Préparez vos pièges, chargez vos blasters à protons, la chasse aux fantômes débarque dans une […] Cet article Ghostbusters : La chasse aux fantômes passe en réalité virtuelle ! a été publié sur REALITE-VIRTUELLE.COM.

What’s happening with Boba Fett? The last time we saw the legendary Star Wars character was at the end of his own show, The Book of Boba Fett, in February 2022. Yes, the Disney+ spin-off series was divisive, with some Star Wars fans feeling it went too far in softening the iconic villain's character. But that can’t be it for Boba Fett, can it?Over three years later, it feels like The Book of Boba Fett Season 2 is stuck in a galaxy far, far away. Lucasfilm has given no indication that the show will return, with next year’s The Mandalorian & Grogu movie perhaps the best chance of a live-action reprisal. Will there be a The Mandalorian Season 4? Lucasfilm has yet to say, but if it does happen, perhaps Boba Fett would pop up there.In truth, the future of Boba Fett and Temuera Morrison, the actor who plays him, in the Star Wars franchise remains uncertain. And based on recent comments from Morrison himself, there is little reason to deviate from that position.PlaySpeaking in an interview with Collider to promote his new film, Ka Whawhai Tonu (In The Fire of War), the 64-year-old New Zealander said he felt "sad" not to have reprised the role since the end of The Book of Boba Fett.“Where [sic] The Book of Boba Fett Season 2? Where the hell is Season 2?" Morrison said. "I know they're doing Ahsoka Season 2. I'm going, 'Ah, where's my Season 2?'"According to Collider, Morrison revealed he actually pitched Lucasfilm on Boba Fett appearing in Ahsoka Season 2 ("can I be Rex and take his helmet off, please?"), pointing out that he plays not just Boba Fett but all the clones based upon the character.He also bumped into Star Wars stewards Dave Filoni and Jon Favreau recently, and reminded them Boba Fett still exists. Apparently “they kind of said, 'Well, well,' they didn't want to say too much, put it that way. There was a few whispers of — they didn't want to say too much — but they just left it at that."That exchange left Morrison feeling like "I've been preserved for a later date, and I'm going to be tastier." He compared his feeling following the encounter to going to grandma’s house and seeing “that preservative jar of peaches up on the shelf.”Every Upcoming Star Wars Movie and TV Show“That's what I think,” he continued. “I'm one of those peaches, and I've been put up on the shelf. I've been preserved for a later date, and I'm going to be tastier.”Morrison could be playing coy, knowing full well he’s coming back to Star Wars in some form. After all, Rosario Dawson had no idea Mark Hamill was returning as Luke Skywalker in The Mandalorian until he walked on set. Lucasfilm has a history of holding its cards close to its chest.But it does sound to me like nothing is in the works for Boba Fett, unfortunately, and indeed last year Morrison offered a reason for why that might be the case. Speaking at the From Clone Troopers to Bounty Hunters panel at Fan Expo Chicago, Morrison cited The Book of Boba Fett's poor reception as the reason for the once beloved character not returning in Star Wars: The Mandalorian & Grogu. He added that Star Wars owner Disney hadn’t asked him to appear in the incoming film or a second season of The Book of Boba Fett.The show, which told the story of Boba Fett as he escaped from the Sarlacc Pit and acted as a miniature season of The Mandalorian, was among the worst received Star Wars shows. "This show's reception does seem to have impacted the future of the character in the franchise," Morrison said at the time. That was in August 2024. Has something changed in the year since? I'm not sure.Morrison originally played Jango Fett in Star Wars: Episode 2 – Attack of the Clones but years later rejoined Star Wars as Jango's son and clone Boba Fett. He's made clear his desire to return to Star Wars, saying he wants a chunk of The Mandalorian's time just as The Mandalorian led an episode of his show.Photo by Jun Sato/WireImage.Wesley is Director, News at IGN. Find him on Twitter at @wyp100. You can reach Wesley at wesley_yinpoole@ign.com or confidentially at wyp100@proton.me.

Guided by visual effects supervisor John Knoll, ILM embraced continually evolving methodologies to craft breathtaking visual effects for the iconic space battles in First Contact and Rogue One. By Jay Stobie Visual effects supervisor John Knoll (right) confers with modelmakers Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: ILM). Bolstered by visual effects from Industrial Light & Magic, Star Trek: First Contact (1996) and Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) propelled their respective franchises to new heights. While Star Trek Generations (1994) welcomed Captain Jean-Luc Picard’s (Patrick Stewart) crew to the big screen, First Contact stood as the first Star Trek feature that did not focus on its original captain, the legendary James T. Kirk (William Shatner). Similarly, though Rogue One immediately preceded the events of Star Wars: A New Hope (1977), it was set apart from the episodic Star Wars films and launched an era of storytelling outside of the main Skywalker saga that has gone on to include Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018), The Mandalorian (2019-23), Andor (2022-25), Ahsoka (2023), The Acolyte (2024), and more. The two films also shared a key ILM contributor, John Knoll, who served as visual effects supervisor on both projects, as well as an executive producer on Rogue One. Currently, ILM’s executive creative director and senior visual effects supervisor, Knoll – who also conceived the initial framework for Rogue One’s story – guided ILM as it brought its talents to bear on these sci-fi and fantasy epics. The work involved crafting two spectacular starship-packed space clashes – First Contact’s Battle of Sector 001 and Rogue One’s Battle of Scarif. Although these iconic installments were released roughly two decades apart, they represent a captivating case study of how ILM’s approach to visual effects has evolved over time. With this in mind, let’s examine the films’ unforgettable space battles through the lens of fascinating in-universe parallels and the ILM-produced fleets that face off near Earth and Scarif. A final frame from the Battle of Scarif in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). A Context for Conflict In First Contact, the United Federation of Planets – a 200-year-old interstellar government consisting of more than 150 member worlds – braces itself for an invasion by the Borg – an overwhelmingly powerful collective composed of cybernetic beings who devastate entire planets by assimilating their biological populations and technological innovations. The Borg only send a single vessel, a massive cube containing thousands of hive-minded drones and their queen, pushing the Federation’s Starfleet defenders to Earth’s doorstep. Conversely, in Rogue One, the Rebel Alliance – a fledgling coalition of freedom fighters – seeks to undermine and overthrow the stalwart Galactic Empire – a totalitarian regime preparing to tighten its grip on the galaxy by revealing a horrifying superweapon. A rebel team infiltrates a top-secret vault on Scarif in a bid to steal plans to that battle station, the dreaded Death Star, with hopes of exploiting a vulnerability in its design. On the surface, the situations could not seem to be more disparate, particularly in terms of the Federation’s well-established prestige and the Rebel Alliance’s haphazardly organized factions. Yet, upon closer inspection, the spaceborne conflicts at Earth and Scarif are linked by a vital commonality. The threat posed by the Borg is well-known to the Federation, but the sudden intrusion upon their space takes its defenses by surprise. Starfleet assembles any vessel within range – including antiquated Oberth-class science ships – to intercept the Borg cube in the Typhon Sector, only to be forced back to Earth on the edge of defeat. The unsanctioned mission to Scarif with Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) and Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and the sudden need to take down the planet’s shield gate propels the Rebel Alliance fleet into rushing to their rescue with everything from their flagship Profundity to GR-75 medium transports. Whether Federation or Rebel Alliance, these fleets gather in last-ditch efforts to oppose enemies who would embrace their eradication – the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are fights for survival. From Physical to Digital By the time Jonathan Frakes was selected to direct First Contact, Star Trek’s reliance on constructing traditional physical models (many of which were built by ILM) for its features was gradually giving way to innovative computer graphics (CG) models, resulting in the film’s use of both techniques. “If one of the ships was to be seen full-screen and at length,” associate visual effects supervisor George Murphy told Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin, “we knew it would be done as a stage model. Ships that would be doing a lot of elaborate maneuvers in space battle scenes would be created digitally.” In fact, physical and CG versions of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E appear in the film, with the latter being harnessed in shots involving the vessel’s entry into a temporal vortex at the conclusion of the Battle of Sector 001. Despite the technological leaps that ILM pioneered in the decades between First Contact and Rogue One, they considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in the latter film. ILM considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in Rogue One. The feature’s fleets were ultimately created digitally to allow for changes throughout post-production. “If it’s a photographed miniature element, it’s not possible to go back and make adjustments. So it’s the additional flexibility that comes with the computer graphics models that’s very attractive to many people,” John Knoll relayed to writer Jon Witmer at American Cinematographer’s TheASC.com. However, Knoll aimed to develop computer graphics that retained the same high-quality details as their physical counterparts, leading ILM to employ a modern approach to a time-honored modelmaking tactic. “I also wanted to emulate the kit-bashing aesthetic that had been part of Star Wars from the very beginning, where a lot of mechanical detail had been added onto the ships by using little pieces from plastic model kits,” explained Knoll in his chat with TheASC.com. For Rogue One, ILM replicated the process by obtaining such kits, scanning their parts, building a computer graphics library, and applying the CG parts to digitally modeled ships. “I’m very happy to say it was super-successful,” concluded Knoll. “I think a lot of our digital models look like they are motion-control models.” John Knoll (second from left) confers with Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: ILM). Legendary Lineages In First Contact, Captain Picard commanded a brand-new vessel, the Sovereign-class U.S.S. Enterprise-E, continuing the celebrated starship’s legacy in terms of its famous name and design aesthetic. Designed by John Eaves and developed into blueprints by Rick Sternbach, the Enterprise-E was built into a 10-foot physical model by ILM model project supervisor John Goodson and his shop’s talented team. ILM infused the ship with extraordinary detail, including viewports equipped with backlit set images from the craft’s predecessor, the U.S.S. Enterprise-D. For the vessel’s larger windows, namely those associated with the observation lounge and arboretum, ILM took a painstakingly practical approach to match the interiors shown with the real-world set pieces. “We filled that area of the model with tiny, micro-scale furniture,” Goodson informed Cinefex, “including tables and chairs.” Rogue One’s rebel team initially traversed the galaxy in a U-wing transport/gunship, which, much like the Enterprise-E, was a unique vessel that nonetheless channeled a certain degree of inspiration from a classic design. Lucasfilm’s Doug Chiang, a co-production designer for Rogue One, referred to the U-wing as the film’s “Huey helicopter version of an X-wing” in the Designing Rogue One bonus featurette on Disney+ before revealing that, “Towards the end of the design cycle, we actually decided that maybe we should put in more X-wing features. And so we took the X-wing engines and literally mounted them onto the configuration that we had going.” Modeled by ILM digital artist Colie Wertz, the U-wing’s final computer graphics design subtly incorporated these X-wing influences to give the transport a distinctive feel without making the craft seem out of place within the rebel fleet. While ILM’s work on the Enterprise-E’s viewports offered a compelling view toward the ship’s interior, a breakthrough LED setup for Rogue One permitted ILM to obtain realistic lighting on actors as they looked out from their ships and into the space around them. “All of our major spaceship cockpit scenes were done that way, with the gimbal in this giant horseshoe of LED panels we got from [equipment vendor] VER, and we prepared graphics that went on the screens,” John Knoll shared with American Cinematographer’s Benjamin B and Jon D. Witmer. Furthermore, in Disney+’s Rogue One: Digital Storytelling bonus featurette, visual effects producer Janet Lewin noted, “For the actors, I think, in the space battle cockpits, for them to be able to see what was happening in the battle brought a higher level of accuracy to their performance.” The U.S.S. Enterprise-E in Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: Paramount). Familiar Foes To transport First Contact’s Borg invaders, John Goodson’s team at ILM resurrected the Borg cube design previously seen in Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987) and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993), creating a nearly three-foot physical model to replace the one from the series. Art consultant and ILM veteran Bill George proposed that the cube’s seemingly straightforward layout be augmented with a complex network of photo-etched brass, a suggestion which produced a jagged surface and offered a visual that was both intricate and menacing. ILM also developed a two-foot motion-control model for a Borg sphere, a brand-new auxiliary vessel that emerged from the cube. “We vacuformed about 15 different patterns that conformed to this spherical curve and covered those with a lot of molded and cast pieces. Then we added tons of acid-etched brass over it, just like we had on the cube,” Goodson outlined to Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin. As for Rogue One’s villainous fleet, reproducing the original trilogy’s Death Star and Imperial Star Destroyers centered upon translating physical models into digital assets. Although ILM no longer possessed A New Hope’s three-foot Death Star shooting model, John Knoll recreated the station’s surface paneling by gathering archival images, and as he spelled out to writer Joe Fordham in Cinefex, “I pieced all the images together. I unwrapped them into texture space and projected them onto a sphere with a trench. By doing that with enough pictures, I got pretty complete coverage of the original model, and that became a template upon which to redraw very high-resolution texture maps. Every panel, every vertical striped line, I matched from a photograph. It was as accurate as it was possible to be as a reproduction of the original model.” Knoll’s investigative eye continued to pay dividends when analyzing the three-foot and eight-foot Star Destroyer motion-control models, which had been built for A New Hope and Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980), respectively. “Our general mantra was, ‘Match your memory of it more than the reality,’ because sometimes you go look at the actual prop in the archive building or you look back at the actual shot from the movie, and you go, ‘Oh, I remember it being a little better than that,’” Knoll conveyed to TheASC.com. This philosophy motivated ILM to combine elements from those two physical models into a single digital design. “Generally, we copied the three-footer for details like the superstructure on the top of the bridge, but then we copied the internal lighting plan from the eight-footer,” Knoll explained. “And then the upper surface of the three-footer was relatively undetailed because there were no shots that saw it closely, so we took a lot of the high-detail upper surface from the eight-footer. So it’s this amalgam of the two models, but the goal was to try to make it look like you remember it from A New Hope.” A final frame from Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). Forming Up the Fleets In addition to the U.S.S. Enterprise-E, the Battle of Sector 001 debuted numerous vessels representing four new Starfleet ship classes – the Akira, Steamrunner, Saber, and Norway – all designed by ILM visual effects art director Alex Jaeger. “Since we figured a lot of the background action in the space battle would be done with computer graphics ships that needed to be built from scratch anyway, I realized that there was no reason not to do some new designs,” John Knoll told American Cinematographer writer Ron Magid. Used in previous Star Trek projects, older physical models for the Oberth and Nebula classes were mixed into the fleet for good measure, though the vast majority of the armada originated as computer graphics. Over at Scarif, ILM portrayed the Rebel Alliance forces with computer graphics models of fresh designs (the MC75 cruiser Profundity and U-wings), live-action versions of Star Wars Rebels’ VCX-100 light freighter Ghost and Hammerhead corvettes, and Star Wars staples (Nebulon-B frigates, X-wings, Y-wings, and more). These ships face off against two Imperial Star Destroyers and squadrons of TIE fighters, and – upon their late arrival to the battle – Darth Vader’s Star Destroyer and the Death Star. The Tantive IV, a CR90 corvette more popularly referred to as a blockade runner, made its own special cameo at the tail end of the fight. As Princess Leia Organa’s (Carrie Fisher and Ingvild Deila) personal ship, the Tantive IV received the Death Star plans and fled the scene, destined to be captured by Vader’s Star Destroyer at the beginning of A New Hope. And, while we’re on the subject of intricate starship maneuvers and space-based choreography… Although the First Contact team could plan visual effects shots with animated storyboards, ILM supplied Gareth Edwards with a next-level virtual viewfinder that allowed the director to select his shots by immersing himself among Rogue One’s ships in real time. “What we wanted to do is give Gareth the opportunity to shoot his space battles and other all-digital scenes the same way he shoots his live-action. Then he could go in with this sort of virtual viewfinder and view the space battle going on, and figure out what the best angle was to shoot those ships from,” senior animation supervisor Hal Hickel described in the Rogue One: Digital Storytelling featurette. Hickel divulged that the sequence involving the dish array docking with the Death Star was an example of the “spontaneous discovery of great angles,” as the scene was never storyboarded or previsualized. Visual effects supervisor John Knoll with director Gareth Edwards during production of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). Tough Little Ships The Federation and Rebel Alliance each deployed “tough little ships” (an endearing description Commander William T. Riker [Jonathan Frakes] bestowed upon the U.S.S. Defiant in First Contact) in their respective conflicts, namely the U.S.S. Defiant from Deep Space Nine and the Tantive IV from A New Hope. VisionArt had already built a CG Defiant for the Deep Space Nine series, but ILM upgraded the model with images gathered from the ship’s three-foot physical model. A similar tactic was taken to bring the Tantive IV into the digital realm for Rogue One. “This was the Blockade Runner. This was the most accurate 1:1 reproduction we could possibly have made,” model supervisor Russell Paul declared to Cinefex’s Joe Fordham. “We did an extensive photo reference shoot and photogrammetry re-creation of the miniature. From there, we built it out as accurately as possible.” Speaking of sturdy ships, if you look very closely, you can spot a model of the Millennium Falcon flashing across the background as the U.S.S. Defiant makes an attack run on the Borg cube at the Battle of Sector 001! Exploration and Hope The in-universe ramifications that materialize from the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are monumental. The destruction of the Borg cube compels the Borg Queen to travel back in time in an attempt to vanquish Earth before the Federation can even be formed, but Captain Picard and the Enterprise-E foil the plot and end up helping their 21st century ancestors make “first contact” with another species, the logic-revering Vulcans. The post-Scarif benefits take longer to play out for the Rebel Alliance, but the theft of the Death Star plans eventually leads to the superweapon’s destruction. The Galactic Civil War is far from over, but Scarif is a significant step in the Alliance’s effort to overthrow the Empire. The visual effects ILM provided for First Contact and Rogue One contributed significantly to the critical and commercial acclaim both pictures enjoyed, a victory reflecting the relentless dedication, tireless work ethic, and innovative spirit embodied by visual effects supervisor John Knoll and ILM’s entire staff. While being interviewed for The Making of Star Trek: First Contact, actor Patrick Stewart praised ILM’s invaluable influence, emphasizing, “ILM was with us, on this movie, almost every day on set. There is so much that they are involved in.” And, regardless of your personal preferences – phasers or lasers, photon torpedoes or proton torpedoes, warp speed or hyperspace – perhaps Industrial Light & Magic’s ability to infuse excitement into both franchises demonstrates that Star Trek and Star Wars encompass themes that are not competitive, but compatible. After all, what goes together better than exploration and hope? – Jay Stobie (he/him) is a writer, author, and consultant who has contributed articles to ILM.com, Skysound.com, Star Wars Insider, StarWars.com, Star Trek Explorer, Star Trek Magazine, and StarTrek.com. Jay loves sci-fi, fantasy, and film, and you can learn more about him by visiting JayStobie.com or finding him on Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms at @StobiesGalaxy.

Arrimus Ultimate 3D Course: https://www.udemy.com/course/arrimus3d/?referralCode=446E0E08AE1808A2938A Plasticity Modeling Guide: https://www.udemy.com/course/plasticity-modeling-guide-by-arrimus-3d/?referralCode=85C41A46EAE3EF8725DF Practical Sci-Fi Design: https://arrimus3d.gumroad.com/l/scifidesign OR https://www.udemy.com/course/practical-sci-fi-design/?referralCode=90114E112DAE1B47430A Redesign and Remake: https://www.udemy.com/course/redesign/?referralCode=470F0A962EACE810C94C Ultimate Sci-Fi Soldier: https://www.udemy.com/course/ultimate-sci-fi-soldier/?referralCode=440AD5E0F74E48EAEFB2 Gumroad ► https://gumroad.com/arrimus3d Patreon ► http://www.patreon.com/Arrimus3D. Artstation ► https://www.artstation.com/arrimus3d Business ► 3dtut@protonmail.com Giving me a thumbs up and subscribing and clicking the bell shows you find my videos helpful. If you want to support me check out my Patreon visible in the last 20 seconds of the video. Thanks. Ending Music: Bensound

British fintech Wise said this week it would shift its primary listing from London to New York, joining a growing list of firms snubbing the London Stock Exchange. UK chip designer Arm opted for a New York IPO in 2023, while food delivery giant Just Eat Takeaway quit the LSE for Amsterdam in November.  Sweden’s Klarna has confirmed plans to go public in New York, following in the footsteps of fellow Stockholm-based tech darling Spotify, which listed on the NYSE in 2018.  The draw? Bigger valuations, deeper capital, and more appetite for risk. Register Now “The US economy continues to perform far better than the EU, and valuations are simply higher for companies that can list there,” Victor Basta, managing partner at Artis Partners, told TNW.    The numbers back him up. The NYSE boasts a market cap of around $27 trillion — compared to just $3.5 trillion for the LSE.  That scale — and the deep-pocketed investors it attracts — pushed Arm to list across the pond. Wise followed for the same reason, according to CEO Kristo Käärmann.  Käärmann said the move would tap “the biggest market opportunity in the world for our products today, and enable better access to the world’s deepest and most liquid capital market.”  Beyond sheer growth potential, US investors are also known for taking bigger bets on growth-stage tech companies.   “US investors understand the whole ‘revenue-before-profit’ strategy,”  Andrey Korchak, a British serial entrepreneur, told TNW. “Meanwhile, in Europe, they often want to see revenue from day one.”  That risk aversion, Korchak believes, restricts the growth of startups. “Europe just doesn’t have the same density of tech unicorns,” he said. “And when startups here do hit that billion-dollar mark, most still prefer to list in the US.” Sean Reddington, co-founder of UK tech firm Thrive, fears that Wise’s New York listing will deepen the problems.  “Wise’s move to the US signals a worrying trend,” he said. “It threatens a ‘brain drain’ of capital and talent, making it harder for growth-stage VCs to invest in UK scaleups without a clear US exit plan.” He called for urgent government action, including providing “meaningful incentives” for tech firms to list in the UK.  “If the ultimate reward of a domestic IPO is diminished, it pushes more companies to consider relocating or listing overseas,” he said. Europe’s startup struggles will be a hot topic at TNW Conference, which takes place on June 19-20 in Amsterdam. Tickets for the event are now on sale — use the code TNWXMEDIA2025 at checkout to get 30%. Story by Siôn Geschwindt Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehic (show all) Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehicles, he's happiest sourcing a scoop, investigating the impact of emerging technologies, and even putting them to the test. He has five years of journalism experience and holds a dual degree in media and environmental science from the University of Cape Town, South Africa. When he's not writing, you can probably find Siôn out hiking, surfing, playing the drums or catering to his moderate caffeine addiction. You can contact him at: sion.geschwindt [at] protonmail [dot] com Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week. Also tagged with

European tech leaders are pushing back against high-profile VCs urging founders to work seven days a week — slamming the grindset mentality as everything from “toxic” to “childish.”  “Calling on founders to work insane hours nonstop is just bad advice,” Suranga Chandratillake, general partner at Balderton Capital and former CEO of video search engine Blinkx, told TNW. “Even sprinters don’t sprint all the time — rest and reflection is just as important as putting in the work.” His comments follow a LinkedIn post on Saturday by Harry Stebbings, podcast host and 28-year-old founder of London-based venture firm 20VC. “What European founders need to realise [is that] 7 days a week is the required velocity to win right now,” he wrote, implying that they need to match the infamous grind culture of Silicon Valley.       Martin Mignot, a partner at New York-based Index Ventures, rallied behind Stebbings. In a LinkedIn post of his own, he applauded the 9am-9pm, six days a week (illegal) work culture adopted by some tech firms in China. “Forget 9 to 5, 996 is the new startup standard,” he said.  While some echoed their views, many European tech founders and investors weren’t happy with the rhetoric. Amelia Miller, co-founder of return-to-work platform Ivee, called Stebbings’ post “unbelievably toxic.” Register Now “Only bad founders work 7 days non-stop,” she wrote. “It’s poor time management and a fast track to burnout.” Miller also said she thinks that working such long hours unfairly discriminates against parents and those with responsibilities outside the office.   Chandratillake also warned against taking advice from VCs without experience of starting and running a company. “If you’re a CEO, don’t listen to a jumped-up finance bro in a hoodie who has never done your job telling you how to do it!” he said.  The lively debate comes amid a broader conversation in European tech over whether workplace culture is holding the region back compared to the US or China.  In a podcast interview in March, Revolut boss Nik Storonsky criticised European startup entrepreneurs, saying they weren’t working hard enough and valued work-life balance too highly. Those comments followed another lively social media debate earlier this year about whether French founders lacked the “grindset” to succeed.   However, a recent survey of 128 European founders by early-stage VC firm Antler found that three-quarters of them work more than 60 hours weekly. Almost 20% of them exceeded 80 hours, challenging the notion that European founders don’t hustle.  Chandratillake said he believes that scrutinising work hours overlooks some of the real challenges founders face in Europe, such as access to late-stage financing. That said, the investor thinks there is a time and a place for the grind. “Sometimes founders have to work extremely hard and long hours, but that’s not sustainable all the time,” he said. “Building a successful company is a marathon, it takes endurance.”  European startup founders are the lifeblood of TNW Conference — and we want you there too. The tech festival takes place on June 19-20 in Amsterdam. Use the code TNWXMEDIA2025 at the ticket checkout to get 30% off. Story by Siôn Geschwindt Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehic (show all) Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehicles, he's happiest sourcing a scoop, investigating the impact of emerging technologies, and even putting them to the test. He has five years of journalism experience and holds a dual degree in media and environmental science from the University of Cape Town, South Africa. When he's not writing, you can probably find Siôn out hiking, surfing, playing the drums or catering to his moderate caffeine addiction. You can contact him at: sion.geschwindt [at] protonmail [dot] com Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week. Also tagged with

Nearly two decades ago, scientists made an alarming discovery in upstate New York: Bats, the world’s only flying mammal, were becoming infected with a new, deadly fungal disease that, in some cases, could wipe out an entire colony in a matter of months. Since then, the disease — later called white-nose syndrome — has spread across much of the country, utterly decimating North American bats that hibernate in caves and killing over 90 percent of three bat species. According to some scientists, WNS has caused “the most precipitous wildlife decline in the past century in North America.” These declines have clear consequences for human populations — for you, even if you don’t like bats or visit caves. Bats eat insect pests, such as moths and beetles. And as they decline, farmers need to spray more pesticides. Scientists have linked the loss of bats in the US to an increase in insecticide use on farmland and, remarkably, to a rise in infant deaths. Insecticide chemicals are known to harm the health of newborns. The only reason we know any of this is because of a somewhat obscure government program in the US Geological Survey (USGS), an agency nested within the Interior Department. That program, known as the Ecosystems Mission Area (EMA), is the biological research division of Interior. Among other functions, it monitors environmental contaminants, the spread of invasive species, and the health of the nation’s wildlife, including bees, birds, and bats.White-nose syndrome, a fungal disease, has caused massive declines in a handful of bat species, including the tricolored bat, shown here in flight. J. Scott Altenbach/Bat Conservation InternationalThe Ecosystems Mission Area, which has around 1,200 employees, produces the premier science revealing how animals and ecosystems that Americans rely on are changing and what we can do to keep them intact — or risk our own health and economy. This program is now at an imminent risk of disappearing.Send us a confidential tipAre you a current or former federal employee with knowledge about the Trump administration’s attacks on wildlife protections? Reach out to Vox environmental correspondent Benji Jones on Signal at benji.90 or at benji.jones@vox.com or at benjijones@protonmail.com.In the White House’s 2026 budget request, the Trump administration asked Congress to slash funding for EMA by about 90 percent, from $293 million in 2025 to $29 million next year. Such cuts are also in line with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s conservative policy roadmap, which calls for the government to “abolish” Interior’s Biological Resources Division, an outdated name for the Ecosystems Mission Area.Meanwhile, the Trump administration is also reportedly trying to fire government employees in the Ecosystems Mission Area, though a federal judge has so far blocked those efforts. Eliminating biological research is not good. In fact, it’s very bad.For a decade now, EMA’s North American Bat Monitoring Program, or NABat, has been gathering and analyzing data on bats and the threats they face. NABat produces research using data from hundreds of partner organizations showing not only how white-nose syndrome is spreading — which scientists are using to develop and deploy vaccines — but also how bats are affected by wind turbines, another known threat. Energy companies can and do use this research to develop safer technologies and avoid delays caused by wildlife regulations, such as the Endangered Species Act. The irony, an Interior Department employee told me, is that NABat makes wildlife management more efficient. It also helps reveal where declines are occurring before they become severe, potentially helping avoid the need to grant certain species federal protection — something the Trump administration would seem to want. The employee, who’s familiar with Interior’s bat-monitoring efforts, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation by the Trump administration. A northern long-eared bat with white-nose syndrome. Steve Taylor/University of IllinoisA dead bat infected with white-nose syndrome under UV light. USGS“If they want to create efficiencies in the government, they should ask us,” another Interior employee told Vox. “The damage that can be done by one administration takes decades to rebuild.”In response to a request for comment, an Interior Department spokesperson told Vox that “USGS remains committed to its congressional mandate as the science arm of the Department of the Interior.” The White House did not respond to a request for comment. In a Senate appropriations hearing last week, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum refused to commit to maintaining funding for EMA.“There’s no question that they don’t know what EMA does,” said a third Interior employee, who has knowledge of the Ecosystems Mission Area.Ultimately, it’s not clear why the administration has targeted Interior’s biological research. EMA does, however, do climate science, such as studying how plants and animals are responding to rising temperatures. That’s apparently a no-go for the Trump administration. It also gathers information that sometimes indicates that certain species need federal protections, which come with regulations (also a no-go for President Donald Trump’s agenda).What’s especially frustrating for environmental advocates is that NABat, now 10 years old, is starting to hit its stride.“We should be celebrating the 10-year anniversary of this very successful program that started from scratch and built this robust, vibrant community of people all collecting data,” said Winifred Frick, the chief scientist at Bat Conservation International, an environmental group. “We have 10 years of momentum, and so to cut it off now sort of wastes all that investment. That feels like a tremendous loss.” Meanwhile, the cost of maintaining the program is less than 1 percent of Interior’s overall budget.The government’s wildlife monitoring programs are “jewels of the country,” said Hollis Woodard, an associate professor of entomology at University of California Riverside who works with USGS on bee monitoring. “These birds and bats perform services for us that are important for our day-to-day lives. Literally everything I value, including food, comes down to keeping an eye on these populations. The idea that we’re just going to wipe them out is just terrifying.”Update, June 2, 12:58 pm ET: This article was originally published on May 29, 2025, and has been updated to include newly public details on the 2026 White House budget request.See More: