Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning carries the weight of a meaningful farewell but lacks the courage to commit. The eighth film in the series begins with a sincere American president (Angela Bassett) entreating IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) to take one last mission to save the world. This time, he must defeat a scheming AI called the Entity, which is hell-bent on wiping humans off the face of the earth through computer hacking and nuclear war. As fans have come to expect of this espionage franchise, Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning will deliver globe-trekking, tense twists, jaw-dropping action sequences that make grown-ups feel like kids again, the unrelenting star power of Tom Cruise, and a sentimental belief in the righteousness of one noble man playing by his own rules. But amid these treasures, The Final Reckoning is a film at war with itself. Rather than a fitting send-off to a film series rich in stunts and thrills, it feels like an exquisite corpse of warring artistic goals that is incredible to behold, but never really comes together. Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning delivers a plot that refuses to make sense. Ethan is still on the mission from Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One.not to capture this AI wonder and hand it over to any government. He wants to destroy it, even though stern American counselors to the president insist that killing the Entity would mean destroying cyberspace. How? Despite much, much exposition dropping in brow-furrowing war room scenes, that's never remotely clear. You May Also Like Actually, the script by Christopher McQuarrie (who also directs) and Erik Jendresen makes a lot of declarations about the Entity's intentions, powers, and drawbacks without giving much sense of how any of it is possible. This has the effect of making the movie feel less like a sci-fi espionage thriller and more like flat-out fantasy adventure. The Entity becomes effectively an evil spirit that must be captured to end its reign of terror and its influence on the power-hungry or weak-minded. Final Reckoning even offers a doomsday cult devoted to the Entity to unfurl a thin thread. At 2 hours and 49 minutes, Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning takes off running with the plot line from Dead Reckoning, but runs it into the ground by losing sense of what made audiences so excited about the last installment. This fuzzy focus on AI as some vague but almost inescapable demon makes many of the decisions by Ethan and his crew hard to follow if not impossible. Worse yet, McQuarrie and Jendresen's overstuffed plot forces too many of Ethan's allies into a dull box, where they become tools of the plot over engaging characters. Tom Cruise is in top form, but Hayley Atwell is criminally misused in Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning. Cruise is a producer and star of this movie, and that's clear even without the title card announcing "A Tom Cruise Production." In Final Reckoning, he is an American action star in full, able to drop a powerful glower to underscore a dramatic moment better than any orchestra swell. He can perform a complicated and astonishing stunt with seeming ease. And truly, no one in cinema history can run as intensely as Cruise; his every speedy step seems to propel the iconic Mission: Impossible theme. At 62, his latest mission pulls him into the depths of the ocean and into a sky-high dogfight. Whether pummeling cronies with his bare hands or leaping from one in-flight plane to another, Cruise (and his stunt team) make Ethan a one-of-a-kind hero, capable of anything, yet able to express keenly his own morality through a powerful glance. This works even amid Final Reckoning's meandering plotting. Unfortunately, all the Ethan-centered heroics leave little room for his expansive crew to shine. Reprising their roles as IMF agents Luther Stickell and Benji Dunn, Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg have little screen time, but solid impact. They've mastered the art of making the most of these brotherly supporting roles. But more recent additions — like Hayley Atwell as pickpocket turned agent Grace and Pom Klementieff as assassin turned ally Paris — have achingly little to do. Mashable Top Stories Stay connected with the hottest stories of the day and the latest entertainment news. Sign up for Mashable's Top Stories newsletter By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up! Klementieff gets a fun opening fight scene and a tender sequence in the third act. But frankly, that finale feels in conflict with her chilly character, as everywhere in between her dialogue is the same one-note joke of being apathetic, in French. Atwell, who was established as Cruise's next love interest in Dead Reckoning, becomes an unrecognizable nag in Final Reckoning. Her spirited banter and self-assurance has been swapped for tedious dialogue filled with worry or bizarrely out-of-character proclamations, like that Ethan should take over Entity and effectively rule the world! A collection of critically heralded actors, from Academy-Award winner Bassett to Emmy-winner Nick Offerman to Morales, Hannah Waddingham, Shea Whigham, and Janet McTeer, are similarly underused in scenes that involve a lot of furrowed brow-talking, but too little logic. Their intensity might have better sold the absurdity if McQuarrie didn't linger so long in these preposterous war room discussions. Tramell Tillman steals Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning. The underwhelming dialogue, which veers from exposition dumping to near-religious proclamations, proves a stumbling block for much of the Final Reckoning ensemble. Even Cruise struggles with comically dramatic lines like, "We can deceive the Lord of Lies!" But Severance star Tramell Tillman strides where others stumble. It's not that he gets better dialogue. Many of his lines are unremarkable, like, "Oh, OK" in response to some intense Ethan declaration. But Tillman builds a world with his curious delivery. Playing a smooth submarine captain, Tillman delivers every line as if he is welcoming Ethan into an exclusive resort. There's an almost seductive attitude to Tillman's captain, who moves suavely in the tight confines of the submarine and addresses his crew with a magnanimous warmth. As if he had not a concern in the world, he oozes charisma, which is reflected by his invitingly smirking crewmate Kodiak, played by Love Lies Bleeding's Katy O'Brian. Together they weave an underwater world of camaraderie and personality that had me wishing Ethan would abandon his mission and just hang out there for a spell. This series has offered scads of compelling characters. But I was sad to see the plot plunge away from this submarine crew so soon. I'd follow Tillman's captain anywhere, just because of the beguiling way he says "OK." Related Stories Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning is bloated but very fun. The final hour of Final Reckoning is jam-packed with suspense as action sequences between Ethan and his crew are cut across each other. Editor Eddie Hamilton masterfully creates tension while underlying how everything in the impossible plan to defeat the Entity must come together in "the blink of an eye." When the action scenes are hitting as they should, it's hard to imagine anything better to experience in a theater than a Mission: Impossible movie. Even Cruise's old-school sincerity is contagious, as Ethan throws his life on the line one more time for life, liberty, and an idealized American way. Very likely, you'll walk out of the cinema with a rush and joy, marveling over the stunts and heroics. But if you linger on the details of Final Reckoning, you begin to notice plot holes and dangling threads. You may get hung up on the tonal shifts that feel less like a flowing dance — as they did in Dead Reckoning — and more like a frenzied battle between ideas. In some ways, Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning feels like the final chapter. Ethan's colleagues praise him so intensely that several scenes feel like a premature eulogy for the still (ass-)kicking agent. The title and the snarling threats of the antagonist Gabriel — who promises a "final reckoning" — suggest this is Ethan's last mission, should he choose to accept it. Cruise's drive to top himself with not one but two absolutely bonkers action set pieces feels like an encore before he retires the character for good. Plus, a reprisal of a character long forgotten in the franchise is not only a welcome surprise, but also suggests this story is coming to a comforting close. (Cheers to Rolf Saxon and Lucy Tulugarjuk, who are splendid scene partners.) However, McQuarrie also refuses to shut doors that seem to be closing. Without giving away third-act spoilers, I can say Final Reckoning pulls its punches, seemingly to allow for a IMF story to continue. Yet what might make for a happy ending isn't satisfyingly resolved either. Rather than providing a sense of resolution, McQuarrie ends the film with a sequence meant to speak to enduring connection, but it feels jarringly isolating because of how disjointedly it is presented. Essentially, Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning feels like the filmmakers were both trying to make this the final movie in a successful franchise — and also leaving the door open for more. In waffling over that, they deliver a final chapter that is in turns thrilling and frustrating. Rather than going out with a bang, Mission: Impossible may go out with the fizzled whimper of a message self-destructing in a tape deck. Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning opens exclusively in theaters on May 23. Topics Film

Natural disasters—from tornadoes across the South and Midwest, to the fires in Los Angeles to Hurricane Helene’s devastation in North Carolina—have upended communities, with small businesses among the hardest hit. As extreme weather events become more frequent, these businesses have emerged as vital anchors of community recovery. While urban enterprises navigate complex rebuilding amid dense infrastructure, rural businesses face distinct challenges in disaster response. Yet across geographies, small businesses play a critical role in stabilizing and revitalizing their communities after catastrophe. Rural small businesses, in particular, serve a dual role: They’re not just economic drivers but also informal safety nets, stepping in to rebuild communities long before larger relief efforts arrive and continuing their work well after national attention fades. The resilience of these businesses—and the communities they support—is being tested like never before. Systemic barriers, most notably access to capital, exacerbate their struggles, threatening their survival and the economic stability of their regions. The first responders of local economies When Hurricane Helene swept across the Southeast, it left behind destroyed homes and displaced families, in many cases causing severe damage to already distressed and underfunded communities. Small businesses were among the first to join the front lines, providing critical supplies and services. Across impacted zones, local service providers pivoted quickly, transforming their operations into vital relief centers. Neighborhood establishments became distribution hubs while entrepreneurs converted storefronts into community aid stations. This grassroots network of support reached residents in critical early days, delivering essential resources before larger relief efforts could fully mobilize. While these actions highlight the essential role of small businesses in post-disaster recovery, they also reveal a stark reality: These businesses cannot, and should not, shoulder the burden of recovery alone. As they pour resources into helping their communities, they face significant hurdles in rebuilding their own operations—a challenge compounded by systemic imbalances in capital access. Rural businesses face a persistent capital deficit, leaving them uniquely vulnerable to the compounding effects of natural disasters. In Appalachia, where 99% of businesses are classified as small, the unmet capital needs amount to an estimated $70 billion annually—a gap the Appalachian Regional Commission defines as aggregate capital demand significantly outweighing aggregate capital supply. While rural small businesses rely heavily on local financial institutions—61% obtain financing from small banks compared to 39% of urban enterprises—these lenders often lack sufficient capital to meet emergency needs. Meanwhile, larger financial institutions hesitate to extend loans to rural businesses due to perceived risks, unfamiliarity with their business models, and concerns about profitability in less densely populated markets. This structural financing gap creates a dangerous cycle: Chronic underinvestment limits both disaster recovery capabilities and long-term resilience building. As a result, the very businesses that anchor rural communities—providing essential services, employment, and community gathering spaces—remain the most financially vulnerable when disasters strike. A call for collaboration Philanthropy has made strides in addressing these challenges, but lasting solutions require collaboration across sectors. Natural disasters expose deep gaps in how we support small businesses in America’s heartland. Public, private, and philanthropic partners like those below are working together to create financing models that attract new capital for growth and resilience.   Public-sector innovation Community development financial institutions (CDFIs) play a critical role in bridging the capital gap by offering tailored financing solutions focused on quality job creation, housing affordability, and economic mobility. For example, the government’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund created a Rapid Response Program that deployed $1.25 billion to crisis-impacted communities post-Helene. This model of emergency support, combined with streamlined disaster recovery systems, shows how federal resources can effectively reach businesses when they need it most. However, shifting federal priorities and budget considerations could significantly impact these programs in coming years. With potential changes in funding allocations and regulatory frameworks on the horizon, rural communities may need to develop more diversified support systems that blend public resources with private and philanthropic capital. Strengthening these alternative funding mechanisms will be critical to ensure consistent disaster response capabilities regardless of policy fluctuations. Private-sector leadership Wells Fargo’s Open for Business Fund exemplifies how private enterprise can drive recovery. Launched in 2020 initially as a pandemic response, this $420 million initiative didn’t just provide capital—it created a sustainable network of support through CDFIs and nonprofit organizations, helping thousands of business owners recover, rebuild, and grow. This strategic approach has helped small businesses maintain approximately 255,000 jobs nationwide while building longer-term resilience. The fund’s focus on both immediate financial needs and capacity building offers valuable lessons for disaster recovery efforts in vulnerable regions like Appalachia, where similar public-private partnerships could help bridge persistent capital gaps while strengthening business continuity planning. Philanthropic impact Collaborative funding models are proving effective in addressing capital gaps in underserved regions. By bringing together numerous stakeholders, these partnerships help build sustainable support systems that can better withstand economic and environmental challenges. One example is the Emerging Appalachian Investors Fund, a $5 million initiative that empowers students at Marshall University, West Virginia University, and Ohio University to help manage real investments in local businesses and community development projects.   This hands-on model not only enhances financial infrastructure but also fosters long-term resilience in communities that are particularly vulnerable during times of crisis. By combining immediate support with strategic investment, such approaches ensure that local enterprises have the resources they need to recover—and grow. While some collaborative models focus on long-term investment and resilience, others are designed for rapid response in times of crisis. In response to the Los Angeles fires, philanthropic groups stepped up with unique approaches that could be replicated in rural communities. The LA Arts Community Fire Relief Fund, led by the J. Getty Trust and administered by the Center for Cultural Innovation, provides emergency support for artists and art workers in all disciplines affected by the fires. A pooled fund of $12 million, launched on January 15, 2025, was made possible through contributions from dozens of foundations and individuals. Complementing these efforts, the Los Angeles Fire Department Foundation Emergency Wildfire Fund equips local firefighters with tools and safety equipment to safeguard both lives and businesses. The stakes extend beyond individual businesses to the heart of community survival. When small businesses have access to capital, they create jobs, strengthen local economies, and build community resilience. The Appalachian region’s entrepreneurial spirit—reflected in more than 305,000 new business applications in 2021—highlights the potential waiting to be unlocked.   By implementing comprehensive financing solutions that bridge these capital gaps today, we can ensure rural businesses not only survive disasters but emerge stronger, ready to serve their communities for generations to come.

Table of Contents Table of Contents 10. Top Gun: Maverick (2022) 9. Edge of Tomorrow (2014) 8. Rain Man (1988) 7. Jerry Maguire (1996) 6. Tropic Thunder (2008) 5. Collateral (2004) 4. Minority Report (2002) 3. Magnolia (1999) 2. A Few Good Men (1992) 1. Eyes Wide Shut (1999) With Tom Cruise, nothing ever really ends. May 23 marks the release of his latest Mission: Impossible adventure, and while it’s subtitled The Final Reckoning, Cruise and his regular director Christopher McQuarrie have confirmed there are more films to come. Through doggedness, dedication, and risk to life and limb, the 62-year-old Cruise has built a lasting career as a leading man that seems never to wane. Here are his ten best films, featuring performances both solidly in and out of his comfort zone. Recommended Videos Top Gun: Maverick (2022) Paramount Pictures Like most of Cruise’s filmography, Top Gun: Maverick, the long-delayed sequel to the abysmal ‘80s schlock-fest Top Gun, is more than the sum of its parts. Its maneuvering of a sixty-year-old Cruise from flight instructor back into the cockpit is labored, its decision to actively avoid the identity of a country against which Cruise goes on a bombing run is cowardly (it’s clearly Russia), and Cruise’s love scenes with Jennifer Connelly are borderline silly. However, Maverick is an old-fashioned Hollywood adrenaline rush, chock-full of vintage Cruise stunt work, and the aerial photography looks spectacular. Edge of Tomorrow (2014) Warner Bros. Pictures Cruise’s third and best collaboration with writer Christopher McQuarrie, Edge of Tomorrow, adapts a bonkers Japanese novel that is essentially a cross between Groundhog Day and Independence Day. Cruise is Major William Cage (a perfect Tom Cruise character name), enlisted in a war against an invading alien species called the Mimics. Long story short, Cage gets trapped in a time loop on the day of his death at the Mimics’ hands that allows him to learn their strategies. Emily Blunt delivers a superior action performance as his love interest and comrade-in-arms. Rain Man (1988) MGM Cruise made his name as the everyman ballast for performances by more outwardly dynamic character actors (Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, Tim Curry in Legend). The prototypical example is Rain Man, the only Tom Cruise movie so far to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Here, Cruise is the frustrated steward of his estranged brother, Raymond (Dustin Hoffman), an autistic savant. The film has its weaknesses, but Cruise hits all of his beats ably, and his exasperation with Raymond’s eccentricities is a perfectly tuned demonstration of audience surrogacy. Jerry Maguire (1996) TriStar Pictures Cruise’s nose for a football movie that would wind up being endlessly quotable has put him in any number of iconic scenes over the years, and Cameron Crowe’s script for Jerry Maguire has a panoply of them. (Cruise alone has both “Help me help you” and “You complete me,” Renee Zellweger gets “You had me at hello,” and Cuba Gooding Jr. gets the unbeatable “Show me the money.”) The movie is the ultimate instance of Cruise’s trademark wide-grinning mania thanks to Cruise’s titular Jerry, a sports agent stretching himself to his limit as he struggles to do the unprofitable work of representing his clients ethically (unthinkable!). Tropic Thunder (2008) DreamWorks Cruise is, along with Tom Hanks, the defining cinematic leading man of the past forty years, but a little of him can often go a long way. No surprise that some of his most sneakily memorable performances have been supporting roles, including in Ben Stiller’s gonzo Hollywood satire Tropic Thunder. Cruise plays Les Grossman, a studio executive transparently based on Harvey Weinstein, who is called on to negotiate when the star of a Vietnam War film he’s producing is kidnapped by a drug cartel. Cruise famously gave Stiller two conditions for taking the role: “I want to have fat hands, and I’m gonna dance.” Mission accomplished. Collateral (2004) DreamWorks Michael Mann’s action thriller stars Cruise in a rare villain role as Vincent, a hitman who commandeers the taxi of Los Angeles cabbie Max Durocher (Jamie Foxx). It’s a great, clean setup, with a finely structured beginning that establishes Max’s attention to detail and pride in his craft — Max is a man who has control of his car and whose car is his control. Then, when Cruise explodes in the frame with a gray shock wig that looks so wrong on him, Mann drives home the point that Vincent is from another universe. Collateral is electric movie-making, lean and tight most of the way through. Minority Report (2002) 20th Century Fox The smartest film Steven Spielberg directed in the first decade of the twenty-first century was the Philip K. Dick adaptation of Minority Report. Cruise plays a police chief utilizing psychics to arrest criminals before they commit their intended crimes. Scott Frank’s (The Queen’s Gambit) script raises moral conundrums years ahead of its time, and Cruise quite effectively applies his regular action-film persona to its worthy explorations. Magnolia (1999) Ghoulardi Film Company Cruise’s third Oscar nomination came for his outrageous performance as misogynistic motivational speaker Frank T.J. Mackey in Magnolia. In a role that predated widespread public knowledge of the icky “pickup artist” movement of seduction, Cruise deconstructs the bravura front that had not yet come to be known as toxic masculinity. “Women are sheep,” he tells his followers in a riveting monologue delivered straight to the camera; “they have patterns that must be stopped, interrupted, and resisted.” But of course, such walls as these are made to fall, and in a later scene at the deathbed of his father (Jason Robards), Cruise powerfully conveys the trauma, loneliness, and pain that have led Mackey to this point. A Few Good Men (1992) Castle Rock Entertainment Aaron Sorkin was a bartender at Broadway’s Palace Theatre when he began writing what would become his 1989 play A Few Good Men on the back of cocktail napkins. The film Sorkin would later adapt from his Broadway smash is among the smartest and most quotable studio films of the 1990s. Naturally, the courtroom movie is ultimately stolen by Jack Nicholson, whose role as a Marine colonel implicated in a murder earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. But Cruise, as the Navy lawyer prosecuting the case, is one of the worthiest screen partners Nicholson has ever had, with herky-jerky, caffeine-inflected energy that steels to certainty in the courtroom. Eyes Wide Shut (1999) Stanley Kubrick Productions The other picture from Cruise’s banner year of 1999, Eyes Wide Shut, is a perfect storm of world-beating celebrity (he co-starred with his then-wife Nicole Kidman), Hollywood royalty (it was writer-director Stanley Kubrick’s final film), and superb mise-en-scène. It was a story of sexual jealousy decades in the making, and Cruise was the perfect choice for the role of a repressed elite who falls apart trying to see behind the curtain of a world closed to him. (Just imagine if Kubrick had made the film in the 1960s and cast his original choice for the lead, Woody Allen!)

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.

Popular legal AI tool Harvey will now be using leading foundation models from Anthropic and Google, moving beyond strictly using OpenAI’s, Harvey announced in a blog post on Tuesday. This is noteworthy because Harvey is one of the OpenAI Startup Fund’s most successful early-backed portfolio companies. The OpenAI Startup Fund is an OpenAI-associated fund to back companies developing products on top of AI technologies, primarily OpenAI’s own. While Harvey says it’s not abandoning OpenAI, merely adding more models and clouds, this is still a huge coup for OpenAI’s big competitors.  Harvey is one of the first four startups that the OpenAI Startup Fund backed, it said in December 2022. That was back when OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was still running the fund. (The others in that first cohort include Descript, Mem, and Speak.) Harvey, which has grown like mad since then, is now a $3-billion-valuation startup, it said in February, when it announced a $300 million Series D led by Sequoia, with other big names like Coatue, Kleiner Perkins, and the OpenAI Fund piling in. Interestingly, Google’s venture arm, GV, led Harvey’s $100 million Series C in July 2024 (and the OpenAI Fund participated in that round, too). But Harvey didn’t immediately adopt Google’s AI models after it put Google’s corporate venture firm on its cap table. (GV participated in Harvey’s Series D as well.) So, what convinced Harvey to move beyond OpenAI’s models now? The startup’s internally developed benchmark, dubbed BigLaw, showed that a wide variety of foundation models are growing increasingly adept at a range of legal tasks and some are better at specific tasks than others. Instead of spending its efforts training models, Harvey figured, it could simply embrace high-performing, reasoning foundation models from other vendors (e.g. Google and Anthropic via Amazon’s cloud) and then fine-tune them for the legal market. Techcrunch event Join us at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot for our leading AI industry event with speakers from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cohere. For a limited time, tickets are just $292 for an entire day of expert talks, workshops, and potent networking. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW Using a variety of models will also help as Harvey creates AI agents, the company says. “In less than a year, seven models (including three non-OAI models) now outperform the originally benchmarked Harvey system on BigLaw Bench,” Harvey wrote in the blog post. Harvey’s benchmark also showed that different foundation models are better at specific legal tasks than others. For instance, it says Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro “excels” at legal drafting but “struggles” with pre-trial tasks like writing oral arguments because the model doesn’t fully understand “complex evidentiary rules like hearsay.”  OpenAI’s o3 does such pre-trial tasks well, according to Harvey’s testing, with Anthropic’s Claude 3.7 Sonnet following close behind. Results from Harvey’s internal benchmarking.Image Credits:Harvey In its blog post, Harvey says that it will also now join the growing ranks of those sharing a public leaderboard of model benchmark performance. Its board will rank how major reasoning models are doing on legal tasks. And the company won’t just boil rankings down to a single number, but will also publish research where “top lawyers provide nuanced insights into model performance not captured by single-score benchmarks.” So, not only is OpenAI-backed Harvey adopting competitors’ models, it is also amping up the pressure on its backers (including Google) to keep proving themselves. Not that OpenAI should worry much on that score. While AI benchmarking is growing increasingly complex and somewhat political, this is a world where OpenAI still shines.  “We are incredibly fortunate to have OpenAI as an investor in Harvey and key collaborator in our product,” Harvey CEO Winston Weinberg told TechCrunch in a statement. “And, we are energized to add to our options for customers as we continue to serve the needs of our customers globally.”

Humans display different ways of attaching to one another, shaped largely by how our caregivers responded to us in early childhood. Some of us may shy away from closeness and prefer emotional distance, while others feel anxious in relationships, seeking reassurance and fearing abandonment. Understanding these underlying attachment styles can help us navigate emotions and relationships — and, as it turns out, might even help us better understand ourselves through the eyes of our primate relatives.A recent study led by the Ape Social Mind Lab at France's University of Lyon offers insight into mother-offspring attachment types in wild chimpanzees. Their findings suggest that some patterns we assumed were uniquely human may be more deeply rooted in our evolutionary history — while others may be distinctly modern.The Different Attachment StylesAttachment theory, grounded in the work of 20th-century researchers John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth (among others), proposes that children develop mental templates, or “attachment styles,” based on how consistently and sensitively their caregivers respond to their emotional needs. The styles include:Secure attachment arises when caregivers are reliably supportive. The child feels safe, explores confidently, and trusts others.Anxious attachment emerges when caregiving is inconsistent. The child may become clingy, fearing abandonment and needing constant reassurance.Avoidant attachment develops when caregivers are emotionally distant or rejecting. These children tend to suppress their emotional needs and rely only on themselves.Disorganized attachment, often linked to trauma or fear-inducing caregiving, combines both approach and avoidance behaviors — wanting comfort, but also fearing it.In psychological research, secure, anxious, and avoidant styles are considered “organized” because they reflect clear, if not always ideal, strategies for seeking support. Disorganized attachment, by contrast, is erratic and conflicted, and often associated with later emotional struggles.Wild Chimpanzees and HumansResearchers observed 50 wild chimpanzees in Côte d’Ivoire (or Ivory Coast, West Africa) over nearly 4,000 hours and found that their young showed only organized attachment styles — either secure or insecure-avoidant. Some infants stayed close to their mothers during threats, showing secure-like behavior. Others remained more independent, resembling avoidant styles. But perhaps what is most striking is what researchers didn't find.“In the wild, we found no evidence of disorganized attachment patterns, which supports the hypothesis that this type of attachment may not be an adaptive survival strategy in the face of environmental constraints,” said lead author Eléonore Rolland in a news release.This differs sharply from humans, where studies suggest around 23.5 percent of children display disorganized attachment. Among captive, peer-raised chimpanzees, that number jumps to 61 percent, a clue that caregiving environment plays a massive role in shaping attachment.“By identifying attachment patterns in wild chimpanzees, we provide important insights into the roots of human social behavior,” added senior author Roman Wittig in the statement.Rethinking Parenting Through a Primate LensSo, what does this mean for us?If disorganized attachment is nearly nonexistent among wild chimps — but relatively common in modern human societies — it raises important questions about how contemporary caregiving practices align with our evolutionary needs.“Our results deepen our understanding of chimpanzees’ social development and show that humans and chimpanzees are not so different after all,” said Rolland in the release. “But they also make us think: have some modern human institutions or caregiving practices moved away from what is best for infant development?”As senior author Catherine Crockford notes, “The high prevalence of disorganized attachment in humans and captive orphan chimpanzees, in contrast to wild chimpanzees, also supports the idea that the rearing environment plays an important role in shaping attachment types.”These findings not only deepen our understanding of our primate cousins but also invite us to reflect on how early relationships shape emotional health — for chimps and for us.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Journal of Pediatric Health Care: A REVIEW OF ATTACHMENT THEORY IN THE CONTEXT OF ADOLESCENT PARENTINGHaving worked as a biomedical research assistant in labs across three countries, Jenny excels at translating complex scientific concepts – ranging from medical breakthroughs and pharmacological discoveries to the latest in nutrition – into engaging, accessible content. Her interests extend to topics such as human evolution, psychology, and quirky animal stories. When she’s not immersed in a popular science book, you’ll find her catching waves or cruising around Vancouver Island on her longboard.

New Research By Shoving a Bed Frame Against the Door, This Pompeii Family Tried to Survive Mount Vesuvius’ Eruption Archaeologists are learning new details about the four individuals’ futile attempt to hide inside an ancient residence called the House of Helle and Phrixus A bed frame shoved against the door served as a makeshift barricade. Pompeii Archaeological Park In 79 C.E., Mount Vesuvius erupted, spewing ash and small volcanic pellets known as lapilli over the city of Pompeii. Nearly 1,950 years later, archaeologists are still sifting through the layers of debris and making remarkable discoveries about life—and death—in the ancient city. Researchers recently discovered four members of a family, including a child, who attempted to escape the eruption by barricading themselves inside a bedroom, according to a statement from the Pompeii Archaeological Park. Though their efforts were futile, their remains provide remarkable insight into the doomed city’s final moments. When the eruption began, most residents of Pompeii “had no clue what was happening,” Gabriel Zuchtriegel, director of the park and co-author of a new study published in the journal Scavi di Pompei, tells the New York Times’ Sara Novak. “Many thought the end of the world had come.” A majority of the 15,000 to 20,000 residents of Pompeii and nearby Herculaneum fled and survived the eruption. The four family members were among the roughly 2,000 Pompeians who remained when the city was destroyed. As Helle struggles in the sea, Phrixus reaches out to his sister from atop a flying ram. Pompeii Archaeological Park Archaeologists found the family’s remains in a small but stately residence known as the House of Helle and Phrixus, named after a fresco of the mythological siblings discovered on the dining room wall. In Greek myth, the siblings survive their stepmother’s attempt to sacrifice them to the gods by flying away on a ram with a golden fleece. While Phrixus escapes, Helle falls off the ram into the sea. The fresco captures the siblings reaching out to each other—Helle in the sea, Phrixus on the ram—in a fittingly futile attempt at rescue. The architectural features of the house may have accelerated the family’s demise. Like many Roman houses, the House of Helle and Phrixus featured an open-roofed atrium, intended to aid rainwater collection. But as lapilli fell from the sky during the first phase of the eruption, the rock debris, which reached up to nine feet in some locations, quickly flooded the house through the atrium. At first, the archaeological evidence shows, the four individuals tried to protect themselves by packing into a small room. They even pushed a wooden bed frame against the door, hoping that it would prevent the lapilli from entering.When that failed, the researchers think they pulled back the barricade and attempted to escape. Based on the location of the remains, they only got as far as the triclinium, or dining room. “This house, with its decorations and its objects, shows us people who tried to save themselves,” says Zuchtriegel in the statement, per a translation by La Brújula Verde’s Guillermo Carvajal. “They didn’t succeed, but their story is still here, beneath the ashes.” Over the centuries, the ash preserved the remains of the family, the wooden bed frame and other items, including a bronze amulet known as a bulla and a stash of amphorae filled with garum, a popular Roman fish sauce. Ash and lapilli flooded into through the open-roofed atrium, burying the house in up to nine feet of debris. Pompeii Archaeological Park Researchers don’t know that this particular family owned the House of Helle and Phrixus. The group may have taken refuge there after the owners fled, as Marcello Mogetta, an archaeologist and Roman art historian at the University of Missouri who wasn’t involved in the study, tells the Times. Still, the recovered objects offer a glimpse into Pompeian family life. For instance, the child was likely the one wearing the bronze bulla, as tradition dictated that boys wear such amulets for protection until adulthood. Additionally, traces of masonry materials suggest that the house was under renovation. As Zuchtriegel says in the statement, “Excavating Pompeii means confronting the beauty of art, but also the fragility of life.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.