants greatly increased foresight and flexibility to conservators,” per the study, “enabling the restoration of countless damaged paintings deemed unworthy of high conservation budgets.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Every item on this page was hand-picked by a House Beautiful editor. We may earn commission on some of the items you choose to buy.While some design-minded folks prefer the shiny, unmarked quality of newly made furniture and decor, others opt for the charm and history associated with vintage and antique treasures. Buying secondhand and locally is not only more sustainable, but it's a great way to avoid increased fees from recent tariff policies. There's never been a better time to invest in ready-made pieces that have seen decades (or even centuries) of history unfold. That said, discerning the true value of high-end antiques—whether it be a secretary desk whose top requires a bit of elbow grease to open or a Lalique bottle that bears a tiny chip in the base—is no easy feat. After all, if you don't know the ins and outs of this particular niche, you could very well get duped into overspending.To prepare you for your next outing to the antique shop, vintage store, or flea market, we asked experts in the field for their most helpful shopping tips. Here's what they had to say about sourcing decades-old treasures—without regretting your purchase later. Related Stories Buy From a Reputable Sourcetaikrixel//Getty Images"Fakes are really the rare outliers and not the norm in the world of antiques and vintage furniture," according to Anthony Barzilay Freund, editorial director and director of fine art at 1stDibs. He says that it's always best to investigate the reputation of individual dealers or browse a reputable online marketplace that sells only vetted and authenticated items. "When buying any piece of furniture that purports to be old, it's important that you are working with a reputable dealer who has a history of handling the type of material and a track record of participating in vetted fairs or selling on digital platforms such as 1stDibs that monitor inventory," Freund continues. That way, you can trust the info you're given. "You can perform your due diligence by asking the dealer to provide you with any information about the piece's provenance (who made it, where it was made, and who owned it over the years)."As for antique-hunting at thrift stores and flea markets, you may find a few quality pieces here and there. "And the more you look, the better able you'll be to discern quality," says Freund. So, browse often!Related StoryLook for a Maker’s MarkMany antiques from famed designers bear a stamp or signature indicating who made them—but many don't, and not all stamps can be trusted. "A piece that has a stamp may be an indication that it's by a specific designer, but there have been known cases in which some badly intentioned people use someone else's branding stamp to produce fakes," says Benoist F. Drut, owner of New York–based gallery Maison Gerard. The prolific 18th-century French designer George Jacobs, for instance, was famous for his iconic stamps, but even he didn't mark every piece he designed with a signature, so "you can't rely entirely on the stamp to prove authenticity," Drut says. That being said, he adds, "It's usually obvious if it's a real stamp and not a copy." Herman MillerIf there's an artist or design house you like, do some research first to uncover exactly what type of mark, if any, you should be seeking. For example, one of the most popular vintage pieces is the beloved Eames lounge chair. According to the brand, which still produces some of the designer's original designs, "Labels and stamps can be the best and the quickest method of authenticating your Eames design. It may also help you to date and value your piece." Every Eames piece, from the first designs from the early 1940s to the ones produced now, bears a label. The only exception is the fiberglass shell chair, each of which bears a stamp. Both the labels and stamps feature a series of letters and numbers that can help determine the exact age of the piece. Related StoryAsk for Provenance DocumentsThis may seem like the most straightforward step, but it's usually the least reliable for one key reason. "Pieces that are a few hundred years old move from place to place during their lifetime, and rarely do the papers follow them," Drut explains. In most cases, you simply have to decide whether or not you trust what the dealer is telling you to be true about a piece's provenance. Some items, however, do come with papers that can easily be authenticated. These pieces are typically ones that have been in the family's estate for generations. If such papers aren't available, he adds, a piece may also be listed in probate inventories or wills, so be sure to check everywhere.A piece with family provenance further helps validate its authenticity. In certain occasions, a piece may be seen in an early 20th-century black and white photograph or, in rare instances, in a daguerreotype.—Erik GronningRelated StoryDo Your Own ResearchBeeldbewerking//Getty ImagesIf you're considering an older piece, the dealer from whom you're buying it should have a general idea of the year or decade it was produced. With that information, do some digging about how similar pieces of furniture were made and with which types of materials. "Look at books about that time period and, if you can, visit museums," says Drut. "It doesn't take a professional to see all of the subtle details—such as the materials and techniques used—that indicate if it's authentic or not." Along the way, you might uncover some lesser-known designers whose pieces are still genuine works of art, but may be easier to find and more affordable to purchase. (If an Eames chair is out of your price range, for example, you might want to look into a Plycraft seat.)Related StoryPerform a “Run-Down”Before making a big-ticket purchase, ask the dealer what the piece is made of—the response will be another indicator of authenticity. Take chairs as an example."Plenty of chairs and sofas made today are filled with foam," says Drut. "An 18th-century chair, however, will be filled with horsehair, as foam was not invented until much later in the 20th century."You'll also want to observe where small marks or imperfections in the construction may bear the signature of a handcrafted (as opposed to mass-produced) item. "The process of making a piece of furniture using only hand tools leaves behind 'tool marks,'" says Erik Gronning, Sotheby's head of Americana. "Saws leave a mark called a saw kerf while planes leave plane marks, and modern electrical powered saws and planes also leave marks, but theirs are regular and not inconsistent as one sees with hand tools." Related Story Request Pre-Restoration PhotosGiorez//Getty Images"If the piece has been extensively cleaned and/or refinished," Freund advises, "ask to see pre-restoration photographs." Any reputable restorer regularly enlisted by antique dealers is likely to have a few on hand. Here's the thing about restorations: They're not a bad thing, and they're definitely not a reason to question a piece's authenticity or age. For instance, Drut says, if you're considering buying a 19th-century chair whose back leg is attached with glue, "that's because it's 200 years old and, without the glue, the chair may not be usable." Looking at an image of the chair before the glue was applied can reassure you that you're getting a strengthened original, not a fake. On the other hand, if you find a centuries-old piece that looks spotless, "How can you explain that? You can't," says Drut." An alleged antique that looks too good to be true probably is." Consider what an update may be concealing: "If something has been fully painted over, that often means that someone has something to hide. Stay away," says Drut. More specifically, Gronning adds that "18th- and early 19th-century pieces in their 'original' surface have a very dark or nearly black appearance that, to the untrained eye, could appear dirty or ratty, but it is this appearance that helps authenticate its age." If this is the case with an antique treasure you're considering, it's important to look at any perceived flaws as marks of character. "Antiques and vintage pieces have a patina and personality that one cannot find in a newly constructed object," Freund says. "Rather than viewing this as damage or wear and tear, antique lovers think signs of age give an object a visual interest, warmth, and uniqueness that really enhances the character of a room." Follow House Beautiful on Instagram and TikTok.

How Will Transportation Work in the Future? A Look at the Rise of Electric Mobility in CitiesSave this picture!Boise, United States. Image via Wikipedia user: Fæ. License under CC0 1.0. Image Author: Alden SkeieFrom greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution to deforestation, one of the leading contributors to global warming today is emissions from the transportation sector. Exploring its origins and evolution, as well as the major challenges it faces, the development of electric mobility in urban environments represents a global transition that requires a coordinated mix of policies and actions to achieve cleaner and more sustainable transportation systems. Designing safe and comfortable infrastructure for walking and cycling, promoting public transit and shared mobility, and designing more efficient streets that include electric vehicles, among other actions, are part of a growing worldwide effort to reduce carbon emissions.Although electric vehicles were invented before gasoline and diesel cars in the first half of the 19th century, they have undergone significant technological advances over the past 20 years, reducing their costs and their environmental impact, and increasing their utility. Around 1834, Thomas Davenport developed the first battery-powered electric vehicle, building a small train on a circular track and inventing the first direct current (DC) electric motor. Although there were numerous innovations in the years that followed, battery limitations were a major obstacle. The zinc consumption of a battery was four times more expensive than the coal consumption of a steam engine, so at that time it competed with the electric motor. Save this picture!By 1898, the first commercially available electric vehicles were operating in London and New York. As Francisco Martín Moreno explains in "Vehículos eléctricos. Historia, estado actual y retos futuros", in the early 1900s, several electric car models emerged, primarily accessible to wealthy consumers and designed for short distances. In contrast, the early gasoline-powered cars introduced in the 1920s were noisy, emitted strong gasoline odors, and were hard to drive due to complex gear systems. However, large quantities of oil were discovered between 1920 and 1930, making gasoline-powered cars cheaper in Texas and other US states. Highways began to be built connecting cities, allowing gasoline-powered vehicles to travel from one city to another, something beyond the reach of electric vehicles due to their short range. Mass production techniques like Henry Ford's assembly line further reduced costs, making gas-powered cars affordable to the middle class. Related Article Gas Stations and Electric Cars: How Do They Change Cities Save this picture!By the late 1920s, gasoline vehicles had overtaken electric vehicles, and electric car production largely ceased in the 1930s. However, as a result of the oil crisis in the 1970s and the Gulf War in the 1990s, along with the emergence of climate change as a priority, there was a renewed interest in electric cars. This resurgence led to new models of electric vehicles—from small cars to buses and even trucks. The energy crisis led to an increase in gasoline prices, and society in advanced countries began to become aware of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from oil combustion, the greenhouse effect, and climate change. Concern about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change increased as oil prices rose, and society began to recognize and become more aware of the impact of the current transportation model on cities and the urgency of finding more environmentally friendly transportation alternatives.Save this picture!Save this picture!In developed countries during the 20th century, the growth of cities was largely due to private car use, allowing citizens to travel miles and miles daily from home to work. Suburban expansion shifted the cost of commuting to individuals. Some residential areas are developing far from the city center and industrial zones, where a large proportion of the population relies on cars. In 2010, the global population was around 7 billion, and it's expected to reach 10 billion by 2050. The number of vehicles, meanwhile, is projected to grow from 75 million in 2010 to 2.5 billion by 2050. Will there be enough fossil fuels to power this massive fleet? What will be the future of gas stations?Save this picture!To meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and reduce growing air pollution, low- and middle-income countries should join the global transition to zero-emission electric transport. According to data from the International Energy Agency and the European Alternative Fuels Observatory, China led the world in 2024 with over 7 million electric vehicles (including cars and buses) in operation—an increase of over 3 million in just one year. The U.S. ranked second, followed by Germany, which leads in Europe with about 1.3 million EVs. The UK and France round out the top five.Save this picture!To support this transition, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has launched a global initiative alongside private sector partners, academic institutions, and financial organizations, helping low- and middle-income countries shift to electric mobility. In Latin America, transportation accounts for around one-third of CO₂ emissions. In Africa, Asia, and parts of Latin America, motorcycles and three-wheelers are essential for daily mobility, often covering over 100 km per day. However, these vehicles usually rely on outdated technologies, making them highly polluting and inefficient. Electrifying two- and three-wheelers presents a significant opportunity to reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. UNEP is assisting 17 countries in creating national strategies and running pilot projects to introduce these electric vehicles in regions like Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.Save this picture!Given the rapid urbanization in many low- and middle-income countries, mass public transport remains a cornerstone of urban mobility. Cities across Africa, Asia, and Latin America are investing in better transportation systems, including high-capacity bus corridors and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems. Yet, with the average bus lifespan exceeding 12 years, it's essential to avoid locking cities into outdated technologies. Developing policies to support and incentivize the adoption of zero-emission vehicles is essential to achieving the electrification of public transport. The European Commission proposes promoting investment initiatives in charging infrastructure and emissions trading, to be implemented starting in 2026, by putting a carbon price on fossil-fuel vehicles. This measure seeks to boost the use of electric vehicles and the transformation of transport systems. Now, how could charging infrastructure be developed to support a potential massive growth in the electric vehicle fleet? What upgrades and innovations are needed to handle this future demand? What would happen if all transportation suddenly depended on the power grid?Save this picture!Save this picture!The UN emphasizes that using public transportation is critical to curbing climate change. Electrifying buses and trains could cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to two-thirds per passenger per kilometer compared to private vehicles. Still, private cars hold the greatest potential for emission reduction. In 2018, light-duty vehicles were responsible for nearly half of all transport emissions—including those from rail, sea, and air travel. Several major carmakers have announced ambitious plans to release new EV models in the next five years.Save this picture!According to a study by the McKinsey Center for Future Mobility (2019), roughly 60% of global car trips are under 8 kilometers, making them ideal for micromobility solutions. Electromicromobility refers to small, lightweight, and low-speed electric transportation options for short distances, such as electric skateboards, scooters, bikes, mopeds, and quadricycles. From a user perspective, electric vehicles still face hurdles like high costs, limited range, and long charging times. However, their broader societal benefits—particularly emissions reductions—are significant. Therefore, local and national governments are encouraged to implement supportive policies, such as vehicle purchase subsidies, tax breaks, free charging stations, parking benefits, access to city centers, and special electricity rates for nighttime charging, etc.Save this picture!Save this picture!Ultimately, we should ask: What lies ahead for modern transportation? How could new forms of natural, artificial, and collective intelligence be integrated into the design of today's transportation systems to improve resilience to environmental and growth challenges? What partnerships between countries, industries, and organizations are needed to ensure a sustainable and innovative supply of key materials? What will happen to used EV batteries and electronic components? Will be electric mobility in cities the only way to reduce carbon emissions?This article is part of the ArchDaily Topics: What Is Future Intelligence?, proudly presented by Gendo, an AI co-pilot for Architects. Our mission at Gendo is to help architects produce concept images 100X faster by focusing on the core of the design process. We have built a cutting edge AI tool in collaboration with architects from some of the most renowned firms such as Zaha Hadid, KPF and David Chipperfield.Every month we explore a topic in-depth through articles, interviews, news, and architecture projects. We invite you to learn more about our ArchDaily Topics. And, as always, at ArchDaily we welcome the contributions of our readers; if you want to submit an article or project, contact us. Image gallerySee allShow less About this authorAgustina IñiguezAuthor••• Cite: Agustina Iñiguez. "How Will Transportation Work in the Future? A Look at the Rise of Electric Mobility in Cities" 03 Jun 2025. ArchDaily. Accessed . <https://www.archdaily.com/1030500/how-will-transportation-work-in-the-future-a-look-at-the-rise-of-electric-mobility-in-cities&gt ISSN 0719-8884Save世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?是否 You've started following your first account!Did you know?You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream

Unlike the other big streamers, Tubi only has a handful of original shows, most of them imports (their original movie selection is much larger). That's not to say it's a wasteland for TV addicts: The streamer might actually have too many shows, a vast and sometimes wild catalog that spans decades. As the likes of Netflix and HBO Max have slimmed down their catalogues, Tubi is growing, offering a mix of established hits, underrated gems, and more obscure offerings. For the sheer breadth of material on offer, it has become the first place I look for anything outside the current zeitgeist—like the following 18 shows, an entirely non-comprehensive sampling of what Tubi has to offer, crossing genres and decades.Gossip Girl (2007 – 2012) Occasionally referred to as the greatest teen drama of all time (certainly this side of 90210), Gossip Girl was a buzzy ratings champ for the CW back in the day, with its juicy, often scandalous storylines that veered so often into intentional satire that it was hard to ever get mad at the ridiculousness of any of it. Set among a group of well-heeled students on Manhattan's Upper East Side, its characters find their private lives being chronicled by the title’s mysterious master of gossip—so think of it as a proto-Bridgerton. You can stream Gossip Girl here.Babylon 5 (1993 – 1998, five seasons) J. Michael Straczynski’s wildly ambitious sci-fi epic was way ahead of its time, with a planned (more or less) five season story arc set on the titular space station. Babylon 5 is a remote outpost that becomes the last best hope for peace in the face of conflicting human and alien agendas—even more so after an ancient threat is awakened. With increasingly complex storylines that expanded over its run, this was a stab at prestige TV before that was a thing, and it still holds up (dated CGI effects notwithstanding. You can stream Babylon 5 here.Empire (2015 – 2020) Hip hop mogul and Empire Entertainment CEO Lucious Lyon (Terrence Howard) is dying, having been diagnosed with ALS at a young age. He wasn't planning to have to hand off his company so early, but nevertheless finds himself preparing his three very different sons (Trai Byers, Jussie Smollett, and Bryshere Y. Gray) to take the keys to the kingdom—by pitting them against one other. Into this already Shakespearean setup steps Lucious' ex-wife Cookie (Taraji P. Henson), just released from prison and harboring her own plans for Lucious's empire. You can stream Empire here. Mr. Robot (2015 – 2019) Social anxiety disorder, clinical depression, and dissociative identity disorder make up the potent blend of neurodivergences challenging Elliot Alderson (Rami Malek), a genius senior cybersecurity engineer at Allsafe Cybersecurity. In season one, he's recruited by an anarchist who goes by the moniker Mr. Robot (Christian Slater) to encrypt all the financial data of a global mega-conglomerate, thereby erasing massive amounts of debt (hey, real-life hackers, maybe take some notes?). The show starts strong and gets better across its increasingly labyrinthian four seasons—utterly preposterous while also feeling realistic in its technical detail. You can stream Mr. Robot here. Boarders (2024 - , two seasons) This British import feels a bit like a latter-day Skins, with a talented cast of young stars-in-waiting (including leads Josh Tedeku and Jodie Campbell) and a scholastic setting. At the (fictional) prestigious boarding school St. Gilbert’s, five Black teens are newly attending, having earned scholarships, but their integration into the existing cliques is less than smooth. The blend of coming-of-age drama with a willingness to take the piss when it comes to the whole rich private school thing makes this Tubi original a good time. You can stream Boarders here.Big Mood (2024 – , renewed for a second season) Another UK import and Tubi original (at least stateside), Big Mood stars Nicola Coughlan (Bridgerton) and Lydia West (It's a Sin) as a couple of besties in East London, living their best millennial thirtysomething lives. Well, kind of: Maggie's dealing with bipolar disorder, and unclear on whether she wants to continue with her medication as she sets out to write a play, while Lydia is doing her very best running a tanking dive bar inherited from her father. It's both a cute dramedy and an impressively frank exploration of the challenges of living with mental illness. You can stream Big Mood here. Vicious (2013 – 2016, two seasons) The old-school sitcom formula has never been executed quite this bitchily, with the inspired pairing of Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi as Freddie Thornhill and Stuart Bixby, a couple of nearly 50 years who’ve developed a love-hate relationship. This cast, which includes Frances de la Tour and Game of Thrones’ Ian Rheon, is unbeatable, and the one-liners are hilariously nasty. You can stream Vicious here.The Haves and the Have Nots (2013 – 2021, eight seasons) Tyler Perry's old-school primetime soap was the show that practically built OWN; it was the then-new network's first scripted show, and an immediate breakout. It follows three families: The wealthy Harringtons and the Cryers are wealthy movers in Atlanta, Georgia, while the Young family is overseen by single mom Hanna, who's both a maid for the Cryers and confidante to the family matriarch. There's juicy tension galore between the three families, in no small part because of class differences, but also because they're all equally screwed. You can stream The Haves and the Have Nots here. Spartacus (2010 – 2013) Doing Ridley Scott’s Gladiator one better in terms of both narrative complexity and in hot shirtless gay arena action, Spartacus starts off as pure spectacle and grows into a juicy, high-gloss soap opera by series' end. Buoyed by performances from leads Andy Whitfield (who tragically passed away during the series' original run), Manu Bennett, John Hannah, and Lucy Lawless, it’s sword-and-sandals done right. A follow-up series is in development over at Starz, so it's a good time to catch up. You can stream Spartacus here. Broadchurch (2013 – 2017) Creator Chris Chibnall's dark crime drama didn't invent its particular sub-genre (whatever you call the one where two troubled homicide detectives butt heads in a gloomy town), but it did popularize it to the point that we've been inundated with countless imitators of wide-ranging quality. With the great pairing of Olivia Colman and David Tennant (joined by yet another Doctor Who Doctor, Jodie Whittaker), Broadchurch still stands alongside the best of its kind. You can stream Broadchurch here.Doctor Who (1963 – 1989, 26 seasons) Speaking of Doctor Who, even if you're current with the modern incarnation (if I can use "modern" for a show that started airing in 2005), you've got a lot of timey-wimey adventures to enjoy. Tubi has the entirity of the surviving 26-season original run, going all the way back to 1963 and the story of a mysterious old man living in a junkyard with his granddaughter. Seven doctors is enough to keep anyone busy for a while. Tubi has the show broken out by Doctor, but, if you want to start from the beginning you can stream The First Doctor here. Haven (2010 – 2015) Tubi is a haven for small gems like this, a five-season Stephen King adaptation originally produced by SyFy. Emily Rose stars as Audrey Parker, and FBI Special Agent sent to the small town of Haven, Maine on a routine case who gets drawn into “The Troubles," a series of harmful supernatural events that have recurred throughout the town’s history. A supernatural-case-of-the-week format gives way to a bigger mystery when Audrey comes to learn that this isn’t her first time in Haven, nor the first time she’s encountered the Troubles. You can stream Haven here.Scandal (2012 – 2018, seven seasons) Shonda Rhimes was already a powerhouse producer and screenwriter with several successful seasons of Grey's Anatomy under her belt when Scandal debuted, but its blend of political thrills and sexy, soapy drama is what solidified her brand, and her spot atop of the modern TV landscape. Kerry Washington stars as Olivia Pope, head of the DC-based crisis management firm Olivia Pope & Associates (OPA), who is the person to call when you've got a PR disaster to fix. If you want to get a sense of the stakes involved, consider that Tony Goldwyn costars as Fitzgerald Grant III, president of the United States, and also Olivia's lover. You can stream Scandal here. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997 – 2003) With word that Sarah Michelle Gellar (and company?) are returning to the wreckage of Sunnydale for a Hulu reboot, it’s probably not a bad time to visit (or revisit, or re-revisit) this seven-season teen vampire hunter saga. While the pacing might feel a little slow, and the effects a little janky, its blend of high school (and then college) angst, kick-ass monster fights, and genuinely laugh-out-loud comedy holds up. You can stream Buffy here.Heartland (2007 – , 18 seasons) If there’s a stereotype that middle-American viewers won’t watch foreign fare, this show puts the lie to it—at least when it comes to imports from Alberta (tariff-free!). Based on a popular book series from Linda Chapman and Beth Chambers (writing under the name Lauren Brooke), the show follows the lives of a family of horse ranchers in western Canada, led by sisters Amy and Lou (Amber Marshall and Michelle Morgan). Tubi currently has only the first 15 seasons of the drama, which has recently been renewed for a 19th. That’s Law & Order-level longevity, people. You can stream Heartland here.Highlander (1992 – 1998, six seasons) An classic of '90s-era syndicated action/adventure, Highlander stars Adrian Paul as the title hero, taking over from Christopher Lambert in the film series. Duncan MacLeod is an immortal warrior living in the modern(-ish) day, hunted by others of his own kind, whose goal is singular: to chop off Duncan's head in order to steal his power. Episodes typically involve some sort of flashback to an earlier era in Duncan's life where we first encounter the threat he'll face in the modern day. There's at least one good sword fight in every episode, and I can't imagine what more you'd want out of a series. Bonus: It carries over the films' kick-ass Queen theme song. You can stream Highlander here. Z Nation (2014 - 2019) The Walking Dead made prestige television out of the zombie apocalypse, but this SyFy channel original is all about zombies as a campy, gory good time.  Things kick off with a soldier who’s been tasked with transporting a package across country. The package in question is actually a human being, the survivor of a zombie bite who might be able to help create a vaccine (take note, The Last of Us fans). This one comes from the schlock-masters at The Asylum, purveyors of infamous B-movies like Sharknado, which should tell you all you need to know about the tone. You can stream Z Nation here.Columbo (1968 – 2003, 16 seasons) Peter Falk's sublimely rumpled detective practically invented the style that Peacock's Poker Face has recently revived: a crime (usually a murder) is committed, the viewers know whodunnit, and Columbo has to solve it. Early on in any given episode, we get to watch the crime being committed, though we don't always know the motive. The challenge isn't to figure out the culprit, but to discover exactly how TV's greatest detective is going to solve the case. You can stream Columbo here.

Frankenstein, the post-Enlightenment novel written by a teenage girl that invented modern science fiction, has long been Guillermo del Toro’s white whale. The Mexican filmmaker has eyed adapting Mary Shelley’s story of a modern day Prometheus since the 1990s. And now it’s almost here. It’s a good feeling for the filmmaker and his admirers… but it also an opportunity of mounting excitement for fans of Shelley, too, since so much of her 1818 masterpiece remains mostly associated with the page in spite of the countless film adaptations based on the story of a man and his monster. And as judged by the first remarkable teaser trailer of Frankenstein introduced by del Toro and stars Oscar Isaac and Mia Goth at Netflix’s Tudum event Saturday night, it’s safe to stay that del Toro is pulling from Shelley directly… including a wrap-around story of hers that is seldom ever attempted on the screen. “What manner of creature is that?” a shaken voice whispers in the new Frankenstein trailer. “What manner of devil made him?” We never exactly see what countenance could earn the dehumanizing term “creature” in the trailer, but we feel his presence. He is a silhouette, a shadow—a vengeful wraith—walking across a sheet of ice with the sunset to his back. And he is approaching what is demonstrably a half-mad, frostbitten Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac), who can only say in his frozen delirium “I did.” Victor is the devil who made that. For fans of Shelley’s novel, or just those with a good memory of Kenneth Branagh’s now mostly forgotten 1994 adaptation of the book, this framing device should send a chill of anticipation through the spine as giddy as any more familiar promises of gods and monsters. That’s because del Toro is adapting the cruel framing device Shelley used to introduce both Victor and the creature he pursues. Indeed, most of Frankenstein on the page is told in flashback and relayed by our protagonist Victor as a kind of last rites confession as he dies from fever and starvation after years and years of chasing his creation north. Always north. Whereas most of the novel takes place actually at the end of the Enlightenment era of the 19th century—the glory days of Mary’s famous philosophical and activist parents—the only “modern” part of the story is to compare the zeal for discovery in Victor with what was only a dawning fascination in the 19th century with discovering the North Pole (a feat that wouldn’t actually be accomplished until the early 20th century). In the book, Victor’s tale of obsession for greatness causes a captain who has led his men to becoming stuck in the Arctic ice to reflect on the potentially lethal consequences of his ambitions—especially after he meets the Monster who later verifies Victor’s story by mourning over the scientist’s body. The framing device is fascinating because of where it places the story in history, but also because it elevates the tragedy of the so-called Monster and his Creator. Who was really hunting who at the end of the world in the North Pole, and who is truly the monster? The Creature did terrible things, but how much of that is Victor’s fault for abandoning his progeny to a lifetime of loneliness hatred, and despair, including by that which gave him life? Both suffer tragic fates in the end in the cold. Unloved and unremembered, except by one sea captain no one will believe. While it remains to be seen if del Toro is doing a straight-ahead faithful adaptation of the novel—in fact we can assume he is not since Isaac’s Victor dresses more like a Victorian of the mid-19th century than a contemporary of Voltaire or Thomas Jefferson, and we also know that Burn Gorman appears in the movie as Fritz, a character created by Universal Pictures in the iconic 1931 film adaptation starring Boris Karloff—it is fascinating to see the master filmmaker returning to the source material. It also raises questions of just where he will go with Jacob Elordi’s intentionally obscured and hidden Monster. We know from the trailer’s end with the Monster attacking the crew of the North Pole-bound ship (a beat also, we might add, is not in the novel) that he has the power of speech. It will be curious indeed to learn if he proves to be a Milton-esque philosopher demon, which is also a largely ignored element of Shelley’s original story. Frankenstein is expected to premiere in November on Netflix.

HBO original The Gilded Age returns for a third season on June 22. This series tells a fictionalized story set during America’s Gilded Age. A time of rapidly increasing prosperity and industry, for those lucky enough to capitalize on it. New York City’s social scene is forced to adapt as people with old money (inherited wealth) and those with new money (wealth from rising industries) clash. Carrie Coon, Morgan Spector, Taissa Farmiga, Cynthia Nixon, and more star in this compelling drama. Fans of The Hunger Games series will be happy to find all four movies in the series on Max from the first of the month. If you need a break from Sunrise on the Reaping theories or simply want to revisit the story that started it all, Max is the place to be. A Minecraft Movie will also be available to stream on Max this month, though the date has yet to be revealed by Warner Bros. Discovery. Here’s everything coming to HBO and Max in June. HBO and Max New Releases – June 2025 June 1 A Hologram for the King (2016)A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)A Perfect Getaway (2009)Backtrack (2016)Batman and Superman: Battle of the Super Sons (2022)Black Patch (1957)Blues in the Night (1941)Casino (1995)Fight Club (1999)Gentleman Jim (1942)Hellboy (2004)I Am Not Your Negro (2017)Igor (2008)Illegal (1955)In the Good Old Summertime (1949)Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)Kid Glove Killer (1942)Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)My Scientology Movie (2017)Numbered Men (1930)One Foot in Heaven (1941)Parasite (2019)Presenting Lily Mars (1943)Pride & Prejudice (2005)Public Enemies (2009)Reign of the Supermen (2019)Serenade (1956)Silver River (1948)Spaceballs (1987)Split (2017)Strike Up the Band (1940)Summer Stock (1950)Superman: Man of Tomorrow (2020)Superman: Red Son (2020)Superman: Unbound (2013)Superman/Batman: Public Enemies (2009)Thank Your Lucky Stars (1943)The Death of Superman (2018)The Fighting 69th (1940)The Harvey Girls (1946)The Hunger Games (2012)The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 (2014)The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 (2015)The Man Who Invented Christmas (2017)The Match King (1932)The Mayor of Hell (1933)The Mortician (HBO Original)The Nitwits (1935)The Prince and the Pauper (1937)The Sea Chase (1955)The Sea Hawk (1940)The Sunlit Night (2019)The Verdict (1946)They Made Me a Criminal (1939)This Side of the Law (1950)Three Faces East (1930)Three Strangers (1946)Total Drama Island, Season 2 (Cartoon Network)Wagons West (1952)Words and Music (1948)You’ll Find Out (1940)Ziegfeld Follies (1946)June 2 BBQ Brawl, Season 6 (Food Network)June 3 Bullet Train (2022)Ugliest House in America, Season 6 (HGTV)June 4 1000-lb Roomies, Season 1 (TLC)Fatal Destination, Season 1 (ID)June 5 Bea’s Block, Season 1C (Max Original)Chespirito: Not Really on Purpose, Season 1 (Max Original)June 6 House Hunters International: Volume 9, Season 201 (HGTV)Parthenope (A24) June 10 Virgins, Season 1 (TLC) Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox! June 11 Guy’s Grocery Games, Season 38 (Food Network)June 12 Bitchin’ Rides, Season 11Mini Beat Power Rockers: A Superheroic Night (Discovery International)June 13 Cleaner (2025)House Hunters: Volume 10, Season 240 (HGTV)Maine Cabin Masters, Season 10 (Magnolia Network)Super Sara (Max Original)Toad & Friends, Season 1BJune 16 Hero Ball, Season 3BJune 17 Dr. Sanjay Gupta Reports: Animal Pharm (CNN Originals, 2025)Super Mega Cakes, Season 1 (Food Network) June 19 Expedition Unknown, Season 15 (Discovery)Mystery At Blind Frog Ranch, Season 5 (Discovery)June 20 House Hunters: Volume 10, Season 241 (HGTV)Lu & The Bally Bunch, Season 1C (Cartoon Network)Now or Never: FC Montfermeil (Max Original)Teen Titans Go!, Season 9B (Cartoon Network)June 21 The Kitchen, Season 38 (Food Network)The Never Ever Mets, Season 2 (OWN)June 22The Gilded Age, Season 3 (HBO Original) June 23 Match Me Abroad, Season 2 (TLC)June 24 Enigma (HBO Original)Mean Girl Murders, Season 3 (ID)The Invitation (2022) June 25 Rehab Addict, Season 10 (HGTV)June 27 House Hunters: Volume 10, Season 242 (HGTV)My Mom Jayne (HBO Original)Pati, Seasons 1&2 (Max Original)The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie (2025)June 29 #Somebody’s Son, Season 1 (OWN)Family or Fiancé, Season 4 (OWN)June 30 90 Day Fiancé: Pillow Talk, Season 11 (TLC)Truck U, Season 21

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.