With yet another failed Starship test this week, in which the ambitious heavy rocket exploded once again, you might reasonably suspect that luck has finally run out for SpaceX. But this degree of failure during a development process isn’t actually unusual, according to Wendy Whitman Cobb, a space policy expert with the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, especially when you’re testing new space technology as complex as a large rocket. However, the Starship tests are meaningfully different from the slow, steady pace of development that we’ve come to expect from the space sector.“The reason a lot of people perceive this to be unusual is that this is not the typical way that we have historically tested rockets,” Whitman Cobb says.Historically speaking, space agencies like NASA or legacy aerospace companies like United Launch Alliance (ULA) have taken their time with rocket development and have not tested until they were confident in a successful outcome. That’s still the case today with major NASA projects like the development of the Space Launch System (SLS), which has now dragged on for over a decade. “They will take as long as they need to to make sure that the rocket is going to work and that a launch is going to be successful,” Whitman Cobb says.“This is not the typical way that we have historically tested rockets.”SpaceX has chosen a different path, in which it tests, fails, and iterates frequently. That process has been at the heart of its success, allowing the company to make developments like the reusable Falcon 9 rocket at a rapid pace. However, it also means frequent and very public failures, which have generated complaints about environmental damage in the local area around the launch site and have caused the company to butt heads with regulatory agencies. There are also significant concerns about the political ties of CEO Elon Musk to the Trump administration and his undemocratic influence over federal regulation of SpaceX’s work.Even within the context of SpaceX’s move-fast-and-break-things approach, though, the development of the Starship has appeared chaotic. Compared to the development of the Falcon 9 rocket, which had plenty of failures but a generally clear forward path from failing often to failing less and less as time went on, Starship has a much more spotty record.Previous development was more incremental, first demonstrating that the rocket was sound before moving onto more complex issues like reusability of the booster or first stage. The company didn’t even attempt to save the booster of a Falcon 9 and reuse it until several years into testing.Starship isn’t like that. “They are trying to do everything at once with Starship,” Whitman Cobb says, as the company is trying to debut an entirely new rocket with new engines and make it reusable all at once. “It really is a very difficult engineering challenge.”“They are trying to do everything at once with Starship.”The Raptor engines that power the Starship are a particularly tough engineering nut to crack, as there are a lot of them — 33 per Starship, all clustered together — and they need to be able to perform the tricky feat of reigniting in space. The relighting of engines has been successful on some of the previous Starship test flights, but it has also been a point of failure.Why, then, is SpaceX pushing for so much, so fast? It’s because Musk is laser-focused on getting to Mars. And while it would theoretically be possible to send a mission to Mars using existing rockets like the Falcon 9, the sheer volume of equipment, supplies, and people needed for a Mars mission has a very large mass. To make Mars missions even remotely affordable, you need to be able to move a lot of mass in one launch — hence the need for a much larger rocket like the Starship or NASA’s SLS.NASA has previously been hedging its bets by developing its own heavy launch rocket as well as supporting the development of Starship. But with recent funding cuts, it’s looking more and more likely that the SLS will get axed — leaving SpaceX as the only player in town to facilitate NASA’s Mars plans. But there’s still an awful lot of work to do to get Starship to a place where serious plans for crewed missions can even be made. “There’s no way that they’re putting people on that right now.”Will a Starship test to Mars happen by 2026, with a crewed test to follow as soon as 2028, as Musk said this week he’s aiming for? “I think it’s completely delusional,” Whitman Cobb says, pointing out that SpaceX has not appeared to be seriously considering issues like adding life support to the Starship or making concrete plans for Mars habitats, launch and landing pads, or infrastructure. “I don’t see SpaceX as putting its money where its mouth is,” Whitman Cobb says. “If they do make the launch window next year, it’s going to be uncrewed. There’s no way that they’re putting people on that right now. And I seriously doubt whether they will make it.”That doesn’t mean Starship will never make it to Mars, of course. “I believe SpaceX will engineer their way out of it. I believe their engineering is good enough that they will make Starship work,” Whitman Cobb says. But getting an uncrewed rocket to Mars within the next decade is a lot more realistic than next year. Putting people on the rocket, though, is another matter entirely. “If they’re looking to build a large-scale human settlement? That’s decades,” Whitman Cobb says. “I don’t know that I will live to see that.”See More:

Here’s a selection of recent headlines about artificial intelligence, picked more or less at random:For some recent graduates, the AI job apocalypse may already be hereArtificial intelligence threatens to raid the water reserves of Europe’s driest regionsTop AI CEO foresees white-collar bloodbathOkay, not exactly at random — I did look for more doomy-sounding headlines. But they weren’t hard to find. That’s because numerous studies indicate that negative or fear-framed coverage of AI in mainstream media tends to outnumber positive framings. And to be clear, there are good reasons for that! From disinformation to cyberwarfare to autonomous weapons to massive job loss to the actual, flat-out end of the world (shameless plug of my book here), there are a lot of things that could go very, very wrong with AI. But as in so many other areas, the emphasis on the negative in artificial intelligence risks overshadowing what could go right — both in the future as this technology continues to develop and right now. As a corrective (and maybe just to ingratiate myself to our potential future robot overlords), here’s a roundup of one way in which AI is already making a positive difference in three important fields.ScienceWhenever anyone asks me about an unquestionably good use of AI, I point to one thing: AlphaFold. After all, how many other AI models have won their creators an actual Nobel Prize? AlphaFold, which was developed by the Google-owned AI company DeepMind, is an AI model that predicts the 3D structures of proteins based solely on their amino acid sequences. That’s important because scientists need to predict the shape of protein to better understand how it might function and how it might be used in products like drugs. That’s known as the “protein-folding problem” — and it was a problem because while human researchers could eventually figure out the structure of a protein, it would often take them years of laborious work in the lab to do so. AlphaFold, through machine-learning methods I couldn’t explain to you if I tried, can make predictions in as little as five seconds, with accuracy that is almost as good as gold-standard experimental methods. By speeding up a basic part of biomedical research, AlphaFold has already managed to meaningfully accelerate drug development in everything from Huntington’s disease to antibiotic resistance. And Google DeepMind’s decision last year to open source AlphaFold3, its most advanced model, for non-commercial academic use has greatly expanded the number of researchers who can take advantage of it.MedicineYou wouldn’t know it from watching medical dramas like The Pitt, but doctors spend a lot of time doing paperwork — two hours of it for every one hour they actually spend with a patient, by one count. Finding a way to cut down that time could free up doctors to do actual medicine and help stem the problem of burnout. That’s where AI is already making a difference. As the Wall Street Journal reported this week, health care systems across the country are employing “AI scribes” — systems that automatically capture doctor-patient discussions, update medical records, and generally automate as much as possible around the documentation of a medical interaction. In one pilot study employing AI scribes from Microsoft and a startup called Abridge, doctors cut back daily documentation time from 90 minutes to under 30 minutes. Not only do ambient-listening AI products free doctors from much of the need to make manual notes, but they can eventually connect new data from a doctor-patient interaction with existing medical records and ensure connections and insights on care don’t fall between the cracks. “I see it being able to provide insights about the patient that the human mind just can’t do in a reasonable time,” Dr. Lance Owens, regional chief medical information officer at University of Michigan Health, told the Journal.ClimateA timely warning about a natural disaster can mean the difference between life and death, especially in already vulnerable poor countries. That is why Google Flood Hub is so important.An open-access, AI-driven river-flood early warning system, Flood Hub provides seven-day flood forecasts for 700 million people in 100 countries. It works by marrying a global hydrology model that can forecast river levels even in basins that lack physical flood gauges with an inundation model that converts those predicted levels into high-resolution flood maps. This allows villagers to see exactly what roads or fields might end up underwater. Flood Hub, to my mind, is one of the clearest examples of how AI can be used for good for those who need it most. Though many rich countries like the US are included in Flood Hub, they mostly already have infrastructure in place to forecast the effects of extreme weather. (Unless, of course, we cut it all from the budget.) But many poor countries lack those capabilities. AI’s ability to drastically reduce the labor and cost of such forecasts has made it possible to extend those lifesaving capabilities to those who need it most.One more cool thing: The NGO GiveDirectly — which provides direct cash payments to the global poor — has experimented with using Flood Hub warnings to send families hundreds of dollars in cash aid days before an expected flood to help themselves prepare for the worst. As the threat of extreme weather grows, thanks to climate change and population movement, this is the kind of cutting-edge philanthropy.AI for goodEven what seems to be the best applications for AI can come with their drawbacks. The same kind of AI technology that allows AlphaFold to help speed drug development could conceivably be used one day to more rapidly design bioweapons. AI scribes in medicine raise questions about patient confidentiality and the risk of hacking. And while it’s hard to find fault in an AI system that can help warn poor people about natural disasters, the lack of access to the internet in the poorest countries can limit the value of those warnings — and there’s not much AI can do to change that.But with the headlines around AI leaning so apocalyptic, it’s easy to overlook the tangible benefits AI already delivers. Ultimately AI is a tool. A powerful tool, but a tool nonetheless. And like any tool, what it will do — bad and good — will be determined by how we use it.A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!See More:

Over the past few weeks, VMware customers holding onto their perpetual licenses, which are often unsupported and in limbo, have reportedly begun receiving formal cease-and-desist letters from Broadcom. The message is as blunt as it is unsettling: your support contract has expired, and you are to immediately uninstall any updates, patches, or enhancements released since that expiration date. Not only that, but audits could follow, with the possibility of “enhanced damages” for breach of contract. This is a sharp escalation in an effort to push perpetual license holders toward VMware’s new subscription-only model. For many, it signals the end of an era where critical infrastructure software could be owned, maintained, and supported on long-term, stable terms. Now, even those who bought VMware licenses outright are being told that support access is off the table unless they sign on to the new subscription regime. As a result, enterprises are being forced to make tough decisions about how they manage and support one of the most foundational layers of their IT environments. VMware isn’t just another piece of enterprise software. It’s the plumbing. The foundation. The layer everything else runs on top of, which is precisely why many CIOs flinch at the idea of running unsupported. The potential risk is too great. A vulnerability or failure in your virtual infrastructure isn’t the same as a bug in a CRM. It’s a systemic weakness. It touches everything. This technical risk is, without question, the biggest barrier to any organization considering support options outside of VMware’s official offering. And it’s a valid concern.  But technical risk isn’t black and white. It varies widely depending on version, deployment model, network architecture, and operational maturity. A tightly managed and stable VMware environment running a mature release with minimal exposure doesn’t carry the same risk profile as an open, multi-tenant deployment on a newer build. The prevailing assumption is that support equals security—and that operating unsupported equals exposure. But this relationship is more complex than it appears. In most enterprise environments, security is not determined by whether a patch is available. It’s determined by how well the environment is configured, managed, and monitored. Patches are not applied instantly. Risk assessments, integration testing, and change control processes introduce natural delays. And in many cases, security gaps arise not from missing patches but from misconfigurations: exposed management interfaces, weak credentials, overly permissive access. An unpatched environment, properly maintained and reviewed, can be significantly more secure than a patched one with poor hygiene. Support models that focus on proactive security—through vulnerability analysis, environment-specific impact assessments, and mitigation strategies—offer a different but equally valid form of protection. They don’t rely on patch delivery alone. They consider how a vulnerability behaves in the attack chain, whether it’s exploitable, and what compensating controls are available.  Read more about VMware security Hacking contest exposes VMware security: In what has been described as a historical first, hackers in Berlin have been able to demo successful attacks on the ESXi hypervisor. No workaround leads to more pain for VMware users: There are patches for the latest batch of security alerts from Broadcom, but VMware users on perpetual licences may not have access. This kind of tailored risk management is especially important now, as vendor support for older VMware versions diminishes. Many reported vulnerabilities relate to newer product components or bundled services, not the core virtualization stack. The perception of rising security risk needs to be balanced against the stability and maturity of the versions in question. In other words, not all unsupported deployments are created equal. Some VMware environments—particularly older versions like vSphere 5.x or 6.x—are already beyond the range of vendor patching. In these cases, the transition to unsupported status may be more symbolic than substantive. The risk profile has not meaningfully changed.  Others, particularly organisations operating vSphere 7 or 8 without an active support contract, face a more complex challenge. Some critical security patches remain accessible, depending on severity and version, but the margin of certainty is shrinking.   These are the cases where enterprises are increasingly turning to alternative support models to bridge the gap—ensuring continuity, maintaining compliance, and retaining access to skilled technical expertise. Third-party support is sometimes seen as a temporary fix—a way to buy time while organizations figure out their long-term plans. And it can serve that purpose well. But increasingly, it’s also being recognized as a strategic choice in its own right: a long-term solution for enterprises that want to maintain operational stability with a reliable support partner while retaining control over their virtualization roadmap.What distinguishes third-party support in this context isn’t just cost control, it’s methodology.   Risk is assessed holistically, identifying which vulnerabilities truly matter, what can be addressed through configuration, and when escalation is genuinely required. This approach recognises that most enterprises aren’t chasing bleeding-edge features. They want to run stable, well-understood environments that don’t change unpredictably. Third-party support helps them do exactly that, without being forced into a rapid, costly migration or a subscription contract that may not align with their business needs.  Crucially, it enables organisations to move on their own timeline. Much of the conversation around unsupported VMware environments focuses on technical risk. But the longer-term threat may be strategic. The end of perpetual licensing, the sharp rise in subscription pricing, and now the legal enforcement of support boundaries all points to a much bigger problem: a loss of control over infrastructure strategy.  Vendor-imposed timelines, licensing models, and audit policies are increasingly dictating how organizations use the very software they once owned outright. Third-party support doesn’t eliminate risk—nothing can. But it redistributes and controls it. It gives enterprises more agency over when and how they migrate, how they manage updates, and where they invest. In a landscape shaped by vendor agendas, that independence is increasingly critical.  Broadcom’s cease-and-desist letters represent a new phase in the relationship between software vendors and customers—one defined not by collaboration, but by contractual enforcement. And for VMware customers still clinging to the idea of “owning” their infrastructure, it’s a rude awakening: support is no longer optional, and perpetual is no longer forever. Organizations now face three paths: accept the subscription model, attempt a rapid migration to an alternative platform, or find a support model that gives them the stability to decide their future on their own terms.  For many, the third option is the only one that balances operational security with strategic flexibility.  The question now isn’t whether unsupported infrastructure is risky. The question is whether the greater risk is allowing someone else to dictate what happens next. 

Streaming Wars is a weekly opinion column by IGN’s Streaming Editor, Amelia Emberwing. Check out the last entry No, Netflix Isn't Saving Hollywood (But It Isn't Killing It, Either)This column contains spoilers for Season 2 of The Last of Us on HBO Max as well as The Last of Us Part II game. When Joel was brutally killed in the second episode of HBO’s The Last of Us Season 2, it confirmed what many fans of the games expected was coming. But as the season progressed after that point, Joel’s death came and went without any significance. Replacing it was, for me, a certainty: what was a controversial decision for the The Last of Us game franchise would prove to be a killing blow for the television series.Now, I realize that an adaptation fundamentally deviating from its source material can be polarizing in and of itself, but the HBO series simply did not need to kill Joel to successfully tell its story.First and foremost, I think it’s important to note that there’s a reason that this column is being written at the end of the season rather than immediately after Joel’s (Pedro Pascal) death in Episode 2. I did want to be wrong, for whatever that sentiment might be worth. I dutifully watched the rest of the season, hoping that the show’s writers would find a way to reset their story and carry on their narrative in any kind of meaningful way. But, despite the best efforts of Bella Ramsey and newcomers Isabela Merced, Kaitlyn Dever and Young Mazino, there’s little to be done when your blockbuster show’s first season was fully reliant on a relationship that no longer exists. The show’s audience — which is made up of plenty of folks who have never played the games — signed up for a series that no longer exists. The Last Of Us Series Messes With Canon, But the Wrong PartsThe Last of Us has implemented a series of story elements that deviate from the game, and vary in impact, but have broadly served the medium shift. Bill (Nick Offerman) and Frank’s (Murray Bartlet) Season 1 episode wasn’t just the best of the series, it was one of the best episodes of television that year, it hasn’t mattered at all that Dever’s Abby isn’t jacked the way she is in the game, Season 1 had tendrils instead of spores, Stalkers play more of a role in the series than they did during gameplay, etc.But the Big Joel Death Scene™ features both 1:1 scenes and major canon divergence, and the core problem with the majority of Season 2 is that the series stayed loyal where it shouldn’t have and diverted where it should have remained true to story. In killing Joel and revealing Abby’s motives from the start, The Last of Us series removed any reason for the audience to return in Season 3.In the game, players stuck around when it came time to play Abby because they needed to know why the hell she did what she did. By the time that information is revealed, Abby had become interesting enough for people to keep playing. In the series, since Abby’s motivations were revealed pretty much in the series premiere, all viewers have to look forward to now is wondering who’s going to shoot who or who is going to forgive who first. And, with respect to what I know is a long adored franchise, I’m forced to ask why should the television audience care?The series either needed to keep Joel alive, choosing to have Abby beat him within an inch of his life and have Ellie believe that he was dead before leaving Jackson on her revenge tour, or leave Abby’s motives a mystery. Joel may have been the inciting incident that made the forgiveness meaningful in the game, but let’s not pretend it’s the only way to get to the desired end result. This series has wildly talented writers attached. It can be done. Meanwhile, while the mystery of Abby’s motivations wouldn’t have been enough to keep me around personally, I can see why it would appeal to a broader television audience. Now though, we’re all stuck in an impending future of no catharsis.Not One, Not Two, But Three Shows in One [Derogatory]Ellie spent much of this season insisting she’s not like Abby despite her rising body count and similar obsession. This will remain a throughline for the upcoming season (or seasons, if co-creator Craig Mazin has his way) even though Ellie will continue to make rash decisions on her quest for revenge. All of this will come after Ellie’s current pickle, as we left her with Abby’s gun pointed squarely at her face. Season 2’s odd “cliffhanger” is another 1:1 pull from the game, as this is the moment where you shift from playing Ellie to playing Abby. This means that we can likely expect the central focus of the series to shift yet again, giving us not one show, not two shows, but a surprise third show. The thing about these focus and perspective shifts is that they totally could have worked if they had billed The Last of Us as an anthology series with the overall wrap-around (the narrative treatment surrounding the individual stories that ties everything together) being the apocalypse they’re all sharing. But because this was presented as a traditional prestige series, there are rules and expectations as to how the story is meant to play out. Storytelling rules are made to be broken, but Season 2 does not inspire any faith that the rest of The Last of Us series will succeed in doing so.Television has always played with the death of the mentor. It’s a trope that often offers more meaning than most, forcing the protagonist to finally take said mentor’s lessons to heart or otherwise reckon with the devastation of their loss. The difference here is that there is typically a broader ensemble to rely on to avoid shaking up the core of the series. We get a little bit of that from Season 2 in Merced’s Dina and Manzino’s Jesse, but they aren’t meaningfully established before the core relationship of the series is destroyed. By introducing them later — and then giving us little reason to care about them until after that still — the foundation of the series remains fractured in a way that seems beyond repair. But that fracture was always avoidable.All signs point to Season 3 being told from Abby’s perspective.Season 1 set the expectation for television viewers that this was a show about Joel and Ellie. Season 2 haphazardly shifted that focus to a story about Ellie, Dina and their quest for revenge against Abby. All signs point to Season 3 being told from Abby’s perspective as she rescues defecting Seraphites Lev and Yara three days before murdering Jesse and holding Ellie and Tommy (Gabriel Luna) at gunpoint. While I cannot stress enough that Kaitlyn Dever is doing great work with the material she has been given, what reason do folks have to stick around at this point? Television viewers with no knowledge of the games aren’t going to buy into the show suddenly being told from the perspective of someone that they’ve been given no reason to care about. I am from the outside looking in when it comes to the game, but it doesn’t seem likely that the WLF vs. Seraphites war was engaging enough to watch a second time in TV form, even with Isaac’s (Jeffrey Wright) expanded involvement in the series. Is there enough interest in seeing Ellie and Abby’s anticlimactic ending to keep viewers already in the know around?It’s All a CompetitionGames as a medium have plenty of hurdles, but they have the benefit of fewer releases than television by a remarkable margin and, whether the audience loves or hates a game, it’s already bought and paid for. The Last of Us Part II may be plenty controversial (all of the best art is!) but a key factor in any television show’s success is giving the audience a reason to return episode after episode. The story format's constantly shifting perspective is a tremendous hurdle in and of itself. Add in The Last of Us’ wildly short seasons, long hiatuses, and Season 2’s lackluster story, and you’ve got yourself one hell of a pickle when it comes to getting fans back for Season 3. The rest of The Last of Us Part II’s arc is one focused on forgiveness and how being hellbent on revenge tears everything apart. Sometimes the journey on the way to an already well-known ending is worth it for the ride (looking at you, Andor)! But given that The Last of Us Season 2 featured exactly one compelling episode focused on a flashback with its now long-dead protagonist, is that journey worth it? The cast sure is doing their damndest to ensure that’s the case, but will that be enough for the audience?Season 2’s penultimate episode may have been great, and Neil Druckmann has confirmed that we’ll have more Joel flashbacks to come, but it’s just not a bandaid to the show’s problem. No amount of strong performances or stellar production value can fix a failure to adapt your story to a new medium. Joel ain’t coming back to life and there’s no putting Abby’s reveal back in the proverbial bag. The Season 2 finale was lackluster at best, the rest of the season wasn’t much better, and knowing where the story heads next forces me to wonder if The Last of Us’ best days are behind it. It’s a dog eat dog world in the land of TV, and people’s time is a zero-sum game. With such high competition and waning interest from viewers, maybe it’s just time to take the show to look at a pretty lake while it rides out its last moments before losing itself to the infection…

John Edwards, Technology Journalist & AuthorMay 27, 20254 Min ReadSharon Mandell, CIO of Juniper NetworksSharon Mandell, chief information officer of Juniper Networks, has held various CIO and CTO roles over the past 25 years, each building upon her previous experience and matching her current life phase. In her current role, Mandell is in charge of IT strategy and implementation for an enterprise that offers high-performance networking and cybersecurity products to service providers, businesses, and public sector organizations. In a recent email interview, Mandell discussed the options available for CIOs looking to further advance their careers. What should be the next logical career step for a current CIO? That really depends on the individual CIO, their time in the role, the scope of their responsibilities, the scale of the companies they've worked for, and most importantly, their personal interests and aspirations. The next step could be another CIO role at a larger company in the same industry, or a shift to a different industry -- smaller, same-sized, or even larger -- if the challenge is compelling. It could be a smaller organization with a mission or opportunity that you’ve always wanted to take on. Some CIOs take on adjacent or additional functions -- customer support, engineering, marketing, HR. I haven't yet seen a CIO move into CFO or chief counsel, but with the right background, it's not out of the question. Related:You could step into a COO or even CEO role. Some [CIOs] move into venture capital or advisory roles. There's no single "right" next step -- it's about what makes sense for your unique path and purpose. When is the best time to make a career move? When you feel like you're no longer having a significant impact or adding meaningful value in your current role. I've often felt taking on new roles can feel like being thrown into the deep end of the pool -- completely overwhelmed at first, but eventually you develop a vision and begin driving change. When those changes start to feel incremental instead of transformative, it may be time to move on. Sometimes, opportunities show up when you're not actively looking -- something that fills a gap in your background, stretches you in a big way, or offers a challenge you’ve always wanted to take on. Even if you're happy where you are -- not that the CIO role is ever truly comfortable -- you’ve got to be open to those moments. When is the best time to stay in place? I don't like leaving a role when I've taken a risk on a project, a technology, or a transformation and haven't yet seen it through to a solid or stable outcome. Related:I also don't want to leave a leadership team holding the bag, especially if I've been pushing them outside their comfort zones. I want my peers to understand why I've made certain decisions, and that usually means staying long enough to deliver real results. That said, sometimes opportunities won't wait. You’ll have to weigh whether staying to finish something or making a move offers more long-term value. At the end of the day, I want the people I leave behind to want to work with me again should the right opportunity arise. What's the biggest mistake CIOs make when planning a career move? Chasing title, prestige, or compensation as the sole driver of the decision, or assuming that "bigger" is always better. At the end of the day, what matters most is the people you surround yourself with, the impact you're able to make, and what you learn along the way. The right role should stretch you, challenge you, and allow you to contribute meaningfully to the organization's success. That’s what makes a career move truly worth it. Is there anything else you would like to add? I’ve never been someone who obsessively mapped out a career trajectory. I've made decisions based on what felt right for my life at the time. There were points when I took smaller roles because they gave me the balance I needed as a single mom. I passed on big opportunities because I didn't want to relocate. I've moved back and forth between CIO and CTO roles more than once. Related:The common thread has been this: I look for roles that challenge me, expand my perspective, and give me big new experiences to grow from -- even if I know they won't be easy or fun. Those are the ones that build grit, resilience, and passion. The money, title, and scope tend to follow if you execute well. I may not end up with the biggest job or the highest salary, but I’ve had one heck of a ride, and that’s what makes it all worth it. Read more about:Network ComputingAbout the AuthorJohn EdwardsTechnology Journalist & AuthorJohn Edwards is a veteran business technology journalist. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and numerous business and technology publications, including Computerworld, CFO Magazine, IBM Data Management Magazine, RFID Journal, and Electronic Design. He has also written columns for The Economist's Business Intelligence Unit and PricewaterhouseCoopers' Communications Direct. John has authored several books on business technology topics. His work began appearing online as early as 1983. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, he wrote daily news and feature articles for both the CompuServe and Prodigy online services. His "Behind the Screens" commentaries made him the world's first known professional blogger.See more from John EdwardsWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

ZARA Nanjing Xinjiekou | © Seth Powers, ZARA Within the dense commercial fabric of Nanjing’s Xinjiekou district, AIM Architecture’s intervention for ZARA transcends the conventional boundaries of retail design. Rather than presenting a sealed envelope, the store engages directly with the public realm, positioning itself as an architectural node in the city’s pedestrian network. The project acknowledges the evolving role of high-street retail in an era increasingly defined by digital commerce. In this context, the store becomes a civic gesture, serving as a point of sale and an interface between the brand and the city. ZARA Nanjing Xinjiekou Flagship Store Technical Information Architects1-13: AIM Architecture Location: Xinjiekou, Nanjing, China Client: ZARA Commercial (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Area: 3,450 m2 | 37,135 Sq. Ft. Project Year: 2023 – 2025 Photographs: © Seth Powers, ZARA We designed the ZARA Nanjing flagship as a seamless extension of the city, a space where retail, public life, and cultural engagement converge to reshape the role of the store in the urban landscape. – AIM Architecture Architects ZARA Nanjing Xinjiekou Flagship Store Photographs © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA © Seth Powers, ZARA Contextual Integration and Urban Engagement A key architectural move is the introduction of a generous cantilevered canopy and fluid facade, softening the threshold between the street and the interior. This transitional zone is supported by a reconfigured streetscape and entrance plaza, inviting occupation beyond the function of shopping. These spatial devices are calibrated to intensify the porosity between inside and outside, fostering a continuity of urban experience. The architectural language, while assertive, avoids spectacle. Instead, it aligns with the rhythms of the street, suggesting a model for how retail environments might more meaningfully participate in the life of the city. AIM Architecture eschews traditional retail hierarchies in favor of a layered and adaptive spatial arrangement. The design is organized around a sequence of interrelated zones, each calibrated to support distinct experiential intensities. At the ground level, the introduction of ZARA Salon offers a refined, intimate encounter with the brand. This contrasts with the upper levels, where spatial arrangements and materiality adopt a more experimental and energetic tone. These programmatic shifts articulate a nuanced understanding of the store’s diverse user profiles and behavioral patterns. Central to the spatial composition is the double-height entrance plaza, conceived as a flexible platform for cultural engagement. Rather than being subordinated to commercial imperatives, this space opens itself to temporary exhibitions, artistic collaborations, and public events. The integration of a visible automated clothing transportation system along a glazed wall serves a dual function: operational efficiency and spatial expression. By revealing the store’s logistical mechanisms, the architecture foregrounds process as a form of engagement, reinforcing the store’s identity as an evolving machine. Material Expression and Architectural Language Material choices throughout the project articulate a sensibility rooted in clarity, tactility, and contextual responsiveness. The palette includes exposed structural concrete, red brick, stainless steel, solid wood, and ultra-clear glass. These materials are not merely applied as surface treatments but are used to express the building’s spatial and structural logic. One of the project’s most distinctive features is the red brick “mountain” staircase that extends toward the public realm. This element performs multiple roles: it serves as circulation, seating, display, and an urban landmark. Its textured materiality references the local architectural vernacular, grounding the otherwise contemporary design in its geographic and cultural context. Inside, the polished concrete floors and cassette ceiling system establishes a framework of disciplined neutrality, allowing the dynamic display environments and customer movement to animate the space without visual clutter. The approach to detailing reflects a commitment to architectural integrity. Junctions are resolved with precision, and structural elements are left deliberately exposed, contributing to a language of authenticity. The lighting strategy, developed in collaboration with Fagerhult, underscores spatial transitions and accentuates material contrasts without resorting to theatricality. Toward a New Retail Paradigm: Cultural Infrastructure The ZARA Nanjing Xinjiekou Flagship Store points toward a redefinition of the retail typology, aligning it more closely with the functions of cultural infrastructure. This is a project where architecture mediates between commerce and community, suggesting that the store can operate as a space of encounter, interaction, and expression. In a moment where physical retail must justify its relevance against the efficiency of e-commerce, AIM Architecture proposes a counter-model in which the store contributes to the public sphere, both spatially and culturally. The project offers an expanded understanding of what a flagship store can be through architectural interventions that encourage lingering discovery and participation. It is a space of consumption and a spatial framework for collective experience. ZARA Nanjing Xinjiekou Flagship Store Plans Ground Level | © AIM Architecture Upper Level | © AIM Architecture ZARA Nanjing Xinjiekou Flagship Store Image Gallery About AIM Architecture AIM Architecture is a Shanghai-based architectural practice founded by Wendy Saunders and Vincent de Graaf. It is known for its multidisciplinary approach that blends architecture, interior design, and urban design. The studio focuses on creating contextually responsive and experientially rich environments that engage with the cultural, social, and spatial dynamics of contemporary cities. Credits and Additional Notes Design Principals: Wendy Saunders, Vincent de Graaf Project Manager: Marta Pozo, Sacha Silva Project Architect: Ewa Szajda Design Team: Alba Galan, Davide Signorato, Emilio Wang, Gabrielle Liu, Guanlin Li, Haochen Yang, Jerry Guo, Song Jie, Kang Jin, Junger Xia, Kexin Gao, Mia Lei, Nora Liu, Victor Mongin, Wei Zheng, Weisha Dai, Qianqian Bao, Xiao Wen, Zhang Yi, Zhao Na Visualization: JIAO Yan Structural Engineer & Façade Consultant: bespoke. Sur-Mesure Engineering Studio General Contractor: Shanghai Choyoin Construction Group Co., Ltd Façade Contractor: Shanghai Choyoin Construction Group Co., Ltd Furniture: Caamaño Asia (KunShan) Furniture and Complements Co., Ltd  Furniture and Complements Co., Ltd (glass),  Lighting Supplier: Fagerhult Audiovisual Supplier: Inusual Comunicación Innovadora / ICI Technology Shenzhen Ltd. Zacaffè Design: Art Recherche Industrie Digital Experience: Bagel Affairs

John Edwards, Technology Journalist & AuthorMay 27, 20254 Min ReadSharon Mandell, CIO of Juniper NetworksSharon Mandell, chief information officer of Juniper Networks, has held various CIO and CTO roles over the past 25 years, each building upon her previous experience and matching her current life phase. In her current role, Mandell is in charge of IT strategy and implementation for an enterprise that offers high-performance networking and cybersecurity products to service providers, businesses, and public sector organizations. In a recent email interview, Mandell discussed the options available for CIOs looking to further advance their careers. What should be the next logical career step for a current CIO? That really depends on the individual CIO, their time in the role, the scope of their responsibilities, the scale of the companies they've worked for, and most importantly, their personal interests and aspirations. The next step could be another CIO role at a larger company in the same industry, or a shift to a different industry -- smaller, same-sized, or even larger -- if the challenge is compelling. It could be a smaller organization with a mission or opportunity that you’ve always wanted to take on. Some CIOs take on adjacent or additional functions -- customer support, engineering, marketing, HR. I haven't yet seen a CIO move into CFO or chief counsel, but with the right background, it's not out of the question. Related:You could step into a COO or even CEO role. Some [CIOs] move into venture capital or advisory roles. There's no single "right" next step -- it's about what makes sense for your unique path and purpose. When is the best time to make a career move? When you feel like you're no longer having a significant impact or adding meaningful value in your current role. I've often felt taking on new roles can feel like being thrown into the deep end of the pool -- completely overwhelmed at first, but eventually you develop a vision and begin driving change. When those changes start to feel incremental instead of transformative, it may be time to move on. Sometimes, opportunities show up when you're not actively looking -- something that fills a gap in your background, stretches you in a big way, or offers a challenge you’ve always wanted to take on. Even if you're happy where you are -- not that the CIO role is ever truly comfortable -- you’ve got to be open to those moments. When is the best time to stay in place? I don't like leaving a role when I've taken a risk on a project, a technology, or a transformation and haven't yet seen it through to a solid or stable outcome. Related:I also don't want to leave a leadership team holding the bag, especially if I've been pushing them outside their comfort zones. I want my peers to understand why I've made certain decisions, and that usually means staying long enough to deliver real results. That said, sometimes opportunities won't wait. You’ll have to weigh whether staying to finish something or making a move offers more long-term value. At the end of the day, I want the people I leave behind to want to work with me again should the right opportunity arise. What's the biggest mistake CIOs make when planning a career move? Chasing title, prestige, or compensation as the sole driver of the decision, or assuming that "bigger" is always better. At the end of the day, what matters most is the people you surround yourself with, the impact you're able to make, and what you learn along the way. The right role should stretch you, challenge you, and allow you to contribute meaningfully to the organization's success. That’s what makes a career move truly worth it. Is there anything else you would like to add? I’ve never been someone who obsessively mapped out a career trajectory. I've made decisions based on what felt right for my life at the time. There were points when I took smaller roles because they gave me the balance I needed as a single mom. I passed on big opportunities because I didn't want to relocate. I've moved back and forth between CIO and CTO roles more than once. Related:The common thread has been this: I look for roles that challenge me, expand my perspective, and give me big new experiences to grow from -- even if I know they won't be easy or fun. Those are the ones that build grit, resilience, and passion. The money, title, and scope tend to follow if you execute well. I may not end up with the biggest job or the highest salary, but I’ve had one heck of a ride, and that’s what makes it all worth it. Read more about:Network ComputingAbout the AuthorJohn EdwardsTechnology Journalist & AuthorJohn Edwards is a veteran business technology journalist. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and numerous business and technology publications, including Computerworld, CFO Magazine, IBM Data Management Magazine, RFID Journal, and Electronic Design. He has also written columns for The Economist's Business Intelligence Unit and PricewaterhouseCoopers' Communications Direct. John has authored several books on business technology topics. His work began appearing online as early as 1983. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, he wrote daily news and feature articles for both the CompuServe and Prodigy online services. His "Behind the Screens" commentaries made him the world's first known professional blogger.See more from John EdwardsWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

The core idea of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) is to create models that can combine the richness of visual content with the logic of language. However, despite advances in this field, many models struggle to connect the two domains effectively, leading to limited performance in complex reasoning tasks that involve visual components. A major challenge in building such models is their limited ability to combine visual understanding with logical thinking. Current systems often produce textual outputs that explain reasoning but fail to reference the specific parts of an image they rely on. This creates a gap where models may arrive at an answer without clearly showing how the visual evidence contributed to their decision. It’s also difficult to ensure that models generate visual reasoning steps directly connecting to their answers. The fundamental problem lies in how to naturally train models to interleave text and image reasoning without needing large datasets annotated with visual references, which are scarce and expensive to produce. Existing methods try to address this by using reinforcement learning or prompting strategies. Some systems generate bounding box coordinates as answers, while others produce step-by-step textual reasoning chains. However, these approaches have limitations. Models that only produce bounding boxes lack explanation, while those generating only text risk ignoring visual evidence. Previous methods often separate visual grounding and reasoning, making it hard for models to explain why a particular visual element leads to a certain conclusion. While some models use dense supervision data or additional tools, they generally require heavy annotation and do not scale well. This makes it difficult for developers to create models that can explain their reasoning transparently and handle various visual tasks with minimal data. Researchers from UC Santa Cruz and eBay introduced a new method called Grounded Reasoning with Images and Text (GRIT) that allows MLLMs like Qwen 2.5-VL and InternVL 3 to generate reasoning chains that mix natural language with explicit bounding box coordinates pointing to relevant image regions. This unified approach enables models to reason about and visually ground their answers without requiring dense annotations or labeled reasoning chains. GRIT also uses a lightweight reinforcement learning algorithm called GRPO-GR, which optimizes both the accuracy of the final answer and the structure of the reasoning, encouraging models to include specific tokens like <think> and <rethink>, as well as bounding box formats. This design eliminates the need for costly annotated data while ensuring that models learn to reference visual content meaningfully within their logical steps. The methodology in GRIT focuses on generating outputs that combine textual reasoning and visual grounding seamlessly. Instead of requiring models to process cropped images or additional visual data after generating bounding boxes, GRIT teaches models to use their internal understanding of the image. Bounding boxes are generated during the reasoning process, and models learn to reflect on these coordinates within their logical reasoning. The reinforcement learning framework rewards the correct use of bounding box formats and reasoning structure, and it guides models to produce coherent, grounded reasoning chains. GRIT demonstrates remarkable data efficiency by using only 20 image-question-answer triplets sourced from Visual Spatial Reasoning and TallyQA datasets. The model training was conducted on NVIDIA A100 GPUs, with optimization techniques like AdamW and a cosine scheduler applied over 200 training steps, which shows the method’s scalability despite limited data. Performance evaluations revealed that GRIT-trained models outperform several baselines in reasoning and grounding accuracy. For example, Qwen 2.5-VL trained with GRIT achieved 72.9% answer accuracy on Visual Spatial Reasoning, 47.8% on TallyQA, and 62.8% on GQA datasets. It also reached a grounding IoU score of 0.325 on VSR and 0.447 on TallyQA. In contrast, baseline models like Direct Query or Chain-of-Thought often performed significantly lower, showing limited ability to unify reasoning with visual grounding. GRIT models demonstrated a strong correlation between visual regions and textual reasoning, producing outputs that reflected a meaningful connection between image evidence and logical thought. GRIT also showed improvements on out-of-domain benchmarks, though gains were more pronounced on in-domain data, highlighting the importance of training data diversity for broader generalization. In conclusion, the research addressed the problem of disconnected reasoning and visual grounding in MLLMs by introducing GRIT. The method allows models to reason with images through a simple, efficient approach that requires minimal data. GRIT successfully teaches MLLMs to combine visual evidence with logical reasoning in a unified output, achieving strong performance across multiple benchmarks and demonstrating a promising step toward more interpretable AI systems. Check out the Paper, Project, and GitHub Page. All credit for this research goes to the researchers of this project. Also, feel free to follow us on Twitter and don’t forget to join our 95k+ ML SubReddit and Subscribe to our Newsletter. NikhilNikhil is an intern consultant at Marktechpost. He is pursuing an integrated dual degree in Materials at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. Nikhil is an AI/ML enthusiast who is always researching applications in fields like biomaterials and biomedical science. With a strong background in Material Science, he is exploring new advancements and creating opportunities to contribute.Nikhilhttps://www.marktechpost.com/author/nikhil0980/This AI Paper Introduces Group Think: A Token-Level Multi-Agent Reasoning Paradigm for Faster and Collaborative LLM InferenceNikhilhttps://www.marktechpost.com/author/nikhil0980/Researchers from the National University of Singapore Introduce ‘Thinkless,’ an Adaptive Framework that Reduces Unnecessary Reasoning by up to 90% Using DeGRPONikhilhttps://www.marktechpost.com/author/nikhil0980/This AI Paper Introduces MathCoder-VL and FigCodifier: Advancing Multimodal Mathematical Reasoning with Vision-to-Code AlignmentNikhilhttps://www.marktechpost.com/author/nikhil0980/This AI Paper Introduces PARSCALE (Parallel Scaling): A Parallel Computation Method for Efficient and Scalable Language Model Deployment

"Duolingo had been riding high," reports Fast Company, until CEO Luis von Ahn "announced on LinkedIn that the company is phasing out human contractors, looking for AI use in hiring and in performance reviews, and that 'headcount will only be given if a team cannot automate more of their work.'" But then "facing heavy backlash online after unveiling its new AI-first policy", Duolingo's social media presence went dark last weekend. Duolingo even temporarily took down all its posts on TikTok (6.7 million followers) and Instagram (4.1 million followers) "after both accounts were flooded with negative feedback." Duolingo previously faced criticism for quietly laying off 10% of its contractor base and introducing some AI features in late 2023, but it barely went beyond a semi-viral post on Reddit. Now that Duolingo is cutting out all its human contractors whose work can technically be done by AI, and relying on more AI-generated language lessons, the response is far more pronounced. Although earlier TikTok videos are not currently visible, a Fast Company article from May 12 captured a flavor of the reaction: The top comments on virtually every recent post have nothing to do with the video or the company — and everything to do with the company's embrace of AI. For example, a Duolingo TikTok video jumping on board the "Mama, may I have a cookie" trend saw replies like "Mama, may I have real people running the company" (with 69,000 likes) and "How about NO ai, keep your employees...." And then... After days of silence, on Tuesday the company posted a bizarre video message on TikTok and Instagram, the meaning of which is hard to decipher... Duolingo's first video drop in days has the degraded, stuttering feel of a Max Headroom video made by the hackers at Anonymous. In it, a supposed member of the company's social team appears in a three-eyed Duo mask and black hoodie to complain about the corporate overlords ruining the empire the heroic social media crew built. "But this is something Duolingo can't cute-post its way out of," Fast Company wrote on Tuesday, complaining the company "has not yet meaningfully addressed the policies that inspired the backlash against it... " So the next video (Thursday) featured Duolingo CEO Luis von Ahn himself, being confronted by that same hoodie-wearing social media rebel, who says "I'm making the man who caused this mess accountable for his behavior. I'm demanding answers from the CEO..." [Though the video carefully sidesteps the issue of replacing contractors with AI or how "headcount will only be given if a team cannot automate more of their work."] Rebel: First question. So are there going to be any humans left at this company? CEO: Our employees are what make Duolingo so amazing. Our app is so great because our employees made it... So we're going to continue having employees, and not only that, we're actually going to be hiring more employees. Rebel: How do we know that these aren't just empty promises? As long as you're in charge, we could still be shuffled out once the media fire dies down. And we all know that in terms of automation, CEOs should be the first to go. CEO: AI is a fundamental shift. It's going to change how we all do work — including me. And honestly, I don't really know what's going to happen. But I want us, as a company, to have our workforce prepared by really knowing how to use AI so that we can be more efficient with it. Rebel: Learning a foreign language is literally about human connection. How is that even possible with AI-first? CEO: Yes, language is about human connection, and it's about people. And this is the thing about AI. AI will allow us to reach more people, and to teach more people. I mean for example, it took us about 10 years to develop the first 100 courses on Duolingo, and now in under a year, with the help of AI and of course with humans reviewing all the work, we were able to release another 100 courses in less than a year. Rebel: So do you regret posting this memo on LinkedIn. CEO: Honestly, I think I messed up sending that email. What we're trying to do is empower our own employees to be able to achieve more and be able to have way more content to teach better and reach more people all with the help of AI. Returning to where it all started, Duolingo's CEO posted again on LinkedIn Thursday with "more context" for his vision. It still emphasizes the company's employees while sidestepping contractors replaced by AI. But it puts a positive spin on how "headcount will only be given if a team cannot automate more of their work." I've always encouraged our team to embrace new technology (that's why we originally built for mobile instead of desktop), and we are taking that same approach with AI. By understanding the capabilities and limitations of AI now, we can stay ahead of it and remain in control of our own product and our mission. To be clear: I do not see AI as replacing what our employees do (we are in fact continuing to hire at the same speed as before). I see it as a tool to accelerate what we do, at the same or better level of quality. And the sooner we learn how to use it, and use it responsibly, the better off we will be in the long run. My goal is for Duos to feel empowered and prepared to use this technology. No one is expected to navigate this shift alone. We're developing workshops and advisory councils, and carving out dedicated experimentation time to help all our teams learn and adapt. People work at Duolingo because they want to solve big problems to improve education, and the people who work here are what make Duolingo successful. Our mission isn't changing, but the tools we use to build new things will change. I remain committed to leading Duolingo in a way that is consistent with our mission to develop the best education in the world and make it universally available. "The backlash to Duolingo is the latest evidence that 'AI-first' tends to be a concept with much more appeal to investors and managers than most regular people," notes Fortune: And it's not hard to see why. Generative AI is often trained on reams of content that may have been illegally accessed; much of its output is bizarre or incorrect; and some leaders in the field are opposed to regulations on the technology. But outside particular niches in entry-level white-collar work, AI's productivity gains have yet to materialize. Read more of this story at Slashdot.