Site içinde arama yapın

Vox paylaşılan bir bağlantı

2025-05-13 22:37:35 ·

The first federal court hearing on Trump’s tariffs did not go so well for Trump
A federal court held the very first hearing on President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging, so-called Liberation Day tariffs on Tuesday, offering the earliest window into whether those tariffs — and potentially all of the shifting tariffs Trump has imposed since he retook office — will be struck down.
The case is V.O.S.
Selections v.
Trump.It is unclear how the three-judge panel that heard the case will rule, but it appears somewhat more likely than not that they will rule that the tariffs are unlawful.
All three of the judges, who sit on the US Court of International Trade, appeared troubled by the Trump administration’s claim that the judiciary may not review the legality of the tariffs at all.
But Jeffrey Schwab, the lawyer representing several small businesses challenging the tariffs, also faced an array of skeptical questions.Many of the judges’ questions focused on United States v.
Yoshida International (1975), a federal appeals court decision which upheld a 10 percent tariff President Richard Nixon briefly imposed on nearly all foreign goods.
That is understandable: Yoshida remains binding on the trade court, and the three judges must take it into account when they make their decision.
It is not, however, binding upon the Supreme Court, whose justices will be free to ignore Yoshida if they want.
Ultimately, that means it is unclear how much influence the trade court’s eventual decision will have over the Supreme Court, which is likely to have the final word on the tariffs.
At the heart of V.O.S.
Selections are four key words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the statute Trump relied on when he imposed these tariffs.
That statute permits the president to “regulate” transactions involving foreign goods — a verb which Yoshida held is expansive enough to permit tariffs — but only “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.” It is likely that the trade court’s decision will turn on what the words “unusual and extraordinary threat” means.
While Yoshida offered guidance on “regulate,” there appears to be few, if any, precedents interpreting what those four words mean.
In his executive order laying out the rationale for these tariffs, Trump claimed they are needed to combat “large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits” — meaning that the United States buys more goods from many countries than it sells to them.
But it’s far from clear how this trade deficit, which has existed for decades, qualifies as either “unusual” or “extraordinary.”Schwab seemed to flub several direct questions from the judges asking him to come up with a universal rule they could apply to determine which “threats” are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” When Judge Gary Katzmann, an Obama appointee, asked Schwab to name the best case supporting his argument that a trade deficit is neither unusual nor extraordinary, for example, Schwab was unable to do so.That said, some of the judges sounded outright offended when Eric Hamilton, the lawyer for the Trump administration, claimed that the question of what constitutes an unusual or extraordinary threat is a “political question” — a legal term meaning that the courts aren’t allowed to decide that matter.
As Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee, told Hamilton, his argument suggests that there is “no limit” to the president’s power to impose tariffs, even if the president claims that a shortage of peanut butter is a national emergency.The overall picture presented by the argument is that all three judges (the third is Judge Timothy Reif, a Trump appointee) are troubled by the broad power Trump claims in this case.
But they were also frustrated by a lack of guidance — both from existing case law and from Schwab and Hamilton’s arguments — on whether Trump can legally claim the power to issue such sweeping tariffs.Early in the argument, Schwab appeared to be in trouble, as he faced a barrage of questions about how the Yoshida decision cuts against some of his arguments.
As Restani told him at one point, the argument that a statute permitting the president to “regulate” does not include the power to impose tariffs is a nonstarter, because Yoshida held the opposite.That said, all three judges proposed ways to distinguish the Nixon tariffs upheld by Yoshida from the Trump tariffs now before the trade court.Restani, for her part, argued that the Nixon tariffs involved a “very different situation” that was both “new” and “extraordinary.” For several decades, US dollars could be readily converted into gold at a set exchange rate.
Nixon ended this practice in 1971, in an event many still refer to as the “Nixon shock.” When he did so, he briefly imposed tariffs to protect US goods from fluctuating exchange rates.Yoshida, in other words, upheld temporary tariffs that were enacted in order to mitigate the impact of a sudden and very significant shift in US monetary policy, albeit a shift that Nixon caused himself.
That’s a very different situation than the one surrounding Trump’s tariffs, which were enacted in response to ongoing trade deficits that have existed for many years.Restani and Katzmann also pointed to a footnote in Yoshida that said Congress enacted a new law, the Trade Act of 1974, after the Nixon shock.
This footnote states a future attempt to impose similar tariffs “must, of course, comply with the statute now governing such action.” Whatever power Nixon might have had in 1971, in other words, may now be limited by newer laws.Reif also made a similar argument, pointing out that there is a separate federal statute dealing with trade practices such as “dumping,” when an exporter sells goods below their normal value.
He questioned whether the president could bypass the procedures laid out in that anti-dumping statute by simply declaring an emergency, and then imposing whatever trade barriers the president wanted to impose under IEEPA.That said, none of the judges — and neither of the lawyers — were able to articulate a rule that would allow future courts to determine which presidential actions are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” Hamilton’s suggestion that courts can’t decide this question at all sunk like a pair of concrete shoes, with Katzmann arguing that the IEEPA’s “unusual and extraordinary” provision would be entirely “superfluous” if Congress hadn’t intended courts to enforce it.Schwab, meanwhile, earned a scolding from Restani when he kept trying to argue that Trump’s tariffs are such an obvious violation of the statute that there’s no need to come up with a broader legal rule.
“You know it when you see it doesn’t work,” she told him — a reference to Justice Potter Stewart’s infamously vague standard for determining what constitutes pornography.The three judges, in other words, expressed serious concerns about the Trump administration’s argument for the tariffs.
But it’s not clear that they have figured out how to navigate the uncertain legal landscape looming over this case.Though the bulk of the argument focused on the four key words in the IEEPA, it’s not clear that a narrow decision holding that this law does not permit these tariffs will have much staying power.
Trump could potentially try to impose the tariffs again, using the somewhat more drawn out process laid out in the 1974 Trade Act, which permits the government to “impose duties or other import restrictions” after the US Trade Representative makes certain findings.
So if the courts issue a narrow ruling against these tariffs, they may have to go through a very similar dog and pony show in a few months.There are, however, two controversial legal doctrines popular with conservatives — known as “major questions” and “nondelegation” — which could lead to a more permanent reduction of Trump’s authority.
Broadly speaking, both of these doctrines empower the courts to strike down a presidential administration’s actions even if those actions appear to be authorized by statute.Late in the argument, Restani seemed to latch onto the nondelegation theory.
Under current law, Congress may delegate power to the president or a federal agency so long as it “shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.” This “intelligible principle” test is famously very deferential to Congress.Nevertheless, Restani asked some questions indicating that she may think that the IEEPA is the rare law which provides so little guidance to the president that it must be struck down.
She noted that the law does permit Congress to pass a resolution canceling tariffs after the fact, but argued that this kind of after-the-fact review is not a substitute for an intelligible principle letting the president know how to act before he takes action.The major questions doctrine, meanwhile, establishes that Congress must “speak clearly” if it wants to give the executive branch authority over matters of “vast ‘economic and political significance.’” By some estimates, Trump’s tariffs are expected to reduce real family income by $2,800, so that’s certainly a matter of vast economic importance.
Thus, to the extent that the IEEPA’s language is unclear, the major questions doctrine suggests that the law should be construed to not permit these tariffs.Hamilton’s primary argument against this line of reasoning is that the major questions doctrine does not apply to the president at all, only to actions by federal agencies that are subordinate to the president.
But none of the three judges appeared sympathetic to this argument.
Restani, in particular, seemed incredulous at the suggestion.Overall, the judges seemed interested in exploring the nondelegation and major questions factors, and repeatedly rebutted suggestions that ruling on the tariffs was beyond their power.
And that suggests the trade court will likely rule against the tariffs.
That outcome is far from certain, however, and the trade court is highly unlikely to have the final word on this question.
But the legal case for the tariffs appeared weak before Tuesday’s hearing, and nothing that happened on Tuesday changes that.See More:
Source: https://www.vox.com/economy/412966/supreme-court-tariffs-donald-trump-trade-vos-selections" style="color: #0066cc;">https://www.vox.com/economy/412966/supreme-court-tariffs-donald-trump-trade-vos-selections
#the #first #federal #court #hearing #trumps #tariffs #did #not #well #for #trump

The first federal court hearing on Trump’s tariffs did not go so well for Trump
A federal court held the very first hearing on President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging, so-called Liberation Day tariffs on Tuesday, offering the earliest window into whether those tariffs — and potentially all of the shifting tariffs Trump has imposed since he retook office — will be struck down. The case is V.O.S. Selections v. Trump.It is unclear how the three-judge panel that heard the case will rule, but it appears somewhat more likely than not that they will rule that the tariffs are unlawful. All three of the judges, who sit on the US Court of International Trade, appeared troubled by the Trump administration’s claim that the judiciary may not review the legality of the tariffs at all. But Jeffrey Schwab, the lawyer representing several small businesses challenging the tariffs, also faced an array of skeptical questions.Many of the judges’ questions focused on United States v. Yoshida International (1975), a federal appeals court decision which upheld a 10 percent tariff President Richard Nixon briefly imposed on nearly all foreign goods. That is understandable: Yoshida remains binding on the trade court, and the three judges must take it into account when they make their decision. It is not, however, binding upon the Supreme Court, whose justices will be free to ignore Yoshida if they want. Ultimately, that means it is unclear how much influence the trade court’s eventual decision will have over the Supreme Court, which is likely to have the final word on the tariffs. At the heart of V.O.S. Selections are four key words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the statute Trump relied on when he imposed these tariffs. That statute permits the president to “regulate” transactions involving foreign goods — a verb which Yoshida held is expansive enough to permit tariffs — but only “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.” It is likely that the trade court’s decision will turn on what the words “unusual and extraordinary threat” means. While Yoshida offered guidance on “regulate,” there appears to be few, if any, precedents interpreting what those four words mean. In his executive order laying out the rationale for these tariffs, Trump claimed they are needed to combat “large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits” — meaning that the United States buys more goods from many countries than it sells to them. But it’s far from clear how this trade deficit, which has existed for decades, qualifies as either “unusual” or “extraordinary.”Schwab seemed to flub several direct questions from the judges asking him to come up with a universal rule they could apply to determine which “threats” are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” When Judge Gary Katzmann, an Obama appointee, asked Schwab to name the best case supporting his argument that a trade deficit is neither unusual nor extraordinary, for example, Schwab was unable to do so.That said, some of the judges sounded outright offended when Eric Hamilton, the lawyer for the Trump administration, claimed that the question of what constitutes an unusual or extraordinary threat is a “political question” — a legal term meaning that the courts aren’t allowed to decide that matter. As Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee, told Hamilton, his argument suggests that there is “no limit” to the president’s power to impose tariffs, even if the president claims that a shortage of peanut butter is a national emergency.The overall picture presented by the argument is that all three judges (the third is Judge Timothy Reif, a Trump appointee) are troubled by the broad power Trump claims in this case. But they were also frustrated by a lack of guidance — both from existing case law and from Schwab and Hamilton’s arguments — on whether Trump can legally claim the power to issue such sweeping tariffs.Early in the argument, Schwab appeared to be in trouble, as he faced a barrage of questions about how the Yoshida decision cuts against some of his arguments. As Restani told him at one point, the argument that a statute permitting the president to “regulate” does not include the power to impose tariffs is a nonstarter, because Yoshida held the opposite.That said, all three judges proposed ways to distinguish the Nixon tariffs upheld by Yoshida from the Trump tariffs now before the trade court.Restani, for her part, argued that the Nixon tariffs involved a “very different situation” that was both “new” and “extraordinary.” For several decades, US dollars could be readily converted into gold at a set exchange rate. Nixon ended this practice in 1971, in an event many still refer to as the “Nixon shock.” When he did so, he briefly imposed tariffs to protect US goods from fluctuating exchange rates.Yoshida, in other words, upheld temporary tariffs that were enacted in order to mitigate the impact of a sudden and very significant shift in US monetary policy, albeit a shift that Nixon caused himself. That’s a very different situation than the one surrounding Trump’s tariffs, which were enacted in response to ongoing trade deficits that have existed for many years.Restani and Katzmann also pointed to a footnote in Yoshida that said Congress enacted a new law, the Trade Act of 1974, after the Nixon shock. This footnote states a future attempt to impose similar tariffs “must, of course, comply with the statute now governing such action.” Whatever power Nixon might have had in 1971, in other words, may now be limited by newer laws.Reif also made a similar argument, pointing out that there is a separate federal statute dealing with trade practices such as “dumping,” when an exporter sells goods below their normal value. He questioned whether the president could bypass the procedures laid out in that anti-dumping statute by simply declaring an emergency, and then imposing whatever trade barriers the president wanted to impose under IEEPA.That said, none of the judges — and neither of the lawyers — were able to articulate a rule that would allow future courts to determine which presidential actions are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” Hamilton’s suggestion that courts can’t decide this question at all sunk like a pair of concrete shoes, with Katzmann arguing that the IEEPA’s “unusual and extraordinary” provision would be entirely “superfluous” if Congress hadn’t intended courts to enforce it.Schwab, meanwhile, earned a scolding from Restani when he kept trying to argue that Trump’s tariffs are such an obvious violation of the statute that there’s no need to come up with a broader legal rule. “You know it when you see it doesn’t work,” she told him — a reference to Justice Potter Stewart’s infamously vague standard for determining what constitutes pornography.The three judges, in other words, expressed serious concerns about the Trump administration’s argument for the tariffs. But it’s not clear that they have figured out how to navigate the uncertain legal landscape looming over this case.Though the bulk of the argument focused on the four key words in the IEEPA, it’s not clear that a narrow decision holding that this law does not permit these tariffs will have much staying power. Trump could potentially try to impose the tariffs again, using the somewhat more drawn out process laid out in the 1974 Trade Act, which permits the government to “impose duties or other import restrictions” after the US Trade Representative makes certain findings. So if the courts issue a narrow ruling against these tariffs, they may have to go through a very similar dog and pony show in a few months.There are, however, two controversial legal doctrines popular with conservatives — known as “major questions” and “nondelegation” — which could lead to a more permanent reduction of Trump’s authority. Broadly speaking, both of these doctrines empower the courts to strike down a presidential administration’s actions even if those actions appear to be authorized by statute.Late in the argument, Restani seemed to latch onto the nondelegation theory. Under current law, Congress may delegate power to the president or a federal agency so long as it “shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.” This “intelligible principle” test is famously very deferential to Congress.Nevertheless, Restani asked some questions indicating that she may think that the IEEPA is the rare law which provides so little guidance to the president that it must be struck down. She noted that the law does permit Congress to pass a resolution canceling tariffs after the fact, but argued that this kind of after-the-fact review is not a substitute for an intelligible principle letting the president know how to act before he takes action.The major questions doctrine, meanwhile, establishes that Congress must “speak clearly” if it wants to give the executive branch authority over matters of “vast ‘economic and political significance.’” By some estimates, Trump’s tariffs are expected to reduce real family income by $2,800, so that’s certainly a matter of vast economic importance. Thus, to the extent that the IEEPA’s language is unclear, the major questions doctrine suggests that the law should be construed to not permit these tariffs.Hamilton’s primary argument against this line of reasoning is that the major questions doctrine does not apply to the president at all, only to actions by federal agencies that are subordinate to the president. But none of the three judges appeared sympathetic to this argument. Restani, in particular, seemed incredulous at the suggestion.Overall, the judges seemed interested in exploring the nondelegation and major questions factors, and repeatedly rebutted suggestions that ruling on the tariffs was beyond their power. And that suggests the trade court will likely rule against the tariffs. That outcome is far from certain, however, and the trade court is highly unlikely to have the final word on this question. But the legal case for the tariffs appeared weak before Tuesday’s hearing, and nothing that happened on Tuesday changes that.See More: Source: https://www.vox.com/economy/412966/supreme-court-tariffs-donald-trump-trade-vos-selections #the #first #federal #court #hearing #trumps #tariffs #did #not #well #for #trump

WWW.VOX.COM

The first federal court hearing on Trump’s tariffs did not go so well for Trump

A federal court held the very first hearing on President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging, so-called Liberation Day tariffs on Tuesday, offering the earliest window into whether those tariffs — and potentially all of the shifting tariffs Trump has imposed since he retook office — will be struck down. The case is V.O.S. Selections v. Trump.It is unclear how the three-judge panel that heard the case will rule, but it appears somewhat more likely than not that they will rule that the tariffs are unlawful. All three of the judges, who sit on the US Court of International Trade, appeared troubled by the Trump administration’s claim that the judiciary may not review the legality of the tariffs at all. But Jeffrey Schwab, the lawyer representing several small businesses challenging the tariffs, also faced an array of skeptical questions.Many of the judges’ questions focused on United States v. Yoshida International (1975), a federal appeals court decision which upheld a 10 percent tariff President Richard Nixon briefly imposed on nearly all foreign goods. That is understandable: Yoshida remains binding on the trade court, and the three judges must take it into account when they make their decision. It is not, however, binding upon the Supreme Court, whose justices will be free to ignore Yoshida if they want. Ultimately, that means it is unclear how much influence the trade court’s eventual decision will have over the Supreme Court, which is likely to have the final word on the tariffs. At the heart of V.O.S. Selections are four key words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the statute Trump relied on when he imposed these tariffs. That statute permits the president to “regulate” transactions involving foreign goods — a verb which Yoshida held is expansive enough to permit tariffs — but only “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.” It is likely that the trade court’s decision will turn on what the words “unusual and extraordinary threat” means. While Yoshida offered guidance on “regulate,” there appears to be few, if any, precedents interpreting what those four words mean. In his executive order laying out the rationale for these tariffs, Trump claimed they are needed to combat “large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits” — meaning that the United States buys more goods from many countries than it sells to them. But it’s far from clear how this trade deficit, which has existed for decades, qualifies as either “unusual” or “extraordinary.”Schwab seemed to flub several direct questions from the judges asking him to come up with a universal rule they could apply to determine which “threats” are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” When Judge Gary Katzmann, an Obama appointee, asked Schwab to name the best case supporting his argument that a trade deficit is neither unusual nor extraordinary, for example, Schwab was unable to do so.That said, some of the judges sounded outright offended when Eric Hamilton, the lawyer for the Trump administration, claimed that the question of what constitutes an unusual or extraordinary threat is a “political question” — a legal term meaning that the courts aren’t allowed to decide that matter. As Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee, told Hamilton, his argument suggests that there is “no limit” to the president’s power to impose tariffs, even if the president claims that a shortage of peanut butter is a national emergency.The overall picture presented by the argument is that all three judges (the third is Judge Timothy Reif, a Trump appointee) are troubled by the broad power Trump claims in this case. But they were also frustrated by a lack of guidance — both from existing case law and from Schwab and Hamilton’s arguments — on whether Trump can legally claim the power to issue such sweeping tariffs.Early in the argument, Schwab appeared to be in trouble, as he faced a barrage of questions about how the Yoshida decision cuts against some of his arguments. As Restani told him at one point, the argument that a statute permitting the president to “regulate” does not include the power to impose tariffs is a nonstarter, because Yoshida held the opposite.That said, all three judges proposed ways to distinguish the Nixon tariffs upheld by Yoshida from the Trump tariffs now before the trade court.Restani, for her part, argued that the Nixon tariffs involved a “very different situation” that was both “new” and “extraordinary.” For several decades, US dollars could be readily converted into gold at a set exchange rate. Nixon ended this practice in 1971, in an event many still refer to as the “Nixon shock.” When he did so, he briefly imposed tariffs to protect US goods from fluctuating exchange rates.Yoshida, in other words, upheld temporary tariffs that were enacted in order to mitigate the impact of a sudden and very significant shift in US monetary policy, albeit a shift that Nixon caused himself. That’s a very different situation than the one surrounding Trump’s tariffs, which were enacted in response to ongoing trade deficits that have existed for many years.Restani and Katzmann also pointed to a footnote in Yoshida that said Congress enacted a new law, the Trade Act of 1974, after the Nixon shock. This footnote states a future attempt to impose similar tariffs “must, of course, comply with the statute now governing such action.” Whatever power Nixon might have had in 1971, in other words, may now be limited by newer laws.Reif also made a similar argument, pointing out that there is a separate federal statute dealing with trade practices such as “dumping,” when an exporter sells goods below their normal value. He questioned whether the president could bypass the procedures laid out in that anti-dumping statute by simply declaring an emergency, and then imposing whatever trade barriers the president wanted to impose under IEEPA.That said, none of the judges — and neither of the lawyers — were able to articulate a rule that would allow future courts to determine which presidential actions are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” Hamilton’s suggestion that courts can’t decide this question at all sunk like a pair of concrete shoes, with Katzmann arguing that the IEEPA’s “unusual and extraordinary” provision would be entirely “superfluous” if Congress hadn’t intended courts to enforce it.Schwab, meanwhile, earned a scolding from Restani when he kept trying to argue that Trump’s tariffs are such an obvious violation of the statute that there’s no need to come up with a broader legal rule. “You know it when you see it doesn’t work,” she told him — a reference to Justice Potter Stewart’s infamously vague standard for determining what constitutes pornography.The three judges, in other words, expressed serious concerns about the Trump administration’s argument for the tariffs. But it’s not clear that they have figured out how to navigate the uncertain legal landscape looming over this case.Though the bulk of the argument focused on the four key words in the IEEPA, it’s not clear that a narrow decision holding that this law does not permit these tariffs will have much staying power. Trump could potentially try to impose the tariffs again, using the somewhat more drawn out process laid out in the 1974 Trade Act, which permits the government to “impose duties or other import restrictions” after the US Trade Representative makes certain findings. So if the courts issue a narrow ruling against these tariffs, they may have to go through a very similar dog and pony show in a few months.There are, however, two controversial legal doctrines popular with conservatives — known as “major questions” and “nondelegation” — which could lead to a more permanent reduction of Trump’s authority. Broadly speaking, both of these doctrines empower the courts to strike down a presidential administration’s actions even if those actions appear to be authorized by statute.Late in the argument, Restani seemed to latch onto the nondelegation theory. Under current law, Congress may delegate power to the president or a federal agency so long as it “shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.” This “intelligible principle” test is famously very deferential to Congress.Nevertheless, Restani asked some questions indicating that she may think that the IEEPA is the rare law which provides so little guidance to the president that it must be struck down. She noted that the law does permit Congress to pass a resolution canceling tariffs after the fact, but argued that this kind of after-the-fact review is not a substitute for an intelligible principle letting the president know how to act before he takes action.The major questions doctrine, meanwhile, establishes that Congress must “speak clearly” if it wants to give the executive branch authority over matters of “vast ‘economic and political significance.’” By some estimates, Trump’s tariffs are expected to reduce real family income by $2,800, so that’s certainly a matter of vast economic importance. Thus, to the extent that the IEEPA’s language is unclear, the major questions doctrine suggests that the law should be construed to not permit these tariffs.Hamilton’s primary argument against this line of reasoning is that the major questions doctrine does not apply to the president at all, only to actions by federal agencies that are subordinate to the president. But none of the three judges appeared sympathetic to this argument. Restani, in particular, seemed incredulous at the suggestion.Overall, the judges seemed interested in exploring the nondelegation and major questions factors, and repeatedly rebutted suggestions that ruling on the tariffs was beyond their power. And that suggests the trade court will likely rule against the tariffs. That outcome is far from certain, however, and the trade court is highly unlikely to have the final word on this question. But the legal case for the tariffs appeared weak before Tuesday’s hearing, and nothing that happened on Tuesday changes that.See More:

·25 Views

Please log in to like, share and comment!
TechSpot paylaşılan bir bağlantı

2025-05-13 22:35:11 ·

Trivia: How much did the first CD recorder cost?

Choose wisely! The correct answer, the explanation, and an intriguing story await.

Correct Answer:
$20,000
A little background
Although it wasn't initially intended for the general public, the first commercial audio CD recorder made its debut in 1991 at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Convention in Las Vegas (later simply known as the NAB Show).
Japanese electronics maker Denon introduced the DN-770R, a pro-grade Compact Disc recorder designed to appeal to radio stations and audio production facilities.
These institutions could use the device to master demo discs, archive broadcasts, or distribute pre-recorded content to affiliate stations more efficiently than analog tape allowed.
According to an article written by The Syracuse Newspapers at the time, the Denon DN-770R was the first of its kind and was being tendered by the electronics maker for $20,000: "Denon DN-770R audio CD recorder debuts as the first of its kind...The CDs it produces can be played on any CD player."
However, the DN-770R was far from a plug-and-play solution.
Contemporary reports noted that to make the system fully functional, users also needed around $100,000 worth of ancillary equipment, such as digital audio processors, mastering consoles, and synchronization gear.
The cost of consumables added further barriers: blank CDs sold for approximately $35 to $40 each and could only be recorded once.
Unlike cassette tapes, which were cheap, reusable, and ubiquitous in both professional and consumer audio environments, CD-Rs were a costly and rigid medium at the time.
Despite the early limitations, the introduction of CD recording technology marked a turning point in digital audio.
Until then, the compact disc – first launched commercially in 1982 – had been a strictly read-only format used for music distribution.
The arrival of CD recording devices opened new possibilities for content creation and data storage.
Denon's innovation was clearly aimed at a niche audience and focused solely on audio playback.
The first modern CD burners were introduced between 1991 and 1992, when Sony, Philips, (the two creators of de CD format) and Yamaha each released CD recorders around the same time.
The Philips CDD521, Sony CDW-900E, and Yamaha YPR-201 were some of the entry-level professional models still sold for over $10,000.
Throughout the early 1990s, CD recorders remained out of reach for most consumers, however the landscape began to change rapidly in the years that followed.
In 1995, Hewlett-Packard introduced the HP SureStore 4020i, one of the first CD-R drives marketed to consumers.
Priced at $995, it was a significant milestone in making CD recording accessible to small businesses, hobbyists, and eventually the mass market.
The 4020i could write both data and audio CDs.
This democratization of CD recording paved the way for a surge in home media production during the late 1990s and early 2000s.
It enabled users to burn custom music CDs, back up data, and share multimedia content in a way that had previously required professional studio equipment.
As the price of CD-R drives and blank media continued to fall, the format became an essential part of personal computing and digital media until it was gradually overtaken by DVD, flash storage, and eventually cloud-based solutions.

Source: https://www.techspot.com/trivia/85-how-much-did-first-cd-recorder-cost/" style="color: #0066cc;">https://www.techspot.com/trivia/85-how-much-did-first-cd-recorder-cost/
#trivia #how #much #did #the #first #recorder #cost

Trivia: How much did the first CD recorder cost?
Choose wisely! The correct answer, the explanation, and an intriguing story await. Correct Answer: $20,000 A little background Although it wasn't initially intended for the general public, the first commercial audio CD recorder made its debut in 1991 at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Convention in Las Vegas (later simply known as the NAB Show). Japanese electronics maker Denon introduced the DN-770R, a pro-grade Compact Disc recorder designed to appeal to radio stations and audio production facilities. These institutions could use the device to master demo discs, archive broadcasts, or distribute pre-recorded content to affiliate stations more efficiently than analog tape allowed. According to an article written by The Syracuse Newspapers at the time, the Denon DN-770R was the first of its kind and was being tendered by the electronics maker for $20,000: "Denon DN-770R audio CD recorder debuts as the first of its kind...The CDs it produces can be played on any CD player." However, the DN-770R was far from a plug-and-play solution. Contemporary reports noted that to make the system fully functional, users also needed around $100,000 worth of ancillary equipment, such as digital audio processors, mastering consoles, and synchronization gear. The cost of consumables added further barriers: blank CDs sold for approximately $35 to $40 each and could only be recorded once. Unlike cassette tapes, which were cheap, reusable, and ubiquitous in both professional and consumer audio environments, CD-Rs were a costly and rigid medium at the time. Despite the early limitations, the introduction of CD recording technology marked a turning point in digital audio. Until then, the compact disc – first launched commercially in 1982 – had been a strictly read-only format used for music distribution. The arrival of CD recording devices opened new possibilities for content creation and data storage. Denon's innovation was clearly aimed at a niche audience and focused solely on audio playback. The first modern CD burners were introduced between 1991 and 1992, when Sony, Philips, (the two creators of de CD format) and Yamaha each released CD recorders around the same time. The Philips CDD521, Sony CDW-900E, and Yamaha YPR-201 were some of the entry-level professional models still sold for over $10,000. Throughout the early 1990s, CD recorders remained out of reach for most consumers, however the landscape began to change rapidly in the years that followed. In 1995, Hewlett-Packard introduced the HP SureStore 4020i, one of the first CD-R drives marketed to consumers. Priced at $995, it was a significant milestone in making CD recording accessible to small businesses, hobbyists, and eventually the mass market. The 4020i could write both data and audio CDs. This democratization of CD recording paved the way for a surge in home media production during the late 1990s and early 2000s. It enabled users to burn custom music CDs, back up data, and share multimedia content in a way that had previously required professional studio equipment. As the price of CD-R drives and blank media continued to fall, the format became an essential part of personal computing and digital media until it was gradually overtaken by DVD, flash storage, and eventually cloud-based solutions. Source: https://www.techspot.com/trivia/85-how-much-did-first-cd-recorder-cost/ #trivia #how #much #did #the #first #recorder #cost

WWW.TECHSPOT.COM

Trivia: How much did the first CD recorder cost?

Choose wisely! The correct answer, the explanation, and an intriguing story await. Correct Answer: $20,000 A little background Although it wasn't initially intended for the general public, the first commercial audio CD recorder made its debut in 1991 at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Convention in Las Vegas (later simply known as the NAB Show). Japanese electronics maker Denon introduced the DN-770R, a pro-grade Compact Disc recorder designed to appeal to radio stations and audio production facilities. These institutions could use the device to master demo discs, archive broadcasts, or distribute pre-recorded content to affiliate stations more efficiently than analog tape allowed. According to an article written by The Syracuse Newspapers at the time, the Denon DN-770R was the first of its kind and was being tendered by the electronics maker for $20,000: "Denon DN-770R audio CD recorder debuts as the first of its kind...The CDs it produces can be played on any CD player." However, the DN-770R was far from a plug-and-play solution. Contemporary reports noted that to make the system fully functional, users also needed around $100,000 worth of ancillary equipment, such as digital audio processors, mastering consoles, and synchronization gear. The cost of consumables added further barriers: blank CDs sold for approximately $35 to $40 each and could only be recorded once. Unlike cassette tapes, which were cheap, reusable, and ubiquitous in both professional and consumer audio environments, CD-Rs were a costly and rigid medium at the time. Despite the early limitations, the introduction of CD recording technology marked a turning point in digital audio. Until then, the compact disc – first launched commercially in 1982 – had been a strictly read-only format used for music distribution. The arrival of CD recording devices opened new possibilities for content creation and data storage. Denon's innovation was clearly aimed at a niche audience and focused solely on audio playback. The first modern CD burners were introduced between 1991 and 1992, when Sony, Philips, (the two creators of de CD format) and Yamaha each released CD recorders around the same time. The Philips CDD521, Sony CDW-900E, and Yamaha YPR-201 were some of the entry-level professional models still sold for over $10,000. Throughout the early 1990s, CD recorders remained out of reach for most consumers, however the landscape began to change rapidly in the years that followed. In 1995, Hewlett-Packard introduced the HP SureStore 4020i, one of the first CD-R drives marketed to consumers. Priced at $995, it was a significant milestone in making CD recording accessible to small businesses, hobbyists, and eventually the mass market. The 4020i could write both data and audio CDs. This democratization of CD recording paved the way for a surge in home media production during the late 1990s and early 2000s. It enabled users to burn custom music CDs, back up data, and share multimedia content in a way that had previously required professional studio equipment. As the price of CD-R drives and blank media continued to fall, the format became an essential part of personal computing and digital media until it was gradually overtaken by DVD, flash storage, and eventually cloud-based solutions.

·26 Views

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Forbes paylaşılan bir bağlantı

2025-05-13 22:34:31 ·

3 Signs You’re An Emotionally Responsive Partner, By A Psychologist
True emotional attunement involves about noticing, responding and showing up when it counts.
Here ...
More are three things emotionally responsive partners do.getty
Some individuals are naturally more attuned to their partner’s emotional cues.
They notice changes in tone, body language or energy prior to being explicitly told that something’s wrong.
Sometimes it’s a pause, a sigh or a shorter reply than usual.
Others rely more on direct communication, expecting their partner to verbalize what they need.
They may think, “If it’s important, they’ll tell me.” While it’s impossible and unrealistic to expect a partner to read your mind, emotional attunement supplements healthy, overt communication.
Without it, there may be disconnects in otherwise stable relationships.
One partner may interpret the other’s lack of responsiveness as indifference, while the other may simply not realize anything is amiss.
And that’s where most people get it wrong — not because they don’t care, but because they’re looking for something more direct.
Being emotionally receptive isn’t about fixing things for the other person or reading minds.
It’s about tuning in.
Here are three signs you’re emotionally in tune with your partner, making them feel truly seen, heard and cared for.
1.
You Notice Subtle Changes In Their Nonverbal Cues
Most people think emotional support means always saying the right thing.
But in relationships, it often starts with recognition.
Noticing a shift in your partner’s energy, or picking up on a silence that wasn’t there yesterday.
How you respond in that moment — whether you lean in, pull back or overlook it — shapes how emotionally safe your relationship feels.
A 2023 review published in Current Opinion in Psychology highlights how perceived partner responsiveness is a core component of emotional intimacy.
When individuals feel that their partner understands, validates and cares for their internal experience, especially during everyday interactions, they’re more likely to feel secure and satisfied in the relationship.
That responsiveness often begins with something as simple as noticing when the mood shifts.
At the same time, nonverbal communication isn’t always clear.
Another 2023 study published in Perspectives on Psychological Science cautions against the assumption that facial expressions or body language reliably convey emotional truth.
According to the researchers, nonverbal cues are highly context-dependent and shaped by individual, cultural and relational factors.
In other words, tuning in emotionally is less about decoding signals and more about staying attentive to changes within the patterns you’ve come to understand over time.
Noticing a shift is only the first step.
What you do next — how you respond to that shift — matters just as much.
2.
You Validate Their Emotions Instead Of Minimizing Or Fixing
Emotional receptivity isn’t limited to noticing when something is wrong.
It also involves creating space for it without trying to control or dismiss it.
When your partner expresses frustration, sadness or discomfort, the instinct might be to offer a solution or downplay the issue.
But often, what they need most is to feel seen and heard.
Offering validation means acknowledging what your partner is feeling without judgment or immediate redirection.
It’s the difference between saying, “You shouldn’t feel that way,” and saying, “That sounds really difficult.” The first creates defensiveness.
The second builds trust.
This emotional availability also hinges on how a partner manages their own reactions during stressful moments.
A 2020 study published in Emotion followed over 100 couples across 12 months and found that individuals with either highly inert or highly erratic emotional patterns were consistently perceived as less responsive by their partners.
These perceptions, in turn, predicted steeper declines in relationship satisfaction.
In other words, when someone struggles to respond to emotional cues in a balanced, context-sensitive way, either by shutting down or overreacting, it becomes harder for their partner to feel supported.
Validation, then, is not just about what you say.
It’s about how well your emotional presence matches the moment.
Imagine you come home after a brutal day.
You’re drained and frustrated.
You sit down, and your partner, still in their own rhythm, says, “Can you help me with something real quick?”
You say, “I’m really tired.”
They don’t slow down.
They stay upbeat, maybe a little impatient.
“You’ll feel better if you get up.
It’ll only take a second.”
They mean well.
But they haven’t shifted.
They’re still in task mode while you’re barely holding it together.
That kind of mismatch — where one person’s emotional state doesn’t adjust to the other’s — doesn’t just lead to hurt feelings.
It leads to a partner feeling unseen, unsupported and eventually, disconnected.
The fix isn’t dramatic.
It starts with emotional awareness.
It helps to pause long enough to register where your partner is emotionally and adjust your energy to meet that moment.
If they seem overwhelmed, it might mean softening your tone, holding off on a request or simply saying, “You seem worn out.
Want to sit for a bit?”
This doesn’t require suppressing your own needs.
It means making space for theirs too, especially in moments when they can’t carry both.
Over time, these small adjustments signal something big: I care about you.
I see where you are and I’m adjusting because I want you to feel seen.
This willingness to shift and respond instead of react is at the heart of emotional responsiveness.
3.
You Adjust To Meet Their Emotional Needs In The Moment
Emotional support is often visible in our actions, through intentional shifts in energy, tone and timing.
Receptive partners make small adjustments in real time based on what the other person seems to need.
It could be pausing a story because your partner looks overwhelmed, skipping the joke when they’re quiet or holding off on a conversation when they’re not in a space to engage.
None of this is about walking on eggshells.
It’s about reading the room and respecting it.
This kind of moment-to-moment flexibility, grounded in what the other person appears to need, is strongly linked to healthier relationships.
A 2020 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science reviewed data from over 43,000 individuals across 174 studies and found that psychological flexibility — the ability to stay present and adjust behavior in emotionally challenging moments — is associated with greater relationship satisfaction, lower conflict and stronger emotional support.
In contrast, inflexibility, or sticking to your own emotional rhythm regardless of your partner’s state, is linked to disconnection and higher levels of negative interaction.
This kind of flexibility isn’t a path to losing yourself.
It simply means recognizing that emotional needs aren’t always aligned in a given moment and choosing to respond accordingly.
Partners who consistently do this are often described as easy to be around.
Not because they avoid conflict, but because they create a sense of emotional safety.
Their presence feels responsive, rather than rigid.
The most responsive partners aren’t the ones who always get it right.
They’re the ones who choose to be in tune with their partner, consistently and intentionally.
Do you find your partner emotionally responsive? Take the science-backed Perceived Responsiveness Scale to find out.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2025/05/13/3-signs-youre-an-emotionally-responsive-partner-by-a-psychologist/" style="color: #0066cc;">https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2025/05/13/3-signs-youre-an-emotionally-responsive-partner-by-a-psychologist/
#signs #youre #emotionally #responsive #partner #psychologist

3 Signs You’re An Emotionally Responsive Partner, By A Psychologist
True emotional attunement involves about noticing, responding and showing up when it counts. Here ... More are three things emotionally responsive partners do.getty Some individuals are naturally more attuned to their partner’s emotional cues. They notice changes in tone, body language or energy prior to being explicitly told that something’s wrong. Sometimes it’s a pause, a sigh or a shorter reply than usual. Others rely more on direct communication, expecting their partner to verbalize what they need. They may think, “If it’s important, they’ll tell me.” While it’s impossible and unrealistic to expect a partner to read your mind, emotional attunement supplements healthy, overt communication. Without it, there may be disconnects in otherwise stable relationships. One partner may interpret the other’s lack of responsiveness as indifference, while the other may simply not realize anything is amiss. And that’s where most people get it wrong — not because they don’t care, but because they’re looking for something more direct. Being emotionally receptive isn’t about fixing things for the other person or reading minds. It’s about tuning in. Here are three signs you’re emotionally in tune with your partner, making them feel truly seen, heard and cared for. 1. You Notice Subtle Changes In Their Nonverbal Cues Most people think emotional support means always saying the right thing. But in relationships, it often starts with recognition. Noticing a shift in your partner’s energy, or picking up on a silence that wasn’t there yesterday. How you respond in that moment — whether you lean in, pull back or overlook it — shapes how emotionally safe your relationship feels. A 2023 review published in Current Opinion in Psychology highlights how perceived partner responsiveness is a core component of emotional intimacy. When individuals feel that their partner understands, validates and cares for their internal experience, especially during everyday interactions, they’re more likely to feel secure and satisfied in the relationship. That responsiveness often begins with something as simple as noticing when the mood shifts. At the same time, nonverbal communication isn’t always clear. Another 2023 study published in Perspectives on Psychological Science cautions against the assumption that facial expressions or body language reliably convey emotional truth. According to the researchers, nonverbal cues are highly context-dependent and shaped by individual, cultural and relational factors. In other words, tuning in emotionally is less about decoding signals and more about staying attentive to changes within the patterns you’ve come to understand over time. Noticing a shift is only the first step. What you do next — how you respond to that shift — matters just as much. 2. You Validate Their Emotions Instead Of Minimizing Or Fixing Emotional receptivity isn’t limited to noticing when something is wrong. It also involves creating space for it without trying to control or dismiss it. When your partner expresses frustration, sadness or discomfort, the instinct might be to offer a solution or downplay the issue. But often, what they need most is to feel seen and heard. Offering validation means acknowledging what your partner is feeling without judgment or immediate redirection. It’s the difference between saying, “You shouldn’t feel that way,” and saying, “That sounds really difficult.” The first creates defensiveness. The second builds trust. This emotional availability also hinges on how a partner manages their own reactions during stressful moments. A 2020 study published in Emotion followed over 100 couples across 12 months and found that individuals with either highly inert or highly erratic emotional patterns were consistently perceived as less responsive by their partners. These perceptions, in turn, predicted steeper declines in relationship satisfaction. In other words, when someone struggles to respond to emotional cues in a balanced, context-sensitive way, either by shutting down or overreacting, it becomes harder for their partner to feel supported. Validation, then, is not just about what you say. It’s about how well your emotional presence matches the moment. Imagine you come home after a brutal day. You’re drained and frustrated. You sit down, and your partner, still in their own rhythm, says, “Can you help me with something real quick?” You say, “I’m really tired.” They don’t slow down. They stay upbeat, maybe a little impatient. “You’ll feel better if you get up. It’ll only take a second.” They mean well. But they haven’t shifted. They’re still in task mode while you’re barely holding it together. That kind of mismatch — where one person’s emotional state doesn’t adjust to the other’s — doesn’t just lead to hurt feelings. It leads to a partner feeling unseen, unsupported and eventually, disconnected. The fix isn’t dramatic. It starts with emotional awareness. It helps to pause long enough to register where your partner is emotionally and adjust your energy to meet that moment. If they seem overwhelmed, it might mean softening your tone, holding off on a request or simply saying, “You seem worn out. Want to sit for a bit?” This doesn’t require suppressing your own needs. It means making space for theirs too, especially in moments when they can’t carry both. Over time, these small adjustments signal something big: I care about you. I see where you are and I’m adjusting because I want you to feel seen. This willingness to shift and respond instead of react is at the heart of emotional responsiveness. 3. You Adjust To Meet Their Emotional Needs In The Moment Emotional support is often visible in our actions, through intentional shifts in energy, tone and timing. Receptive partners make small adjustments in real time based on what the other person seems to need. It could be pausing a story because your partner looks overwhelmed, skipping the joke when they’re quiet or holding off on a conversation when they’re not in a space to engage. None of this is about walking on eggshells. It’s about reading the room and respecting it. This kind of moment-to-moment flexibility, grounded in what the other person appears to need, is strongly linked to healthier relationships. A 2020 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science reviewed data from over 43,000 individuals across 174 studies and found that psychological flexibility — the ability to stay present and adjust behavior in emotionally challenging moments — is associated with greater relationship satisfaction, lower conflict and stronger emotional support. In contrast, inflexibility, or sticking to your own emotional rhythm regardless of your partner’s state, is linked to disconnection and higher levels of negative interaction. This kind of flexibility isn’t a path to losing yourself. It simply means recognizing that emotional needs aren’t always aligned in a given moment and choosing to respond accordingly. Partners who consistently do this are often described as easy to be around. Not because they avoid conflict, but because they create a sense of emotional safety. Their presence feels responsive, rather than rigid. The most responsive partners aren’t the ones who always get it right. They’re the ones who choose to be in tune with their partner, consistently and intentionally. Do you find your partner emotionally responsive? Take the science-backed Perceived Responsiveness Scale to find out. Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2025/05/13/3-signs-youre-an-emotionally-responsive-partner-by-a-psychologist/ #signs #youre #emotionally #responsive #partner #psychologist

WWW.FORBES.COM

3 Signs You’re An Emotionally Responsive Partner, By A Psychologist

True emotional attunement involves about noticing, responding and showing up when it counts. Here ... More are three things emotionally responsive partners do.getty Some individuals are naturally more attuned to their partner’s emotional cues. They notice changes in tone, body language or energy prior to being explicitly told that something’s wrong. Sometimes it’s a pause, a sigh or a shorter reply than usual. Others rely more on direct communication, expecting their partner to verbalize what they need. They may think, “If it’s important, they’ll tell me.” While it’s impossible and unrealistic to expect a partner to read your mind, emotional attunement supplements healthy, overt communication. Without it, there may be disconnects in otherwise stable relationships. One partner may interpret the other’s lack of responsiveness as indifference, while the other may simply not realize anything is amiss. And that’s where most people get it wrong — not because they don’t care, but because they’re looking for something more direct. Being emotionally receptive isn’t about fixing things for the other person or reading minds. It’s about tuning in. Here are three signs you’re emotionally in tune with your partner, making them feel truly seen, heard and cared for. 1. You Notice Subtle Changes In Their Nonverbal Cues Most people think emotional support means always saying the right thing. But in relationships, it often starts with recognition. Noticing a shift in your partner’s energy, or picking up on a silence that wasn’t there yesterday. How you respond in that moment — whether you lean in, pull back or overlook it — shapes how emotionally safe your relationship feels. A 2023 review published in Current Opinion in Psychology highlights how perceived partner responsiveness is a core component of emotional intimacy. When individuals feel that their partner understands, validates and cares for their internal experience, especially during everyday interactions, they’re more likely to feel secure and satisfied in the relationship. That responsiveness often begins with something as simple as noticing when the mood shifts. At the same time, nonverbal communication isn’t always clear. Another 2023 study published in Perspectives on Psychological Science cautions against the assumption that facial expressions or body language reliably convey emotional truth. According to the researchers, nonverbal cues are highly context-dependent and shaped by individual, cultural and relational factors. In other words, tuning in emotionally is less about decoding signals and more about staying attentive to changes within the patterns you’ve come to understand over time. Noticing a shift is only the first step. What you do next — how you respond to that shift — matters just as much. 2. You Validate Their Emotions Instead Of Minimizing Or Fixing Emotional receptivity isn’t limited to noticing when something is wrong. It also involves creating space for it without trying to control or dismiss it. When your partner expresses frustration, sadness or discomfort, the instinct might be to offer a solution or downplay the issue. But often, what they need most is to feel seen and heard. Offering validation means acknowledging what your partner is feeling without judgment or immediate redirection. It’s the difference between saying, “You shouldn’t feel that way,” and saying, “That sounds really difficult.” The first creates defensiveness. The second builds trust. This emotional availability also hinges on how a partner manages their own reactions during stressful moments. A 2020 study published in Emotion followed over 100 couples across 12 months and found that individuals with either highly inert or highly erratic emotional patterns were consistently perceived as less responsive by their partners. These perceptions, in turn, predicted steeper declines in relationship satisfaction. In other words, when someone struggles to respond to emotional cues in a balanced, context-sensitive way, either by shutting down or overreacting, it becomes harder for their partner to feel supported. Validation, then, is not just about what you say. It’s about how well your emotional presence matches the moment. Imagine you come home after a brutal day. You’re drained and frustrated. You sit down, and your partner, still in their own rhythm, says, “Can you help me with something real quick?” You say, “I’m really tired.” They don’t slow down. They stay upbeat, maybe a little impatient. “You’ll feel better if you get up. It’ll only take a second.” They mean well. But they haven’t shifted. They’re still in task mode while you’re barely holding it together. That kind of mismatch — where one person’s emotional state doesn’t adjust to the other’s — doesn’t just lead to hurt feelings. It leads to a partner feeling unseen, unsupported and eventually, disconnected. The fix isn’t dramatic. It starts with emotional awareness. It helps to pause long enough to register where your partner is emotionally and adjust your energy to meet that moment. If they seem overwhelmed, it might mean softening your tone, holding off on a request or simply saying, “You seem worn out. Want to sit for a bit?” This doesn’t require suppressing your own needs. It means making space for theirs too, especially in moments when they can’t carry both. Over time, these small adjustments signal something big: I care about you. I see where you are and I’m adjusting because I want you to feel seen. This willingness to shift and respond instead of react is at the heart of emotional responsiveness. 3. You Adjust To Meet Their Emotional Needs In The Moment Emotional support is often visible in our actions, through intentional shifts in energy, tone and timing. Receptive partners make small adjustments in real time based on what the other person seems to need. It could be pausing a story because your partner looks overwhelmed, skipping the joke when they’re quiet or holding off on a conversation when they’re not in a space to engage. None of this is about walking on eggshells. It’s about reading the room and respecting it. This kind of moment-to-moment flexibility, grounded in what the other person appears to need, is strongly linked to healthier relationships. A 2020 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science reviewed data from over 43,000 individuals across 174 studies and found that psychological flexibility — the ability to stay present and adjust behavior in emotionally challenging moments — is associated with greater relationship satisfaction, lower conflict and stronger emotional support. In contrast, inflexibility, or sticking to your own emotional rhythm regardless of your partner’s state, is linked to disconnection and higher levels of negative interaction. This kind of flexibility isn’t a path to losing yourself. It simply means recognizing that emotional needs aren’t always aligned in a given moment and choosing to respond accordingly. Partners who consistently do this are often described as easy to be around. Not because they avoid conflict, but because they create a sense of emotional safety. Their presence feels responsive, rather than rigid. The most responsive partners aren’t the ones who always get it right. They’re the ones who choose to be in tune with their partner, consistently and intentionally. Do you find your partner emotionally responsive? Take the science-backed Perceived Responsiveness Scale to find out.

·27 Views

Please log in to like, share and comment!
CNET paylaşılan bir bağlantı

2025-05-13 22:26:46 ·

I Saw Ecovacs' New Self-Washing Robot Vacuums That Make Mopping Cleaner
Robot mops aren't really a new concept; they've existed for a few years now with mopping pad attachments and dispensers for cleaning solution and water.
However, many are just glorified Swiffers.
They smear dirty water around your floors and call it "cleaning." But Ecovacs' Deebot X9 Pro Omni and T80 Omni try to fix that problem with a self-washing mop that, in theory, won't turn your floor into a petri dish. "With Ozmo Roller Mop technology, we're addressing the hygiene gaps traditional mops leave behind, while innovations like Blast suction and ZeroTangle 3.0 take performance and convenience to the next level," David Qian, CEO of Ecovacs Robotics, said in a news release.I got an early look at these robot mops in a Brooklyn coffee shop ahead of their launch.
While they're not cheap, starting at $1,200 for the T80 Omni and $1,600 for the X9 Pro Omni, they have a lot of mopping tech that should help make mopping your living space quicker and more hygienic. The X9 Pro Omni tackled a milk spill with ease.
Ajay KumarSelf-washing robotsThe headline feature here is Ecovacs Ozmmo Roller Mop, which first debuted in this year's X8 Pro Omni model.
Unlike older robot mops that drag a damp cloth around until it's disgusting, this one has separate clean and dirty water tanks and scrubs the mop pad clean mid-job.
It also applies 16 times more pressure than a typical robot mop, so it's closer to an actual hand-scrubbing than a Swiffer. The Ozmo mop roller on the robot vacuum can pop out to hit corners. Ajay KumarThis means your floors get cleaned with fresh water each time instead of reusing old, dirty water.
I watched this happen with both the X9 Pro Omni and T80 Omni, where the two robots cleaned up spilled milk from the concrete floor of a coffee shop. I was impressed that, for the most part, they left no mess or streaks behind, though concrete flooring likely isn't the type of surface you have in your home, so the real test will be on tile, vinyl and other hard flooring.
I was also impressed by their ability to navigate the fairly crowded coffee shop.
I never saw them bump into people's feet or get caught on furniture or carpets. The Omni docking station comes with hot air drying. Ajay KumarX9 Pro Omni: The flagship robot mop The X9 Pro Omni is Ecovacs' new flagship and will set you back the most at $1,599.
Here are some of the key features: The X9 Pro Omni zeroed in on the milk spill. Ajay KumarBlast suction: Its 100-watt motor and redesigned airflow path give it more vacuuming power.
The motor has a high-torque, wider air inlet and more precise fan blades. SuperBoost battery: It comes with Ecovacs' proprietary SuperBoost battery, which the company says can deliver 50% higher discharge current, a 2.5 times longer battery lifespan, and reduced heat output. ZeroTangle 3.0 brushes: This self-maintaining brush system has a main brush and inward-curved side brush that's designed to eliminate pet hair and other debris from wrapping around it. The Deebot did a good job of making sure it didn't hit carpet with the mop by lifting the mopping pad. Ajay KumarTruEdge 2.0 3D navigation: Corners are usually a challenge for robot vacuums and mops, which TruEdge is designed to address.
It has edge sensing and an extending mop and side brush for cleaning corners and along walls. Mop lifting: The X9 Pro can detect carpets and automatically raise the mop to prevent your carpets from getting soggy.
That's a pretty common feature these days, but it's still nice to see it. Hot-air drying: The Omni docking station blasts the mop with 145-degree Fahrenheit air, drying it out between uses and preventing bacteria growth.Is all this necessary? Maybe not, unless you're doing frequent wet mopping at home.
(Personally, I usually just vacuum, and my floors are lucky if they get mopped more than once a month.) But if you want the closest thing to a "set it and forget it" robot cleaner -- one that vacuums and mops without you babysitting it -- the X9 Pro Omni might be a good option, though we'll need to put it through its paces at our Louisville vacuum testing lab to see how it performs. TruEdge 2.0 3D navigation is enhanced by AI to help tackle obstacles and corners. Ajay KumarT80 Omni: Less expensive, still feature-packedThe T80 Omni strips out some of the X9's features but keeps all the important ones.
This includes the Ozmo Roller self-washing mop and AI remopping (where it spots sticky spots and hits them twice).
According to Ecovacs, it has 16 times more downward pressure than traditional mops and self-washes with every pass, just like the X9 Omni.
There's also the ZeroTangle 3.0 brush, which minimizes tangling and picks up debris better. So what's missing? Well, the docking station uses slightly cooler 113 degrees Fahrenheit air to dry the mop, and the suction isn't quite as strong, but it's still way more capable than some of the more affordable robot vacuums we recommend.
Source: https://www.cnet.com/home/kitchen-and-household/ecovacs-new-self-washing-robot-vacuums-try-to-make-mopping-cleaner/#ftag=CAD590a51e" style="color: #0066cc;">https://www.cnet.com/home/kitchen-and-household/ecovacs-new-self-washing-robot-vacuums-try-to-make-mopping-cleaner/#ftag=CAD590a51e
#saw #ecovacs039 #new #selfwashing #robot #vacuums #that #make #mopping #cleaner

I Saw Ecovacs' New Self-Washing Robot Vacuums That Make Mopping Cleaner
Robot mops aren't really a new concept; they've existed for a few years now with mopping pad attachments and dispensers for cleaning solution and water. However, many are just glorified Swiffers. They smear dirty water around your floors and call it "cleaning." But Ecovacs' Deebot X9 Pro Omni and T80 Omni try to fix that problem with a self-washing mop that, in theory, won't turn your floor into a petri dish. "With Ozmo Roller Mop technology, we're addressing the hygiene gaps traditional mops leave behind, while innovations like Blast suction and ZeroTangle 3.0 take performance and convenience to the next level," David Qian, CEO of Ecovacs Robotics, said in a news release.I got an early look at these robot mops in a Brooklyn coffee shop ahead of their launch. While they're not cheap, starting at $1,200 for the T80 Omni and $1,600 for the X9 Pro Omni, they have a lot of mopping tech that should help make mopping your living space quicker and more hygienic. The X9 Pro Omni tackled a milk spill with ease. Ajay KumarSelf-washing robotsThe headline feature here is Ecovacs Ozmmo Roller Mop, which first debuted in this year's X8 Pro Omni model. Unlike older robot mops that drag a damp cloth around until it's disgusting, this one has separate clean and dirty water tanks and scrubs the mop pad clean mid-job. It also applies 16 times more pressure than a typical robot mop, so it's closer to an actual hand-scrubbing than a Swiffer. The Ozmo mop roller on the robot vacuum can pop out to hit corners. Ajay KumarThis means your floors get cleaned with fresh water each time instead of reusing old, dirty water. I watched this happen with both the X9 Pro Omni and T80 Omni, where the two robots cleaned up spilled milk from the concrete floor of a coffee shop. I was impressed that, for the most part, they left no mess or streaks behind, though concrete flooring likely isn't the type of surface you have in your home, so the real test will be on tile, vinyl and other hard flooring. I was also impressed by their ability to navigate the fairly crowded coffee shop. I never saw them bump into people's feet or get caught on furniture or carpets. The Omni docking station comes with hot air drying. Ajay KumarX9 Pro Omni: The flagship robot mop The X9 Pro Omni is Ecovacs' new flagship and will set you back the most at $1,599. Here are some of the key features: The X9 Pro Omni zeroed in on the milk spill. Ajay KumarBlast suction: Its 100-watt motor and redesigned airflow path give it more vacuuming power. The motor has a high-torque, wider air inlet and more precise fan blades. SuperBoost battery: It comes with Ecovacs' proprietary SuperBoost battery, which the company says can deliver 50% higher discharge current, a 2.5 times longer battery lifespan, and reduced heat output. ZeroTangle 3.0 brushes: This self-maintaining brush system has a main brush and inward-curved side brush that's designed to eliminate pet hair and other debris from wrapping around it. The Deebot did a good job of making sure it didn't hit carpet with the mop by lifting the mopping pad. Ajay KumarTruEdge 2.0 3D navigation: Corners are usually a challenge for robot vacuums and mops, which TruEdge is designed to address. It has edge sensing and an extending mop and side brush for cleaning corners and along walls. Mop lifting: The X9 Pro can detect carpets and automatically raise the mop to prevent your carpets from getting soggy. That's a pretty common feature these days, but it's still nice to see it. Hot-air drying: The Omni docking station blasts the mop with 145-degree Fahrenheit air, drying it out between uses and preventing bacteria growth.Is all this necessary? Maybe not, unless you're doing frequent wet mopping at home. (Personally, I usually just vacuum, and my floors are lucky if they get mopped more than once a month.) But if you want the closest thing to a "set it and forget it" robot cleaner -- one that vacuums and mops without you babysitting it -- the X9 Pro Omni might be a good option, though we'll need to put it through its paces at our Louisville vacuum testing lab to see how it performs. TruEdge 2.0 3D navigation is enhanced by AI to help tackle obstacles and corners. Ajay KumarT80 Omni: Less expensive, still feature-packedThe T80 Omni strips out some of the X9's features but keeps all the important ones. This includes the Ozmo Roller self-washing mop and AI remopping (where it spots sticky spots and hits them twice). According to Ecovacs, it has 16 times more downward pressure than traditional mops and self-washes with every pass, just like the X9 Omni. There's also the ZeroTangle 3.0 brush, which minimizes tangling and picks up debris better. So what's missing? Well, the docking station uses slightly cooler 113 degrees Fahrenheit air to dry the mop, and the suction isn't quite as strong, but it's still way more capable than some of the more affordable robot vacuums we recommend. Source: https://www.cnet.com/home/kitchen-and-household/ecovacs-new-self-washing-robot-vacuums-try-to-make-mopping-cleaner/#ftag=CAD590a51e #saw #ecovacs039 #new #selfwashing #robot #vacuums #that #make #mopping #cleaner

WWW.CNET.COM

I Saw Ecovacs' New Self-Washing Robot Vacuums That Make Mopping Cleaner

Robot mops aren't really a new concept; they've existed for a few years now with mopping pad attachments and dispensers for cleaning solution and water. However, many are just glorified Swiffers. They smear dirty water around your floors and call it "cleaning." But Ecovacs' Deebot X9 Pro Omni and T80 Omni try to fix that problem with a self-washing mop that, in theory, won't turn your floor into a petri dish. "With Ozmo Roller Mop technology, we're addressing the hygiene gaps traditional mops leave behind, while innovations like Blast suction and ZeroTangle 3.0 take performance and convenience to the next level," David Qian, CEO of Ecovacs Robotics, said in a news release.I got an early look at these robot mops in a Brooklyn coffee shop ahead of their launch. While they're not cheap, starting at $1,200 for the T80 Omni and $1,600 for the X9 Pro Omni, they have a lot of mopping tech that should help make mopping your living space quicker and more hygienic. The X9 Pro Omni tackled a milk spill with ease. Ajay KumarSelf-washing robotsThe headline feature here is Ecovacs Ozmmo Roller Mop, which first debuted in this year's X8 Pro Omni model. Unlike older robot mops that drag a damp cloth around until it's disgusting, this one has separate clean and dirty water tanks and scrubs the mop pad clean mid-job. It also applies 16 times more pressure than a typical robot mop, so it's closer to an actual hand-scrubbing than a Swiffer. The Ozmo mop roller on the robot vacuum can pop out to hit corners. Ajay KumarThis means your floors get cleaned with fresh water each time instead of reusing old, dirty water. I watched this happen with both the X9 Pro Omni and T80 Omni, where the two robots cleaned up spilled milk from the concrete floor of a coffee shop. I was impressed that, for the most part, they left no mess or streaks behind, though concrete flooring likely isn't the type of surface you have in your home, so the real test will be on tile, vinyl and other hard flooring. I was also impressed by their ability to navigate the fairly crowded coffee shop. I never saw them bump into people's feet or get caught on furniture or carpets. The Omni docking station comes with hot air drying. Ajay KumarX9 Pro Omni: The flagship robot mop The X9 Pro Omni is Ecovacs' new flagship and will set you back the most at $1,599. Here are some of the key features: The X9 Pro Omni zeroed in on the milk spill. Ajay KumarBlast suction: Its 100-watt motor and redesigned airflow path give it more vacuuming power. The motor has a high-torque, wider air inlet and more precise fan blades. SuperBoost battery: It comes with Ecovacs' proprietary SuperBoost battery, which the company says can deliver 50% higher discharge current, a 2.5 times longer battery lifespan, and reduced heat output. ZeroTangle 3.0 brushes: This self-maintaining brush system has a main brush and inward-curved side brush that's designed to eliminate pet hair and other debris from wrapping around it. The Deebot did a good job of making sure it didn't hit carpet with the mop by lifting the mopping pad. Ajay KumarTruEdge 2.0 3D navigation: Corners are usually a challenge for robot vacuums and mops, which TruEdge is designed to address. It has edge sensing and an extending mop and side brush for cleaning corners and along walls. Mop lifting: The X9 Pro can detect carpets and automatically raise the mop to prevent your carpets from getting soggy. That's a pretty common feature these days, but it's still nice to see it. Hot-air drying: The Omni docking station blasts the mop with 145-degree Fahrenheit air, drying it out between uses and preventing bacteria growth.Is all this necessary? Maybe not, unless you're doing frequent wet mopping at home. (Personally, I usually just vacuum, and my floors are lucky if they get mopped more than once a month.) But if you want the closest thing to a "set it and forget it" robot cleaner -- one that vacuums and mops without you babysitting it -- the X9 Pro Omni might be a good option, though we'll need to put it through its paces at our Louisville vacuum testing lab to see how it performs. TruEdge 2.0 3D navigation is enhanced by AI to help tackle obstacles and corners. Ajay KumarT80 Omni: Less expensive, still feature-packedThe T80 Omni strips out some of the X9's features but keeps all the important ones. This includes the Ozmo Roller self-washing mop and AI remopping (where it spots sticky spots and hits them twice). According to Ecovacs, it has 16 times more downward pressure than traditional mops and self-washes with every pass, just like the X9 Omni. There's also the ZeroTangle 3.0 brush, which minimizes tangling and picks up debris better. So what's missing? Well, the docking station uses slightly cooler 113 degrees Fahrenheit air to dry the mop, and the suction isn't quite as strong, but it's still way more capable than some of the more affordable robot vacuums we recommend.

·28 Views

Please log in to like, share and comment!
ELLE DECOR paylaşılan bir bağlantı

2025-05-13 22:23:16 ·

Classic Teak, Natural Rope, and a View: The New Outdoor Furniture Trends Everyone’s Talking About
Relaxed yet tailored outdoor living takes center stage in RH’s latest design story, where form meets functionality in the elegantly restrained Striata collection by Belgian designer Matthias De Ferm.
Known for his precise craftsmanship and thoughtful use of materials, De Ferm brings a sculptural sensibility to alfresco spaces, seamlessly blending rope, teak, and architectural lines.
The result is a collection that brings the sophistication of indoor design to outdoor spaces—inviting you to relax and linger longer.Courtesy RHThe Striata Teak Lounge Chair embodies Matthias De Ferm’s design language, from $4,200.When De Ferm first connected with RH, it was a meeting of minds and materials.
“RH had long been on my radar,” the designer says.
“It’s a brand that understands detail, proportion, and permanence.” Though his first proposal didn’t move forward, it established a creative trust that paved the way for Striata, a collection that’s both technically refined and poetically restrained.Courtesy RHPictured above, additional pieces including the Striata Teak Sectional from $13,310, Teak Swivel Lounge Chair, from $3,400 and Teak Ottoman, from $1,660.De Ferm is known for his material ingenuity and reverence for honest materials—he studied product development at AP Antwerpen, furniture design at Thomas More Mechelen, and earned additional degrees in metalwork and carpentry.
Here, he faced a familiar challenge: how to create a curve in teak.
The solution emerged in the development of a semi-transparent rope panel, one that allows the backrest to arc effortlessly, catching both light and air.
This gesture becomes the through-line of Striata, echoed in the taut planes of the front legs and the interplay between structure and void, especially evident in the rear profile.“When you remove the excess, the emotion of the design becomes stronger.” —Matthias De FermCourtesy RHA classic barrel-back silhouette is constructed of natural, handwoven all-weather rope and teak with reeded detailing.“Design lives in the lines,” De Ferm says.
Nowhere is that truer than in the lounge chair—the collection’s origin point.
Barrel-backed and poised on reeded teak legs, it invites repose.
Its proportions nod to the landscape, leaving the view uninterrupted.As terraces awaken and poolside cabanas unfold this season, Striata offers more than seating—it extends an invitation, one of ease, elegance, and joyful summer evenings.
rh.com
Source: https://www.elledecor.com/design-decorate/a64746772/rh-outdoor-furniture-summer-2025/" style="color: #0066cc;">https://www.elledecor.com/design-decorate/a64746772/rh-outdoor-furniture-summer-2025/
#classic #teak #natural #rope #and #view #the #new #outdoor #furniture #trends #everyones #talking #about

Classic Teak, Natural Rope, and a View: The New Outdoor Furniture Trends Everyone’s Talking About
Relaxed yet tailored outdoor living takes center stage in RH’s latest design story, where form meets functionality in the elegantly restrained Striata collection by Belgian designer Matthias De Ferm. Known for his precise craftsmanship and thoughtful use of materials, De Ferm brings a sculptural sensibility to alfresco spaces, seamlessly blending rope, teak, and architectural lines. The result is a collection that brings the sophistication of indoor design to outdoor spaces—inviting you to relax and linger longer.Courtesy RHThe Striata Teak Lounge Chair embodies Matthias De Ferm’s design language, from $4,200.When De Ferm first connected with RH, it was a meeting of minds and materials. “RH had long been on my radar,” the designer says. “It’s a brand that understands detail, proportion, and permanence.” Though his first proposal didn’t move forward, it established a creative trust that paved the way for Striata, a collection that’s both technically refined and poetically restrained.Courtesy RHPictured above, additional pieces including the Striata Teak Sectional from $13,310, Teak Swivel Lounge Chair, from $3,400 and Teak Ottoman, from $1,660.De Ferm is known for his material ingenuity and reverence for honest materials—he studied product development at AP Antwerpen, furniture design at Thomas More Mechelen, and earned additional degrees in metalwork and carpentry. Here, he faced a familiar challenge: how to create a curve in teak. The solution emerged in the development of a semi-transparent rope panel, one that allows the backrest to arc effortlessly, catching both light and air. This gesture becomes the through-line of Striata, echoed in the taut planes of the front legs and the interplay between structure and void, especially evident in the rear profile.“When you remove the excess, the emotion of the design becomes stronger.” —Matthias De FermCourtesy RHA classic barrel-back silhouette is constructed of natural, handwoven all-weather rope and teak with reeded detailing.“Design lives in the lines,” De Ferm says. Nowhere is that truer than in the lounge chair—the collection’s origin point. Barrel-backed and poised on reeded teak legs, it invites repose. Its proportions nod to the landscape, leaving the view uninterrupted.As terraces awaken and poolside cabanas unfold this season, Striata offers more than seating—it extends an invitation, one of ease, elegance, and joyful summer evenings. rh.com Source: https://www.elledecor.com/design-decorate/a64746772/rh-outdoor-furniture-summer-2025/ #classic #teak #natural #rope #and #view #the #new #outdoor #furniture #trends #everyones #talking #about

WWW.ELLEDECOR.COM

Classic Teak, Natural Rope, and a View: The New Outdoor Furniture Trends Everyone’s Talking About

Relaxed yet tailored outdoor living takes center stage in RH’s latest design story, where form meets functionality in the elegantly restrained Striata collection by Belgian designer Matthias De Ferm. Known for his precise craftsmanship and thoughtful use of materials, De Ferm brings a sculptural sensibility to alfresco spaces, seamlessly blending rope, teak, and architectural lines. The result is a collection that brings the sophistication of indoor design to outdoor spaces—inviting you to relax and linger longer.Courtesy RHThe Striata Teak Lounge Chair embodies Matthias De Ferm’s design language, from $4,200.When De Ferm first connected with RH, it was a meeting of minds and materials. “RH had long been on my radar,” the designer says. “It’s a brand that understands detail, proportion, and permanence.” Though his first proposal didn’t move forward, it established a creative trust that paved the way for Striata, a collection that’s both technically refined and poetically restrained.Courtesy RHPictured above, additional pieces including the Striata Teak Sectional from $13,310, Teak Swivel Lounge Chair, from $3,400 and Teak Ottoman, from $1,660.De Ferm is known for his material ingenuity and reverence for honest materials—he studied product development at AP Antwerpen, furniture design at Thomas More Mechelen, and earned additional degrees in metalwork and carpentry. Here, he faced a familiar challenge: how to create a curve in teak. The solution emerged in the development of a semi-transparent rope panel, one that allows the backrest to arc effortlessly, catching both light and air. This gesture becomes the through-line of Striata, echoed in the taut planes of the front legs and the interplay between structure and void, especially evident in the rear profile.“When you remove the excess, the emotion of the design becomes stronger.” —Matthias De FermCourtesy RHA classic barrel-back silhouette is constructed of natural, handwoven all-weather rope and teak with reeded detailing.“Design lives in the lines,” De Ferm says. Nowhere is that truer than in the lounge chair—the collection’s origin point. Barrel-backed and poised on reeded teak legs, it invites repose. Its proportions nod to the landscape, leaving the view uninterrupted.As terraces awaken and poolside cabanas unfold this season, Striata offers more than seating—it extends an invitation, one of ease, elegance, and joyful summer evenings. rh.com

·23 Views

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Archinect paylaşılan bir bağlantı

2025-05-13 22:12:38 ·

This Pratt architecture student project mines the Sea Ranch for fire resilient space solutions
With spring graduations fast approaching, it’s an apt time to highlight some student work from the past semester.
Today, we’ll take a look at Pratt School of Architecture Class of 2025 M.Arch Genevieve Garlock and her research into fire mitigation strategies using the Sea Ranch as a case study.
From 'Wildfire-Resilient Planning in Sea Ranch' by Genevieve Garlock (Pratt Institute).
Image courtesy Genevieve GarlockDefensible space design is of particular importance in the context of subdivisions in California, as the threat from wildfires places more pressure on architects to deliver resilient and ecologically responsible shelter to people in those areas.
Instructor Jeffrey Inaba says that the overlapping of spaces foster a better sense of shared space and community integration.
From 'Wildfire-Resilient Planning in Sea Ranch' by Genevieve Garlock (Pratt Institute).
Image courtesy Genevieve Garlock The project is meant to occupy Lot 39B on the Sea Ranch.
Garlock says the design works...
Source: https://archinect.com/news/article/150480459/this-pratt-architecture-student-project-mines-the-sea-ranch-for-fire-resilient-space-solutions" style="color: #0066cc;">https://archinect.com/news/article/150480459/this-pratt-architecture-student-project-mines-the-sea-ranch-for-fire-resilient-space-solutions
#this #pratt #architecture #student #project #mines #the #sea #ranch #for #fire #resilient #space #solutions

This Pratt architecture student project mines the Sea Ranch for fire resilient space solutions
With spring graduations fast approaching, it’s an apt time to highlight some student work from the past semester. Today, we’ll take a look at Pratt School of Architecture Class of 2025 M.Arch Genevieve Garlock and her research into fire mitigation strategies using the Sea Ranch as a case study. From 'Wildfire-Resilient Planning in Sea Ranch' by Genevieve Garlock (Pratt Institute). Image courtesy Genevieve GarlockDefensible space design is of particular importance in the context of subdivisions in California, as the threat from wildfires places more pressure on architects to deliver resilient and ecologically responsible shelter to people in those areas. Instructor Jeffrey Inaba says that the overlapping of spaces foster a better sense of shared space and community integration. From 'Wildfire-Resilient Planning in Sea Ranch' by Genevieve Garlock (Pratt Institute). Image courtesy Genevieve Garlock The project is meant to occupy Lot 39B on the Sea Ranch. Garlock says the design works... Source: https://archinect.com/news/article/150480459/this-pratt-architecture-student-project-mines-the-sea-ranch-for-fire-resilient-space-solutions #this #pratt #architecture #student #project #mines #the #sea #ranch #for #fire #resilient #space #solutions

ARCHINECT.COM

This Pratt architecture student project mines the Sea Ranch for fire resilient space solutions

With spring graduations fast approaching, it’s an apt time to highlight some student work from the past semester. Today, we’ll take a look at Pratt School of Architecture Class of 2025 M.Arch Genevieve Garlock and her research into fire mitigation strategies using the Sea Ranch as a case study. From 'Wildfire-Resilient Planning in Sea Ranch' by Genevieve Garlock (Pratt Institute). Image courtesy Genevieve GarlockDefensible space design is of particular importance in the context of subdivisions in California, as the threat from wildfires places more pressure on architects to deliver resilient and ecologically responsible shelter to people in those areas. Instructor Jeffrey Inaba says that the overlapping of spaces foster a better sense of shared space and community integration. From 'Wildfire-Resilient Planning in Sea Ranch' by Genevieve Garlock (Pratt Institute). Image courtesy Genevieve Garlock The project is meant to occupy Lot 39B on the Sea Ranch. Garlock says the design works...

·20 Views

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Computerworld UK paylaşılan bir bağlantı

2025-05-13 22:09:23 ·

Microsoft 365 apps on Windows 10 to get security updates until 2028

Microsoft 365 apps for Windows 10 will continue to get security updates until Oct.
10, 2028, three years after the company ends support for Windows 10 this coming Oct.
14, Microsoft said in a blog post.

At the same time, the company noted that the apps could experience performance issues over time when running on Windows 10.
If a customer contacts support about a problem with an M365 app for Windows 10 that does not occur on Windows 11, the customer will be told to upgrade to Windows 11.
If the user can’t do so, support will then only assist in troubleshooting the problem.
Technical solutions might be limited — or not available at all.
And it will not be possible to report bugs or request other product updates.
The extension of M365 support is a change from Microsoft’s plans in January, when it said support would end in October 2025.

Source: https://www.computerworld.com/article/3984329/microsoft-365-apps-on-windows-10-get-security-updates-until-2028.html" style="color: #0066cc;">https://www.computerworld.com/article/3984329/microsoft-365-apps-on-windows-10-get-security-updates-until-2028.html
#microsoft #apps #windows #get #security #updates #until

Microsoft 365 apps on Windows 10 to get security updates until 2028
Microsoft 365 apps for Windows 10 will continue to get security updates until Oct. 10, 2028, three years after the company ends support for Windows 10 this coming Oct. 14, Microsoft said in a blog post. At the same time, the company noted that the apps could experience performance issues over time when running on Windows 10. If a customer contacts support about a problem with an M365 app for Windows 10 that does not occur on Windows 11, the customer will be told to upgrade to Windows 11. If the user can’t do so, support will then only assist in troubleshooting the problem. Technical solutions might be limited — or not available at all. And it will not be possible to report bugs or request other product updates. The extension of M365 support is a change from Microsoft’s plans in January, when it said support would end in October 2025. Source: https://www.computerworld.com/article/3984329/microsoft-365-apps-on-windows-10-get-security-updates-until-2028.html #microsoft #apps #windows #get #security #updates #until

WWW.COMPUTERWORLD.COM

Microsoft 365 apps on Windows 10 to get security updates until 2028

Microsoft 365 apps for Windows 10 will continue to get security updates until Oct. 10, 2028, three years after the company ends support for Windows 10 this coming Oct. 14, Microsoft said in a blog post. At the same time, the company noted that the apps could experience performance issues over time when running on Windows 10. If a customer contacts support about a problem with an M365 app for Windows 10 that does not occur on Windows 11, the customer will be told to upgrade to Windows 11. If the user can’t do so, support will then only assist in troubleshooting the problem. Technical solutions might be limited — or not available at all. And it will not be possible to report bugs or request other product updates. The extension of M365 support is a change from Microsoft’s plans in January, when it said support would end in October 2025.

·29 Views

Please log in to like, share and comment!
PCMag paylaşılan bir bağlantı

2025-05-13 21:02:04 ·

GM Explores EV Battery Tech That Could Unlock More Range for the Same Price

General Motors plans to become the first to commercialize a little-known type of EV battery that could unlock more range for the same price by 2028.Called lithium manganese-rich (LMR) batteries, the packs use "a higher proportion of more affordable manganese, while also delivering greater capacity and energy density," GM says.GM's focus is improving range in large vehicles, particularly big trucks and full-sized SUVs.
These heavy vehicles can lose range quickly, especially when towing, which is one of their main use cases.
LMR packs could put their performance on-par with their gas counterparts, thanks to 33% higher energy density "at a comparable cost." That's compared with other battery chemistries available today, particularly lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells.A battery breakthrough like this aims to make EV trucks with over 400 miles of range the new normal.
Right now, only a few are able to achieve that number and for a high price.
The Rivian R1T with a Max Pack battery gets 410 miles, and the GM Chevy Silverado EV truck gets up to a 450-mile range, both for around $100,000.
GM is partnering with LG Energy Solutions, which holds over 200 patents related to LMR technology IP, with its first going back to 2010.
GM says it began researching the batteries in 2015, and has been "accelerating" development by prototyping cells at its Wallace Battery Cell Innovation Center in Michigan.Recommended by Our EditorsThe two companies plan to commercialize the packs by 2028, with "pre-production" expected to begin at an LG Energy Solution facility by late 2027.
"We’re excited to introduce the first-ever LMR prismatic cells for EVs, the culmination of our decades-long research and investment in the technology,” says Wonjoon Suh, executive VP and head of the Advanced Automotive Battery division at LG Energy Solution.
"GM’s future trucks powered by this new chemistry are a strong example of our shared commitment to offering diverse EV options to consumers."There are many up-and-coming battery chemistries in the works, but this is the first time we've heard a major brand invest in LMR.
Chinese EV powerhouse CATL is investing in the first sodium-ion battery.
In the US, a few companies are working on solid state batteries, silicon batteries, lithium-sulfur, and more.All new battery chemistries aim to solve the biggest issues today, including high cost, heaviness, range loss, and lifespan issues.
All could meaningfully change how consumers use EVs, and help put traditional gas-powered engines in the past, or at least lower costs substantially.

Source: https://me.pcmag.com/en/cars-auto/29818/gm-explores-ev-battery-tech-that-could-unlock-more-range-for-the-same-price" style="color: #0066cc;">https://me.pcmag.com/en/cars-auto/29818/gm-explores-ev-battery-tech-that-could-unlock-more-range-for-the-same-price
#explores #battery #tech #that #could #unlock #more #range #for #the #same #price

GM Explores EV Battery Tech That Could Unlock More Range for the Same Price
General Motors plans to become the first to commercialize a little-known type of EV battery that could unlock more range for the same price by 2028.Called lithium manganese-rich (LMR) batteries, the packs use "a higher proportion of more affordable manganese, while also delivering greater capacity and energy density," GM says.GM's focus is improving range in large vehicles, particularly big trucks and full-sized SUVs. These heavy vehicles can lose range quickly, especially when towing, which is one of their main use cases. LMR packs could put their performance on-par with their gas counterparts, thanks to 33% higher energy density "at a comparable cost." That's compared with other battery chemistries available today, particularly lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells.A battery breakthrough like this aims to make EV trucks with over 400 miles of range the new normal. Right now, only a few are able to achieve that number and for a high price. The Rivian R1T with a Max Pack battery gets 410 miles, and the GM Chevy Silverado EV truck gets up to a 450-mile range, both for around $100,000. GM is partnering with LG Energy Solutions, which holds over 200 patents related to LMR technology IP, with its first going back to 2010. GM says it began researching the batteries in 2015, and has been "accelerating" development by prototyping cells at its Wallace Battery Cell Innovation Center in Michigan.Recommended by Our EditorsThe two companies plan to commercialize the packs by 2028, with "pre-production" expected to begin at an LG Energy Solution facility by late 2027. "We’re excited to introduce the first-ever LMR prismatic cells for EVs, the culmination of our decades-long research and investment in the technology,” says Wonjoon Suh, executive VP and head of the Advanced Automotive Battery division at LG Energy Solution. "GM’s future trucks powered by this new chemistry are a strong example of our shared commitment to offering diverse EV options to consumers."There are many up-and-coming battery chemistries in the works, but this is the first time we've heard a major brand invest in LMR. Chinese EV powerhouse CATL is investing in the first sodium-ion battery. In the US, a few companies are working on solid state batteries, silicon batteries, lithium-sulfur, and more.All new battery chemistries aim to solve the biggest issues today, including high cost, heaviness, range loss, and lifespan issues. All could meaningfully change how consumers use EVs, and help put traditional gas-powered engines in the past, or at least lower costs substantially. Source: https://me.pcmag.com/en/cars-auto/29818/gm-explores-ev-battery-tech-that-could-unlock-more-range-for-the-same-price #explores #battery #tech #that #could #unlock #more #range #for #the #same #price

ME.PCMAG.COM

GM Explores EV Battery Tech That Could Unlock More Range for the Same Price

General Motors plans to become the first to commercialize a little-known type of EV battery that could unlock more range for the same price by 2028.Called lithium manganese-rich (LMR) batteries, the packs use "a higher proportion of more affordable manganese, while also delivering greater capacity and energy density," GM says.GM's focus is improving range in large vehicles, particularly big trucks and full-sized SUVs. These heavy vehicles can lose range quickly, especially when towing, which is one of their main use cases. LMR packs could put their performance on-par with their gas counterparts, thanks to 33% higher energy density "at a comparable cost." That's compared with other battery chemistries available today, particularly lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells.A battery breakthrough like this aims to make EV trucks with over 400 miles of range the new normal. Right now, only a few are able to achieve that number and for a high price. The Rivian R1T with a Max Pack battery gets 410 miles, and the GM Chevy Silverado EV truck gets up to a 450-mile range, both for around $100,000. GM is partnering with LG Energy Solutions, which holds over 200 patents related to LMR technology IP, with its first going back to 2010. GM says it began researching the batteries in 2015, and has been "accelerating" development by prototyping cells at its Wallace Battery Cell Innovation Center in Michigan.Recommended by Our EditorsThe two companies plan to commercialize the packs by 2028, with "pre-production" expected to begin at an LG Energy Solution facility by late 2027. "We’re excited to introduce the first-ever LMR prismatic cells for EVs, the culmination of our decades-long research and investment in the technology,” says Wonjoon Suh, executive VP and head of the Advanced Automotive Battery division at LG Energy Solution. "GM’s future trucks powered by this new chemistry are a strong example of our shared commitment to offering diverse EV options to consumers."There are many up-and-coming battery chemistries in the works, but this is the first time we've heard a major brand invest in LMR. Chinese EV powerhouse CATL is investing in the first sodium-ion battery. In the US, a few companies are working on solid state batteries, silicon batteries, lithium-sulfur, and more.All new battery chemistries aim to solve the biggest issues today, including high cost, heaviness, range loss, and lifespan issues. All could meaningfully change how consumers use EVs, and help put traditional gas-powered engines in the past, or at least lower costs substantially.

·64 Views

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Godot Engine paylaşılan bir bağlantı

2025-05-13 20:58:18 ·

Dev snapshot: Godot 4.5 dev 4
Ambidextro
A game by MajorariattoDev snapshot: Godot 4.5 dev 4By:
Thaddeus Crews13 May 2025Pre-releaseTo everyone who ended up going to GodotCon this past week, we hope you had a safe journey home! For those of you that missed the fun, we’ve logged some of the highlights on the blog already—such as the long-awaited web support for .NET—with more to come later in the week.
As always, we’ve recorded all of our GodotCon talks, and those shall be uploaded to our YouTube channel in a few weeks.
With that now behind us, we can go full-steam ahead on our next development snapshot: 4.5 dev 4.
Plenty of new features this time around, so feedback and bug reports from testing are once again strongly recommended.Jump to the Downloads section, and give it a spin right now, or continue reading to learn more about improvements in this release.
You can also try the Web editor or the Android editor for this release.
If you are interested in the latter, please request to join our testing group to get access to pre-release builds.The cover illustration is from Ambidextro, a precision-platformer where you must control two characters simultaneously, one with each hand.
It is developed by Majorariatto (Twitter).
You can get the game on Steam, Nintendo Switch, and Xbox.HighlightsIn case you missed them, see the 4.5 dev 1, 4.5 dev 2, and 4.5 dev 3 release notes for an overview of some key features which were already in those snapshots, and are therefore still available for testing in dev 4.macOS: Embedded window supportAfter Windows and Linux users got to experience the benefits of embedding their windows in the editor, macOS users have understandably been expressing interest in the same coming to their platform.
Easier said than done, as this feature is OS-specific and very low-level, so implementation requires someone both extremely knowledgeable in a niche area and actually owning the platform in question for proper testing.
Thankfully, both of these qualifications were met by Stuart Carnie, who was up to the task of integrating this behemoth in GH-105884.
The results should speak for themselves:The macOS implementation works differently from the Windows and Linux implementations.
Since macOS does not allow the kind of window manipulation that Windows and Linux use for game window embedding, macOS uses an inter-process communication approach where the framebuffer is sent from the game process (which performs off-screen rendering) to the editor window.
Input events are also sent from the editor window to the game process.
This approach is more complex, but is also more robust as it doesn’t rely on window management tricks that can fall apart in certain edge cases.
This approach may be ported later to Windows/Linux in a future release, as it would help improve the reliability of game window embedding.Move 3D physics interpolation to SceneTreeThe old design of the 3D interpolation system was fundamentally flawed, as it operated under the assumption that the scene side wouldn’t require access to interpolated transforms.
This isn’t something that could’ve just been “patched in” either, thanks to the multithreaded design, command queue, and stalling.
Lacking any sort of workaround, lawnjelly has taken a break from being the person responsible for 90% of 3.x code nowadays and forward-ported a solution via GH-104269.
This addresses the problem by porting all logic to the SceneTree, while completely retaining the existing API!No changes are needed to existing projects to benefit from the new 3D physics interpolation architecture.Export variables as VariantDespite both arrays and dictionaries technically supporting Variant values, this functionality was never actually exposed in isolation.
That is: it was impossible to export a variable of type Variant directly.
Tomasz Chabora found this limitation quite silly, so took to addressing this grave injustice with GH-89324.
Now users are granted extra flexibility with their exports, as the option is now available to change not only the variable, but the type itself.Stackable outlines on LabelHave you ever been in the situation where you want to add fancy outline or shadow effects to your text, only to realize that you’re stuck with only one of each? Sure, you can double-up the amount of text objects directly atop one-another, but that’s cumbersome and doesn’t account for outlines affecting other outlines.
There must be a better way! Well, thanks to the efforts of Delsin-Yu, users no longer have to struggle with this moral conundrum.
Instead, they can simply take advantage of GH-104731 adding support for stacked layers of effects; no cumbersome workarounds required.Specular occlusion from ambient lightOur renderer currently lacks a cheap option for specular occlusion, causing certain metallic/reflective materials to still receive reflections when they should be darkened/occluded.
Lander rectified this limitation in GH-106145, where specular occlusion is added based on ambient light.
As users might prefer the old visuals, this is now handled through a toggle in the project settings.
The differences can be observed here:DisabledEnabledAnd more!There are too many exciting changes to list them all here, but here’s a curated selection:Core: Add Node.get_orphan_node_ids, edit Node.print_orphan_nodes (GH-83757).Core: Add compression level support to Zip module (GH-103283).Core: Fix for debugging typed dictionaries (GH-106170).Core: Print script backtrace in the crash handler (GH-105741).Editor: Add editor setting to collapse main menu into a MenuButton (GH-105944).Editor: Enable Auto Reload Scripts on External Change by default in the editor settings (GH-97148).GUI: Add drag zoom feature with CTRL+MiddleMouseButton (GH-105625).GUI: Add property to control showing the virtual keyboard on focus events (GH-106114).Import: Use libjpeg-turbo for improved jpg compatibility and speed (GH-104347).Network: mbedTLS: Fix concurrency issues with TLS (GH-106167).Particles: Overhaul the cull mask internals for Lights, Decals, and Particle Colliders (GH-102399).Porting: Android: Annual versions bump for the Android platform (GH-106152).Porting: Android: Bump the minimum supported SDK version to 24 (GH-106148).Porting: Wayland: Handle fifo_v1 and clean up suspension logic (GH-101454).Rendering: Add Meshes to the Video RAM Profiler (GH-103238).Rendering: Allow moving meshes without motion vectors (GH-105437).Rendering: Forward+: Replace the current BRDF approximation with a DFG LUT and add multiscattering energy compensation (GH-103934).Rendering: FTI - Add custom interpolation for wheels (GH-105915).Shaders: Expose built-in region information (GH-90436).Changelog105 contributors submitted 261 fixes for this release.
See our interactive changelog for the complete list of changes since the previous 4.5-dev3 snapshot.This release is built from commit 209a446e3.DownloadsGodot is downloading...Godot exists thanks to donations from people like you.
Help us continue our work:Make a DonationStandard build includes support for GDScript and GDExtension..NET build (marked as mono) includes support for C#, as well as GDScript and GDExtension.While engine maintainers try their best to ensure that each preview snapshot and release candidate is stable, this is by definition a pre-release piece of software.
Be sure to make frequent backups, or use a version control system such as Git, to preserve your projects in case of corruption or data loss.Known issuesThere are currently no known issues introduced by this release.With every release, we accept that there are going to be various issues, which have already been reported but haven’t been fixed yet.
See the GitHub issue tracker for a complete list of known bugs.Bug reportsAs a tester, we encourage you to open bug reports if you experience issues with this release.
Please check the existing issues on GitHub first, using the search function with relevant keywords, to ensure that the bug you experience is not already known.In particular, any change that would cause a regression in your projects is very important to report (e.g.
if something that worked fine in previous 4.x releases, but no longer works in this snapshot).SupportGodot is a non-profit, open source game engine developed by hundreds of contributors on their free time, as well as a handful of part and full-time developers hired thanks to generous donations from the Godot community.
A big thank you to everyone who has contributed their time or their financial support to the project!If you’d like to support the project financially and help us secure our future hires, you can do so using the Godot Development Fund.Donate now
Source: https://godotengine.org/article/dev-snapshot-godot-4-5-dev-4/" style="color: #0066cc;">https://godotengine.org/article/dev-snapshot-godot-4-5-dev-4/
#dev #snapshot #godot

Dev snapshot: Godot 4.5 dev 4
Ambidextro A game by MajorariattoDev snapshot: Godot 4.5 dev 4By: Thaddeus Crews13 May 2025Pre-releaseTo everyone who ended up going to GodotCon this past week, we hope you had a safe journey home! For those of you that missed the fun, we’ve logged some of the highlights on the blog already—such as the long-awaited web support for .NET—with more to come later in the week. As always, we’ve recorded all of our GodotCon talks, and those shall be uploaded to our YouTube channel in a few weeks. With that now behind us, we can go full-steam ahead on our next development snapshot: 4.5 dev 4. Plenty of new features this time around, so feedback and bug reports from testing are once again strongly recommended.Jump to the Downloads section, and give it a spin right now, or continue reading to learn more about improvements in this release. You can also try the Web editor or the Android editor for this release. If you are interested in the latter, please request to join our testing group to get access to pre-release builds.The cover illustration is from Ambidextro, a precision-platformer where you must control two characters simultaneously, one with each hand. It is developed by Majorariatto (Twitter). You can get the game on Steam, Nintendo Switch, and Xbox.HighlightsIn case you missed them, see the 4.5 dev 1, 4.5 dev 2, and 4.5 dev 3 release notes for an overview of some key features which were already in those snapshots, and are therefore still available for testing in dev 4.macOS: Embedded window supportAfter Windows and Linux users got to experience the benefits of embedding their windows in the editor, macOS users have understandably been expressing interest in the same coming to their platform. Easier said than done, as this feature is OS-specific and very low-level, so implementation requires someone both extremely knowledgeable in a niche area and actually owning the platform in question for proper testing. Thankfully, both of these qualifications were met by Stuart Carnie, who was up to the task of integrating this behemoth in GH-105884. The results should speak for themselves:The macOS implementation works differently from the Windows and Linux implementations. Since macOS does not allow the kind of window manipulation that Windows and Linux use for game window embedding, macOS uses an inter-process communication approach where the framebuffer is sent from the game process (which performs off-screen rendering) to the editor window. Input events are also sent from the editor window to the game process. This approach is more complex, but is also more robust as it doesn’t rely on window management tricks that can fall apart in certain edge cases. This approach may be ported later to Windows/Linux in a future release, as it would help improve the reliability of game window embedding.Move 3D physics interpolation to SceneTreeThe old design of the 3D interpolation system was fundamentally flawed, as it operated under the assumption that the scene side wouldn’t require access to interpolated transforms. This isn’t something that could’ve just been “patched in” either, thanks to the multithreaded design, command queue, and stalling. Lacking any sort of workaround, lawnjelly has taken a break from being the person responsible for 90% of 3.x code nowadays and forward-ported a solution via GH-104269. This addresses the problem by porting all logic to the SceneTree, while completely retaining the existing API!No changes are needed to existing projects to benefit from the new 3D physics interpolation architecture.Export variables as VariantDespite both arrays and dictionaries technically supporting Variant values, this functionality was never actually exposed in isolation. That is: it was impossible to export a variable of type Variant directly. Tomasz Chabora found this limitation quite silly, so took to addressing this grave injustice with GH-89324. Now users are granted extra flexibility with their exports, as the option is now available to change not only the variable, but the type itself.Stackable outlines on LabelHave you ever been in the situation where you want to add fancy outline or shadow effects to your text, only to realize that you’re stuck with only one of each? Sure, you can double-up the amount of text objects directly atop one-another, but that’s cumbersome and doesn’t account for outlines affecting other outlines. There must be a better way! Well, thanks to the efforts of Delsin-Yu, users no longer have to struggle with this moral conundrum. Instead, they can simply take advantage of GH-104731 adding support for stacked layers of effects; no cumbersome workarounds required.Specular occlusion from ambient lightOur renderer currently lacks a cheap option for specular occlusion, causing certain metallic/reflective materials to still receive reflections when they should be darkened/occluded. Lander rectified this limitation in GH-106145, where specular occlusion is added based on ambient light. As users might prefer the old visuals, this is now handled through a toggle in the project settings. The differences can be observed here:DisabledEnabledAnd more!There are too many exciting changes to list them all here, but here’s a curated selection:Core: Add Node.get_orphan_node_ids, edit Node.print_orphan_nodes (GH-83757).Core: Add compression level support to Zip module (GH-103283).Core: Fix for debugging typed dictionaries (GH-106170).Core: Print script backtrace in the crash handler (GH-105741).Editor: Add editor setting to collapse main menu into a MenuButton (GH-105944).Editor: Enable Auto Reload Scripts on External Change by default in the editor settings (GH-97148).GUI: Add drag zoom feature with CTRL+MiddleMouseButton (GH-105625).GUI: Add property to control showing the virtual keyboard on focus events (GH-106114).Import: Use libjpeg-turbo for improved jpg compatibility and speed (GH-104347).Network: mbedTLS: Fix concurrency issues with TLS (GH-106167).Particles: Overhaul the cull mask internals for Lights, Decals, and Particle Colliders (GH-102399).Porting: Android: Annual versions bump for the Android platform (GH-106152).Porting: Android: Bump the minimum supported SDK version to 24 (GH-106148).Porting: Wayland: Handle fifo_v1 and clean up suspension logic (GH-101454).Rendering: Add Meshes to the Video RAM Profiler (GH-103238).Rendering: Allow moving meshes without motion vectors (GH-105437).Rendering: Forward+: Replace the current BRDF approximation with a DFG LUT and add multiscattering energy compensation (GH-103934).Rendering: FTI - Add custom interpolation for wheels (GH-105915).Shaders: Expose built-in region information (GH-90436).Changelog105 contributors submitted 261 fixes for this release. See our interactive changelog for the complete list of changes since the previous 4.5-dev3 snapshot.This release is built from commit 209a446e3.DownloadsGodot is downloading...Godot exists thanks to donations from people like you. Help us continue our work:Make a DonationStandard build includes support for GDScript and GDExtension..NET build (marked as mono) includes support for C#, as well as GDScript and GDExtension.While engine maintainers try their best to ensure that each preview snapshot and release candidate is stable, this is by definition a pre-release piece of software. Be sure to make frequent backups, or use a version control system such as Git, to preserve your projects in case of corruption or data loss.Known issuesThere are currently no known issues introduced by this release.With every release, we accept that there are going to be various issues, which have already been reported but haven’t been fixed yet. See the GitHub issue tracker for a complete list of known bugs.Bug reportsAs a tester, we encourage you to open bug reports if you experience issues with this release. Please check the existing issues on GitHub first, using the search function with relevant keywords, to ensure that the bug you experience is not already known.In particular, any change that would cause a regression in your projects is very important to report (e.g. if something that worked fine in previous 4.x releases, but no longer works in this snapshot).SupportGodot is a non-profit, open source game engine developed by hundreds of contributors on their free time, as well as a handful of part and full-time developers hired thanks to generous donations from the Godot community. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed their time or their financial support to the project!If you’d like to support the project financially and help us secure our future hires, you can do so using the Godot Development Fund.Donate now Source: https://godotengine.org/article/dev-snapshot-godot-4-5-dev-4/ #dev #snapshot #godot

GODOTENGINE.ORG

Dev snapshot: Godot 4.5 dev 4

Ambidextro A game by MajorariattoDev snapshot: Godot 4.5 dev 4By: Thaddeus Crews13 May 2025Pre-releaseTo everyone who ended up going to GodotCon this past week, we hope you had a safe journey home! For those of you that missed the fun, we’ve logged some of the highlights on the blog already—such as the long-awaited web support for .NET—with more to come later in the week. As always, we’ve recorded all of our GodotCon talks, and those shall be uploaded to our YouTube channel in a few weeks. With that now behind us, we can go full-steam ahead on our next development snapshot: 4.5 dev 4. Plenty of new features this time around, so feedback and bug reports from testing are once again strongly recommended.Jump to the Downloads section, and give it a spin right now, or continue reading to learn more about improvements in this release. You can also try the Web editor or the Android editor for this release. If you are interested in the latter, please request to join our testing group to get access to pre-release builds.The cover illustration is from Ambidextro, a precision-platformer where you must control two characters simultaneously, one with each hand. It is developed by Majorariatto (Twitter). You can get the game on Steam, Nintendo Switch, and Xbox.HighlightsIn case you missed them, see the 4.5 dev 1, 4.5 dev 2, and 4.5 dev 3 release notes for an overview of some key features which were already in those snapshots, and are therefore still available for testing in dev 4.macOS: Embedded window supportAfter Windows and Linux users got to experience the benefits of embedding their windows in the editor, macOS users have understandably been expressing interest in the same coming to their platform. Easier said than done, as this feature is OS-specific and very low-level, so implementation requires someone both extremely knowledgeable in a niche area and actually owning the platform in question for proper testing. Thankfully, both of these qualifications were met by Stuart Carnie, who was up to the task of integrating this behemoth in GH-105884. The results should speak for themselves:The macOS implementation works differently from the Windows and Linux implementations. Since macOS does not allow the kind of window manipulation that Windows and Linux use for game window embedding, macOS uses an inter-process communication approach where the framebuffer is sent from the game process (which performs off-screen rendering) to the editor window. Input events are also sent from the editor window to the game process. This approach is more complex, but is also more robust as it doesn’t rely on window management tricks that can fall apart in certain edge cases. This approach may be ported later to Windows/Linux in a future release, as it would help improve the reliability of game window embedding.Move 3D physics interpolation to SceneTreeThe old design of the 3D interpolation system was fundamentally flawed, as it operated under the assumption that the scene side wouldn’t require access to interpolated transforms. This isn’t something that could’ve just been “patched in” either, thanks to the multithreaded design, command queue, and stalling. Lacking any sort of workaround, lawnjelly has taken a break from being the person responsible for 90% of 3.x code nowadays and forward-ported a solution via GH-104269. This addresses the problem by porting all logic to the SceneTree, while completely retaining the existing API!No changes are needed to existing projects to benefit from the new 3D physics interpolation architecture.Export variables as VariantDespite both arrays and dictionaries technically supporting Variant values, this functionality was never actually exposed in isolation. That is: it was impossible to export a variable of type Variant directly. Tomasz Chabora found this limitation quite silly, so took to addressing this grave injustice with GH-89324. Now users are granted extra flexibility with their exports, as the option is now available to change not only the variable, but the type itself.Stackable outlines on LabelHave you ever been in the situation where you want to add fancy outline or shadow effects to your text, only to realize that you’re stuck with only one of each? Sure, you can double-up the amount of text objects directly atop one-another, but that’s cumbersome and doesn’t account for outlines affecting other outlines. There must be a better way! Well, thanks to the efforts of Delsin-Yu, users no longer have to struggle with this moral conundrum. Instead, they can simply take advantage of GH-104731 adding support for stacked layers of effects; no cumbersome workarounds required.Specular occlusion from ambient lightOur renderer currently lacks a cheap option for specular occlusion, causing certain metallic/reflective materials to still receive reflections when they should be darkened/occluded. Lander rectified this limitation in GH-106145, where specular occlusion is added based on ambient light. As users might prefer the old visuals, this is now handled through a toggle in the project settings. The differences can be observed here:DisabledEnabledAnd more!There are too many exciting changes to list them all here, but here’s a curated selection:Core: Add Node.get_orphan_node_ids, edit Node.print_orphan_nodes (GH-83757).Core: Add compression level support to Zip module (GH-103283).Core: Fix for debugging typed dictionaries (GH-106170).Core: Print script backtrace in the crash handler (GH-105741).Editor: Add editor setting to collapse main menu into a MenuButton (GH-105944).Editor: Enable Auto Reload Scripts on External Change by default in the editor settings (GH-97148).GUI: Add drag zoom feature with CTRL+MiddleMouseButton (GH-105625).GUI: Add property to control showing the virtual keyboard on focus events (GH-106114).Import: Use libjpeg-turbo for improved jpg compatibility and speed (GH-104347).Network: mbedTLS: Fix concurrency issues with TLS (GH-106167).Particles: Overhaul the cull mask internals for Lights, Decals, and Particle Colliders (GH-102399).Porting: Android: Annual versions bump for the Android platform (GH-106152).Porting: Android: Bump the minimum supported SDK version to 24 (GH-106148).Porting: Wayland: Handle fifo_v1 and clean up suspension logic (GH-101454).Rendering: Add Meshes to the Video RAM Profiler (GH-103238).Rendering: Allow moving meshes without motion vectors (GH-105437).Rendering: Forward+: Replace the current BRDF approximation with a DFG LUT and add multiscattering energy compensation (GH-103934).Rendering: FTI - Add custom interpolation for wheels (GH-105915).Shaders: Expose built-in region information (GH-90436).Changelog105 contributors submitted 261 fixes for this release. See our interactive changelog for the complete list of changes since the previous 4.5-dev3 snapshot.This release is built from commit 209a446e3.DownloadsGodot is downloading...Godot exists thanks to donations from people like you. Help us continue our work:Make a DonationStandard build includes support for GDScript and GDExtension..NET build (marked as mono) includes support for C#, as well as GDScript and GDExtension.While engine maintainers try their best to ensure that each preview snapshot and release candidate is stable, this is by definition a pre-release piece of software. Be sure to make frequent backups, or use a version control system such as Git, to preserve your projects in case of corruption or data loss.Known issuesThere are currently no known issues introduced by this release.With every release, we accept that there are going to be various issues, which have already been reported but haven’t been fixed yet. See the GitHub issue tracker for a complete list of known bugs.Bug reportsAs a tester, we encourage you to open bug reports if you experience issues with this release. Please check the existing issues on GitHub first, using the search function with relevant keywords, to ensure that the bug you experience is not already known.In particular, any change that would cause a regression in your projects is very important to report (e.g. if something that worked fine in previous 4.x releases, but no longer works in this snapshot).SupportGodot is a non-profit, open source game engine developed by hundreds of contributors on their free time, as well as a handful of part and full-time developers hired thanks to generous donations from the Godot community. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed their time or their financial support to the project!If you’d like to support the project financially and help us secure our future hires, you can do so using the Godot Development Fund.Donate now

·107 Views

Please log in to like, share and comment!

Katıl

Dosya

Site içinde arama yapın

The first federal court hearing on Trump’s tariffs did not go so well for Trump

Trivia: How much did the first CD recorder cost?

3 Signs You’re An Emotionally Responsive Partner, By A Psychologist

I Saw Ecovacs' New Self-Washing Robot Vacuums That Make Mopping Cleaner

Classic Teak, Natural Rope, and a View: The New Outdoor Furniture Trends Everyone’s Talking About

This Pratt architecture student project mines the Sea Ranch for fire resilient space solutions

Microsoft 365 apps on Windows 10 to get security updates until 2028

GM Explores EV Battery Tech That Could Unlock More Range for the Same Price

Dev snapshot: Godot 4.5 dev 4