ActuGaming.net Tides of Annihilation : Gameplay, univers, ambitions techniques… Voici tout ce qu’il faut savoir à propos de ce jeu d’action-aventure Les studios chinois font beaucoup parler d’eux au sein de l’industrie vidéoludique ces d

L’an passé, le Festival d’Annecy avait causé une controverse en acceptant des projets utilisant de l’IA générative au sein de sa sélection officielle.Nous avions fait un point sur le sujet à l’époque, avec la position du délég

The epidermis (skin) is the body’s largest organ, so it would make sense that toxins found in fabrics that sit on the skin’s surface could be absorbed by the skin and make their way into the bloodstream. And polyester has been considered a particularly suspect fabric because it’s made from a chemical called polyethylene terephthalate, a plastic polymer used in various products.One study published in 1993 followed 24 dogs who were divided into two equal groups, one group wore cotton underpants and the other polyester. At the end of the study period, there was a significant decrease in sperm count and an increase in sperm abnormalities in the dogs who wore the polyester pants. But that said, this study is three decades old, done on dogs, and has had little additional research to show for it since.So, the jury is certainly still out as to whether fabrics decrease fertility, but there are some things that we do know. Chemicals Found in PolyesterAccording to Audrey Gaskins, an associate professor of environmental health at Emory University, most studies are focused on specific chemicals that might be found in fabrics rather than the fabrics themselves, and those chemicals are usually measured in blood or urine. But fabrics like polyester can contain a number of chemicals that might impact fertility. PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals found in thousands of products, and they’re difficult for the body to eliminate.“PFAS are commonly found in water-resistant clothing,” says Gaskins. However, drinking water is likely the most common avenue of exposure, as well as non-stick cookware, and many others.Research has shown that PFAS can reduce fertility in women by some 40 percent. According to NIH’s National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, high levels of PFAS found in the blood were linked to a reduced chance of pregnancy and live birth. Other research has shown that PFAS are linked to increased instances of endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), both of which reduce fertility.Poor Pregnancy OutcomesPolyester (when combined with spandex) may also contain bisphenol A (BPA), another chemical compound that has been shown to potentially impact fertility. A December 2022 study published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine found a higher prevalence of PCOS in women with high amounts of BPA in their blood.Finally, polyester can contain phthalates, a chemical commonly used in things like sports bras and other pieces of clothing. These, too, have been shown to have a negative impact on fertility. A study published in the September 2021 issue of the journal Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism found that higher concentrations of the chemical have been associated with decreased rates of pregnancy, increased incidences of miscarriage, and other pregnancy complications.“We’ve found suggestive associations between higher concentrations of bisphenol and phthalate metabolites and worse markers of reproductive health like poor success with IVF,” says Gaskins. “What we don’t know is where the source of exposure is coming from.”Exposure to Fertility-Decreasing ChemicalsStill, the obvious implication if you’re trying to get pregnant is to try to decrease your exposure to any of these chemicals through any route possible, especially when you have control over exposure. If we know there are chemicals in these fabrics, decreasing use of them would be more achievable for many people compared to, say, changing your drinking water, says Gaskins.There’s definitely no downside to decreasing your exposure to these chemicals, and while clothing is likely not the largest means of exposure to things like PFAs, phthalates, and BPA, if you’re trying to get pregnant, they’re certainly a good place to start.This article is not offering medical advice and should be used for informational purposes only.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. PFAS Exposure Linked to Reduced Fertility in Women Center for Environmental Health. What You Need to Know About BPA in ClothingJournal of Clinical Medicine. Bisphenol-A and Female Fertility: An Update of Existing Epidemiological StudiesBest Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. Phthalates, ovarian function and fertility in adulthoodSara Novak is a science journalist based in South Carolina. In addition to writing for Discover, her work appears in Scientific American, Popular Science, New Scientist, Sierra Magazine, Astronomy Magazine, and many more. She graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Journalism from the Grady School of Journalism at the University of Georgia. She's also a candidate for a master’s degree in science writing from Johns Hopkins University (expected graduation 2023).

Missing the big picture US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war Facing an extreme budget, the National Academies hosted an event that ignored it. John Timmer – Jun 4, 2025 6:00 pm | 16 Credit: JHVE Photo Credit: JHVE Photo Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more WASHINGTON, DC—The general outline of the Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget was released a few weeks back, and it included massive cuts for most agencies, including every one that funds scientific research. Late last week, those agencies began releasing details of what the cuts would mean for the actual projects and people they support. And the results are as bad as the initial budget had suggested: one-of-a-kind scientific experiment facilities and hardware retired, massive cuts in supported scientists, and entire areas of research halted. And this comes in an environment where previously funded grants are being terminated, funding is being held up for ideological screening, and universities have been subject to arbitrary funding freezes. Collectively, things are heading for damage to US science that will take decades to recover from. It's a radical break from the trajectory science had been on. That's the environment that the US's National Academies of Science found itself in yesterday while hosting the State of the Science event in Washington, DC. It was an obvious opportunity for the nation's leading scientific organization to warn the nation of the consequences of the path that the current administration has been traveling. Instead, the event largely ignored the present to worry about a future that may never exist. The proposed cuts The top-line budget numbers proposed earlier indicated things would be bad: nearly 40 percent taken off the National Institutes of Health's budget, the National Science Foundation down by over half. But now, many of the details of what those cuts mean are becoming apparent. NASA's budget includes sharp cuts for planetary science, which would be cut in half and then stay flat for the rest of the decade, with the Mars Sample Return mission canceled. All other science budgets, including Earth Science and Astrophysics, take similar hits; one astronomer posted a graphic showing how many present and future missions that would mean. Active missions that have returned unprecedented data, like Juno and New Horizons, would go, as would two Mars orbiters. As described by Science magazine's news team, "The plans would also kill off nearly every major science mission the agency has not yet begun to build." A chart prepared by astronomer Laura Lopez showing just how many astrophysics missions will be cancelled. Credit: Laura Lopez The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the US's fundamental research, is also set for brutal cuts. Biology, engineering, and education will all be slashed by over 70 percent; computer science, math and physical science, and social and behavioral science will all see cuts of over 60 percent. International programs will take an 80 percent cut. The funding rate of grant proposals is expected to drop from 26 percent to just 7 percent, meaning the vast majority of grants submitted to the NSF will be a waste of time. The number of people involved in NSF-funded activities will drop from over 300,000 to just 90,000. Almost every program to broaden participation in science will be eliminated. As for specifics, they're equally grim. The fleet of research ships will essentially become someone else's problem: "The FY 2026 Budget Request will enable partial support of some ships." We've been able to better pin down the nature and location of gravitational wave events as detectors in Japan and Italy joined the original two LIGO detectors; the NSF will reverse that progress by shutting one of the LIGOs. The NSF's contributions to detectors at the Large Hadron Collider will be cut by over half, and one of the two very large telescopes it was helping fund will be cancelled (say goodbye to the Thirty Meter Telescope). "Access to the telescopes at Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo will be phased out," and the NSF will transfer the facilities to other organizations. The Department of Health and Human Services has been less detailed about the specific cuts its divisions will see, largely focusing on the overall numbers, which are down considerably. The NIH, which is facing a cut of over 40 percent, will be reorganized, with its 19 institutes pared down to just eight. This will result in some odd pairings, such as the dental and eye institutes ending up in the same place; genomics and biomedical imaging will likewise end up under the same roof. Other groups like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration will also face major cuts. Issues go well beyond the core science agencies, as well. In the Department of Energy, funding for wind, solar, and renewable grid integration has been zeroed out, essentially ending all programs in this area. Hydrogen and fuel cells face a similar fate. Collectively, these had gotten over $600 billion dollars in 2024's budget. Other areas of science at the DOE, such as high-energy physics, fusion, and biology, receive relatively minor cuts that are largely in line with the ones faced by administration priorities like fossil and nuclear energy. Will this happen? It goes without saying that this would amount to an abandonment of US scientific leadership at a time when most estimates of China's research spending show it approaching US-like levels of support. Not only would it eliminate many key facilities, instruments, and institutions that have helped make the US a scientific powerhouse, but it would also block the development of newer and additional ones. The harms are so widespread that even topics that the administration claims are priorities would see severe cuts. And the damage is likely to last for generations, as support is cut at every stage of the educational pipeline that prepares people for STEM careers. This includes careers in high-tech industries, which may require relocation overseas due to a combination of staffing concerns and heightened immigration controls. That said, we've been here before in the first Trump administration, when budgets were proposed with potentially catastrophic implications for US science. But Congress limited the damage and maintained reasonably consistent budgets for most agencies. Can we expect that to happen again? So far, the signs are not especially promising. The House has largely adopted the Trump administration's budget priorities, despite the fact that the budget they pass turns its back on decades of supposed concerns about deficit spending. While the Senate has yet to take up the budget, it has also been very pliant during the second Trump administration, approving grossly unqualified cabinet picks such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. All of which would seem to call for the leadership of US science organizations to press the case for the importance of science funding to the US, and highlight the damage that these cuts would cause. But, if yesterday's National Academies event is anything to judge by, the leadership is not especially interested. Altered states As the nation's premier science organization, and one that performs lots of analyses for the government, the National Academies would seem to be in a position to have its concerns taken seriously by members of Congress. And, given that the present and future of science in the US is being set by policy choices, a meeting entitled the State of the Science would seem like the obvious place to address those concerns. If so, it was not obvious to Marcia McNutt, the president of the NAS, who gave the presentation. She made some oblique references to current problems, saying, that “We are embarking on a radical new experiment in what conditions promote science leadership, with the US being the treatment group, and China as the control," and acknowledged that "uncertainties over the science budgets for next year, coupled with cancellations of billions of dollars of already hard-won research grants, is causing an exodus of researchers." But her primary focus was on the trends that have been operative in science funding and policy leading up to but excluding the second Trump administration. McNutt suggested this was needed to look beyond the next four years. However, that ignores the obvious fact that US science will be fundamentally different if the Trump administration can follow through on its plans and policies; the trends that have been present for the last two decades will be irrelevant. She was also remarkably selective about her avoidance of discussing Trump administration priorities. After noting that faculty surveys have suggested they spend roughly 40 percent of their time handling regulatory requirements, she twice mentioned that the administration's anti-regulatory stance could be a net positive here (once calling it "an opportunity to help"). Yet she neglected to note that many of the abandoned regulations represent a retreat from science-driven policy. McNutt also acknowledged the problem of science losing the bipartisan support it has enjoyed, as trust in scientists among US conservatives has been on a downward trend. But she suggested it was scientists' responsibility to fix the problem, even though it's largely the product of one party deciding it can gain partisan advantage by raising doubts about scientific findings in fields like climate change and vaccine safety. The panel discussion that came after largely followed McNutt's lead in avoiding any mention of the current threats to science. The lone exception was Heather Wilson, president of the University of Texas at El Paso and a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Air Force during the first Trump administration. Wilson took direct aim at Trump's cuts to funding for underrepresented groups, arguing, "Talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not." After arguing that "the moral authority of science depends on the pursuit of truth," she highlighted the cancellation of grants that had been used to study diseases that are more prevalent in some ethnic groups, saying "that's not woke science—that's genetics." Wilson was clearly the exception, however, as the rest of the panel largely avoided direct mention of either the damage already done to US science funding or the impending catastrophe on the horizon. We've asked the National Academies' leadership a number of questions about how it perceives its role at a time when US science is clearly under threat. As of this article's publication, however, we have not received a response. At yesterday's event, however, only one person showed a clear sense of what they thought that role should be—Wilson again, whose strongest words were directed at the National Academies themselves, which she said should "do what you've done since Lincoln was president," and stand up for the truth. John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 16 Comments

Interviews Love, Death + Robots – Volume 4: Tim Miller (Creator & Director) & Jennifer Yuh Nelson (Supervising Director) By Vincent Frei - 02/06/2025 Earlier this year, Tim Miller spoke to us about his animated anthology Secret Level. Now, he returns to discuss the latest season of Love, Death + Robots. Jennifer Yuh Nelson talked about season two of Love, Death + Robots in 2021. She later worked on The Sea Beast, before returning once again to the anthology universe. What was your overall vision for the fourth season of Love, Death and Robots and how did it evolve from previous seasons? Tim Miller (TM) // We have the same strategy as every volume – we try to pick the best stories we know of and provide a mix that is hopefully appealing to everyone. There are a lot of variables to consider. Including genre, tone, and style of animation, such as stop motion, CG, and 2D. We try not to have two stories that are too similar. For example, if there’s already a military sci-fi story, we avoid selecting another one. We like to mix humor, horror, sci-fi, fantasy, and anything else that we think might be interesting from either a story or animation perspective. How did you approach the balance between experimenting with new styles and maintaining the signature identity of the show? TM // Honestly, we just try and follow our gut. What we think is interesting as filmmakers, animators, and storytellers will also be interesting to the animation community and fans alike. So, we keep an eye out for new voices, filmmakers, and new ways of doing things to keep things interesting. I’m not sure we have an identity of the show. In fact, I think if we did have an identity, it would be that we don’t have an identity… but we try and do whatever we think is interesting. Jennifer Yuh Nelson (JYN) // The fortunate thing about LDR is that the signature itself is experimenting with new styles. The trick is finding new aggressively experimental styles that still communicate to a mass audience. The stories are key to that. If the story is engaging, even to an audience that doesn’t usually gravitate to animation, then you can make it looks as weird as you want. What are some of the key challenges you faced while overseeing this season and how do you tackle them? TM // This season, there was a lot going on in the animation community that created some challenges with getting work done, whether studios were too full or ceased to exist entirely. Everyone struggled with budgets. But I didn’t feel like it was a problem with our show but rather a problem with the entire industry. People were struggling. And then it’s just always difficult when your ambition is high, your budgets are reasonable but still challenging, and you have to wrangle hundreds of people to get on board with your vision. (JYN) // These shows take a long time to make. R&D for a look that doesn’t exist can take a lot of trial and error. For example, Emily Dean, who directed Very Pulse of the Machine last season, did For He Can Creep this season. She had a cool angle of making her episode look like lithography. That was very very hard, but somehow Polygon, the studio that made both shorts, came through with it. And I think it turned out very well. Can you talk about how you selected the different animation studios for this season? What made you decide to work with the studios involved? (JYN) // We’ve been very fortunate to have worked with amazing people and studios these last few seasons, so it made sense to float some stories by them again. But it really comes down to the stories, and how each leans towards a certain technique. For example, How Zeke Found Religion was holding a slot where we wanted something 2D. We went to Titmouse because they were great with pushing the boundaries of 2D animation, and they suggested Diego Porral as a director who could bring a modern edge. How do you ensure each studio’s unique visual style complements the story and tone of each episode? TM // I know this sounds a little mystical and I don’t mean it to be, but I think the story speaks to you about style. Some things just feels right, and you have an innate concept of what would be the best version of the story, whether it’s stop motion, CG, 2D animation, or even live action. When you start thinking about the story in a creative way, a style becomes apparent. Which is not to say there aren’t many ways to do things and tell stories, but we feel a best version becomes clear. (JYN) // We do a lot of research, not just into what the studios have done before, but also into what they wish to do but haven’t had the chance to do. Often it’s just a matter of getting to know them and seeing if they have a philosophy of pushing for experimentation and risk. Then we try to support them as much as possible in their creative R&D. You both directed episodes for this season, what was that experience like? How did it differ from your work as overseeing directors? TM // For me, it’s really just trying to create the best story and I love working with the artists and trying to be open to what everybody brings to the table because everybody wants to do the best possible episode they can. I try and be open to letting people help carry that load. The best thing about being a director is that you get to pick and choose between all the great ideas that everybody has and shape the narrative by getting the benefit of everyone’s expertise and talent. (JYN) // It’s a different mindset. As a Supervising Director, I help. As a Director, I do. On episodes I’m not directing, I am deciphering that director’s ambition and pushing for whatever is required to make that absolutely great. On an episode I’m directing, every choice and image has to go through my brain so it’s more a reflection of my personal taste. Plus I tend to storyboard a lot more on my own episodes since it’s a way for me to communicate to the crew. I storyboard a lot on other episodes, but mainly to help figure out problems here and there. It also doesn’t come out of those director’s budgets so the free storyboarding is often welcomed. How did you choose the episode you worked on yourself and what aspects of it made it resonate with you both? TM // In my case with “The Screaming of the Tyrannosaur,” it was really by default. I had written the episode for Zack Snyder but Zack was too busy, and by that time I’d already fallen in love with the story, so I figured, why not just do it myself? As for “Golgotha,” I always loved the story. It was very efficient and short, which is hard to find in a story – it felt like a full meal. It has a beginning, middle, and end and it resolves in a satisfying way. “Golgotha” had all of that, plus it was funny. (JYN) // Spider Rose was on the story wall since the beginning. It was one of the “special” ones- very hard, ambitious, uncomfortable. Over the seasons we offered it to different directors and they veered away from it for one reason or another. But it glowed with a complexity that’s rare in a short story. I think that’s because it was written as an exploration for a far larger world that Bruce Sterling was developing. For me, it was the raw emotionality that drew me in. It’s how I understand how to communicate any story. And I love the way Spider Rose draws you in with emotion then shivs you with it. Were there any episodes in this season that particularly pushed the boundaries of what you had done before? How did that push happen? TM // I think “How Zeke got Religion” pushed the boundaries of 2D animation. The amount of detail and action that the guys at Titmouse were able to pull off was truly astonishing. Once again, Robert Valley outdid himself with 400 boys. The action scene at the end was one of my favorite pieces of animation in all of Love, Death, and Robots. (JYN) // Golgotha, Tim’s episode is live action, which is a rarity for the show. There was one live action episode in season 1, but none since. It is primarily an animation series, but nowadays, the line is so fuzzy that it seemed to make sense. How do you balance creative freedom with the thematic unity required for a show like Love, Death, and Robots? TM // There isn’t really a thematic unity. We’re just trying to create the best version of each of the episodes. They don’t tie into each other, they don’t relate to each other, they aren’t supposed to be about either Love, Death or Robots – the title is a meant to be a “catchall” that could hold ANY story or visual art we thought might be cool. Hopefully, the overall assemblage feels like a balanced meal with a little bit of something for everybody. But thematically speaking, again, I think our theme is that there is no theme. (JYN) // We try to set the foundation with a good story, based off the many short stories Tim has read over the years. Then the HOW of what that story becomes is the wooly Wild West. The directors and studios are fully encouraged to push all the boundaries of how to make these as innovative, impractical, and beautiful as they want. And, since each short is under 15 minutes, the studios we choose can be as experimental and scrappy as each story demands. Looking at the overall direction of the season, was there any unexpected moments or surprises that stood out to you during production? TM // Yeah, I think the color palette for “Zeke” was a shock to me in a wonderful way because it was completely unexpected and nothing I would ever do as a director but boy did I love it. And I think that “Can’t Stop” was an interesting addition. We wanted to do a music video from volume 1 onward, and this was the moment that we took to do it. I think it’s the greatest concert video ever made. (JYN) // Why do we have so many cats and babies? I’ve no idea. But when we saw the first giant baby shots in 400 Boys, it was a rare joy. They walk like babies, real babies. And somehow that was both accurate and terrifying. Looking forward, where do you see the show heading in future seasons, are there any new themes or concepts you’d love to explore? TM // So many directors in the industry have asked if they could play in our sandbox, and I would like to expand our reach to get some established names. Not that we don’t want new talent – we will always want that – but it would be great to have some really fantastic directors who have accomplished big movies come and play with our stories. I also think there’s a version where we bring in some content that may have existed in other mediums like comic books and perhaps tell some larger stories that take more than one episode to tell. Truthfully, I’ve already got a some really interesting stories picked out for the next few seasons, — of course those will change as the show evolves, but they’re fascinating stories that explore the whole arc of history… past, present, and future and some of the big challenges that humanity is facing today. I’d be lying if I didn’t mention that many of them explore the future of what mankind will become with the advent of AI and how artificial intelligence and humanity’s future intersect. (JYN) // Often themes only show up afterwards. There is a bit of a “herding cats” energy to the show that promises surprises in the production process. But the point of a show like this is that it is surprising. It has its own energy, and sometimes we just have to listen to it rather than dictate. If you had the opportunity to create any kind of story for Love, Death, and Robots, what would your dream narrative and what type of animation style would you envision for it? TM // Well, I have to say that I love high-end 3D animation, and that’s what Blur does for a reason. And secondly, I’d like to do a kind of story that could be live action and has some vast scope to it, but we choose to do it in animation because we get more value from using the techniques that animation brings. We can tell a bigger story, with more scope, and more action than we would using any other methodology…. and it competes favorably with live action in terms of the kind of audience that comes to watch it. Not just fans of animation, but fans of good cinema. (JYN) // I’d love to see an anime episode, like a Tsutomu Nihei fight scene, or something by Katsuhiro Otomo. A big thanks for your time. WANT TO KNOW MORE?Blur Studio: Dedicated page about Love, Death + Robots: Volume 4 on Blur Studio website. © Vincent Frei – The Art of VFX – 2025

If you wanted to get a COVID vaccine during pregnancy, to protect yourself and your future baby from the virus, that may soon be difficult to impossible. According to a short video posted on X, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, who is also a noted anti-vaccine activist, said that the COVID-19 vaccine “has been removed” from the list of vaccines recommended in pregnancy, as well as the list of vaccines recommended for healthy children. This announcement sidesteps the usual regulatory process, and it’s not clear exactly what will happen next—but here’s what we know. The announcement may not be entirely validRFK, Jr made the announcement in a video where he stood alongside the NIH director Jay Bhattacharya and FDA commissioner Marty Makary. Notably, nobody from the CDC was present. The FDA approves vaccines, but it’s the CDC that is in charge of recommendations. (It is not clear who the CDC’s acting director actually is, or whether there is one.) Normally, the CDC has an advisory panel called ACIP (the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices) that reviews scientific evidence to make recommendations for vaccines. They’ll vote on whether a given vaccine should be recommended for everybody in a group of people. Their decisions are then passed to CDC leadership, who make the final call as to whether the vaccine gets officially recommended for that group. Vaccines are not usually added or removed to the recommended list by the CDC without consulting with ACIP, and they definitely aren’t usually added or removed by tweeting a video. Dorit Reiss, a law professor who specializes in vaccine policy, posted on LinkedIn that the announcement may not be legally valid if it’s not immediately followed by supporting documentation. She says: “Under administrative law, to avoid being found arbitrary and capricious, an agency's decision has to meet certain criteria, including explaining the agency's fact finding, a connection between the facts and the decisions, etc. A one minute video on Twitter doesn't quite get you there.” So far, the CDC’s web page on vaccines recommended in pregnancy still says that “A pregnant woman should get vaccinated against whooping cough, flu, COVID-19, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).” The adult and child vaccine schedules still include COVID vaccines.Strangely, this move on behalf of the CDC contradicts the one we reported about recently from the FDA. The FDA plans to require extra steps (possibly unethical and/or impractical ones) to approve new COVID vaccines for healthy children and adults. But these steps don’t apply to people who are at high risk for complications of COVID. The FDA’s policy announcement included a list of those high risk health conditions—which includes pregnancy.Why it matters which vaccines are “recommended”Recommending a vaccine doesn’t just mean expressing an opinion; the Affordable Care Act requires that vaccines recommended by ACIP must be covered by most private insurance and Medicaid expansion plans without any cost sharing. That means no deductible and no copay—so these vaccines must be free to you out of pocket if you fall into a group of people for whom they are recommended. The recommended vaccines include all the standard childhood vaccines, plus your seasonal flu shot, and other vaccines that are recommended for adults, for people who are pregnant, and so on. The full schedules are here. If you’ve gotten a COVID shot, a flu shot, a tetanus shot, a shingles shot—the shot’s inclusion on this list is why you were able to (probably) get it for free.So taking a vaccine off the recommended list means that it could be prohibitively expensive. GoodRX, which keeps tabs on pharmacy prices, reports that COVID shots may cost $200 or more out of pocket, plus any applicable administration fee that the provider might charge.Taking a vaccine off the recommended list may also mean it won’t be covered by the Vaccines for Children program, which provides free vaccines to children who don’t have coverage for them through health insurance.Whether or not the vaccine actually gets taken off the list, the recent HHS announcement has another impact: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement that “Following this announcement, we are worried about our patients in the future, who may be less likely to choose vaccination during pregnancy despite the clear and definitive evidence demonstrating its benefit.” The ACOG statement also pointed out a few ways in which removing the vaccines from the recommended list is not “common sense and good science,” as the HHS announcement claimed. ACOG writes: “As ob-gyns who treat patients every day, we have seen firsthand how dangerous COVID infection can be during pregnancy and for newborns who depend on maternal antibodies from the vaccine for protection. We also understand that despite the change in recommendations from HHS, the science has not changed. It is very clear that COVID infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families.”

During most of the introduction to the Wake Up Dead Man portion of Saturday night’s Netflix Tudum event, writer-director Rian Johnson and his starry cast, led by a folksy Daniel Craig, had fun hiding what the third Knives Out mystery is about. In fact we really don’t know. But as judged by the first teaser trailer for the movie, it is going for a darker and more oblique tone than the general playfulness viewers remember from Knives Out and Glass Onion, marketing included. In the teaser, a church bell ominously sounds in the distance as images suffused in shadow and nocturnal rains cascade down around Craig’s unexpectedly stoic Benoit Blanc. Without a charming witticism or visual gag in sight, Blanc tersely intones during the trailer, “The impossible crime. For a man of reason this is the Holy Grail.” Through it all, a haunting hymn plays as an elegiac and Southern voice cries, “O Death, O Death, Won’t you spare me over til another year.” While we still know relatively little about the plot of Wake Up Dead Man beyond its terrific ensemble—which includes Glenn Close, Kerry Washington, Jeremy Renner, Josh Brolin, Andrew Scott, and Cailee Spaeny—the song choice might tell us a lot about the film’s setting, and possibly the dark places it intends to go. Initially speculation regarding the third Knives Out picture assumed that it would be set in England where most of the film’s production occurred. And while that might still be the case, we suspect the English countryside might be used to substitute for something a little closer to home for American viewers—and distinctly Southern. Indeed, many fans of the Coen Brothers likely recognize the song “O, Death” used in the trailer, for it is the exact version sung by the late bluegrass artist Ralph Stanley in Joel and Ethan Coen’s O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000). Stanley, it should be stressed, is a legend in the bluegrass and folk sound of music who won a Grammy for this version of “O Death.” However, his vocals were used in O Brother (and now Wake Up Dead Man) to send a chill up the spine when sung a cappella style in the third act of the Coens’ Mississippi-set Depression fable. After all, on screen the song is being sung not by a simple musician, but by the grand wizard of a Ku Klux Klan chapter which has gathered to lynch and murder a young Black man on a trumped up accusation based in superstition. The Coens’ choice of this song to be sung by the KKK in the 1930s is probably not accidental either. The standard version of the song’s origin is that it’s a traditional Appalachian folk song written by Baptist preacher Lloyd Chandler. Chandler certainly performed the song in the 1920s in North Carolina, allegedly after receiving a vision from God of the song in 1916. However, further research has proven that Chandler’s composition bears an uncanny similarity to a 1913 printed version of a folk song (that is therefore likely much older) in Journal of American Folklore. The journal asserted the song was sung by “Eastern North Carolina Negroes.” Which is all to say, the song’s ambiguous origin is rooted in the cultural milieu and tensions of the American South during the days and decades of Jim Crow and after the Civil War. It was used by the Coens as a disturbingly beautiful song of annihilation put in the mouths of mass murdering racists, and it is now used to signal what appears to be the first Benoit Blanc mystery to return to the region of Benoit’s home: the American South. (This setting is seemingly further verified by the fact that one of the film’s law enforcement figures is dressed like someone from an American sheriff’s office as opposed to an English village.) This is all of course speculation, but to use this song and Stanley’s Grammy-winning version of it specifically is likely a deliberate choice on Johnson’s part. And given how Johnson is unafraid to use what on the surface appear to be cozy murder mysteries to interrogate larger issues of social rot and inequality in the modern world via both Knives Out and Glass Onion, we are left to wonder just how deeply Southern the roots of his third murder mystery will run. Wake Up Dead Man premieres on Dec. 12 on Netflix.

Credit: Ian Moore / Mashable Composite; Goodboy Picture Company / E+ / pialhovik / iStock / Getty Images May is National Masturbation Month, and we're celebrating with Feeling Yourself, a series exploring the finer points of self-pleasure. When I look back at pictures of myself in my early 20s, I see a confident young woman who was willing to talk about anything with anyone. But behind closed doors, I was hiding a secret shame that totally contradicted my public brand. I couldn't orgasm — not with a partner, not on my own.There had been fleeting attempts over the years to get the ol' engine rolling. I thought I could reason my way to climax: the internet, with its endless resources in the form of Reddit threads, message boards, and YouTube videos, seemed like the place to go. I turned online for information, emotional (first-person narratives from others who struggled) and practical (sex toys and tutorials). Nothing helped. In fact, all the accumulating knowledge only served to make me feel worse. For it to finally happen, at the age of 25, I had to strip everything back and take my sex drive fully offline for the first time.Failing to climaxThere's a scene in Eve Ensler's legendary play The Vagina Monologues when the audience hears from a woman who didn't have an orgasm until she was 72. "When she finally found her clitoris, she said she cried," the introduction goes. I remember hearing those words at the age of 18 and feeling a fluttering sense of recognition. Then came the chaser: dear god, please let me have one before I'm a septuagenarian. You May Also Like At that age, the inability to orgasm wasn't something that surprised me all that much. I'd read enough teen magazines, seen enough Sex and the City, to know all about the orgasm gap, and that 61 percent of men orgasm every time they have sex compared to 30 percent of women.Multiple studies have found that women are more likely to orgasm during masturbation than intercourse; a similarly consistent finding is that 10 percent of women never orgasm, no matter the circumstances.Yet as I moved through my twenties and failed to rectify the problem, I realised the friends I'd once bonded over this experience with weren't struggling anymore. I felt likeBut as a forthright young feminist on the cusp between the Gen Z and millennial generations, I was also unofficially educated under the tutelage of sex education YouTubers like Shan Boodram, Laci Green, and Hannah Witton. They taught me about the importance of people with vulvas knowing their bodies and having the confidence to tell sexual partners if they weren't getting them off. I spread their message far and wide. Female pleasure was so my brand that a close male friend once gave me a T-shirt with the words "The Future is Female (Ejaculation)" as a Secret Santa gift. I laughed, then went to the bathroom and cried, so deeply full of shame at the disconnect between my public confidence and inward inadequacy.Theoretically speaking, I knew just about everything there was to know about the orgasm…apart from how to have one myself. Very few people, beyond a handful of friends and former partners, knew about my struggle with anorgasmia (where people struggle to climax even with the application of sexual stimulation). I was scared of speaking the words "I can't come" into reality, or of feeling like even more of a failure if they checked in on my progress in the future and I had to tell them that no, I still couldn't.  Theoretically speaking, I knew just about everything there was to know about the orgasm…apart from how to have one myself. As Emily Nagoski writes in her bestselling book Come As You Are, so much of the female orgasm is in the mind. Nagoski theorises that female sexual pleasure has dual controls — an accelerator to turn you on and a brake to turn you off — and that balance is needed to achieve orgasm. But my brake was hyper-sensitive thanks toSex toys felt like a good starting point (god forbid I actually touch myself!), and my limited student budget meant I wanted a vibrator that gave a good bang for my buck, so to speak. I'd spend hours trawling through positive customer reviews for phrases like "can't come" or "never usually orgasm," hoping the same would happen for me if I purchased a clitoral stimulator or CBD lube. When it didn't, I felt more frustrated than ever. Mashable Trend Report: Coming Soon! Decode what’s viral, what’s next, and what it all means. Sign up for Mashable’s weekly Trend Report newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up! What I was searching for was a sense of recognition — an "oh, I'm not alone in this" feeling that my friends, while empathetic, understandably couldn't provide. (Yet whenever I now mention to friends that I didn't have an orgasm until I was 25, similar stories are divulged.) So I looked further afield, scouring message board threads and online articles for narratives from people who'd not been able to come either. The snatched moments of understanding made me feel less alone, albeit not necessarily always better.The next approach was more unconventional. Two friends bought me a subscription to OMGYes, the adult sex education website dedicated to facilitating female pleasure. Initially, I was embarrassed that it had come to this, but I gave it a go. A membership provided access to a library of practical (and extremely NSFW) tutorials on different masturbation techniques. I tried to follow along, but lacked perseverance and was quick to abandon the mission when things didn't happen immediately.At every stage, my attempts to orgasm were hindered by these deeply rooted feelings of shame and inadequacy, and a fear of feeling like even more of a failure should I try and not succeed. I knew I was missing out on an integral part of the human experience, but once the terrifying words "you're going to be on your deathbed never having had an orgasm" enter the mind, they're hard to shake. In order to halt this nihilistic spiral, I stopped trying altogether. It wasn't all bad. The sex, with both long-term and casual partners,So the problem bubbled away beneath the surface, rectifying it as simply not a priority. As with much of life, the arrival of COVID-19 changed things. I remember turning 25 and looking down the barrel of a new year and a third lockdown in the UK. I'm officially in my mid-twenties, I thought. If not now, when? Those interconnected feelings of embarrassment and failure were clearly holding me back. If I was going to figure out how to orgasm, that would only be achieved by removing expectation; expectation that, I realised, was coming directly from the internet aids I'd sought out for help. I needed to strip away the technological trappings and do the one very simple thing I'd been so scared to do: touch myself, and do it consistently. Related Stories What finally helped me orgasmI set myself a challenge. Every day, I would put my phone on the other side of the room and masturbate without sex toys.think these faint flutters were orgasms, and briefly returned to the message boards to see if others had experienced anything similar. Nobody described my exact feelings, but I kept at it.It was a conversation with a close friend, a doctor, that made the most marked difference. I told her about my current state, where I wasn't sure whether I was experiencing an orgasm or not. "You know if you want that to count, it counts," she told me. For the first time, someone was saying that I was on the right path, and not crashing into a wall. Without being dramatic (although said friend still laughs about how I credit her with my first orgasm), those words triggered a switch in my brain. As soon as I stopped feeling like I was foolish for even attempting to fight what I'd always perceived to be a losing battle, orgasms — proper ones, I was sure — came. I didn't cry or rush to text the friends greatly invested in my journey. Don't get me wrong, I was thrilled, but it felt like a wholly personal achievement, and one I wanted to sit in for a while. SEE ALSO: What is a ruined orgasm? Mostly, the feeling was one of relief, the lifting of a huge weight from my chest and the dissipation of so much secret shame. I remember thinking that if I never had an orgasm again, I would be happy. Given how easy I was now finding it once that bridge was crossed, though, I was pretty sure that wasn't going to be the case. I remember thinking that if I never had an orgasm again, I would be happy. If there's one thing I now know, it's that you can't intellectualise, let alone buy, an orgasm. Sure, products and internet resources may help, and in those most isolating moments, it was undoubtedly useful to see my experience reflected back in others. But over time, I found the accumulation of all this knowledge only added to my feelings of failure. I had to remove it all from my mind and do the thing I was most scared to — confront my own body — to make it happen. Given all that, I'm aware of the irony of writing my own "how I finally had an orgasm" narrative. But I know a story like mine, as long as it wasn't dwelled on too long or used as a point of comparison, would have helped my younger self. It's why I keep far less personal aspects of my life out of my work, yet have always known I wanted to write about this experience someday. There are so few narratives about a total inability to orgasm out there. If you're reading this now and see something of yourself in my story, I hope it can provide some. It can happen for you — I truly believe that — whether you're 25 or 72. You'll get there. Isobel Lewis Isobel Lewis is a freelance culture and lifestyle journalist based in London. Formerly of The Independent, she now regularly writes for The New York Times, Service95, and Time Out.