If you’re in the homebuying market, you’ve probably come to realize that the grass is always greener in the listing description—both literally and figuratively. Real estate agents sometimes get creative with Photoshop edits on listing photos, often brightening up the grass and editing out unsightly objects, like a neighbor’s clunker car or wires cluttering a bedroom. They also use some descriptive language that can be, well, deceptive. Adjectives like cozy and charming may evoke good feelings in potential buyers, but they’re high on the list of frequently used adjectives that probably don’t mean what you think they do. Photos and descriptions give you a teaser, but nothing beats an in-person tour for catching any potential sneaky details. Still, there are certain phrases to keep an eye out for as you're browsing for your next dream home online. Below, we're rounding up 10 common words or phrases often found in real estate listings should raise red flags, according to real estate pros. Related Stories“Charming”DreamPictures//Getty ImagesOr, similarly, unique. “Often, this means the property has some quirks that might not appeal to everyone,” real estate expert Yawar Charlie, director of the luxury estates division at Aaron Kirman Group, says. “It could be anything from a funky floor plan to unconventional finishes.” Think about resale value and whether any of these quirks might be a dealbreaker for future buyers, should you choose to sell“Cozy”Cozy is most likely a code word for lacking square footage, Charlie says. “When they call it cozy, they’re hinting that it might be a bit cramped,” he says. “Check for square footage and layout specifics.”“Home Being Sold As Is”"As is" is perhaps one of the biggest red flags in real estate. “It often signals that the property may have significant issues the seller is trying to offload,” says Nikki Bernstein, a global real estate advisor with Engel & Völkers Scottsdale.According to Bernstein, an "as is" condition indicates that the seller is likely emotionally detached and unwilling to negotiate on price or concessions. It also suggests they may be withholding information, indicating there could be hidden problems waiting to be uncovered during inspection, she says. “As is might as well be a warning: ‘Buyer beware,’” Bernstein says. “Fixer Upper”Mableen//Getty ImagesIf you’ve got a design-build background or are looking for homes that are worth renovating, a property advertised as a fixer-upper might make for a fun challenge. But this phrase usually means the property has seen better days and needs some TLC, which is not what most buyers are looking for. Charlie's advice? Bring a contractor or a handyman to the home inspection with you. “You’re not just checking for cosmetic issues; you want to get the lowdown on structural problems, electrical updates, and plumbing repairs,” Charlie says. “A fixer-upper can quickly turn into a money pit.”If you choose to pursue a home that needs a fair amount of love, make sure you’ve got the right loan, Virginia Realtor and real estate broker Michelle Brown cautions. For example, a FHA 203K loan lets buyers roll home improvement costs into their mortgage.“Investors’ Dream”This phrase typically signals the property is in poor condition but priced low for potential profit through renovations or redevelopment, Brown says. This is another instance where you’ll want to have a contractor with you to get a full picture of all the repairs that may be needed.“Make This Home Your Own”This phrase signals the home is likely outdated and in need of cosmetic updates at the very least, New Jersey Realtor Larry Devardo says. Listings that advertise “potential” or say “home has endless possibilities” are also indicators that repairs and updates are needed, he says. “Great Bones”DreamPictures//Getty ImagesOn the upside, “great bones” means the home is structurally sound with strong infrastructure, Maryland Realtor Ellie Hitt says. On the downside, it likely needs a lot of cosmetic updates to bring it up to date with modern conveniences and aesthetics.“Needs TLC”Often, when a home requires cosmetic work, “TLC” is noted, indicating the property needs someone who is willing to put in a little bit of elbow grease, agent Karen Kostiw of Coldwell Banker Warburg says. You may be thinking of new carpet, updated cabinets, and a few other touch-ups, but in some cases, TLC could actually mean the property requires a gut renovation.“Motivated Seller”Translation: The seller is eager to sell, possibly due to financial issues, a pending foreclosure, or a property that has been on the market for a while, says Jeffrey Borham, owner of Tampa Bay, Florida Team Borham. “This could be an opportunity for negotiation,” he adds. “However, investigate why the seller is motivated; there could be hidden issues that have deterred other buyers.”Similarly, “priced to sell” could mean a whole host of things, ranging from the property needs some work or the seller wants to start a bidding war, New York City Broker Sean Adu-Gyamfi of Coldwell Banker Warburg says.“Hot Listing”Some agents advertise “hot listings” on the MLS to create urgency, even if there are no other offers, Misty Spittler, a licensed public insurance adjuster and certified roof inspector, says. Don’t feel pressured, though. She recently had a client bid $20,000 over asking on a listing advertised as hot. Spittler’s inspection found $30,000 of necessary repairs, so the client was able to renegotiate.Follow House Beautiful on Instagram and TikTok.

People hoping to score Nintendo’s new console this week are finding them on resale websites—at several hundred dollars over the retail price of $450.

We may earn a commission from links on this page.In 2023, I decided to update my Apple Watch after consistently failing to wear my Series 4 for a number of years. I sold that one on Poshmark and began looking at newer models to find one with enough features to convince me to actually wear it. I opted to get a Series 8, although the Series 9 had just been released, as I was buying two: one for my mom and one for myself. As it turns out, that was a great decision.If you're searching for a new wearable or considering upgrading yours, you might also be wondering which of the older Apple Watch models is still useful today. My Series 8 is holding up beautifully three years after it was introduced, so I'm a big proponent of using older devices as long as possible. But not all Apple Watches will work as well as the Series 8 does in 2025. Don’t buy a watch Apple doesn’t support anymoreWe have to draw the line somewhere: Seven of Apple's watches are no longer supported, meaning they won't receive any software or security updates anymore. In addition, you run the risk that the watch will no longer be compatible with your iPhone or certain apps. In short, you shouldn't buy a watch that Apple doesn't support. That includes the following:Apple Watch Series 0Apple Watch Series 1Apple Watch Series 2Apple Watch Series 3Apple Watch Series 4Apple Watch Series 5Apple Watch SE (first-gen) While the company does currently support the Series 6, it is next in line to join this list. It's not clear when that will happen, but you can be sure it will. We'll see next week—when Apple reveals watchOS 26—whether the watch will be supported another year. If not, it'll be stuck on watchOS 11 for good.Performance and other generational Watch improvementsThere are considerations for older Apple Watch models that extend beyond their ability to simply run the latest operating system. With each generation, improvements are made in some form or another. For instance, the Series 4 introduced the ECG sensor, while the Series 6 introduced the blood oxygen sensor (though Apple had to disable the feature for the Series 9 and Ultra 2 in the U.S. due to a lawsuit). The Series 7 charges faster than its predecessors, and Apple has included fast charging on most watch models since (sorry, Apple Watch SE users).In general, each Apple Watch is faster than the last. Apple tends to put its newest S-Chip—the Apple Watch's processor—in its latest watch series. Simply put, a newer S-chip gives you a faster, more productive product. The Series 6 has an S6 chip, Series 7 has S7, and so on until you hit the Ultras. (The first-generation Ultra has an S8 chip like the Series 8, while the Ultra 2 has an S9 chip like the Series 9.)While there are some core features all currently supported watches share—like workout and swim tracking, sleep tracking, Apple Pay, ECG scanning, and the ability to read and respond to messages—newer models also each have some of their own special advancements and upgrades. Here's a brief list:The Series 7 introduced faster charging, a larger display, and more durable screen.The Series 8 brought temperature sensing, crash detection, and a low-power mode for conserving battery (as did the second-gen Apple Watch SE).The Series 9 debuted new gesture controls, on-device Siri access, more precise location tracking in Find My, and a display with double the brightness of the Series 8.The first-gen Apple Watch Ultra introduced a more durable titanium casing, custom shortcuts to apps and modes via the Action button, a depth gauge and water temperature sensor, more accurate GPS, a 36-hour battery life, and an emergency siren.The Apple Watch Ultra 2 introduced a display with a maximum brightness of 3,000 nits and on-device media playback. The Series 10 introduced the largest display available on a standard Apple Watch and faster charging. If you see a feature you absolutely need in a particular watch model, you'll have to spring for it. But if you just want something for core Apple Watch tasks, you can start to consider older options. Apple's watch comparison site can be a helpful tool for identifying different features among models. Battery degradation All tech degrades to some extent and the Apple Watch is no different—particularly when it comes to the battery. While there are ways to mitigate the problem, over time, the lithium-ion battery powering your wrist computer won't last as long as it used to. That might be a bigger issue than your watch's ability to download and support a new operating system. Apple's warranty doesn't cover batteries that wear down from normal use, and charges $99 for the repair, which you could instead put towards the purchase of a new watch. There is one exception: Battery service is free if you have AppleCare+ and your watch's battery holds less than 80% of its original capacity. You need to take your watch in to an Apple Store or service provider to have it tested. My watch was pre-owned, and while I have no way of knowing if it has its original battery, my battery life has not declined substantially in the two years I've been using it daily. I primarily use mine to track my workouts, vitals, and sleep, which means it's always running. I charge it while I'm in the shower and occasionally for a few minutes before bed, and that's about it. On an average day of constant notifications, mine lasts me a bit longer than the advertised 18-hour mark. Because I have little interest in the small improvements offered by the Series 9 and Series 10—like extra brightness, larger screen size, performance bumps, and advanced cycle tracking—the battery life is what would (or will) compel me to upgrade in the future, but for now, I have not noticed any problems. I asked my mom if she's noticed any battery degradation on hers, since I bought it at the same time and place as mine, and she said no. She uses hers to track walking workouts, talk on the phone, and monitor her sleep and vitals, too.Stick with the Series 7 or newerThoroughly consider which of the features on newer models are actually important to you before making any buying decision and, if you can, stay above a Series 7. The Series 6 is still functional, but, again, it's a matter of time until the company stops acknowledging that one completely. For now, I have been pleasantly surprised by how well my Series 8 has held up for two years. Its touchscreen has never faltered, the external buttons function perfectly, it syncs to all of my apps and devices with no problem, and it does exactly what I need it to do—which is to tell me how many steps I'm taking and how hard I'm exerting myself at the gym. If you're in the market for a smart watch, I see no reason that an older version shouldn't be considered, as long as it still runs the latest operating system. You can save a chunk of change by sourcing an older model from the resale or refurbished markets and put that money away for when Apple drops something super revolutionary in the wearable space. Apple doesn't sell anything below a Series 10 or SE directly anymore, so if you want a 6, 7, 8, or 9, you'll have to check the resale and refurbished markets. You'll definitely save some money that way (a new Series 10 starts at $399, though it can be found on sale, and the refurbished Series 8 I got is selling right now for $219). Apple Watch Series 8 (Renewed) $209.00 at Amazon $220.00 Save $11.00 Learn More Learn More $209.00 at Amazon $220.00 Save $11.00

Today, like most days, I made a trip to the post office to ship out my Poshmark sales. But what I'm shipping out looks a little different than it might have a few months ago. Of the seven packages I'm handing off, only one contains an item I'd consider "nice." Alongside that Fendi top are six pieces from fast-fashion brands—ultra cheap stuff I ordered from Chinese retailers like Shein and Temu that, until recently, I never expected to actually sell, given that someone could buy the same item new at, well, Shein and Temu prices. But since the United States' new tariff structure went into effect (primarily the elimination of the de minimus exemption), consumers have been forced to adjust to a reality in which they can't easily source everything from toothbrush holders to micro-trendy outfits from an low price Chinese retail giant, to say nothing of concerns over how much more they could be paying for pricier items like autos and appliances made with foreign parts or manufactured overseas. In this period of uncertainty, resale apps may be filling the void. My own Poshmark sales are up compared to the month before the tariffs went into effect, with a notable rise in sales of basic, cheap stuff. Curious, I talked to a few experts to see if my experiences were indicative of a broader trend—one that could mean good things (well, relatively speaking) for resale buyers and sellers alike.The vibe on the resale apps in the wake of tariffsThe rollout of the tariffs has been confusing and disjointed. It was (and still is) hard to predict when consumers will see price increases on foreign-made electronics, cars, and other goods, or on products assembled in the U.S. but made with imported parts. But from the start, it has been obvious that goods from China in particular were about to cost a whole lot more—including the volumes of stuff shipped directly to consumers from the likes of Temu and Shein, the latter of which is famous for uploading 10,000 new styles to its site every day (and for charging unbelievably low prices for all of them). Months ago, when the tariffs were first announced, people started wondering if they should start stocking up (and on what), whether they were importing cheap clothes from Shein or bracing for higher prices on more substantial goods like smartphones. I've bought more than my share of junk from Shein, though I know it is not exactly a sustainable or environmentally friendly choice. To make myself feel better about that, I've always listed the clothes on resale apps once I'm done with them. To be clear, these are cheaply made garments—you don't buy your capsule wardrobe on Shein; Shein is where you shop for micro-trends (styles that are currently all over your Instagram and Pinterest feed, but which won't be in two months) or basics like tank tops that you can use and abuse. Prior to the tariffs rolling out, it was inconceivable that anyone would pay me $9 (plus shipping) for a pre-worn, cheaply-made dress or workout set that I had only paid $15 for in the first place—but that's what started happening. In the past month, I've still sold clothing and accessories made by Adidas, Gucci, Skims, Ralph Lauren, Marc Jacobs, Reebok, and Givenchy, but those tend to be one-off sales. My Shein resales for the last four weeks absolutely dwarf them. I also sold a few electronics items—an Apple Watch and facial micro-current device—I had listed in my Poshmark shop months earlier. Could I chalk up all of these sales to tariffs, and to anxiety about impending price increases on electronics? My Shein sales this month vs. everything else Credit: Lindsey Ellefson Certainly I'm not alone in noticing it this trend. A Poshmark spokesperson tells me, "We’ve seen an increase in sales of internationally-made items, especially from brands that have announced price hikes due to high tariffs. Despite rising prices, demand for fast fashion remains strong as consumers seek trendy, affordable styles. Buying those pieces secondhand lets them stay on-trend while keeping clothing in circulation."In addition to Shein and Temu, higher-priced brands that publicly announced tariff-related price increases have also seen resale spikes, with sales of Columbia button-down shirts surging by 61% month over month, and sales of Hermès sandals up 27%. Buying used Hermès sandals is one thing—not all of us have $840 laying around to spend on designer slides to ring in the summer. But a Columbia button-down? That's the kind of item I'm used to finding at Marshall's for maybe $30—but people now seem to be flocking to buy them used, worried that even cheap shirts will become relatively priceier due to tariffs. Meanwhile, Poshmark reports sales on consumer electronics have increased as well: The week of April 27, resales of Sony products were up 22% month over month, and Apple products were up 21%. The times seem to be changing, and they're doing it in a hurry.What tariffs means for resale shoppersI am not only a resale seller, but a resale shopper, and the uncertainty around tariffs has made me a lot more discerning with what I'm buying new. Part of this is just that I'm now paying more attention. I love the leisure and athletic wear made by SET Active. I own a lot of it, and I have never before considered selling any of it because it lasts so long and maintains its shape so well. Until recently, I have also never paid much attention to where it is made: While SET Active designs its products in California, its active fabrics are all made in China. Prices haven't gone up on the official website yet, but in preparation for a time when they might, I've already started shopping the brand on Poshmark and Depop. It's not the worst thing in the world; buying used is both cheaper and more sustainable. I've always been an avid purchaser of resale goods—I've just never had to do it so strategically before. (I've found it easier to give up Shein altogether—I can manage fine without the $4 tank tops I've been putting through absolute hell the past few summers—but my Poshmark customers have proven more reluctant to resist the allure of fast fashion, even used.)I'm not alone in being more strategic with my resale purchases. Financial experts are noticing the same thing. "In the wake of the announcement and implementation of the tariffs, people have been looking for cheaper alternatives to the more expensive imported goods," says Aaron Razon, a personal finance expert at Couponsnake, "especially as many domestic products not only fall short in meeting the demand for certain products, but lack the variety and style that imported goods offer. [Domestic products] are also not exactly the cost-effective option consumers are looking for, and this is one of the major reasons interest in resale platforms [has] been on the increase."Bill London, an international business attorney, points out that in addition to causing prices to rise, tariffs have resulted in potential shipping delays, a fact that has also contributed to, "a surge in second-hand fast fashion interest." Six months ago, if you needed a certain kind of dress for, say, a themed bachelorette party, you could order it from Shein for $20, safe in the knowledge that you'd probably never wear it again. Today, its price could be closer to $30 or $40, and you might face delays in receiving it. The appeal of fast fashion was always in the low cost and convenience, provided you had 10 to 14 days to wait for the thing to arrive from China. Now, it just makes more sense to buy that dress from someone in the U.S. who likewise didn't see themselves rewearing it, —and now, they're selling it for roughly the same $20 they originally paid. For the buyer, it's still a relative deal, and it'll even arrive sooner. It's not just fast fashionBrands beyond Shein and Temu are seeing a lift. As the Poshmark rep pointed out, resales on select high-end brands are up, too. Buying used luxury goods has always been a smart financial decision (certainly it's a practice I've been dedicated to for a long time), but with manufacturing and importation costs an ever-murkier question, it's more sensible than ever. A spokesperson for Vestiaire Collective, a designer resale platform, tells me that U.S. buyers are increasingly able to see the duties applied to their purchases from Europe and Asia at checkout, and that the company has been working to beef up its American foothold for years. That effort is now paying off in a big way thanks to tariffs: In 2022, VC acquired Tradesey to increase its selection of pre-owned fashion offering for U.S. buyers, and it ramped up associated brand marketing the following year. VC also curates a list of goods that are ready to ship from New York City, making it easier for American buyers to identify items that can easily come to them domestically, no tariffs or duties required. Consequently, the brand rep says VC has, "seen a shift of more U.S. buyers buying from U.S. sellers" lately. Personally, I've noticed people buying from me lately, in particular, is workout attire. With the cost of everything going up, it might seem more of a stretch to pop into Lululemon to buy a new pair of leggings for over $100. Meanwhile, the trusty Shein alternative is now more money than its worth. It's this class of in-between necessities—things you don't need to survive, but may be a nice-to-have for your particular interests or lifestyle—that is a source of personal economic woe, and where resale can fill the gap. Whether you need new workout gear, a one-time wear outfit, a few basic pieces, or even a designer handbag, the reality of the post-tariff world is that you're almost certainly better off looking on resale apps before even considering buying new. (You certainly have options—I've assembled a rundown of my own favorite resale apps, including the goods you're most likely to find on each.)What this trend means for resellersI remain shocked that people who presumably would have once ordered their workout sets and summer shorts off Shein are filling the fast-fashion void by purchasing mine, but take it from me: If you have ever considered selling your old clothes or housewares, but figured what you have to offer is too basic, cheap, or plentiful to make the effort worth it, this is your moment. I used to have cheap goods and fast fashion listed on my resale accounts only because it helped keep my number of available listings up, which contributed to my profiles' reputation and lured in buyers for the pricier objects I actually expected to sell. Now, though, it's the cheap stuff that is really moving, and making me money. I've started reevaluating my closet and reconsidering what meets my threshold for "worth it" to list. Post-tariffs, everything is worth it to list. As London puts it, "The tariffs have altered the way in which people do their shopping." It's still pretty early into the great American tariff experiment, but some brands commissioned surveys early on this year to see how people were planning to deal with cost increases and found that a major chunk of consumers indeed expected to rely more on resale. ThredUp, another online resale platform, found that 59% of consumers reported that if apparel got more expensive, they'd look to more affordable options, like secondhand buying, and consumers planned to spend 34% of their apparel budget on secondhand items this year. And those figures are a lot higher for Millennials and Gen Z buyers: They reported planning to spend almost half their clothing budget on resale. Data from Smartly, an online shopping rewards app, also shows that 50% of survey respondents planned to consider resale goods in the face of rising costs. This means that even for casual resellers or those new to the concept entirely, there are a lot of new prospective buyers, which can translate directly to quick sales. At a time when the cost of necessary goods is rising right alongside those in-between necessities, you can make extra cash by selling what you already have. In general, my sales are way up month over month since tariffs went into effect in early May Credit: Lindsey Ellefson Will the resale spike last?I've been buying and selling on resale apps for years and have always had success finding cool stuff to buy as fast as I could get rid of my old clothing, accessories, and electronics. While I've definitely noticed a spike in my sales lately, that's not to say there wasn't demand before the tariffs were announced. If you're new to buying or selling on an app, don't worry that the bubble will burst and you'll have invested a bunch of time in listing your wares for nothing—even if and when the moment passes, reselling can still be a reliable way to make a little extra cash. (In the meantime, if you have a lot to sell and want to maximize your profits, download a cross-lister like Vendoo, which helps you easily list the same product across multiple marketplaces.)Some experts do expect that things could cool down in the nearer term. "Whether the trend persists depends on a number of things, such as how long the tariffs are in effect and how buyers respond to costs," London says. "The resale market for the products is likely to continue expanding if the tariffs are maintained. The demand might plateau or divert towards quality goods or eco-friendly goods when buyers adapt." Razon, meanwhile, thinks resale apps will continue to thrive, but that the interest in procuring cheaply-made things, like fast fashion, may wane. "Resale platforms have been on the good end of the recent tariff increases, especially with consumers looking for cheaper alternatives to imported goods," he says. "The truth is—though it may take consumers time to realize it—they will eventually come to appreciate better-quality goods. There is a great chance that consumers' interest in these lesser-quality goods will wear off as soon as they begin to adjust to the new economic reality."That is to say, list your Shein, Temu, and Aliexpress stuff now while people are still mourning its loss, but also consider those more familiar brands that may also soon see price hikes. Take stock of your closet and do a bit of research to see where all your potential stock is made. Just like I'm worried my beloved SET Active attire is going to go up in price because it's made in China, consumers may soon find themselves wanting to source cheaper stuff from Nike, Adidas, Lululemon, Levi's, and more, as all of those companies manufacture a lot of their clothing overseas. The resale platforms themselves are already anticipating that their digital products are going to get more valuable and stay valuable through (and beyond) the tariff era. Manish Chandra, Poshmark's founder and CEO, says, "As the landscape of tariffs and imports evolves, we believe the secondhand marketplace will become an increasingly valuable and cost-effective resource for American consumers. By shopping from Poshmark closets or starting their own, consumers are supporting sustainability and helping strengthen the American economy." In other words, buying resale is another way of buying American, even if everything you're buying was made in India or China.

The housing crisis in Canada’s North, which has particularly affected the majority Indigenous population in northern communities, has been of ongoing concern to firms such as Taylor Architecture Group (TAG). Formerly known as Pin/Taylor, the firm was established in Yellowknife in 1983. TAG’s Principal, Simon Taylor, says that despite recent political gains for First Nations, “by and large, life is not improving up here.” Taylor and his colleagues have designed many different types of housing across the North. But the problems exceed the normal scope of architectural practice. TAG’s Manager of Research and Development, Kristel Derkowski, says, “We can design the units well, but it doesn’t solve many of the underlying problems.” To respond, she says, “we’ve backed up the process to look at the root causes more.” As a result, “the design challenges are informed by much broader systemic research.”  We spoke to Derkowski about her research, and the work that Taylor Architecture Group is doing to act on it. Here’s what she has to say. Inadequate housing from the start The Northwest Territories is about 51% Indigenous. Most non-Indigenous people are concentrated in the capital city of Yellowknife. Outside of Yellowknife, the territory is very much majority Indigenous.  The federal government got involved in delivering housing to the far North in 1959. There were problems with this program right from the beginning. One issue was that when the houses were first delivered, they were designed and fabricated down south, and they were completely inadequate for the climate. The houses from that initial program were called “Matchbox houses” because they were so small. These early stages of housing delivery helped establish the precedent that a lower standard of housing was acceptable for northern Indigenous residents compared to Euro-Canadian residents elsewhere. In many cases, that double-standard persists to this day. The houses were also inappropriately designed for northern cultures. It’s been said in the research that the way that these houses were delivered to northern settlements was a significant factor in people being divorced from their traditional lifestyles, their traditional hierarchies, the way that they understood home. It was imposing a Euro-Canadian model on Indigenous communities and their ways of life.  Part of what the federal government was trying to do was to impose a cash economy and stimulate a market. They were delivering houses and asking for rent. But there weren’t a lot of opportunities to earn cash. This housing was delivered around the sites of former fur trading posts—but the fur trade had collapsed by 1930. There weren’t a lot of jobs. There wasn’t a lot of wage-based employment. And yet, rental payments were being collected in cash, and the rental payments increased significantly over the span of a couple decades.  The imposition of a cash economy created problems culturally. It’s been said that public housing delivery, in combination with other social policies, served to introduce the concept of poverty in the far North, where it hadn’t existed before. These policies created a situation where Indigenous northerners couldn’t afford to be adequately housed, because housing demanded cash, and cash wasn’t always available. That’s a big theme that continues to persist today. Most of the territory’s communities remain “non-market”: there is no housing market. There are different kinds of economies in the North—and not all of them revolve wholly around cash. And yet government policies do. The governments’ ideas about housing do, too. So there’s a conflict there.  The federal exit from social housing After 1969, the federal government devolved housing to the territorial government. The Government of Northwest Territories created the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. By 1974, the housing corporation took over all the stock of federal housing and started to administer it, in addition to building their own. The housing corporation was rapidly building new housing stock from 1975 up until the mid-1990s. But beginning in the early 1990s, the federal government terminated federal spending on new social housing across the whole country. A couple of years after that, they also decided to allow operational agreements with social housing providers to expire. It didn’t happen that quickly—and maybe not everybody noticed, because it wasn’t a drastic change where all operational funding disappeared immediately. But at that time, the federal government was in 25- to 50-year operational agreements with various housing providers across the country. After 1995, these long-term operating agreements were no longer being renewed—not just in the North, but everywhere in Canada.  With the housing corporation up here, that change started in 1996, and we have until 2038 before the federal contribution of operational funding reaches zero. As a result, beginning in 1996, the number of units owned by the NWT Housing Corporation plateaued. There was a little bump in housing stock after that—another 200 units or so in the early 2000s. But basically, the Northwest Territories was stuck for 25 years, from 1996 to 2021, with the same number of public housing units. In 1990, there was a report on housing in the NWT that was funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). That report noted that housing was already in a crisis state. At that time, in 1990, researchers said it would take 30 more years to meet existing housing need, if housing production continued at the current rate. The other problem is that houses were so inadequately constructed to begin with, that they generally needed replacement after 15 years. So housing in the Northwest Territories already had serious problems in 1990. Then in 1996, the housing corporation stopped building more. So if you compare the total number of social housing units with the total need for subsidized housing in the territory, you can see a severely widening gap in recent decades. We’ve seen a serious escalation in housing need. The Northwest Territories has a very, very small tax base, and it’s extremely expensive to provide services here. Most of our funding for public services comes from the federal government. The NWT on its own does not have a lot of buying power. So ever since the federal government stopped providing operational funding for housing, the territorial government has been hard-pressed to replace that funding with its own internal resources. I should probably note that this wasn’t only a problem for the Northwest Territories. Across Canada, we have seen mass homelessness visibly emerge since the ’90s. This is related, at least in part, to the federal government’s decisions to terminate funding for social housing at that time. Today’s housing crisis Getting to present-day conditions in the NWT, we now have some “market” communities and some “non-market” communities. There are 33 communities total in the NWT, and at least 27 of these don’t have a housing market: there’s no private rental market and there’s no resale market. This relates back to the conflict I mentioned before: the cash economy did not entirely take root. In simple terms, there isn’t enough local employment or income opportunity for a housing market—in conventional terms—to work.  Yellowknife is an outlier in the territory. Economic opportunity is concentrated in the capital city. We also have five other “market” communities that are regional centres for the territorial government, where more employment and economic activity take place. Across the non-market communities, on average, the rate of unsuitable or inadequate housing is about five times what it is elsewhere in Canada. Rates of unemployment are about five times what they are in Yellowknife. On top of this, the communities with the highest concentration of Indigenous residents also have the highest rates of unsuitable or inadequate housing, and also have the lowest income opportunity. These statistics clearly show that the inequalities in the territory are highly racialized.  Given the situation in non-market communities, there is a severe affordability crisis in terms of the cost to deliver housing. It’s very, very expensive to build housing here. A single detached home costs over a million dollars to build in a place like Fort Good Hope (Rádeyı̨lı̨kóé). We’re talking about a very modest three-bedroom house, smaller than what you’d typically build in the South. The million-dollar price tag on each house is a serious issue. Meanwhile, in a non-market community, the potential resale value is extremely low. So there’s a massive gap between the cost of construction and the value of the home once built—and that’s why you have no housing market. It means that private development is impossible. That’s why, until recently, only the federal and territorial governments have been building new homes in non-market communities. It’s so expensive to do, and as soon as the house is built, its value plummets.  The costs of living are also very high. According to the NWT Bureau of Statistics, the estimated living costs for an individual in Fort Good Hope are about 1.8 times what it costs to live in Edmonton. Then when it comes to housing specifically, there are further issues with operations and maintenance. The NWT is not tied into the North American hydro grid, and in most communities, electricity is produced by a diesel generator. This is extremely expensive. Everything needs to be shipped in, including fuel. So costs for heating fuel are high as well, as are the heating loads. Then, maintenance and repairs can be very difficult, and of course, very costly. If you need any specialized parts or specialized labour, you are flying those parts and those people in from down South. So to take on the costs of homeownership, on top of the costs of living—in a place where income opportunity is limited to begin with—this is extremely challenging. And from a statistical or systemic perspective, this is simply not in reach for most community members. In 2021, the NWT Housing Corporation underwent a strategic renewal and became Housing Northwest Territories. Their mandate went into a kind of flux. They started to pivot from being the primary landlord in the territory towards being a partner to other third-party housing providers, which might be Indigenous governments, community housing providers, nonprofits, municipalities. But those other organisations, in most cases, aren’t equipped or haven’t stepped forward to take on social housing. Even though the federal government is releasing capital funding for affordable housing again, northern communities can’t always capitalize on that, because the source of funding for operations remains in question. Housing in non-market communities essentially needs to be subsidized—not just in terms of construction, but also in terms of operations. But that operational funding is no longer available. I can’t stress enough how critical this issue is for the North. Fort Good Hope and “one thing that (kind of) worked” I’ll talk a bit about Fort Good Hope. I don’t want to be speaking on behalf of the community here, but I will share a bit about the realities on the ground, as a way of putting things into context.  Fort Good Hope, or Rádeyı̨lı̨kóé, is on the Mackenzie River, close to the Arctic Circle. There’s a winter road that’s open at best from January until March—the window is getting narrower because of climate change. There were also barges running each summer for material transportation, but those have been cancelled for the past two years because of droughts linked to climate change. Aside from that, it’s a fly-in community. It’s very remote. It has about 500-600 people. According to census data, less than half of those people live in what’s considered acceptable housing.  The biggest problem is housing adequacy. That’s CMHC’s term for housing in need of major repairs. This applies to about 36% of households in Fort Good Hope. In terms of ownership, almost 40% of the community’s housing stock is managed by Housing NWT. That’s a combination of public housing units and market housing units—which are for professionals like teachers and nurses. There’s also a pretty high percentage of owner-occupied units—about 46%.  The story told by the community is that when public housing arrived in the 1960s, the people were living in owner-built log homes. Federal agents arrived and they considered some of those homes to be inadequate or unacceptable, and they bulldozed those homes, then replaced some of them—but maybe not all—with public housing units. Then residents had no choice but to rent from the people who took their homes away. This was not a good way to start up a public housing system. The state of housing in Fort Good Hope Then there was an issue with the rental rates, which drastically increased over time. During a presentation to a government committee in the ’80s, a community member explained that they had initially accepted a place in public housing for a rental fee of $2 a month in 1971. By 1984, the same community member was expected to pay $267 a month. That might not sound like much in today’s terms, but it was roughly a 13,000% increase for that same tenant—and it’s not like they had any other housing options to choose from. So by that point, they’re stuck with paying whatever is asked.  On top of that, the housing units were poorly built and rapidly deteriorated. One description from that era said the walls were four inches thick, with windows oriented north, and water tanks that froze in the winter and fell through the floor. The single heating source was right next to the only door—residents were concerned about the fire hazard that obviously created. Ultimately the community said: “We don’t actually want any more public housing units. We want to go back to homeownership, which was what we had before.”  So Fort Good Hope was a leader in housing at that time and continues to be to this day. The community approached the territorial government and made a proposal: “Give us the block funding for home construction, we’ll administer it ourselves, we’ll help people build houses, and they can keep them.” That actually worked really well. That was the start of the Homeownership Assistance Program (HAP) that ran for about ten years, beginning in 1982. The program expanded across the whole territory after it was piloted in Fort Good Hope. The HAP is still spoken about and written about as the one thing that kind of worked.  Self-built log cabins remain from Fort Good Hope’s 1980s Homeownership Program (HAP). Funding was cost-shared between the federal and territorial governments. Through the program, material packages were purchased for clients who were deemed eligible. The client would then contribute their own sweat equity in the form of hauling logs and putting in time on site. They had two years to finish building the house. Then, as long as they lived in that home for five more years, the loan would be forgiven, and they would continue owning the house with no ongoing loan payments. In some cases, there were no mechanical systems provided as part of this package, but the residents would add to the house over the years. A lot of these units are still standing and still lived in today. Many of them are comparatively well-maintained in contrast with other types of housing—for example, public housing units. It’s also worth noting that the one-time cost of the materials package was—from the government’s perspective—only a fraction of the cost to build and maintain a public housing unit over its lifespan. At the time, it cost about $50,000 to $80,000 to build a HAP home, whereas the lifetime cost of a public housing unit is in the order of $2,000,000. This program was considered very successful in many places, especially in Fort Good Hope. It created about 40% of their local housing stock at that time, which went from about 100 units to about 140. It’s a small community, so that’s quite significant.  What were the successful principles? The community-based decision-making power to allocate the funding. The sweat equity component, which brought homeownership within the range of being attainable for people—because there wasn’t cash needing to be transferred, when the cash wasn’t available. Local materials—they harvested the logs from the land, and the fact that residents could maintain the homes themselves. The Fort Good Hope Construction Centre. Rendering by Taylor Architecture Group The Fort Good Hope Construction Centre The HAP ended the same year that the federal government terminated new spending on social housing. By the late 1990s, the creation of new public housing stock or new homeownership units had gone down to negligible levels. But more recently, things started to change. The federal government started to release money to build affordable housing. Simultaneously, Indigenous governments are working towards Self-Government and settling their Land Claims. Federal funds have started to flow directly to Indigenous groups. Given these changes, the landscape of Northern housing has started to evolve. In 2016, Fort Good Hope created the K’asho Got’ine Housing Society, based on the precedent of the 1980s Fort Good Hope Housing Society. They said: “We did this before, maybe we can do it again.” The community incorporated a non-profit and came up with a five-year plan to meet housing need in their community. One thing the community did right away was start up a crew to deliver housing maintenance and repairs. This is being run by Ne’Rahten Developments Ltd., which is the business arm of Yamoga Land Corporation (the local Indigenous Government). Over the span of a few years, they built up a crew of skilled workers. Then Ne’Rahten started thinking, “Why can’t we do more? Why can’t we build our own housing?” They identified a need for a space where people could work year-round, and first get training, then employment, in a stable all-season environment. This was the initial vision for the Fort Good Hope Construction Centre, and this is where TAG got involved. We had some seed funding through the CMHC Housing Supply Challenge when we partnered with Fort Good Hope. We worked with the community for over a year to get the capital funding lined up for the project. This process required us to take on a different role than the one you typically would as an architect. It wasn’t just schematic-design-to-construction-administration. One thing we did pretty early on was a housing design workshop that was open to the whole community, to start understanding what type of housing people would really want to see. Another piece was a lot of outreach and advocacy to build up support for the project and partnerships—for example, with Housing Northwest Territories and Aurora College. We also reached out to our federal MP, the NWT Legislative Assembly and different MLAs, and we talked to a lot of different people about the link between employment and housing. The idea was that the Fort Good Hope Construction Centre would be a demonstration project. Ultimately, funding did come through for the project—from both CMHC and National Indigenous Housing Collaborative Inc. The facility itself will not be architecturally spectacular. It’s basically a big shed where you could build a modular house. But the idea is that the construction of those houses is combined with training, and it creates year-round indoor jobs. It intends to combat the short construction seasons, and the fact that people would otherwise be laid off between projects—which makes it very hard to progress with your training or your career. At the same time, the Construction Centre will build up a skilled labour force that otherwise wouldn’t exist—because when there’s no work, skilled people tend to leave the community. And, importantly, the idea is to keep capital funding in the community. So when there’s a new arena that needs to get built, when there’s a new school that needs to get built, you have a crew of people who are ready to take that on. Rather than flying in skilled labourers, you actually have the community doing it themselves. It’s working towards self-determination in housing too, because if those modular housing units are being built in the community, by community members, then eventually they’re taking over design decisions and decisions about maintenance—in a way that hasn’t really happened for decades. Transitional homeownership My research also looked at a transitional homeownership model that adapts some of the successful principles of the 1980s HAP. Right now, in non-market communities, there are serious gaps in the housing continuum—that is, the different types of housing options available to people. For the most part, you have public housing, and you have homelessness—mostly in the form of hidden homelessness, where people are sleeping on the couches of relatives. Then, in some cases, you have inherited homeownership—where people got homes through the HAP or some other government program. But for the most part, not a lot of people in non-market communities are actually moving into homeownership anymore. I asked the local housing manager in Fort Good Hope: “When’s the last time someone built a house in the community?” She said, “I can only think of one person. It was probably about 20 years ago, and that person actually went to the bank and got a mortgage. If people have a home, it’s usually inherited from their parents or from relatives.” And that situation is a bit of a problem in itself, because it means that people can’t move out of public housing. Public housing traps you in a lot of ways. For example, it punishes employment, because rent is geared to income. It’s been said many times that this model disincentivizes employment. I was in a workshop last year where an Indigenous person spoke up and said, “Actually, it’s not disincentivizing, it punishes employment. It takes things away from you.” Somebody at the territorial housing corporation in Yellowknife told me, “We have clients who are over the income threshold for public housing, but there’s nowhere else they can go.” Theoretically, they would go to the private housing market, they would go to market housing, or they would go to homeownership, but those options don’t exist or they aren’t within reach.  So the idea with the transitional homeownership model is to create an option that could allow the highest income earners in a non-market community to move towards homeownership. This could take some pressure off the public housing system. And it would almost be like a wealth distribution measure: people who are able to afford the cost of operating and maintaining a home then have that option, instead of remaining in government-subsidized housing. For those who cannot, the public housing system is still an option—and maybe a few more public housing units are freed up.  I’ve developed about 36 recommendations for a transitional homeownership model in northern non-market communities. The recommendations are meant to be actioned at various scales: at the scale of the individual household, the scale of the housing provider, and the scale of the whole community. The idea is that if you look at housing as part of a whole system, then there are certain moves that might make sense here—in a non-market context especially—that wouldn’t make sense elsewhere. So for example, we’re in a situation where a house doesn’t appreciate in value. It’s not a financial asset, it’s actually a financial liability, and it’s something that costs a lot to maintain over the years. Giving someone a house in a non-market community is actually giving them a burden, but some residents would be quite willing to take this on, just to have an option of getting out of public housing. It just takes a shift in mindset to start considering solutions for that kind of context. One particularly interesting feature of non-market communities is that they’re still functioning with a mixed economy: partially a subsistence-based or traditional economy, and partially a cash economy. I think that’s actually a strength that hasn’t been tapped into by territorial and federal policies. In the far North, in-kind and traditional economies are still very much a way of life. People subsidize their groceries with “country food,” which means food that was harvested from the land. And instead of paying for fuel tank refills in cash, many households in non-market communities are burning wood as their primary heat source. In communities south of the treeline, like Fort Good Hope, that wood is also harvested from the land. Despite there being no exchange of cash involved, these are critical economic activities—and they are also part of a sustainable, resilient economy grounded in local resources and traditional skills. This concept of the mixed economy could be tapped into as part of a housing model, by bringing back the idea of a ‘sweat equity’ contribution instead of a down payment—just like in the HAP. Contributing time and labour is still an economic exchange, but it bypasses the ‘cash’ part—the part that’s still hard to come by in a non-market community. Labour doesn’t have to be manual labour, either. There are all kinds of work that need to take place in a community: maybe taking training courses and working on projects at the Construction Centre, maybe helping out at the Band Office, or providing childcare services for other working parents—and so on. So it could be more inclusive than a model that focuses on manual labour. Another thing to highlight is a rent-to-own trial period. Not every client will be equipped to take on the burdens of homeownership. So you can give people a trial period. If it doesn’t work out and they can’t pay for operations and maintenance, they could continue renting without losing their home. Then it’s worth touching on some basic design principles for the homeownership units. In the North, the solutions that work are often the simplest—not the most technologically innovative. When you’re in a remote location, specialized replacement parts and specialized labour are both difficult to come by. And new technologies aren’t always designed for extreme climates—especially as we trend towards the digital. So rather than installing technologically complex, high-efficiency systems, it actually makes more sense to build something that people are comfortable with, familiar with, and willing to maintain. In a southern context, people suggest solutions like solar panels to manage energy loads. But in the North, the best thing you can do for energy is put a woodstove in the house. That’s something we’ve heard loud and clear in many communities. Even if people can’t afford to fill their fuel tank, they’re still able to keep chopping wood—or their neighbour is, or their brother, or their kid, and so on. It’s just a different way of looking at things and a way of bringing things back down to earth, back within reach of community members.  Regulatory barriers to housing access: Revisiting the National Building Code On that note, there’s one more project I’ll touch on briefly. TAG is working on a research study, funded by Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, which looks at regulatory barriers to housing access in the North. The National Building Code (NBC) has evolved largely to serve the southern market context, where constraints and resources are both very different than they are up here. Technical solutions in the NBC are based on assumptions that, in some cases, simply don’t apply in northern communities. Here’s a very simple example: minimum distance to a fire hydrant. Most of our communities don’t have fire hydrants at all. We don’t have municipal services. The closest hydrant might be thousands of kilometres away. So what do we do instead? We just have different constraints to consider. That’s just one example but there are many more. We are looking closely at the NBC, and we are also working with a couple of different communities in different situations. The idea is to identify where there are conflicts between what’s regulated and what’s actually feasible, viable, and practical when it comes to on-the-ground realities. Then we’ll look at some alternative solutions for housing. The idea is to meet the intent of the NBC, but arrive at some technical solutions that are more practical to build, easier to maintain, and more appropriate for northern communities.  All of the projects I’ve just described are fairly recent, and very much still ongoing. We’ll see how it all plays out. I’m sure we’re going to run into a lot of new barriers and learn a lot more on the way, but it’s an incremental trial-and-error process. Even with the Construction Centre, we’re saying that this is a demonstration project, but how—or if—it rolls out in other communities would be totally community-dependent, and it could look very, very different from place to place.  In doing any research on Northern housing, one of the consistent findings is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Northern communities are not all the same. There are all kinds of different governance structures, different climates, ground conditions, transportation routes, different population sizes, different people, different cultures. Communities are Dene, Métis, Inuvialuit, as well as non-Indigenous, all with different ways of being. One-size-fits-all solutions don’t work—they never have. And the housing crisis is complex, and it’s difficult to unravel. So we’re trying to move forward with a few different approaches, maybe in a few different places, and we’re hoping that some communities, some organizations, or even some individual people, will see some positive impacts.  As appeared in the June 2025 issue of Canadian Architect magazine  The post Insites: Addressing the Northern housing crisis appeared first on Canadian Architect.

When the computer or phone you’re using right now blinks its last blink and you drop it off for recycling, do you know what happens? At the recycling center, powerful magnets will pull out steel. Spinning drums will toss aluminum into bins. Copper wires will get neatly bundled up for resale. But as the conveyor belt keeps rolling, tiny specks of valuable, lesser-known materials such as gallium, indium, and tantalum will be left behind. Those tiny specks are critical materials. They’re essential for building new technology, and they’re in short supply in the U.S. They could be reused, but there’s a problem: Current recycling methods make recovering critical minerals from e-waste too costly or hazardous, so many recyclers simply skip them. Sadly, most of these hard-to-recycle materials end up buried in landfills or get mixed into products like cement. But it doesn’t have to be this way. New technology is starting to make a difference. As demand for these critical materials keeps growing, discarded electronics can become valuable resources. My colleagues and I at West Virginia University are developing a new technology to change how we recycle. Instead of using toxic chemicals, our approach uses electricity, making it safer, cleaner, and more affordable to recover critical materials from electronics. How much e-waste are we talking about? Americans generated about 2.7 million tons of electronic waste in 2018, according to the latest federal data. Including uncounted electronics, the U.S. recycles only about 15% of its total e-waste, suggests a survey by the United Nations. Even worse, nearly half the electronics that people in Northern America sent to recycling centers end up shipped overseas. They often land in scrapyards, where workers may use dangerous methods like burning or leaching with harsh chemicals to pull out valuable metals. These practices can harm both the environment and workers’ health. That’s why the Environmental Protection Agency restricts these methods in the U.S. The tiny specks matter Critical minerals are in most of the technology around you. Every phone screen has a super-thin layer of a material called indium tin oxide. LEDs glow because of a metal called gallium. Tantalum stores energy in tiny electronic parts called capacitors. All of these materials are flagged as “high risk” on the U.S. Department of Energy’s critical materials list. That means the U.S. relies heavily on these materials for important technologies, but their supply could easily be disrupted by conflicts, trade disputes, or shortages. Right now, just a few countries, including China, control most of the mining, processing, and recovery of these materials, making the U.S. vulnerable if those countries decide to limit exports or raise prices. These materials aren’t cheap, either. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey reports that gallium was priced between $220 to $500 per kilogram in 2024. That’s 50 times more expensive than common metals like copper, at $9.48 per kilogram in 2024. Revolutionizing recycling with microwaves At West Virginia University’s Department of Mechanical, Materials, and Aerospace Engineering, I and materials scientist Edward Sabolsky asked a simple question: Could we find a way to heat only specific parts of electronic waste to recover these valuable materials? If we could focus the heat on just the tiny specks of critical minerals, we might be able to recycle them easily and efficiently. The solution we found: microwaves. This equipment isn’t very different from the microwave ovens you use to heat food at home, just bigger and more powerful. The basic science is the same: Electromagnetic waves cause electrons to oscillate, creating heat. In our approach, though, we’re not heating water molecules like you do when cooking. Instead, we heat carbon, the black residue that collects around a candle flame or car tailpipe. Carbon heats up much faster in a microwave than water does. But don’t try this at home; your kitchen microwave wasn’t designed for such high temperatures. In our recycling method, we first shred the electronic waste, mix it with materials called fluxes that trap impurities, and then heat the mixture with microwaves. The microwaves rapidly heat the carbon that comes from the plastics and adhesives in the e-waste. This causes the carbon to react with the tiny specks of critical materials. The result: a tiny piece of pure, sponge-like metal about the size of a grain of rice. This metal can then be easily separated from leftover waste using filters. So far, in our laboratory tests, we have successfully recovered about 80% of the gallium, indium, and tantalum from e-waste, at purities between 95% and 97%. We have also demonstrated how it can be integrated with existing recycling processes. Why the Department of Defense is interested Our recycling technology got its start with help from a program funded by the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. Many important technologies, from radar systems to nuclear reactors, depend on these special materials. While the Department of Defense uses less of them than the commercial market, they are a national security concern. We’re planning to launch larger pilot projects next to test the method on smartphone circuit boards, LED lighting parts, and server cards from data centers. These tests will help us fine-tune the design for a bigger system that can recycle tons of e-waste per hour instead of just a few pounds. That could mean producing up to 50 pounds of these critical minerals per hour from every ton of e-waste processed. If the technology works as expected, we believe this approach could help meet the nation’s demand for critical materials. How to make e-waste recycling common One way e-waste recycling could become more common is if Congress held electronics companies responsible for recycling their products and recovering the critical materials inside. Closing loopholes that allow companies to ship e-waste overseas, instead of processing it safely in the U.S., could also help build a reserve of recovered critical minerals. But the biggest change may come from simple economics. Once technology becomes available to recover these tiny but valuable specks of critical materials quickly and affordably, the U.S. can transform domestic recycling and take a big step toward solving its shortage of critical materials. Terence Musho is an associate professor of engineering at West Virginia University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Cosmology of Kyoto is a first-person horror exploration game where players navigate a deeply haunted yet surprisingly educational terrain. Originally released in 1993, Cosmology of Kyoto and its disturbing depictions of suffering have since become a cult classic. Roger Ebert, known hater, loved the game so much that he spent weeks playing it. Despite its acclaim, though, the game was a commercial failure and never got a sequel. At least, that’s what many people believed until now. In 2023, a game called TRIPITAKA 玄奘三蔵求法の旅 was listed on Yahoo Japan. The game was sold for $300 to an unknown party who, despite embarking on a bidding war that culminated in hundreds of dollars, didn’t really share anything publicly about it. The transaction was originally noticed by Mark Buckner, who brought it up in a discussion between fans about the original eerie Japanese game. Though diehard aficionados had a suspicion that the Cosmology developers had considered a follow-up, concrete evidence of it was scant. The only apparent mention of a sequel lied in the resumes of two Cosmology producers, Hiroshi Ōnishi and Mori Kōichi. Fans also spotted mention of it in an old website for a 1999 museum exhibition on the Silk Road. Though it was a work of fiction, Cosmology was rooted in the history of 10th century Japan and provided players with an in-game encyclopedia. It would make sense for a potential sequel to have enough an educational focus worthy of a museum exhibition. Despite these rumblings, it was unclear if the game had ever been published, or how far into production it got. Knowledge of the auction prompted video game academic Bruno de Figueiredo to track down the auction winner. The hope was that whoever bought it might share a copy of the game online. After all, up until this point, few knew what this game was and its mere existence lay in doubt. But if it did exist, then it was obviously significant from a historical perspective. Fans would be eager to play it. But getting collectors to share copies of rare games is tricky. If a game is widely accessible, then it’s no longer rare. Holding on to a copy ensures that it retains its aura as a prized possession. Hoarding also means that the value of a game won’t drop — in fact, it might rise. Not all collectors see their possessions as commodities, though. Holding on to a culturally significant game might be motivated by the desire to preserve it for future generations, which is relevant in instances where a copy of a game is still sealed. Uploading a game that you did not develop is also likely to be legally dubious. In this case, the owner declined to share the game in a form that others could play. The collector did however upload an hour’s worth of footage on YouTube. The game was called TRIPITAKA, and though it did not outright classify itself as a sequel, the art style, historical focus, and slightly unnerving vibe placed TRIPITAKA in a similar realm as Cosmology of Kyoto. Fans considered it a spiritual successor. Cosmology itself had been developed with the help of Japanese museums. For some, it was enough to get more of a game they loved. Even if they couldn’t personally control the gameplay, the TRIPITAKA video was lengthy enough to give a sense of what the experience would be like. Others were enraged: Couldn’t the collector see how important this game was? “I cannot understate just how disgusted I am that this piece of culture and art (that I am a huge fan of) isn’t being preserved and spread for the enjoyment of others,” one commenter on YouTube wrote. “Shame on you.” Undeterred by this roadblock, Bruno de Figueiredo continued his pursuit of TRIPITAKA. In 2025, his efforts bore fruit. On X, the expert on obscure Japanese games revealed that he had finally convinced the collector to share the game online after “years of appeals.” Figueiredo has since uploaded a playable ISO of the game online alongside a full three-hour playthrough of a game that had once been considered lost media. Figuerido did not respond to a request for comment. In a blog post, he emphasized the significance of this find by stating that “the importance of this footage could hardly be overstated.” He continued: I am delighted to have played a minor role in the unraveling of this thirty year old mystery, and can hardly contain my enthusiasm, as I now find myself equipped with sufficient information to produce a full post concerning a game about which I could not have written more than a sentence, just last year. Figuerido refers to TRIPITAKA as one of the rarest games ever made, and it’s true inasmuch as there appears to be only one known copy of it. Value and rarity are also fluid concepts that are ultimately determined by interested audiences. At the same time, TRIPITAKA’s fate and availability is shockingly ordinary when you consider how poorly the gaming industry preserves its own history. If the lack of care is evident with significant games that have arguable merit, it’s doubly true for average games. This is how a game with mixed reviews from twenty years ago suddenly starts commanding hundreds of dollars on resale sites; the scarcity happens because nobody felt a game was worth holding on to. “There are many extremely rare (and even lost) games for personal computers which, unlike consoles, don’t have any central control over who can publish a game, or what the minimum number of manufactured units needs to be,” says Frank Cifaldi, founder of the Video Game History foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving video games. Cifaldi notes that games in the 80s and 90s in particular, some of which were self-published and never got widespread circulation to begin with, are particularly prone to the type of obscurity that can lead to only a single copy of a game. “I would further suspect that there were many games and multimedia objects from Japan during this era that are just as rare, but we don’t hear about them because of their lack of historical significance in the West,” Cifaldi says. “I would bet good money that if you surveyed the collection at the Game Preservation Society in Japan, you’d come up with dozens of ‘only known copies’ of 1980s microcomputer games.”

Posted on : May 27, 2025 By Tech World Times Business  Rate this post Doge Uprising is often abbreviated as $DUP. It is an ecosystem of cryptocurrency that amalgamates engagement of digital experience, storytelling in one go, blockchain technology, and meme culture. This is set in a dystopian future. The project takes into consideration a rebellion against centralized control. This is where blockchain-powered robotic warriors also called Doge Mechas are powered by the $DUP token. Like a utility token, $DUP facilitates NFT-based missions, decentralized finance features, and staking rewards. Whereas, the community actively shapes the evolution of the project. How Is Doge Uprising Roadmap Shaping The Future? The Doge Uprising project has laid out a four-stage plan that’s all about growing in a smart way, making the whole ecosystem bigger, and keeping the community involved for the long haul. Each stage sets the groundwork for the next, gradually adding more features, boosting the fun in the games, and making the project a bigger deal in the metaverse. Phase 1: Genesis We’re starting this adventure by building a solid, community-focused ecosystem from the ground up. Here are some of the big steps we’ll be taking: We’ll kick things off by launching the official Doge Uprising website and setting up our social media channels. Next, we’ll start the presale of the $DUP token for our early supporters. To make sure everything is safe and sound, we’ll have a smart contract audit done. ·       We’ll also be launching some community involvement programs, all to make sure everyone has a say in how things are run in a truly decentralized way. Phase 2: Uprising This phase represents Doge Uprising’s official venture into the decentralized finance sector, emphasizing liquidity, NFT integration, and ecosystem usability. Key developments encompass: Listing the $DUP token on Uniswap, enhancing liquidity and accessibility Fortifying the ecosystem through essential liquidity pairings Introducing Doge Mecha NFTs, enabling holders to engage with the expanding Doge Uprising universe Implementing influencer-driven marketing campaigns to boost the brand’s global prominence Phase 3: The Uprising Expands During this critical phase, the focus focuses on the Dogi rebellion on long-term stability and community engagement. Large milestones include: Deployment of a strike platform, which lets token holders earn passive income and prices Releasing Dog Rebel Manga Chain to increase the history and user experience of the project Extension of the NFT tool, potentially Play-to-Eun (P2E) integrated into gaming or meta-paver projects Inauguration of a special goods shop, strengthens the social identity Phase 4: Resurrection – The Evolution of Doge Uprising The final phase enforces long-term expansion and integration of the dowi into the wider crypto ecosystem. The highlights include: Launch of games and interactive items for NFT holders Defi Equipment Development that strengthens users with decentralized financial opportunities Improvement of the couple’s control Strategic partners A Vision for the Future  It is a developed digital revolution, a combination of entertainment, NFT, and decentralized technologies in a compelling ecosystem. A well-structured roadmap, with a dedicated society and continuous innovation, aims to disrupt the traditional economic system by providing an interactive and attractive experience for users. As the project continues through each stage, it will introduce new features, strengthen its defi foundations, and increase the role of storytelling in blockchain technology. With strong participation in society and strategic development plans, Dogi Rebellion adheres to a prominent player in the crypto landscape. Tech World TimesTech World Times (TWT), a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com