The murder of John Forde was the culmination to years of political, social, and criminal intrigue.   Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. Researchers have uncovered handwritten letters, court documents, and a coroner’s report related to the nearly 700-year-old cold case murder of a medieval priest. Published on June 5 in the journal Criminal Law Forum, the investigation draws on direct archival evidence from Cambridge University that is helping fill in the gaps to a high-profile true crime scandal that would make headlines even today. But despite a mountain of firsthand accounts, the murder’s masterminds never saw justice. The ‘planned and cold-blooded’ crime On Friday, May 3, 1337, Anglican priest John Forde began a walk along downtown London’s Cheapside street after vespers (evening prayers) shortly before sunset. At one point, a clergyman familiar to Forde by the name of Hasculph Neville approached him to begin a “pleasant conversation.” As the pair neared St. Paul’s Cathedral, four men ambushed the priest. One of the attackers then proceeded to slit Forde’s throat using a 12-inch dagger as two other assailants stabbed him in the stomach in front of onlookers. The vicious crime wasn’t a brazen robbery or politically motivated attack. It was likely a premeditated murder orchestrated by Ela Fitzpayne, a noblewoman, London crime syndicate leader—and potentially Forde’s lover. “We are looking at a murder commissioned by a leading figure of the English aristocracy. It is planned and cold-blooded, with a family member and close associates carrying it out, all of which suggests a revenge motive,” Cambridge University criminology professor Manuel Eisner explained in a statement. The location of the murder of John Forde on May 3, 1337. Credit: Medieval Murder Maps / University of Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology / Historic Towns Trust. A longstanding feud To understand how such a brutal killing could take place in daylight on a busy London street, it’s necessary to backtrack at least five years. In January 1332, the Archbishop of Canterbury sent a letter to the Bishop of Winchester that included a number of reputation-ruining claims surrounding Fitzpayne. In particular, Archbishop Simon Mepham described sexual relationships involving “knights and others, single and married, and even with clerics in holy orders.” The wide-ranging punishments for such sinful behavior could include a prohibition on wearing gold and other precious jewelry, as well as large tithes to monastic orders and the poor. But the most humiliating atonement often came in the form of a public walk of shame. The act of contrition involved walking barefoot across Salisbury Cathedral—England’s longest nave—in order to deliver a handcarried, four-pound wax candle to the church altar. What’s more, Archbishop Mepham commanded that Fitzpayne must repeat this penance every autumn for seven years. Fitzpayne was having none of it. According to Mepham’s message, the noblewoman chose to continue listening to a “spirit of pride” (and the devil), and refused to abide by the judgment. A second letter sent by the Archbishop that April also alleged that she had since absconded from her husband, Sir Robert Fitzpayne, and was hiding in London’s Rotherhithe district along the Thames River. Due to this, Archbishop Mepham reported that Ela Fitzpayne had been excommunicated from the church. Image of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letters to the Bishop of Winchester on the subject of Ela Fitzpayne, from the register of John de Stratford. Credit: Hampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council. Raids and rats But who tipped the clergy off to her indiscretions? According to Eisner’s review of original documents as part of the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology’s Medieval Murder Maps project, it was almost certainly her ex-lover, the soon-to-be-murdered John Forde. He was the only alleged lover named in Archbishop Mepham’s letters, and served as a church rector in a village located on the Fitzpayne family’s estate at the time of the suspected affair.  “The archbishop imposed heavy, shameful public penance on Ela, which she seems not to have complied with, but may have sparked a thirst for vengeance,” Eisner said. “Not least as John Forde appears to have escaped punishment by the church.” But Forde’s relationship with the Fitzpaynes seems to have extended even more illicit activities. In another record reviewed by Eisner, both Ela Fitzpayne and John Forde had been indicted by a Royal Commission in 1322. The crime–assisting in the raid of a Benedictine priory alongside Sir Fitzpayne. They and others reportedly assaulted the priory a year earlier, making off with around 18 oxen, 30 pigs, and 200 sheep. The monastery coincidentally served as a French abbey’s outpost amid increasing tensions between France and England in the years leading up to the Hundred Years’ War. Archbishop Mepham was almost certainly displeased after hearing about the indictment of one of his own clergy. A strict administrator himself, Mepham “was keen to enforce moral discipline among the gentry and nobility,” added Eisner. He theorizes that Forde copped to the affair after getting leaned on by superiors, which subsequently led to the campaign to shame Ela Fitzpayne as a means to reassert the Church’s authority over English nobility. Forde, unfortunately, was caught between the two sides. “John Forde may have had split loyalties,” argued Eisner. “One to the Fitzpayne family, who were likely patrons of his church and granted him the position. And the other to the bishops who had authority over him as a clergy member.” Archbishop Mepham ultimately wouldn’t live to see the scandal’s full consequences. Fitzpayne never accepted her walk of shame, and the church elder died a year after sending the incriminating letters. Eisner believes the Fitzpaynes greenlit their hit job on Forde only after the dust had seemingly settled. It doesn’t help their case three bystanders said the man who slit the rector’s throat was none other than Ela Fitzpayne’s own brother, Hugh Lovell. They also named two family servants as Forde’s other assailants. Archbishop Mepham died four years before Forde’s murder. Credit: ampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council Turning a blind eye Anyone waiting for justice in this medieval saga will likely be disappointed. “Despite naming the killers and clear knowledge of the instigator, when it comes to pursuing the perpetrators, the jury turn[ed] a blind eye,” Eisner said. Eisner explained the circumstances surrounding an initial lack of convictions were simply “implausible.” No one supposedly could locate the accused to bring to trial, despite the men belonging to one of England’s highest nobility houses. Meanwhile, the court claimed Hugh Lovell had no belongings available to confiscate. “This was typical of the class-based justice of the day,” said Eisner. In the end, the only charge that ever stuck in the murder case was an indictment against one of the family’s former servants. Five years after the first trial in 1342, Hugh Colne was convicted of being one of the men to stab Forde in the stomach and sentenced to the notorious Newgate Prison. As dark and sordid as the multiyear medieval drama was, it apparently didn’t change much between Ela Fitzpayne and her husband, Sir Robert. She and the baron remained married until his death in 1354—when she subsequently inherited all his property. “Where rule of law is weak, we see killings committed by the highest ranks in society, who will take power into their own hands, whether it’s today or seven centuries ago,” said Eisner. That said, the criminology professor couldn’t help but concede that Ela Fitzpayne was an “extraordinary” individual, regardless of the era. “A woman in 14th century England who raided priories, openly defied the Archbishop of Canterbury, and planned the assassination of a priest,” he said. “Ela Fitzpayne appears to have been many things.”

Image of the Archbishop of Canterbury's letters to the Bishop of Winchester on the subject of Ela Fitzpayne, from the register of John de Stratford. Reproduced with permission of Hampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council. (Image Credit: Register of John de Stratford. Reproduced with permission of Hampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council.)NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsEspionage, sex, public humiliation, murder — these may sound like tropes straight out of Game of Thrones, but they’re actually all elements of a nearly 700-year-old cold case in England. After analyzing Medieval letters and records, a research team from the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology’s Medieval Murder Maps project may have found the killer of a priest. However, this priest may not have been so innocent. A new paper published in Criminal Law Forum takes a deeper look at this 14th-century cold case.Tracing a Medieval MurderThe Medieval Murder Maps project uses interactive maps of three English cities, London, Oxford, and York, during the Medieval period. Throughout the cities are the locations of various deaths and murders. Each location has a story associated with it, directly from written records and coroners' reports at the time. Some of these stories are full of intriguing twists and turns.The Cambridge research team analyzed over 100 murders from texts, translated from Latin, from that period, and used a coding method to separate the deaths into different categories, including time (day, week, month), motivation, weapon used, victim, and location. From this information, one of the deaths the team found most interesting was the murder of John Forde in 1337.A Medieval Lover to Murderer From the letters and texts the team analyzed, they pieced together the events that led up to Forde’s death. Forde was a priest living in London when he was murdered on a busy street. But what possible reason would someone have to want to murder a priest? The motive, according to the research team, was likely revenge. According to Manuel Eisner, one of the study’s authors, the murder may have been an act of revenge by noblewoman Ela Fitzpayne. According to the records, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon Mepham, had enacted penance on Fitzpayne after it was discovered that Forde had been her lover. A letter written by Archbishop Mepham accused Fitzpayne of adultery with Forde and possibly others. Her penance was to take a barefoot walk of shame across Salisbury Cathedral. Eisner also found a document that suggested Fitzpayne, her husband, and John Forde sent a gang to rob a church priory and took the livestock for ransom. It’s possible that during this time, Forde found himself in bed with Fitzpayne, before betraying her to the Archbishop Mepham. Commissioned Murder Possibly betrayed by her former lover and sentenced to walks of shame that were to take place once a year for seven years,  Fitzpayne would have none of it. On an early evening on a busy London street, near St. Paul’s Cathedral, three men attacked Forde. One slit his throat while the others stabbed him in the gut. Witnesses claim that the murderers were Fitzpayne’s brother and two of her former servants. “We are looking at a murder commissioned by a leading figure of the English aristocracy. It is planned and cold-blooded, with a family member and close associates carrying it out, all of which suggests a revenge motive,” said Eisner in a press release.Cold Case RevealedAccording to letters from Archbishop Mepham, Fitzpayne was led by the devil and a “spirit of pride.”“The archbishop imposed heavy, shameful public penance on Ela, which she seems not to have complied with, but may have sparked a thirst for vengeance,” said Eisner in a press release. “Not least as John Forde appears to have escaped punishment by the church.” When Archbishop Mepham died in 1333, Fitzpayne waited four years before enacting her revenge, and in 1337, Forde was killed. Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:A graduate of UW-Whitewater, Monica Cull wrote for several organizations, including one that focused on bees and the natural world, before coming to Discover Magazine. Her current work also appears on her travel blog and Common State Magazine. Her love of science came from watching PBS shows as a kid with her mom and spending too much time binging Doctor Who.1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as $1.99!SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In

If you want a speedy, reliable VPN compatible with your smart TV for streaming without lag or connection issues, check out ZDNET's favorites.

Bacteria wouldn’t be so bad if we could tell them what to do. “Stop spreading! Stop sticking together! Stop fending off our antibiotics!” A new method is starting to allow scientists to do just that, letting them use light to control certain functions of bacteria. Introduced in a paper published in The European Physical Journal Plus, the preliminary approach could have several potential applications, including a possible avenue for combating antibiotic resistance.The Problem of Antibacterial Resistance Bacteria are behind a variety of diseases, from strep to staph to pneumonia and meningitis, and they attack our bodies in a variety of ways, as well, including through the production of toxins that damage and disrupt our cells. Some of these infections stop on their own, but others are too stubborn, or too serious, to leave untreated. These are the infections that we target with antibiotics — that is, as long as our antibiotics are working.But, because bacteria are constantly changing, they can develop defenses against the antibiotics that we use to stave them off, making these treatments much less effective. That’s the gist of the growing threat posed by antibiotic resistance, which has contributed to millions of deaths since 1990 and is anticipated to contribute to millions more by 2050. Setting out to find a new solution to this growing problem, scientists from the Italian Institute of Technology and the Polytechnic University of Milan embarked on the Engineering of Bacteria to See Light (EOS) project. The project aims to use light to control bacteria, primarily for the fight against antibiotic resistance. And the new method pushes the project closer to achieving that aim. Using light and light-sensitive molecules to adjust the electrical signals that are transmitted across the bacterial membrane, the method impacts the biological activity of bacteria without any alterations to their genetic makeup.“This interplay between light and electrical [signaling] allows us to control key biological processes such as movement, biofilm formation, and antibiotic sensitivity,” said Giuseppe Maria Paternò, a study author and a professor at the Polytechnic University of Milan, according to a press release. “We can influence antibiotic uptake and restore or even enhance the effectiveness of treatments against resistant strains.”Coating Bacteria to Curb Antibiotic ResistanceTo control bacteria, the method takes advantage of a light-sensitive molecule called Ziapin2, which sticks to the bacterial surface. By covering bacteria with this light-sensitive molecule and by subjecting the covered bacteria to light, the scientists were able to modify the electrical signals that were transmitted across their bacterial membranes, transforming the bacteria’s basic functioning. Testing their method on one of the most studied bacterial species, the scientists changed the electrical signaling across the membranes of Bacillus subtilis, a popular model organism that’s often used as a stand-in for Staphylococcus aureus, the bacterium that causes staphylococcus, or staph, infections.When tested, the method modulated the bacteria’s susceptibility to Kanamycin, an intracellular antibiotic that’s frequently used as a treatment for severe bacterial infections after other treatments fail. “Under blue light,” Paternò said in the release, “the effectiveness of Kanamycin was significantly reduced,” indicating that the electrical signaling on the bacterial membrane “plays a crucial role in the drug’s uptake.”Additional research is required to tailor the method to increase the effectiveness of Kanamycin and other antibiotics against bacteria. But for now, it seems that such an outcome could be possible. “This initial assessment […] represents a first step in a completely new field of study,” the scientists state in their paper. “This proof-of-concept study underscores the potential of non-genetic, light-based interventions to modulate bacterial susceptibility in real time. Future work will expand this approach […] ultimately advancing our understanding of bacterial bioelectric regulation and its applications in antimicrobial therapies.”This article is not offering medical advice and should be used for informational purposes only.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:The European Physical Journal Plus. Photocontrol of Bacterial Membrane Potential Regulates Antibiotic Persistence in B. SubtilisSam Walters is a journalist covering archaeology, paleontology, ecology, and evolution for Discover, along with an assortment of other topics. Before joining the Discover team as an assistant editor in 2022, Sam studied journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

Once again, Sam Altman wants to show you the future. The CEO of OpenAI is standing on a sparse stage in San Francisco, preparing to reveal his next move to an attentive crowd. “We needed some way for identifying, authenticating humans in the age of AGI,” Altman explains, referring to artificial general intelligence. “We wanted a way to make sure that humans stayed special and central.” The solution Altman came up with is looming behind him. It’s a white sphere about the size of a beach ball, with a camera at its center. The company that makes it, known as Tools for Humanity, calls this mysterious device the Orb. Stare into the heart of the plastic-and-silicon globe and it will map the unique furrows and ciliary zones of your iris. Seconds later, you’ll receive inviolable proof of your humanity: a 12,800-digit binary number, known as an iris code, sent to an app on your phone. At the same time, a packet of cryptocurrency called Worldcoin, worth approximately $42, will be transferred to your digital wallet—your reward for becoming a “verified human.” Altman co-founded Tools for Humanity in 2019 as part of a suite of companies he believed would reshape the world. Once the tech he was developing at OpenAI passed a certain level of intelligence, he reasoned, it would mark the end of one era on the Internet and the beginning of another, in which AI became so advanced, so human-like, that you would no longer be able to tell whether what you read, saw, or heard online came from a real person. When that happened, Altman imagined, we would need a new kind of online infrastructure: a human-verification layer for the Internet, to distinguish real people from the proliferating number of bots and AI “agents.”And so Tools for Humanity set out to build a global “proof-of-humanity” network. It aims to verify 50 million people by the end of 2025; ultimately its goal is to sign up every single human being on the planet. The free crypto serves as both an incentive for users to sign up, and also an entry point into what the company hopes will become the world’s largest financial network, through which it believes “double-digit percentages of the global economy” will eventually flow. Even for Altman, these missions are audacious. “If this really works, it’s like a fundamental piece of infrastructure for the world,” Altman tells TIME in a video interview from the passenger seat of a car a few days before his April 30 keynote address.Internal hardware of the Orb in mid-assembly in March. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe project’s goal is to solve a problem partly of Altman’s own making. In the near future, he and other tech leaders say, advanced AIs will be imbued with agency: the ability to not just respond to human prompting, but to take actions independently in the world. This will enable the creation of AI coworkers that can drop into your company and begin solving problems; AI tutors that can adapt their teaching style to students’ preferences; even AI doctors that can diagnose routine cases and handle scheduling or logistics. The arrival of these virtual agents, their venture capitalist backers predict, will turbocharge our productivity and unleash an age of material abundance.But AI agents will also have cascading consequences for the human experience online. “As AI systems become harder to distinguish from people, websites may face difficult trade-offs,” says a recent paper by researchers from 25 different universities, nonprofits, and tech companies, including OpenAI. “There is a significant risk that digital institutions will be unprepared for a time when AI-powered agents, including those leveraged by malicious actors, overwhelm other activity online.” On social-media platforms like X and Facebook, bot-driven accounts are amassing billions of views on AI-generated content. In April, the foundation that runs Wikipedia disclosed that AI bots scraping their site were making the encyclopedia too costly to sustainably run. Later the same month, researchers from the University of Zurich found that AI-generated comments on the subreddit /r/ChangeMyView were up to six times more successful than human-written ones at persuading unknowing users to change their minds.  Photograph by Davide Monteleone for TIMEBuy a copy of the Orb issue hereThe arrival of agents won’t only threaten our ability to distinguish between authentic and AI content online. It will also challenge the Internet’s core business model, online advertising, which relies on the assumption that ads are being viewed by humans. “The Internet will change very drastically sometime in the next 12 to 24 months,” says Tools for Humanity CEO Alex Blania. “So we have to succeed, or I’m not sure what else would happen.”For four years, Blania’s team has been testing the Orb’s hardware abroad. Now the U.S. rollout has arrived. Over the next 12 months, 7,500 Orbs will be arriving in dozens of American cities, in locations like gas stations, bodegas, and flagship stores in Los Angeles, Austin, and Miami. The project’s founders and fans hope the Orb’s U.S. debut will kickstart a new phase of growth. The San Francisco keynote was titled: “At Last.” It’s not clear the public appetite matches the exultant branding. Tools for Humanity has “verified” just 12 million humans since mid 2023, a pace Blania concedes is well behind schedule. Few online platforms currently support the so-called “World ID” that the Orb bestows upon its visitors, leaving little to entice users to give up their biometrics beyond the lure of free crypto. Even Altman isn’t sure whether the whole thing can work. “I can see [how] this becomes a fairly mainstream thing in a few years,” he says. “Or I can see that it’s still only used by a small subset of people who think about the world in a certain way.” Blania (left) and Altman debut the Orb at World’s U.S. launch in San Francisco on April 30, 2025. Jason Henry—The New York Times/ReduxYet as the Internet becomes overrun with AI, the creators of this strange new piece of hardware are betting that everybody in the world will soon want—or need—to visit an Orb. The biometric code it creates, they predict, will become a new type of digital passport, without which you might be denied passage to the Internet of the future, from dating apps to government services. In a best-case scenario, World ID could be a privacy-preserving way to fortify the Internet against an AI-driven deluge of fake or deceptive content. It could also enable the distribution of universal basic income (UBI)—a policy that Altman has previously touted—as AI automation transforms the global economy. To examine what this new technology might mean, I reported from three continents, interviewed 10 Tools for Humanity executives and investors, reviewed hundreds of pages of company documents, and “verified” my own humanity. The Internet will inevitably need some kind of proof-of-humanity system in the near future, says Divya Siddarth, founder of the nonprofit Collective Intelligence Project. The real question, she argues, is whether such a system will be centralized—“a big security nightmare that enables a lot of surveillance”—or privacy-preserving, as the Orb claims to be. Questions remain about Tools for Humanity’s corporate structure, its yoking to an unstable cryptocurrency, and what power it would concentrate in the hands of its owners if successful. Yet it’s also one of the only attempts to solve what many see as an increasingly urgent problem. “There are some issues with it,” Siddarth says of World ID. “But you can’t preserve the Internet in amber. Something in this direction is necessary.”In March, I met Blania at Tools for Humanity’s San Francisco headquarters, where a large screen displays the number of weekly “Orb verifications” by country. A few days earlier, the CEO had attended a $1 million-per-head dinner at Mar-a-Lago with President Donald Trump, whom he credits with clearing the way for the company’s U.S. launch by relaxing crypto regulations. “Given Sam is a very high profile target,” Blania says, “we just decided that we would let other companies fight that fight, and enter the U.S. once the air is clear.” As a kid growing up in Germany, Blania was a little different than his peers. “Other kids were, like, drinking a lot, or doing a lot of parties, and I was just building a lot of things that could potentially blow up,” he recalls. At the California Institute of Technology, where he was pursuing research for a masters degree, he spent many evenings reading the blogs of startup gurus like Paul Graham and Altman. Then, in 2019, Blania received an email from Max Novendstern, an entrepreneur who had been kicking around a concept with Altman to build a global cryptocurrency network. They were looking for technical minds to help with the project. Over cappuccinos, Altman told Blania he was certain about three things. First, smarter-than-human AI was not only possible, but inevitable—and it would soon mean you could no longer assume that anything you read, saw, or heard on the Internet was human-created. Second, cryptocurrency and other decentralized technologies would be a massive force for change in the world. And third, scale was essential to any crypto network’s value. The Orb is tested on a calibration rig, surrounded by checkerboard targets to ensure precision in iris detection. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe goal of Worldcoin, as the project was initially called, was to combine those three insights. Altman took a lesson from PayPal, the company co-founded by his mentor Peter Thiel. Of its initial funding, PayPal spent less than $10 million actually building its app—but pumped an additional $70 million or so into a referral program, whereby new users and the person who invited them would each receive $10 in credit. The referral program helped make PayPal a leading payment platform. Altman thought a version of that strategy would propel Worldcoin to similar heights. He wanted to create a new cryptocurrency and give it to users as a reward for signing up. The more people who joined the system, the higher the token’s value would theoretically rise. Since 2019, the project has raised $244 million from investors like Coinbase and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. That money paid for the $50 million cost of designing the Orb, plus maintaining the software it runs on. The total market value of all Worldcoins in existence, however, is far higher—around $12 billion. That number is a bit misleading: most of those coins are not in circulation and Worldcoin’s price has fluctuated wildly. Still, it allows the company to reward users for signing up at no cost to itself. The main lure for investors is the crypto upside. Some 75% of all Worldcoins are set aside for humans to claim when they sign up, or as referral bonuses. The remaining 25% are split between Tools for Humanity’s backers and staff, including Blania and Altman. “I’m really excited to make a lot of money,” ” Blania says.From the beginning, Altman was thinking about the consequences of the AI revolution he intended to unleash. (On May 21, he announced plans to team up with famed former Apple designer Jony Ive on a new AI personal device.) A future in which advanced AI could perform most tasks more effectively than humans would bring a wave of unemployment and economic dislocation, he reasoned. Some kind of wealth redistribution might be necessary. In 2016, he partially funded a study of basic income, which gave $1,000 per-month handouts to low-income individuals in Illinois and Texas. But there was no single financial system that would allow money to be sent to everybody in the world. Nor was there a way to stop an individual human from claiming their share twice—or to identify a sophisticated AI pretending to be human and pocketing some cash of its own. In 2023, Tools for Humanity raised the possibility of using the network to redistribute the profits of AI labs that were able to automate human labor. “As AI advances,” it said, “fairly distributing access and some of the created value through UBI will play an increasingly vital role in counteracting the concentration of economic power.”Blania was taken by the pitch, and agreed to join the project as a co-founder. “Most people told us we were very stupid or crazy or insane, including Silicon Valley investors,” Blania says. At least until ChatGPT came out in 2022, transforming OpenAI into one of the world’s most famous tech companies and kickstarting a market bull-run. “Things suddenly started to make more and more sense to the external world,” Blania says of the vision to develop a global “proof-of-humanity” network. “You have to imagine a world in which you will have very smart and competent systems somehow flying through the Internet with different goals and ideas of what they want to do, and us having no idea anymore what we’re dealing with.”After our interview, Blania’s head of communications ushers me over to a circular wooden structure where eight Orbs face one another. The scene feels like a cross between an Apple Store and a ceremonial altar. “Do you want to get verified?” she asks. Putting aside my reservations for the purposes of research, I download the World App and follow its prompts. I flash a QR code at the Orb, then gaze into it. A minute or so later, my phone buzzes with confirmation: I’ve been issued my own personal World ID and some Worldcoin.The first thing the Orb does is check if you’re human, using a neural network that takes input from various sensors, including an infrared camera and a thermometer. Davide Monteleone for TIMEWhile I stared into the Orb, several complex procedures had taken place at once. A neural network took inputs from multiple sensors—an infrared camera, a thermometer—to confirm I was a living human. Simultaneously, a telephoto lens zoomed in on my iris, capturing the physical traits within that distinguish me from every other human on Earth. It then converted that image into an iris code: a numerical abstraction of my unique biometric data. Then the Orb checked to see if my iris code matched any it had seen before, using a technique allowing encrypted data to be compared without revealing the underlying information. Before the Orb deleted my data, it turned my iris code into several derivative codes—none of which on its own can be linked back to the original—encrypted them, deleted the only copies of the decryption keys, and sent each one to a different secure server, so that future users’ iris codes can be checked for uniqueness against mine. If I were to use my World ID to access a website, that site would learn nothing about me except that I’m human. The Orb is open-source, so outside experts can examine its code and verify the company’s privacy claims. “I did a colonoscopy on this company and these technologies before I agreed to join,” says Trevor Traina, a Trump donor and former U.S. ambassador to Austria who now serves as Tools for Humanity’s chief business officer. “It is the most privacy-preserving technology on the planet.”Only weeks later, when researching what would happen if I wanted to delete my data, do I discover that Tools for Humanity’s privacy claims rest on what feels like a sleight of hand. The company argues that in modifying your iris code, it has “effectively anonymized” your biometric data. If you ask Tools for Humanity to delete your iris codes, they will delete the one stored on your phone, but not the derivatives. Those, they argue, are no longer your personal data at all. But if I were to return to an Orb after deleting my data, it would still recognize those codes as uniquely mine. Once you look into the Orb, a piece of your identity remains in the system forever. If users could truly delete that data, the premise of one ID per human would collapse, Tools for Humanity’s chief privacy officer Damien Kieran tells me when I call seeking an explanation. People could delete and sign up for new World IDs after being suspended from a platform. Or claim their Worldcoin tokens, sell them, delete their data, and cash in again. This argument fell flat with European Union regulators in Germany, who recently declared that the Orb posed “fundamental data protection issues” and ordered the company to allow European users to fully delete even their anonymized data. (Tools for Humanity has appealed; the regulator is now reassessing the decision.) “Just like any other technology service, users cannot delete data that is not personal data,” Kieran said in a statement. “If a person could delete anonymized data that can’t be linked to them by World or any third party, it would allow bad actors to circumvent the security and safety that World ID is working to bring to every human.”On a balmy afternoon this spring, I climb a flight of stairs up to a room above a restaurant in an outer suburb of Seoul. Five elderly South Koreans tap on their phones as they wait to be “verified” by the two Orbs in the center of the room. “We don’t really know how to distinguish between AI and humans anymore,” an attendant in a company t-shirt explains in Korean, gesturing toward the spheres. “We need a way to verify that we’re human and not AI. So how do we do that? Well, humans have irises, but AI doesn’t.”The attendant ushers an elderly woman over to an Orb. It bleeps. “Open your eyes,” a disembodied voice says in English. The woman stares into the camera. Seconds later, she checks her phone and sees that a packet of Worldcoin worth 75,000 Korean won (about $54) has landed in her digital wallet. Congratulations, the app tells her. You are now a verified human.A visitor views the Orbs in Seoul on April 14, 2025. Taemin Ha for TIMETools for Humanity aims to “verify” 1 million Koreans over the next year. Taemin Ha for TIMEA couple dozen Orbs have been available in South Korea since 2023, verifying roughly 55,000 people. Now Tools for Humanity is redoubling its efforts there. At an event in a traditional wooden hanok house in central Seoul, an executive announces that 250 Orbs will soon be dispersed around the country—with the aim of verifying 1 million Koreans in the next 12 months. South Korea has high levels of smartphone usage, crypto and AI adoption, and Internet access, while average wages are modest enough for the free Worldcoin on offer to still be an enticing draw—all of which makes it fertile testing ground for the company’s ambitious global expansion. Yet things seem off to a slow start. In a retail space I visited in central Seoul, Tools for Humanity had constructed a wooden structure with eight Orbs facing each other. Locals and tourists wander past looking bemused; few volunteer themselves up. Most who do tell me they are crypto enthusiasts who came intentionally, driven more by the spirit of early adoption than the free coins. The next day, I visit a coffee shop in central Seoul where a chrome Orb sits unassumingly in one corner. Wu Ruijun, a 20-year-old student from China, strikes up a conversation with the barista, who doubles as the Orb’s operator. Wu was invited here by a friend who said both could claim free cryptocurrency if he signed up. The barista speeds him through the process. Wu accepts the privacy disclosure without reading it, and widens his eyes for the Orb. Soon he’s verified. “I wasn’t told anything about the privacy policy,” he says on his way out. “I just came for the money.”As Altman’s car winds through San Francisco, I ask about the vision he laid out in 2019: that AI would make it harder for us to trust each other online. To my surprise, he rejects the framing. “I’m much more [about] like: what is the good we can create, rather than the bad we can stop?” he says. “It’s not like, ‘Oh, we’ve got to avoid the bot overrun’ or whatever. It’s just that we can do a lot of special things for humans.” It’s an answer that may reflect how his role has changed over the years. Altman is now the chief public cheerleader of a $300 billion company that’s touting the transformative utility of AI agents. The rise of agents, he and others say, will be a boon for our quality of life—like having an assistant on hand who can answer your most pressing questions, carry out mundane tasks, and help you develop new skills. It’s an optimistic vision that may well pan out. But it doesn’t quite fit with the prophecies of AI-enabled infopocalypse that Tools for Humanity was founded upon.Altman waves away a question about the influence he and other investors stand to gain if their vision is realized. Most holders, he assumes, will have already started selling their tokens—too early, he adds. “What I think would be bad is if an early crew had a lot of control over the protocol,” he says, “and that’s where I think the commitment to decentralization is so cool.” Altman is referring to the World Protocol, the underlying technology upon which the Orb, Worldcoin, and World ID all rely. Tools for Humanity is developing it, but has committed to giving control to its users over time—a process they say will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of a few executives or investors. Tools for Humanity would remain a for-profit company, and could levy fees on platforms that use World ID, but other companies would be able to compete for customers by building alternative apps—or even alternative Orbs. The plan draws on ideas that animated the crypto ecosystem in the late 2010s and early 2020s, when evangelists for emerging blockchain technologies argued that the centralization of power—especially in large so-called “Web 2.0” tech companies—was responsible for many of the problems plaguing the modern Internet. Just as decentralized cryptocurrencies could reform a financial system controlled by economic elites, so too would it be possible to create decentralized organizations, run by their members instead of CEOs. How such a system might work in practice remains unclear. “Building a community-based governance system,” Tools for Humanity says in a 2023 white paper, “represents perhaps the most formidable challenge of the entire project.”Altman has a pattern of making idealistic promises that shift over time. He founded OpenAI as a nonprofit in 2015, with a mission to develop AGI safely and for the benefit of all humanity. To raise money, OpenAI restructured itself as a for-profit company in 2019, but with overall control still in the hands of its nonprofit board. Last year, Altman proposed yet another restructure—one which would dilute the board’s control and allow more profits to flow to shareholders. Why, I ask, should the public trust Tools for Humanity’s commitment to freely surrender influence and power? “I think you will just see the continued decentralization via the protocol,” he says. “The value here is going to live in the network, and the network will be owned and governed by a lot of people.” Altman talks less about universal basic income these days. He recently mused about an alternative, which he called “universal basic compute.” Instead of AI companies redistributing their profits, he seemed to suggest, they could instead give everyone in the world fair access to super-powerful AI. Blania tells me he recently “made the decision to stop talking” about UBI at Tools for Humanity. “UBI is one potential answer,” he says. “Just giving [people] access to the latest [AI] models and having them learn faster and better is another.” Says Altman: “I still don’t know what the right answer is. I believe we should do a better job of distribution of resources than we currently do.” When I probe the question of why people should trust him, Altman gets irritated. “I understand that you hate AI, and that’s fine,” he says. “If you want to frame it as the downside of AI is that there’s going to be a proliferation of very convincing AI systems that are pretending to be human, and we need ways to know what is really human-authorized versus not, then yeah, I think you can call that a downside of AI. It’s not how I would naturally frame it.” The phrase human-authorized hints at a tension between World ID and OpenAI’s plans for AI agents. An Internet where a World ID is required to access most services might impede the usefulness of the agents that OpenAI and others are developing. So Tools for Humanity is building a system that would allow users to delegate their World ID to an agent, allowing the bot to take actions online on their behalf, according to Tiago Sada, the company’s chief product officer. “We’ve built everything in a way that can be very easily delegatable to an agent,” Sada says. It’s a measure that would allow humans to be held accountable for the actions of their AIs. But it suggests that Tools for Humanity’s mission may be shifting beyond simply proving humanity, and toward becoming the infrastructure that enables AI agents to proliferate with human authorization. World ID doesn’t tell you whether a piece of content is AI-generated or human-generated; all it tells you is whether the account that posted it is a human or a bot. Even in a world where everybody had a World ID, our online spaces might still be filled with AI-generated text, images, and videos.As I say goodbye to Altman, I’m left feeling conflicted about his project. If the Internet is going to be transformed by AI agents, then some kind of proof-of-humanity system will almost certainly be necessary. Yet if the Orb becomes a piece of Internet infrastructure, it could give Altman—a beneficiary of the proliferation of AI content—significant influence over a leading defense mechanism against it. People might have no choice but to participate in the network in order to access social media or online services.I thought of an encounter I witnessed in Seoul. In the room above the restaurant, Cho Jeong-yeon, 75, watched her friend get verified by an Orb. Cho had been invited to do the same, but demurred. The reward wasn’t enough for her to surrender a part of her identity. “Your iris is uniquely yours, and we don’t really know how it might be used,” she says. “Seeing the machine made me think: are we becoming machines instead of humans now? Everything is changing, and we don’t know how it’ll all turn out.”—With reporting by Stephen Kim/Seoul. This story was supported by Tarbell Grants.Correction, May 30The original version of this story misstated the market capitalization of Worldcoin if all coins were in circulation. It is $12 billion, not $1.2 billion.

Behind 69 Walker Street’s facade in the Tribeca neighborhood of New York is a beehive of designers all striving toward the same goal: making great work, whether big or small, luxury residential or affordable housing, interiors or ground up. Fogarty Finger occupies three floors of the industrial loft building so ubiquitous in the neighborhood Robert De Niro made famous. The 130-person firm was founded in 2003 by Chris Fogarty and Robert Finger after the pair spent a decade working at SOM. Alexandra Cuber joined the office in 2014 and is a director in Fogarty Finger’s interiors studio. John Zimmer also teamed up as a director, following a stint in San Francisco. Despite having grown significantly, Fogarty Finger remains malleable, and responsive to ever-evolving industry trends. “About 80 percent of our clients are return clients,” Fogarty told AN. “Not only do clients often come back, they also recommend us. For the longest time we didn’t do business development because we didn’t need to. Now, at our size, we have to be a bit more thoughtful.” “One of many things that differentiates us from other, larger offices is that we’re still first-generation leadership,” Finger added. “We bring a very boutique approach to everything we do. Nobody has an expectation of what the firm does from generations past. This means we don’t have people above us managing us from the financial side [who are] responsible for many, many offices. This gives us more freedom in terms of design; we don’t come with the same overhead as many other firms have.” Astoria West (Alexander Severin) Astoria West, 2022 A waterfront site Fogarty Finger recently negotiated is in Astoria, Queens. Astoria West is a handsome, 500-unit luxury residential complex that’s easily recognizable from Manhattan thanks to its bays, which jut out from the facade. The complex is broken up into three buildings with a shared courtyard. “We had a supertight budget,” Fogarty said. “The client came to us and said, ‘I need something I can recognize while standing in Manhattan.’ So we used dormer rules that allowed for these vertical portals into the apartment, which gave it an identity. Working on a very slim budget, a lot of detailing and thinking went into the windows, which change size, and the brick patterns. A lot of thought also went into the ground plane. We wanted to make apartments that people couldn’t look into from the sidewalk, without creating a soulless pedestrian experience outside.” Private Equity Office (David Mitchell) Private Equity Office, 2024 Fogarty Finger’s interiors studio collaborates with high-caliber real estate, financial services, and legal firms across the Eastern Seaboard. Recently, Fogarty Finger redesigned a space within an iconic Manhattan tower for a private equity firm; the result was a design that’s both inviting and dignifying. “Companies put a lot of thought into their address, but so often how they want their interiors to look and work is an open-ended conversation,” Finger said. “Real estate is becoming a very experience-driven industry, which is affecting everything.” For Fogarty Finger, helping financial services and legal practices arrive at a clear understanding of their identity is paramount, as was the case in this project, in which the client requested to stay anonymous. “We often start with visioning sessions,” Cuber said. “We ask clients to describe themselves in a few words, which often rattles them a bit. It’s so interesting taking these interviews and creating a space that reflects the client and how they want to present themselves.” The Eliza + Inwood Public Library (Alexander Severin) The Eliza + Inwood Public Library, 2024 What to do with all of New York City’s publicly owned land has mayoral candidates talking. Amid ongoing debates, one thing seems clear: The new Eliza Apartments at the redeveloped Inwood Public Library in Manhattan is a very good precedent to use when negotiating city land moving forward. Mayoral candidates Zohran Mamdani, Zellnor Myrie, and Andrew Cuomo all alluded to the Eliza + Inwood Public Library in their housing plans as a case study to emulate. The mixed-use building opened earlier this year and was reviewed by AN. Fogarty Finger designed the ground-up building and its accompanying apartments, while Andrew Berman Architects ideated the ground-level library. “This is a truly multiuse building,” Zimmer said. “It has a community center that’s used for vocational training and STEM in the cellar, and there’s also a universal pre-K.” Nevins Landing in Gowanus, Brooklyn (Courtesy Fogarty Finger) Nevins Landing, 2021– The Gowanus neighborhood is one of the largest, most significant development sites underway in New York today. Many high-profile firms are designing buildings near the polluted canal—a Superfund site in a yearslong cleanup—and Fogarty Finger is one of them. The firm is behind 320 and 340 Nevins Landing, on the banks of what many hope becomes the “eco-friendly Amsterdam of Brooklyn.” Fogarty Finger’s design at Nevins Landing can be understood as two separate plinths that front a shared plaza with towers above them. The facades mimic the old brick buildings in the neighborhood, with all of their idiosyncrasies. One of the other commendable features of Nevins Landing’s design is its retail component: Fogarty Finger created internal public corridors lined with a variety of small commercial spaces. This will ensure the ground level of Nevins Landing is a happening display of artists and coffee shops instead of, say, another Walgreens. “Our goal was to make a neighborhood,” Cuber said.

The joy of going camping is usually found in going off-grid for a few days and reconnecting with nature. However, having creature comforts like light and warmth, and even access to medical devices like a CPAP machine, make it worthwhile taking a portable power solution with you. That's where portable power stations come in. Think power banks, only bigger. Power stations come in a variety of power capacities and sizes, and that means that you can find a portable power station for every type of camping, no matter whether you're a backpacker, a car camper, or an RVer.  What is the best portable power station for camping right now?  We've tested dozens of portable power stations in a lab setting and have also done hands-on testing during camping trips and road trips. Based on both experiences, our pick for the best portable power station for camping overall is the Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus, thanks to its versatility and the amount of power it provides. As an avid camper myself, I've also included other portable power stations from brands like EcoFlow and Bluetti so you can improve your next camping experience. Sort by All The best portable power stations for camping in 2025 Show less View now at Amazon Jackery is a well-known brand in the power station space, and for good reason. Its versatile power stations consistently rank among our best products, thanks to the enormous power these devices provide and their flexibility in setup, especially in a camping scenario.Steve Conaway, the director of CNET Test Labs, at our sister site, has tested dozens of power stations and said the Jackery is one of his top picks. "The versatility of modularity is what makes this power station so impressive," Conaway said. "You can choose to take just the one unit for regular camping, but if you wanted a bigger setup to power a cabin, you could easily add on more units."Review: This portable battery station can power your home for 2 weeksAnd the great thing about this unit is that if you need more power storage capacity, you can add on the PackPlus E2000 Plus battery pack for an additional 2042.8Wh of electrical storage capacity to the system.Jackery has a long track record of building quality, durable, and long-lasting power stations -- which is exactly what you need if you are spending the big bucks on a power station.Remember that the more additions you add to this setup, the heavier it will be. On its own, it weighs 41.9 pounds but can reach well over 100 pounds with more units. Despite the weight, Reddit users note that the solar additions, in particular, have been useful in camping and outdoor situations.Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus specs: Watts/hr: 2042.8W | Continuous watts: 3000W | Surge watts: 6000W | Solar input (W): 1400 | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 61.5 pounds Pros Clean, easy-to-read LCD display Expansion battery modules Solar panels are durable and highly efficient Wheels make moving it a lot easier Cons Expensive Jackery is a well-known brand in the power station space, and for good reason. Its versatile power stations consistently rank among our best products, thanks to the enormous power these devices provide and their flexibility in setup, especially in a camping scenario.Steve Conaway, the director of CNET Test Labs, at our sister site, has tested dozens of power stations and said the Jackery is one of his top picks. "The versatility of modularity is what makes this power station so impressive," Conaway said. "You can choose to take just the one unit for regular camping, but if you wanted a bigger setup to power a cabin, you could easily add on more units."Review: This portable battery station can power your home for 2 weeksAnd the great thing about this unit is that if you need more power storage capacity, you can add on the PackPlus E2000 Plus battery pack for an additional 2042.8Wh of electrical storage capacity to the system.Jackery has a long track record of building quality, durable, and long-lasting power stations -- which is exactly what you need if you are spending the big bucks on a power station.Remember that the more additions you add to this setup, the heavier it will be. On its own, it weighs 41.9 pounds but can reach well over 100 pounds with more units. Despite the weight, Reddit users note that the solar additions, in particular, have been useful in camping and outdoor situations.Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus specs: Watts/hr: 2042.8W | Continuous watts: 3000W | Surge watts: 6000W | Solar input (W): 1400 | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 61.5 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less Show less Camping takes all sorts of forms, and there's a power station to suit everyone. For those who head outdoors in an RV or to a remote cabin, the EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra (DPU) is a powerful option. EcoFlow debuted the Delta Pro Ultra at CES this year, and compared to the EcoFlow Delta Pro model, the Ultra has double the power and charges, a dedicated 4G LTE modem port to access the app in remote areas with weak Wi-Fi signals, and a 32-minute faster recharge time.ZDNET editor Maria Diaz went hands-on with this unit and called it the "Swiss Army Knife of home backup systems," and its impressive specs back that claim up. The single unit has a 6kWh capacity, 7200W output, and 5.6kW solar input, allowing it to run an entire RV or cabin, especially when stacked with other units for increased capacity.This great power packs a lot of weight,186.4 pounds, to be exact. However, it can be divided into two pieces: the inverter, the top portion, is 70 pounds, and the battery, the bottom portion, is 116 pounds. Diaz noted that her family experienced a power outage recently, and her husband was able to transport the battery part much more easily by separating the pieces.EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra specs: Watts/hr. 7200W | Continuous watts: 6kWh | Surge watts: 10.8 kW | Solar input (W): 5.6kW | Ports: 2×USB-A, 2×USB-C (100W), 6×AC Output, 1×DC output | Weight: 186.4 pounds AC outputs 9 Total capacity 10 Expansion ready 10 USB ports 9 Max output 10 Pros Expandable to up to 90kWh Consumption insights in EcoFlow app Modular design Cons Expensive Heavy EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra Best portable power station for RV camping 4.8 / 5 Score Camping takes all sorts of forms, and there's a power station to suit everyone. For those who head outdoors in an RV or to a remote cabin, the EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra (DPU) is a powerful option. EcoFlow debuted the Delta Pro Ultra at CES this year, and compared to the EcoFlow Delta Pro model, the Ultra has double the power and charges, a dedicated 4G LTE modem port to access the app in remote areas with weak Wi-Fi signals, and a 32-minute faster recharge time.ZDNET editor Maria Diaz went hands-on with this unit and called it the "Swiss Army Knife of home backup systems," and its impressive specs back that claim up. The single unit has a 6kWh capacity, 7200W output, and 5.6kW solar input, allowing it to run an entire RV or cabin, especially when stacked with other units for increased capacity.This great power packs a lot of weight,186.4 pounds, to be exact. However, it can be divided into two pieces: the inverter, the top portion, is 70 pounds, and the battery, the bottom portion, is 116 pounds. Diaz noted that her family experienced a power outage recently, and her husband was able to transport the battery part much more easily by separating the pieces.EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra specs: Watts/hr. 7200W | Continuous watts: 6kWh | Surge watts: 10.8 kW | Solar input (W): 5.6kW | Ports: 2×USB-A, 2×USB-C (100W), 6×AC Output, 1×DC output | Weight: 186.4 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less Show less Looking for something more compact for overnight camping or hiking? The EcoFlow River 2 Max 500 weighs just 13.1 pounds but has a battery capacity of 500Wh. In addition, you can recharge the unit using one of four methods: AC, solar, 12V in-car, or USB-C. If you choose AC, the unit can go from zero to 100% in an hour, which means you can leave charging to the last minute while camping.The company claims that one full charge of the River 2 Max can charge an iPhone 41 times, a drone 10 times, and an electric blanket eight times.ZDNET's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and called it "compact enough to be portable, big enough to be practical." "If you want to go totally off-grid, EcoFlow offers a 160W solar panel that can recharge the River 2 Max in about four hours," he wrote. "The panel is durable and waterproof to IP68, so it's the perfect adventure companion for the River 2 Max 500."Verified Amazon customers note that this compact unit has been helpful for everything from camping festivals to powering a CPAP machine in primitive areas.EcoFlow River 2 Max specs: Watts/hr: 500W | Continuous watts: 500W | Surge watts: 1000W | Solar input (W): 220W | Ports: 3 USB-A, 1 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 13.14 pounds Pros Compact and lightweight Durable build Inexpensive Cons More limited ports and power Looking for something more compact for overnight camping or hiking? The EcoFlow River 2 Max 500 weighs just 13.1 pounds but has a battery capacity of 500Wh. In addition, you can recharge the unit using one of four methods: AC, solar, 12V in-car, or USB-C. If you choose AC, the unit can go from zero to 100% in an hour, which means you can leave charging to the last minute while camping.The company claims that one full charge of the River 2 Max can charge an iPhone 41 times, a drone 10 times, and an electric blanket eight times.ZDNET's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and called it "compact enough to be portable, big enough to be practical." "If you want to go totally off-grid, EcoFlow offers a 160W solar panel that can recharge the River 2 Max in about four hours," he wrote. "The panel is durable and waterproof to IP68, so it's the perfect adventure companion for the River 2 Max 500."Verified Amazon customers note that this compact unit has been helpful for everything from camping festivals to powering a CPAP machine in primitive areas.EcoFlow River 2 Max specs: Watts/hr: 500W | Continuous watts: 500W | Surge watts: 1000W | Solar input (W): 220W | Ports: 3 USB-A, 1 USB-C, 4 AC | Weight: 13.14 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less Show less View now at Amazon Portable power stations can get pretty pricey, but this one from Bluetti currently retails at only $359 for Amazon Prime members, making it a great budget pick. Plus, it charges quickly, especially when utilizing its turbocharging feature. Kingsley-Hughes also tested this model and praised it for delivering enough power to energy-intensive devices during a road trip. "It has enough capacity to meet the needs of a small group for several days," he wrote, adding, "I've relied on the power station to charge my smartphone, cameras, drones, and laptops efficiently."In his testing, he also found that charging the station from a car's 12V outlet is particularly efficient for keeping the unit charged, as long as the battery is not drained too much.Verified customers praised the AC70 on Bluetti's website, with most of the reviewers saying they bought it for camping and were pleased with the experience of using it for this purpose. Bluetti AC70 specs: Watts/hr: 768W | Continuous watts: 1000W | Surge watts: 2000W | Solar input (W): 500W | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 2 AC | Weight: 22.5 pounds Pros Turbocharge feature Affordable price Cons Some of the better features are only available by using the app Portable power stations can get pretty pricey, but this one from Bluetti currently retails at only $359 for Amazon Prime members, making it a great budget pick. Plus, it charges quickly, especially when utilizing its turbocharging feature. Kingsley-Hughes also tested this model and praised it for delivering enough power to energy-intensive devices during a road trip. "It has enough capacity to meet the needs of a small group for several days," he wrote, adding, "I've relied on the power station to charge my smartphone, cameras, drones, and laptops efficiently."In his testing, he also found that charging the station from a car's 12V outlet is particularly efficient for keeping the unit charged, as long as the battery is not drained too much.Verified customers praised the AC70 on Bluetti's website, with most of the reviewers saying they bought it for camping and were pleased with the experience of using it for this purpose. Bluetti AC70 specs: Watts/hr: 768W | Continuous watts: 1000W | Surge watts: 2000W | Solar input (W): 500W | Ports: 2 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 2 AC | Weight: 22.5 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less Show less What makes this portable power station so versatile for camping is the amount of power and port options. There's a 100W and 60W USB-C port on the front, along with four USB-A ports, so all your devices are covered. There is also a 12V car socket capable of outputting 120W of power and six AC outputs, each capable of 1500W or 2400W in a power surge.Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and said in his review that the Anker 757 Powerhouse is "well thought out, not overly complicated, built with ergonomics in mind, and packs quite a lot of power." Review: Anker 757 PowerhouseAnker is a company that has been in the portable power market for many years, starting out with chargers and power banks, and then later making the leap to power stations. That long heritage is obvious when looking at the overall build quality of the Anker 757.Customer reviews note that adding portable solar panels allows for greater battery charge retention, especially while camping. Kingsley-Hughes said that while he wouldn't carry this 43.9- pound unit too far, the ergonomic handles distribute the weight well, so it's well built for moving from the garage to a truck or RV.Anker 757 Powerhouse specs: Watts/hr: 1229W | Continuous watts: 1500 | Surge watts: 2400 | Solar input (W): 600W | Ports: 4 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 6 AC | Weight: 43.9 pounds Pros Ergonomic design Lots of ports Large display Cons Solar charging could be better What makes this portable power station so versatile for camping is the amount of power and port options. There's a 100W and 60W USB-C port on the front, along with four USB-A ports, so all your devices are covered. There is also a 12V car socket capable of outputting 120W of power and six AC outputs, each capable of 1500W or 2400W in a power surge.Kingsley-Hughes tested this unit and said in his review that the Anker 757 Powerhouse is "well thought out, not overly complicated, built with ergonomics in mind, and packs quite a lot of power." Review: Anker 757 PowerhouseAnker is a company that has been in the portable power market for many years, starting out with chargers and power banks, and then later making the leap to power stations. That long heritage is obvious when looking at the overall build quality of the Anker 757.Customer reviews note that adding portable solar panels allows for greater battery charge retention, especially while camping. Kingsley-Hughes said that while he wouldn't carry this 43.9- pound unit too far, the ergonomic handles distribute the weight well, so it's well built for moving from the garage to a truck or RV.Anker 757 Powerhouse specs: Watts/hr: 1229W | Continuous watts: 1500 | Surge watts: 2400 | Solar input (W): 600W | Ports: 4 USB-A, 2 USB-C, 6 AC | Weight: 43.9 pounds Read More Show Expert Take Show less What is the best portable power station for camping? Based on our hands-on experience and in-lab testing, the Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus is the best portable power station for camping. Its modularity makes it a versatile option for all types of camping. Show more Which portable power station for camping is right for you? It depends on the type of camping you prefer before you choose which portable power station will fit your needs. Consider what devices you want to bring with you and keep powered and whether you will be staying in an RV or cabin vs. a tent. Choose this portable power station for camping... If you want... Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus The best overall option. It packs a lot of power at 3000 continuous watts, and its modularity makes it versatile for camping. EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra A powerful portable power station best for RV camping. It can run an entire RV or cabin, especially when stacked with other units for increased capacity. EcoFlow River 2 Max 500A compact portable power station for camping. It weighs just 13.4 pounds and features 60 minute fast charging. Bluetti AC70 A budget-friendly portable power station for camping. This unit also has 2,000W surge capability and a turbocharging feature, which allows for super fast charging that can take it from flat to 80% in 45 minutes. Anker 757 Powerhouse  A versatile portable power station for camping with lots of ports. It also has an ergonomic build, making it easier to carry despite its weight. Show more Factors to consider when choosing the best portable power station for camping: Power stations are a significant investment, but they can ultimately upgrade your camping experience to allow for power off-grid. Before making our top picks, we considered several factors.Weight: Bigger isn't always better, especially when it comes to camping. Will the portable power station be wheeled down a paved trail, or will you be moving it from your vehicle to your camp? Do you want something you could carry in a backpack for a day? Battery capacity: If you plan to power an RV or bigger devices from your power station, you want as much battery capacity as you can afford, but for off-grid adventures, it's important to bear in mind that there's a penalty here in the form of weight.Cost: Some units cost several thousand dollars, while others cost a couple hundred. Plus, add-ons like battery packs and solar panels also increase the price.Charging: How do you plan on charging your power station? Are you mostly going to use AC power from an outlet, or do you want the independence of solar?Battery Chemistry: Lithium-ion (Li-ion) is the traditional battery technology, but the newer lithium iron phosphate batteries (LiFePO4) are safer and have a much longer lifespan. Show more How did we test these portable power stations for camping? Over the past few years, we've tested well over 100 different portable power stations to find out which are the best of the best. To do this efficiently, because it takes days to do properly, we've developed a comprehensive testing structure. This not only ensures that manufacturers aren't playing fast and loose with their spec sheet data but also checks whether the units are safe and reliable. Here's an overview of how we test portable power stations.Unboxing and visual inspectionCapacity testsLoad testingUPS capability testingThermal testsSafety testsReal-world usageFor more detailed information on how these tests are carried out, check out this post, where we explore the process more thoroughly.  Show more FAQs on portable power stations How long will a power station last while camping based on its watts? To figure this out, you're going to need to get a pencil and do some back of the envelope calculations.  You're going to need a couple of bits of information.First, you need to know what devices you are going to power. List them all, because forgetting that coffee pot or heated blanket could make the difference between the power station lasting all day, or giving up the ghost on you before the day is over.Specifically, you want to know how much power, in watts, each device draws. This information is usually found on a label on the device. For example, a heater might draw 1,000W, while a CPAP machine might draw 60W. This figure represents the maximum power consumption, and you will find that the power consumption of some devices, such as CPAP machines, fluctuates greatly, while for other devices, like the heater, the power consumption remains quite stable.Next, you need to know how long you plan on running your devices during a day, or between recharges of your power station. Your heater might run for two hours, while the CPAP machine could run for eight hours.Power station capacities are measured in watt-hours (Wh). A device drawing 1,000W running for one hour uses 1,000Wh. Therefore, the same device running for two hours will need 2,000Wh. Heaters are some of the most power-hungry devices that people find themselves needing to run.Similarly, a CPAP machine that uses 60W will consume 60Wh per hour, so running it for eight hours would consume 480Wh.Your total energy usage over 24 hours would then be 2,480Wh.Based on this, you might think that a 2,500Wh capacity power station would be sufficient. However, in reality, nothing is perfect, and there are energy losses in the system. The rule of thumb is to add 20% to your total and then round up to the next highest capacity available. So, you'd be looking at a power station with a capacity of around 3,000Wh to ensure you have enough stored power for the day. Show more How can I make my power station run longer? Simple: Find your biggest power draws and replace them with more energy efficient alternatives. For example, you might find that you can replace that 1,000W heater with a heated throw that only takes 100W to power. That quilt would run for 10 hours on the power that the heater would use in an hour!Another big power hog is incandescent lights. Swapping these out for LEDs will result in huge power savings and dramatically boost your power station's runtime.   Show more What is the difference between a power station and a power bank? The main difference between portable power stations and portable power banks is the amount of power and what they can charge. Power stations have AC outlets and allow you to charge more and bigger devices, including life-saving ones like a CPAP machine, a cooler, or a floodlight for the campsite while going off-grid.Power banks are much smaller and are best for charging devices like phones, headphones, and smartwatches.  Show more Other portable power stations we've tested Further ZDNET Tech Coverage Smartphones Smartwatches Tablets Laptops TVs Other Tech Resources ZDNET Recommends

Published June 4, 2025 10:00am EDT close Windows bug leaves computer Wi-Fi vulnerable to hackers Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson explains how to keep your Windows computer safe and the security risks of online retail giant Temu. NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! Hackers are no longer targeting only tech giants or hospitals. Any business that collects valuable personal information, such as names, phone numbers, email addresses or even basic financial details, is now a target.Companies that rely heavily on third-party vendors or outsourced customer support are even more at risk, especially if they are not particularly strong in the technology sector.German retailer Adidas learned this the hard way. The company recently confirmed a data breach involving one of its external partners, and although it has acknowledged the issue, many important details are still missing. A hacker at work (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)Adidas confirms vendor breach: Here’s what we knowAdidas has officially acknowledged that a third-party vendor suffered a breach, resulting in unauthorized access to consumer data. In a public notice titled "Data Security Information," the company revealed that a "third-party customer service provider" had been compromised. While the brand was initially silent on the scope, it had already been reported earlier this month that customers in Turkey and Korea had received breach notifications.MASSIVE DATA BREACH EXPOSES 184 MILLION PASSWORDS AND LOGINSAdidas posted this information on both its German and English websites. However, no specific region or number of affected individuals has been confirmed. The company’s statement did clarify that no payment information, such as credit card details, nor passwords were included in the breach. Instead, it involved contact details submitted by users to Adidas’ help desk in the past.Data obtained reportedly includes names, phone numbers, email addresses and dates of birth. While this might seem limited compared to financial data, this type of information can be exploited for phishing scams and identity theft.  An Adidas sign (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)What Adidas told customers after the breachIn the wake of the breach, Adidas began notifying potentially affected customers directly. The company's email to customers below aimed to reassure recipients and clarify what information was involved. Here is the full text of the notification sent to affected individuals.Dear customer,We are writing to inform you of an issue that we recently became aware of which may have impacted some of your data.What happenedadidas recently learned that an unauthorized external party gained access to certain customer data through a third-party customer service provider.What information was involvedThe affected data does not contain passwords, credit card or any other payment-related information. Nor have any Social Security numbers been impacted.It mainly consists of contact information relating to customers who had contacted our customer service help desk in the past. This may have included one or more of the following: name, email address, telephone number, gender and/or birth date.What we are doing Privacy and the security of your data is our priority. Upon becoming aware of this incident, adidas took proactive and immediate steps to investigate and contain the incident. This includes further enhancing security measures and resetting passwords for customer service accounts.What you can doWe are currently unaware of any harm (such as identity theft or fraud) being caused to our customers as a result of this incident. There are no immediate steps that you need to take. Although, as always, please remain vigilant and look out for any suspicious messages. As a reminder, adidas will never directly contact you to ask that you provide us with financial information, such as your credit card details, bank account information or passwords.Who you can contactIf you have any questions, then please contact our Customer Service team at https://www.adidas.com/us/helpWe apologise for any inconvenience caused by this incident.adidas TeamWhat Adidas hasn’t said about the vendor hackDespite the official acknowledgment, several questions remain unanswered. Adidas has yet to clarify whether this is a single breach affecting multiple regions or several separate incidents. The lack of transparency around the name of the third-party vendor and the absence of concrete numbers or locations for affected users has created frustration among observers and possibly among customers themselves.The earlier regional reports from Turkey and Korea might suggest that this incident was either global in scale or that similar third-party vendors were independently targeted. In either case, the company's current handling of the situation has left room for speculation. Adidas claims it is in the process of informing potentially affected customers, but it has not detailed the method or timeline for this outreach.We reached out to adidas for a comment, and a representative referred us to this statement on their website. In part, the company said, "We remain fully committed to protecting the privacy and security of our consumers, and sincerely regret any inconvenience or concern caused by this incident."GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE An Adidas shoe (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)6 critical steps to take after the Adidas data breachIf you think you were affected or just want to be cautious, here are some steps you can take right now to stay safe from the Adidas data breach:1. Scrub your data from the internet using a personal data removal service: The more exposed your personal information is online, the easier it is for scammers to use it against you. Following the Adidas breach, consider removing your information from public databases and people-search sites. Check out my top picks for data removal services here.Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web.2. Watch out for phishing scams and use strong antivirus software: With access to your email and phone number, Adidas attackers can craft convincing phishing emails pretending to be from healthcare providers or banks. These emails might include malicious links designed to install malware or steal login information. To defend yourself, use a strong antivirus program. Get my picks for the best 2025 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android and iOS devices.3. Safeguard against identity theft and use identity theft protection: Hackers now have access to high-value information from the Adidas breach. This makes you a prime target for identity theft. You might want to consider investing in identity theft protection, which can also assist you in freezing your bank and credit card accounts to prevent further unauthorized use by criminals. Signing up for identity theft protection gives you 24/7 monitoring, alerts for unusual activity and support if your identity is stolen. See my tips and best picks on how to protect yourself from identity theft.4. Set up fraud alerts: Requesting fraud alerts notifies creditors that they need extra verification before issuing credit in your name. You can request fraud alerts through any one of the three major credit bureaus; they’ll notify the others. This adds another layer of protection without completely freezing access to credit.5. Change passwords and use a password manager: Update passwords on any accounts tied to compromised data. Use unique passwords that are hard to guess and let a password manager do the heavy lifting by generating secure ones for you. Reused passwords are an easy target after breaches. Consider password managers for convenience and security. Get more details about my best expert-reviewed password managers of 2025 here.6. Be wary of social engineering attacks: Hackers may use stolen details like names or birthdates from breaches in phone scams or fake customer service calls designed to trick you into revealing more sensitive info. Never share personal details over unsolicited calls or emails. Social engineering attacks rely on trust, and vigilance is key.Kurt’s key takeawayThe Adidas breach shows that even companies with decades of brand equity and a massive global footprint are not immune to lapses in data security. It underscores the need for companies to go beyond basic compliance and actively evaluate the cybersecurity standards of every partner in their ecosystem. Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the trade-offs they make when sharing their personal information, and brands that fail to meet this moment may find their reputations eroding faster than they expect.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPShould retailers be penalized for neglecting basic cybersecurity practices? Let us know by writing us atCyberguy.com/Contact.For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/Newsletter.Ask Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved. Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on "FOX & Friends." Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

After detailing the VFX work on The Last of Us Season 1 in 2023, Alex Wang returns to reflect on how the scope and complexity have evolved in Season 2. With close to 30 years of experience in the visual effects industry, Fiona Campbell Westgate has contributed to major productions such as Ghost in the Shell, Avatar: The Way of Water, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, and Nyad. Her work on Nyad earned her a VES Award for Outstanding Supporting Visual Effects in a Photoreal Feature. Collaboration with Craig Mazin and Neil Druckmann is key to shaping the visual universe of The Last of Us. Can you share with us how you work with them and how they influence the visual direction of the series? Alex Wang // Craig visualizes the shot or scene before putting words on the page. His writing is always exceptionally detailed and descriptive, ultimately helping us to imagine the shot. Of course, no one understands The Last of Us better than Neil, who knows all aspects of the lore very well. He’s done much research and design work with the Naughty Dog team, so he gives us good guidance regarding creature and environment designs. I always try to begin with concept art to get the ball rolling with Craig and Neil’s ideas. This season, we collaborated with Chromatic Studios for concept art. They also contributed to the games, so I felt that continuity was beneficial for our show. Fiona Campbell Westgate // From the outset, it was clear that collaborating with Craig would be an exceptional experience. Early meetings revealed just how personable and invested Craig is. He works closely with every department to ensure that each episode is done to the highest level. Craig places unwavering trust in our VFX Supervisor, Alex Wang. They have an understanding between them that lends to an exceptional partnership. As the VFX Producer, I know how vital the dynamic between the Showrunner and VFX Supervisor is; working with these two has made for one of the best professional experiences of my career.  Photograph by Liane Hentscher/HBO How has your collaboration with Craig evolved between the first and second seasons? Were there any adjustments in the visual approach or narrative techniques you made this season? Alex Wang // Since everything was new in Season 1, we dedicated a lot of time and effort to exploring the show’s visual language, and we all learned a great deal about what worked and what didn’t for the show. In my initial conversations with Craig about Season 2, it was clear that he wanted to expand the show’s scope by utilizing what we established and learned in Season 1. He felt significantly more at ease fully committing to using VFX to help tell the story this season. The first season involved multiple VFX studios to handle the complexity of the effects. How did you divide the work among different studios for the second season? Alex Wang // Most of the vendors this season were also in Season 1, so we already had a shorthand. The VFX Producer, Fiona Campbell Westgate, and I work closely together to decide how to divide the work among our vendors. The type of work needs to be well-suited for the vendor and fit into our budget and schedule. We were extremely fortunate to have the vendors we did this season. I want to take this opportunity to thank Weta FX, DNEG, RISE, Distillery VFX, Storm Studios, Important Looking Pirates, Blackbird, Wylie Co., RVX, and VDK. We also had ILM for concept art and Digital Domain for previs. Fiona Campbell Westgate // Alex Wang and I were very aware of the tight delivery schedule, which added to the challenge of distributing the workload. We planned the work based on the individual studio’s capabilities, and tried not to burden them with back to back episodes wherever possible. Fortunately, there was shorthand with vendors from Season One, who were well-acquainted with the process and the quality of work the show required. The town of Jackson is a key location in The Last of Us. Could you explain how you approached creating and expanding this environment for the second season? Alex Wang // Since Season 1, this show has created incredible sets. However, the Jackson town set build is by far the most impressive in terms of scope. They constructed an 822 ft x 400 ft set in Minaty Bay that resembled a real town! I had early discussions with Production Designer Don MacAulay and his team about where they should concentrate their efforts and where VFX would make the most sense to take over. They focused on developing the town’s main street, where we believed most scenes would occur. There is a big reveal of Jackson in the first episode after Ellie comes out of the barn. Distillery VFX was responsible for the town’s extension, which appears seamless because the team took great pride in researching and ensuring the architecture aligned with the set while staying true to the tone of Jackson, Wyoming. Fiona Campbell Westgate // An impressive set was constructed in Minaty Bay, which served as the foundation for VFX to build upon. There is a beautiful establishing shot of Jackson in Episode 1 that was completed by Distillery, showing a safe and almost normal setting as Season Two starts. Across the episodes, Jackson set extensions were completed by our partners at RISE and Weta. Each had a different phase of Jackson to create, from almost idyllic to a town immersed in Battle.  What challenges did you face filming Jackson on both real and virtual sets? Was there a particular fusion between visual effects and live-action shots to make it feel realistic? Alex Wang // I always advocate for building exterior sets outdoors to take advantage of natural light. However, the drawback is that we cannot control the weather and lighting when filming over several days across two units. In Episode 2, there’s supposed to be a winter storm in Jackson, so maintaining consistency within the episode was essential. On sunny and rainy days, we used cranes to lift large 30x60ft screens to block the sun or rain. It was impossible to shield the entire set from the rain or sun, so we prioritized protecting the actors from sunlight or rain. Thus, you can imagine there was extensive weather cleanup for the episode to ensure consistency within the sequences. Fiona Campbell Westgate // We were fortunate that production built a large scale Jackson set. It provided a base for the full CG Jackson aerial shots and CG Set Extensions. The weather conditions at Minaty Bay presented a challenge during the filming of the end of the Battle sequence in Episode 2. While there were periods of bright sunshine, rainfall occurred during the filming of the end of the Battle sequence in Episode 2. In addition to the obvious visual effects work, it became necessary to replace the ground cover. Photograph by Liane Hentscher/HBO The attack on Jackson by the horde of infected in season 2 is a very intense moment. How did you approach the visual effects for this sequence? What techniques did you use to make the scale of the attack feel as impressive as it did? Alex Wang // We knew this would be a very complex sequence to shoot, and for it to be successful, we needed to start planning with the HODs from the very beginning. We began previs during prep with Weta FX and the episode’s director, Mark Mylod. The previs helped us understand Mark and the showrunner’s vision. This then served as a blueprint for all departments to follow, and in many instances, we filmed the previs. Fiona Campbell Westgate // The sheer size of the CG Infected Horde sets the tone for the scale of the Battle. It’s an intimidating moment when they are revealed through the blowing snow. The addition of CG explosions and atmospheric effects contributed in adding scale to the sequence.  Can you give us an insight into the technical challenges of capturing the infected horde? How much of the effect was done using CGI, and how much was achieved with practical effects? Alex Wang // Starting with a detailed previs that Mark and Craig approved was essential for planning the horde. We understood that we would never have enough stunt performers to fill a horde, nor could they carry out some stunts that would be too dangerous. I reviewed the previs with Stunt Coordinator Marny Eng numerous times to decide the best placements for her team’s stunt performers. We also collaborated with Barrie Gower from the Prosthetics team to determine the most effective allocation of his team’s efforts. Stunt performers positioned closest to the camera would receive the full prosthetic treatment, which can take hours. Weta FX was responsible for the incredible CG Infected horde work in the Jackson Battle. They have been a creative partner with HBO’s The Last of Us since Season 1, so they were brought on early for Season 2. I began discussions with Weta’s VFX supervisor, Nick Epstein, about how we could tackle these complex horde shots very early during the shoot. Typically, repetition in CG crowd scenes can be acceptable, such as armies with soldiers dressed in the same uniform or armour. However, for our Infected horde, Craig wanted to convey that the Infected didn’t come off an assembly line or all shop at the same clothing department store. Any repetition would feel artificial. These Infected were once civilians with families, or they were groups of raiders. We needed complex variations in height, body size, age, clothing, and hair. We built our base library of Infected, and then Nick and the Weta FX team developed a “mix and match” system, allowing the Infected to wear any costume and hair groom. A procedural texturing system was also developed for costumes, providing even greater variation. The most crucial aspect of the Infected horde was their motion. We had numerous shots cutting back-to-back with practical Infected, as well as shots where our CG Infected ran right alongside a stunt horde. It was incredibly unforgiving! Weta FX’s animation supervisor from Season 1, Dennis Yoo, returned for Season 2 to meet the challenge. Having been part of the first season, Dennis understood the expectations of Craig and Neil. Similar to issues of model repetition within a horde, it was relatively easy to perceive repetition, especially if they were running toward the same target. It was essential to enhance the details of their performances with nuances such as tripping and falling, getting back up, and trampling over each other. There also needed to be a difference in the Infected’s running speed. To ensure we had enough complexity within the horde, Dennis motion-captured almost 600 unique motion cycles. We had over a hundred shots in episode 2 that required CG Infected horde. Fiona Campbell Westgate // Nick Epstein, Weta VFX Supervisor, and Dennis Yoo, Weta Animation Supervisor, were faced with having to add hero, close-up Horde that had to integrate with practical Stunt performers. They achieved this through over 60 motion capture sessions and running it through a deformation system they developed. Every detail was applied to allow for a seamless blend with our practical Stunt performances. The Weta team created a custom costume and hair system that provided individual looks to the CG Infected Horde. We were able to avoid the repetitive look of a CG crowd due to these efforts. The movement of the infected horde is crucial for the intensity of the scene. How did you manage the animation and simulation of the infected to ensure smooth and realistic interaction with the environment? Fiona Campbell Westgate // We worked closely with the Stunt department to plan out positioning and where VFX would be adding the CG Horde. Craig Mazin wanted the Infected Horde to move in a way that humans cannot. The deformation system kept the body shape anatomically correct and allowed us to push the limits from how a human physically moves.  The Bloater makes a terrifying return this season. What were the key challenges in designing and animating this creature? How did you work on the Bloater’s interaction with the environment and other characters? Alex Wang // In Season 1, the Kansas City cul-de-sac sequence featured only a handful of Bloater shots. This season, however, nearly forty shots showcase the Bloater in broad daylight during the Battle of Jackson. We needed to redesign the Bloater asset to ensure it looked good in close-up shots from head to toe. Weta FX designed the Bloater for Season 1 and revamped the design for this season. Starting with the Bloater’s silhouette, it had to appear large, intimidating, and menacing. We explored enlarging the cordyceps head shape to make it feel almost like a crown, enhancing the Bloater’s impressive and strong presence. During filming, a stunt double stood in for the Bloater. This was mainly for scale reference and composition. It also helped the Infected stunt performers understand the Bloater’s spatial position, allowing them to avoid running through his space. Once we had an edit, Dennis mocapped the Bloater’s performances with his team. It is always challenging to get the motion right for a creature that weighs 600 pounds. We don’t want the mocap to be overly exaggerated, but it does break the character if the Bloater feels too “light.” The brilliant animation team at Weta FX brought the Bloater character to life and nailed it! When Tommy goes head-to-head with the Bloater, Craig was quite specific during the prep days about how the Bloater would bubble, melt, and burn as Tommy torches him with the flamethrower. Important Looking Pirates took on the “Burning Bloater” sequence, led by VFX Supervisor Philip Engstrom. They began with extensive R&D to ensure the Bloater’s skin would start to bubble and burn. ILP took the final Bloater asset from Weta FX and had to resculpt and texture the asset for the Bloater’s final burn state. Craig felt it was important for the Bloater to appear maimed at the end. The layers of FX were so complex that the R&D continued almost to the end of the delivery schedule. Fiona Campbell Westgate // This season the Bloater had to be bigger, more intimidating. The CG Asset was recreated to withstand the scrutiny of close ups and in daylight. Both Craig Mazin and Neil Druckmann worked closely with us during the process of the build. We referenced the game and applied elements of that version with ours. You’ll notice that his head is in the shape of crown, this is to convey he’s a powerful force.  During the Burning Bloater sequence in Episode 2, we brainstormed with Philip Engström, ILP VFX Supervisor, on how this creature would react to the flamethrower and how it would affect the ground as it burns. When the Bloater finally falls to the ground and dies, the extraordinary detail of the embers burning, fluid draining and melting the surrounding snow really sells that the CG creature was in the terrain.  Given the Bloater’s imposing size, how did you approach its integration into scenes with the actors? What techniques did you use to create such a realistic and menacing appearance? Fiona Campbell Westgate // For the Bloater, a stunt performer wearing a motion capture suit was filmed on set. This provided interaction with the actors and the environment. VFX enhanced the intensity of his movements, incorporating simulations to the CG Bloater’s skin and muscles that would reflect the weight and force as this terrifying creature moves.  Seattle in The Last of Us is a completely devastated city. Can you talk about how you recreated this destruction? What were the most difficult visual aspects to realize for this post-apocalyptic city? Fiona Campbell Westgate // We were meticulous in blending the CG destruction with the practical environment. The flora’s ability to overtake the environment had to be believable, and we adhered to the principle of form follows function. Due to the vastness of the CG devastation it was crucial to avoid repetitive effects. Consequently, our vendors were tasked with creating bespoke designs that evoked a sense of awe and beauty. Was Seattle’s architecture a key element in how you designed the visual effects? How did you adapt the city’s real-life urban landscape to meet the needs of the story while maintaining a coherent aesthetic? Alex Wang // It’s always important to Craig and Neil that we remain true to the cities our characters are in. DNEG was one of our primary vendors for Boston in Season 1, so it was natural for them to return for Season 2, this time focusing on Seattle. DNEG’s VFX Supervisor, Stephen James, who played a crucial role in developing the visual language of Boston for Season 1, also returns for this season. Stephen and Melaina Mace (DFX Supervisor) led a team to Seattle to shoot plates and perform lidar scans of parts of the city. We identified the buildings unique to Seattle that would have existed in 2003, so we ensured these buildings were always included in our establishing shots. Overgrowth and destruction have significantly influenced the environments in The Last of Us. The environment functions almost as a character in both Season 1 and Season 2. In the last season, the building destruction in Boston was primarily caused by military bombings. During this season, destruction mainly arises from dilapidation. Living in the Pacific Northwest, I understand how damp it can get for most of the year. I imagined that, over 20 years, the integrity of the buildings would be compromised by natural forces. This abundant moisture creates an exceptionally lush and vibrant landscape for much of the year. Therefore, when designing Seattle, we ensured that the destruction and overgrowth appeared intentional and aesthetically distinct from those of Boston. Fiona Campbell Westgate // Led by Stephen James, DNEG VFX Supervisor, and Melaina Mace, DNEG DFX Supervisor, the team captured photography, drone footage and the Clear Angle team captured LiDAR data over a three-day period in Seattle. It was crucial to include recognizable Seattle landmarks that would resonate with people familiar with the game.  The devastated city almost becomes a character in itself this season. What aspects of the visual effects did you have to enhance to increase the immersion of the viewer into this hostile and deteriorated environment? Fiona Campbell Westgate // It is indeed a character. Craig wanted it to be deteriorated but to have moments where it’s also beautiful in its devastation. For instance, in the Music Store in Episode 4 where Ellie is playing guitar for Dina, the deteriorated interior provides a beautiful backdrop to this intimate moment. The Set Decorating team dressed a specific section of the set, while VFX extended the destruction and overgrowth to encompass the entire environment, immersing the viewer in strange yet familiar surroundings. Photograph by Liane Hentscher/HBO The sequence where Ellie navigates a boat through a violent storm is stunning. What were the key challenges in creating this scene, especially with water simulation and the storm’s effects? Alex Wang // In the concluding episode of Season 2, Ellie is deep in Seattle, searching for Abby. The episode draws us closer to the Aquarium, where this area of Seattle is heavily flooded. Naturally, this brings challenges with CG water. In the scene where Ellie encounters Isaac and the W.L.F soldiers by the dock, we had a complex shoot involving multiple locations, including a water tank and a boat gimbal. There were also several full CG shots. For Isaac’s riverine boat, which was in a stormy ocean, I felt it was essential that the boat and the actors were given the appropriate motion. Weta FX assisted with tech-vis for all the boat gimbal work. We began with different ocean wave sizes caused by the storm, and once the filmmakers selected one, the boat’s motion in the tech-vis fed the special FX gimbal. When Ellie gets into the Jon boat, I didn’t want it on the same gimbal because I felt it would be too mechanical. Ellie’s weight needed to affect the boat as she got in, and that wouldn’t have happened with a mechanical gimbal. So, we opted to have her boat in a water tank for this scene. Special FX had wave makers that provided the boat with the appropriate movement. Instead of guessing what the ocean sim for the riverine boat should be, the tech- vis data enabled DNEG to get a head start on the water simulations in post-production. Craig wanted this sequence to appear convincingly dark, much like it looks out on the ocean at night. This allowed us to create dramatic visuals, using lightning strikes at moments to reveal depth. Were there any memorable moments or scenes from the series that you found particularly rewarding or challenging to work on from a visual effects standpoint? Alex Wang // The Last of Us tells the story of our characters’ journey. If you look at how season 2 begins in Jackson, it differs significantly from how we conclude the season in Seattle. We seldom return to the exact location in each episode, meaning every episode presents a unique challenge. The scope of work this season has been incredibly rewarding. We burned a Bloater, and we also introduced spores this season! Photograph by Liane Hentscher/HBO Looking back on the project, what aspects of the visual effects are you most proud of? Alex Wang // The Jackson Battle was incredibly complex, involving a grueling and lengthy shoot in quite challenging conditions, along with over 600 VFX shots in episode 2. It was truly inspiring to witness the determination of every department and vendor to give their all and create something remarkable. Fiona Campbell Westgate // I am immensely proud of the exceptional work accomplished by all of our vendors. During the VFX reviews, I found myself clapping with delight when the final shots were displayed; it was exciting to see remarkable results of the artists’ efforts come to light.  How long have you worked on this show? Alex Wang // I’ve been on this season for nearly two years. Fiona Campbell Westgate // A little over one year; I joined the show in April 2024. What’s the VFX shots count? Alex Wang // We had just over 2,500 shots this Season. Fiona Campbell Westgate // In Season 2, there were a total of 2656 visual effects shots. What is your next project? Fiona Campbell Westgate // Stay tuned… A big thanks for your time. WANT TO KNOW MORE?Blackbird: Dedicated page about The Last of Us – Season 2 website.DNEG: Dedicated page about The Last of Us – Season 2 on DNEG website.Important Looking Pirates: Dedicated page about The Last of Us – Season 2 website.RISE: Dedicated page about The Last of Us – Season 2 website.Weta FX: Dedicated page about The Last of Us – Season 2 website. © Vincent Frei – The Art of VFX – 2025

June 3, 20258 min readWhite House Budget Plan Would Devastate U.S. Space ScienceScientists are rallying to reverse ruinous proposed cuts to both NASA and the National Science FoundationBy Nadia Drake edited by Lee BillingsFog shrouds the iconic Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in this photograph from February 25, 2025. Gregg Newton/AFP via GettyLate last week the Trump Administration released its detailed budget request for fiscal year 2026 —a request that, if enacted, would be the equivalent of carpet-bombing the national scientific enterprise.“This is a profound, generational threat to scientific leadership in the United States,” says Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, a science advocacy group. “If implemented, it would fundamentally undermine and potentially devastate the most unique capabilities that the U.S. has built up over a half-century.”The Trump administration’s proposal, which still needs to be approved by Congress, is sure to ignite fierce resistance from scientists and senators alike. Among other agencies, the budget deals staggering blows to NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which together fund the majority of U.S. research in astronomy, astrophysics, planetary science, heliophysics and Earth science —all space-related sciences that have typically mustered hearty bipartisan support.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The NSF supports ground-based astronomy, including such facilities as the Nobel Prize–winning gravitational-wave detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), globe-spanning arrays of radio telescopes, and cutting-edge observatories that stretch from Hawaii to the South Pole. The agency faces a lethal 57 percent reduction to its $9-billion budget, with deep cuts to every program except those in President Trump’s priority areas, which include artificial intelligence and quantum information science. NASA, which funds space-based observatories, faces a 25 percent reduction, dropping the agency’s $24.9-billion budget to $18.8 billion. The proposal beefs up efforts to send humans to the moon and to Mars, but the agency’s Science Mission Directorate —home to Mars rovers, the Voyager interstellar probes, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Hubble Space Telescope, and much more —is looking at a nearly 50 percent reduction, with dozens of missions canceled, turned off or operating on a starvation diet.“It’s an end-game scenario for science at NASA,” says Joel Parriott, director of external affairs and public policy at the American Astronomical Society. “It’s not just the facilities. You’re punching a generation-size hole, maybe a multigenerational hole, in the scientific and technical workforce. You don’t just Cryovac these people and pull them out when the money comes back. People are going to move on.”Adding to the chaos, on Saturday President Trump announced that billionaire entrepreneur and private astronaut Jared Isaacman was no longer his pick for NASA administrator—just days before the Senate was set to confirm Isaacman’s nomination. Initial reports—which have now been disputed—explained the president’s decision as stemming from his discovery that Isaacman recently donated money to Democratic candidates. Regardless of the true reason, the decision leaves both NASA and the NSF, whose director abruptly resigned in April, with respective placeholder “acting” leaders at the top. That leadership vacuum significantly weakens the agencies’ ability to fight the proposed budget cuts and advocate for themselves. “What’s more inefficient than a rudderless agency without an empowered leadership?” Dreier asks.Actions versus WordsDuring his second administration, President Trump has repeatedly celebrated U.S. leadership in space. When he nominated Isaacman last December, Trump noted “NASA’s mission of discovery and inspiration” and looked to a future of “groundbreaking achievements in space science, technology and exploration.” More recently, while celebrating Hubble’s 35th anniversary in April, Trump called the telescope “a symbol of America’s unmatched exploratory might” and declared that NASA would “continue to lead the way in fueling the pursuit of space discovery and exploration.” The administration’s budgetary actions speak louder than Trump’s words, however. Instead of ushering in a new golden age of space exploration—or even setting up the U.S. to stay atop the podium—the president’s budget “narrows down what the cosmos is to moon and Mars and pretty much nothing else,” Dreier says. “And the cosmos is a lot bigger, and there’s a lot more to learn out there.”Dreier notes that when corrected for inflation, the overall NASA budget would be the lowest it’s been since 1961. But in April of that year, the Soviet Union launched the first human into orbit, igniting a space race that swelled NASA’s budget and led to the Apollo program putting American astronauts on the moon. Today China’s rapidprogress and enormous ambitions in space would make the moment ripe for a 21st-century version of this competition, with the U.S. generously funding its own efforts to maintain pole position. Instead the White House’s budget would do the exact opposite.“The seesaw is sort of unbalanced,” says Tony Beasley, director of the NSF-funded National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). “On the one side, we’re saying, ‘Well, China’s kicking our ass, and we need to do something about that.’ But then we’re not going to give any money to anything that might actually do that.”How NASA will achieve a crewed return to the moon and send astronauts to Mars—goals that the agency now considers part of “winning the second space race”—while also maintaining its leadership in science is unclear.“This is Russ Vought’s budget,” Dreier says, referring to the director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an unelected bureaucrat who has been notorious for his efforts to reshape the U.S. government by weaponizing federal funding. “This isn’t even Trump’s budget. Trump’s budget would be good for space. This one undermines the president’s own claims and ambitions when it comes to space.”“Low Expectations” at the High FrontierRumors began swirling about the demise of NASA science in April, when a leaked OMB document described some of the proposed cuts and cancellations. Those included both the beleaguered, bloated Mars Sample Return (MSR) program and the on-time, on-budget Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the next astrophysics flagship mission.The top-line numbers in the more fleshed-out proposal are consistent with that document, and MSR would still be canceled. But Roman would be granted a stay of execution: rather than being zeroed out, it would be put on life support.“It’s a reprieve from outright termination, but it’s still a cut for functionally no reason,” Dreier says. “In some ways, [the budget] is slightly better than I was expecting. But I had very low expectations.”In the proposal, many of the deepest cuts would be made to NASA science, which would sink from $7.3 billion to $3.9 billion. Earth science missions focused on carbon monitoring and climate change, as well as programs aimed at education and workforce diversity, would be effectively erased by the cuts. But a slew of high-profile planetary science projects would suffer, too, with cancellations proposed for two future Venus missions, the Juno mission that is currently surveilling Jupiter, the New Horizons mission that flew by Pluto and two Mars orbiters. (The Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s moon Titan would survive, as would the flagship Europa Clipper spacecraft, which launched last October.) NASA’s international partnerships in planetary science fare poorly, too, as the budget rescinds the agency’s involvement with multiple European-led projects, including a Venus mission and Mars rover.The proposal is even worse for NASA astrophysics—the study of our cosmic home—which “really takes it to the chin,” Dreier says, with a roughly $1-billion drop to just $523 million. In the president’s proposal, only three big astrophysics missions would survive: the soon-to-launch Roman and the already-operational Hubble and JWST. The rest of NASA’s active astrophysics missions, which include the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), would be severely pared back or zeroed out. Additionally, the budget would nix NASA’s contributions to large European missions, such as a future space-based gravitational-wave observatory.“This is the most powerful fleet of missions in the history of the study of astrophysics from space,” says John O’Meara, chief scientist at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii and co-chair of a recent senior review panel that evaluated NASA’s astrophysics missions. The report found that each reviewed mission “continues to be capable of producing important, impactful science.” This fleet, O’Meara adds, is more than the sum of its parts, with much of its power emerging from synergies among multiple telescopes that study the cosmos in many different types, or wavelengths, of light.By hollowing out NASA’s science to ruthlessly focus on crewed missions, the White House budget might be charitably viewed as seeking to rekindle a heroic age of spaceflight—with China’s burgeoning space program as the new archrival. But even for these supposedly high-priority initiatives, the proposed funding levels appear too anemic and meager to give the U.S. any competitive edge. For example, the budget directs about $1 billion to new technology investments to support crewed Mars missions while conservative estimates have projected that such voyages would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more.“It cedes U.S. leadership in space science at a time when other nations, particularly China, are increasing their ambitions,” Dreier says. “It completely flies in the face of the president’s own stated goals for American leadership in space.”Undermining the FoundationThe NSF’s situation, which one senior space scientist predicted would be “diabolical” when the NASA numbers leaked back in April, is also unsurprisingly dire. Unlike NASA, which is focused on space science and exploration, the NSF’s programs span the sweep of scientific disciplines, meaning that even small, isolated cuts—let alone the enormous ones that the budget has proposed—can have shockingly large effects on certain research domains.“Across the different parts of the NSF, the programs that are upvoted are the president’s strategic initiatives, but then everything else gets hit,” Beasley says.Several large-scale NSF-funded projects would escape more or less intact. Among these are the panoramic Vera C. Rubin Observatory, scheduled to unveil its first science images later this month, and the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) radio telescope. The budget also moves the Giant Magellan Telescope, which would boast starlight-gathering mirrors totaling more than 25 meters across, into a final design phase. All three of those facilities take advantage of Chile’s pristine dark skies. Other large NSF-funded projects that would survive include the proposed Next Generation Very Large Array of radio telescopes in New Mexico and several facilities at the South Pole, such as the IceCube Neutrino Observatory.If this budget is enacted, however, NSF officials anticipate only funding a measly 7 percent of research proposals overall rather than 25 percent; the number of graduate research fellowships awarded would be cleaved in half, and postdoctoral fellowships in the physical sciences would drop to zero. NRAO’s Green Bank Observatory — home to the largest steerable single-dish radio telescope on the planet — would likely shut down. So would other, smaller observatories in Arizona and Chile. The Thirty Meter Telescope, a humongous, perennially embattled project with no clear site selection, would be canceled. And the budget proposes closing one of the two gravitational-wave detectors used by the LIGO collaboration—whose observations of colliding black holes earned the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics—even though both detectors need to be online for LIGO’s experiment to work. Even factoring in other operational detectors, such as Virgo in Europe and the Kamioka Gravitational Wave Detector (KAGRA) in Japan, shutting down half of LIGO would leave a gaping blind spot in humanity’s gravitational-wave view of the heavens.“The consequences of this budget are that key scientific priorities, on the ground and in space, will take at least a decade longer—or not be realized at all,” O’Meara says. “The universe is telling its story at all wavelengths. It doesn’t care what you build, but if you want to hear that story, you must build many things.”Dreier, Parriott and others are anticipating fierce battles on Capitol Hill. And already both Democratic and Republican legislators have issued statement signaling that they won’t support the budget request as is. “This sick joke of a budget is a nonstarter,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, in a recent statement. And in an earlier statement, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the powerful Senate Committee on Appropriations, cautioned that “the President’s Budget Request is simply one step in the annual budget process.”The Trump administration has “thrown a huge punch here, and there will be a certain back-reaction, and we’ll end up in the middle somewhere,” Beasley says. “The mistake you can make right now is to assume that this represents finalized decisions and the future—because it doesn’t.”