Picture this: it’s January 19th, 2038, at exactly 03:14:07 UTC. Somewhere in a data center, a Unix system quietly ticks over its internal clock counter one more time. But instead …read more

Starving bacteria (cyan) use a microscopic harpoon—called the Type VI secretion system—to stab and kill neighboring cells (magenta). The prey burst, turning spherical and leaking nutrients, which the killers then use to survive and grow. (Image Credit: Glen D'Souza/ASU/Screen shot from video)NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsBacteria are bad neighbors. And we’re not talking noisy, never-take-out-the-trash bad neighbors. We’re talking has-a-harpoon-gun-and-points-it-at-you bad neighbors. According to a new study in Science, some bacteria hunt nearby bacterial species when they’re hungry. Using a special weapon system called the Type VI Secretion System (T6SS), these bacteria shoot, spill, and then absorb the nutrients from the microbes they harpoon. “The punchline is: When things get tough, you eat your neighbors,” said Glen D’Souza, a study author and an assistant professor at Arizona State University, according to a press release. “We’ve known bacteria kill each other, that’s textbook. But what we’re seeing is that it’s not just important that the bacteria have weapons to kill, but they are controlling when they use those weapons specifically for situations to eat others where they can’t grow themselves.” According to the study authors, the research doesn’t just have implications for bacterial neighborhoods; it also has implications for human health and medicine. By harnessing these bacterial weapons, it may be possible to build better targeted antibiotics, designed to overcome antibiotic resistance. Ruthless Bacteria Use HarpoonsResearchers have long known that some bacteria can be ruthless, using weapons like the T6SS to clear out their competition. A nasty tool, the T6SS is essentially a tiny harpoon gun with a poison-tipped needle. When a bacterium shoots the weapon into another bacterium from a separate species, the needle pierces the microbe without killing it. Then, it injects toxins into the microbe that cause its internal nutrients to spill out.Up until now, researchers thought that this weapon helped bacteria eliminate their competition for space and for food, but after watching bacteria use the T6SS to attack their neighbors when food was scarce, the study authors concluded that these tiny harpooners use the weapon not only to remove rivals, but also to consume their competitors’ leaked nutrients.“Watching these cells in action really drives home how resourceful bacteria can be,” said Astrid Stubbusch, another study author and a researcher who worked on the study while at ETH Zurich, according to the press release. “By slowly releasing nutrients from their neighbors, they maximize their nutrient harvesting when every molecule counts.” Absorbing Food From NeighborsTo show that the bacteria used this system to eat when there was no food around, the study authors compared their attacks in both nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor environments. When supplied with ample resources, the bacteria used their harpoons to kill their neighbors quickly, with the released nutrients leaking out and dissolving immediately. But when resources were few and far between, they used their harpoons to kill their neighbors slowly, with the nutrients seeping out and sticking around. “This difference in dissolution time could mean that the killer cells load their spears with different toxins,” D’Souza said in another press release. While one toxin could eliminate the competition for space and for food when nutrients are available, another could create a food source, allowing bacteria to “absorb as many nutrients as possible” when sustenance is in short supply.Because of all this, this weapon system is more than ruthless; it’s also smart, and important to some species’ survival. When genetically unedited T6SS bacteria were put in an environment without food, they survived on spilled nutrients. But when genetically edited T6SS bacteria were placed in a similar environment, they died, because their ability to find food in their neighbors had been “turned off.”Harnessing Bacterial HarpoonsAccording to the study authors, the T6SS system is widely used by bacteria, both in and outside the lab. “It’s present in many different environments,” D’Souza said in one of the press releases. “It’s operational and happening in nature, from the oceans to the human gut.” The study authors add that their research could change the way we think about bacteria and could help in our fight against antibiotic resistance. In fact, the T6SS could one day serve as a foundation for targeted drug delivery systems, which could mitigate the development of broader bacterial resistance to antibiotics. But before that can happen, however, researchers have to learn more about bacterial harpoons, and about when and how bacteria use them, both to beat and eat their neighbors.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:Sam Walters is a journalist covering archaeology, paleontology, ecology, and evolution for Discover, along with an assortment of other topics. Before joining the Discover team as an assistant editor in 2022, Sam studied journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as $1.99!SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In

On November 4, 2003, a doctor gave Jon Gluck some of the worst news imaginable: He had cancer — one that later tests would reveal as multiple myeloma, a severe blood and bone marrow cancer. Jon was told he might have as little as 18 months to live. He was 38, a thriving magazine editor in New York with a 7-month-old daughter whose third birthday, he suddenly realized, he might never see.“The moment after I was told I had cancer, I just said ‘no, no, no,’” Jon told me in an interview just last week. “This cannot be true.”Living in remissionThe fact that Jon is still here, talking to me in 2025, tells you that things didn’t go the way the medical data would have predicted on that November morning. He has lived with his cancer, through waves of remission and recurrence, for more than 20 years, an experience he chronicles with grace and wit in his new book An Exercise in Uncertainty. That 7-month-old daughter is now in college.RelatedWhy do so many young people suddenly have cancer?You could say Jon has beaten the odds, and he’s well aware that chance played some role in his survival. (“Did you know that ‘Glück’ is German for ‘luck’?” he writes in the book, noting his good fortune that a random spill on the ice is what sent him to the doctor in the first place, enabling them to catch his cancer early.) Cancer is still a terrible health threat, one that is responsible for 1 in 6 deaths around the world, killing nearly 10 million people a year globally and over 600,000 people a year in the US. But Jon’s story and his survival demonstrate something that is too often missed: We’ve turned the tide in the war against cancer. The age-adjusted death rate in the US for cancer has declined by about a third since 1991, meaning people of a given age have about a third lower risk of dying from cancer than people of the same age more than three decades ago. That adds up to over 4 million fewer cancer deaths over that time period. Thanks to breakthroughs in treatments like autologous stem-cell harvesting and CAR-T therapy — breakthroughs Jon himself benefited from, often just in time — cancer isn’t the death sentence it once was.Our World in DataGetting better all the timeThere’s no doubt that just as the rise of smoking in the 20th century led to a major increase in cancer deaths, the equally sharp decline of tobacco use eventually led to a delayed decrease. Smoking is one of the most potent carcinogens in the world, and at the peak in the early 1960s, around 12 cigarettes were being sold per adult per day in the US. Take away the cigarettes and — after a delay of a couple of decades — lung cancer deaths drop in turn along with other non-cancer smoking-related deaths.But as Saloni Dattani wrote in a great piece earlier this year, even before the decline of smoking, death rates from non-lung cancers in the stomach and colon had begun to fall. Just as notably, death rates for childhood cancers — which for obvious reasons are not connected to smoking and tend to be caused by genetic mutations — have fallen significantly as well, declining sixfold since 1950. In the 1960s, for example, only around 10 percent of children diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia survived more than five years. Today it’s more than 90 percent. And the five-year survival rate for all cancers has risen from 49 percent in the mid-1970s to 69 percent in 2019. We’ve made strikes against the toughest of cancers, like Jon’s multiple myeloma. Around when Jon was diagnosed, the five-year survival rate was just 34 percent. Today it’s as high as 62 percent, and more and more people like Jon are living for decades. “There has been a revolution in cancer survival,” Jon told me. “Some illnesses now have far more successful therapies than others, but the gains are real.”Three cancer revolutions The dramatic bend in the curve of cancer deaths didn’t happen by accident — it’s the compound interest of three revolutions.While anti-smoking policy has been the single biggest lifesaver, other interventions have helped reduce people’s cancer risk. One of the biggest successes is the HPV vaccine. A study last year found that death rates of cervical cancer — which can be caused by HPV infections — in US women ages 20–39 had dropped 62 percent from 2012 to 2021, thanks largely to the spread of the vaccine. Other cancers have been linked to infections, and there is strong research indicating that vaccination can have positive effects on reducing cancer incidence. The next revolution is better and earlier screening. It’s generally true that the earlier cancer is caught, the better the chances of survival, as Jon’s own story shows. According to one study, incidences of late-stage colorectal cancer in Americans over 50 declined by a third between 2000 and 2010 in large part because rates of colonoscopies almost tripled in that same time period. And newer screening methods, often employing AI or using blood-based tests, could make preliminary screening simpler, less invasive and therefore more readily available. If 20th-century screening was about finding physical evidence of something wrong — the lump in the breast — 21st-century screening aims to find cancer before symptoms even arise.Most exciting of all are frontier developments in treating cancer, much of which can be tracked through Jon’s own experience. From drugs like lenalidomide and bortezomib in the 2000s, which helped double median myeloma survival, to the spread of monoclonal antibodies, real breakthroughs in treatments have meaningfully extended people’s lives — not just by months, but years.Perhaps the most promising development is CAR-T therapy, a form of immunotherapy. Rather than attempting to kill the cancer directly, immunotherapies turn a patient’s own T-cells into guided missiles. In a recent study of 97 patients with multiple myeloma, many of whom were facing hospice care, a third of those who received CAR-T therapy had no detectable cancer five years later. It was the kind of result that doctors rarely see. “CAR-T is mind-blowing — very science-fiction futuristic,” Jon told me. He underwent his own course of treatment with it in mid-2023 and writes that the experience, which put his cancer into a remission he’s still in, left him feeling “physically and metaphysically new.”A welcome uncertaintyWhile there are still more battles to be won in the war on cancer, and there are certain areas — like the rising rates of gastrointestinal cancers among younger people — where the story isn’t getting better, the future of cancer treatment is improving. For cancer patients like Jon, that can mean a new challenge — enduring the essential uncertainty that comes with living under a disease that’s controllable but which could always come back. But it sure beats the alternative.“I’ve come to trust so completely in my doctors and in these new developments,” he said. “I try to remain cautiously optimistic that my future will be much like the last 20 years.” And that’s more than he or anyone else could have hoped for nearly 22 years ago. A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!See More: Health

Good News Colon cancer recurrence and deaths cut 28% by simple exercise, trial finds Any type of aerobic exercise works for the improvements, study finds. Beth Mole – Jun 2, 2025 6:05 pm | 42 Credit: Getty | Oli Kellett Credit: Getty | Oli Kellett Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Exercise is generally good for you, but a new high-quality clinical trial finds that it's so good, it can even knock back colon cancer—and, in fact, rival some chemotherapy treatments. The finding comes from a phase 3, randomized clinical trial led by researchers in Canada, who studied nearly 900 people who had undergone surgery and chemotherapy for colon cancer. After those treatments, patients were evenly split into groups that either bulked up their regular exercise routines in a three-year program that included coaching and supervision or were simply given health education. The researchers found that the exercise group had a 28 percent lower risk of their colon cancer recurring, new cancers developing, or dying over eight years compared with the health education group. The benefits of exercise, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, became visible after just one year and increased over time, the researchers found. The rate of people who survived for five years and remained cancer-free was 80.3 percent among the exercise group. That's a 6.4 percentage-point survival boost over the education group, which had a 73.9 percent cancer-free survival rate. The overall survival rate (with or without cancer) during the study's eight-year follow-up was 90.3 percent in the exercise group compared with 83.2 percent in the education group—a 7.1 percentage point difference. Exercise reduced the relative risk of death by 37 percent (41 people died in the exercise group compared with 66 in the education group). "The magnitude of benefit from exercise ... was similar to that of many currently approved standard drug treatments," the researchers noted. However, the exercise routines that achieved those substantial benefits weren't heavy-duty. Participants were coached to perform any recreational aerobic exercise they enjoyed, including brisk walking. Adding 45- to 60-minute brisk walks three or four times a week, or three or four jogs lasting 25 to 30 minutes, was enough for many of the participants to improve their odds. Overall, the goal was to get the exercise group over 20 MET hours per week. METs are Metabolic Equivalents of Task, which represent the amount of energy your body is burning up compared to when you're at rest, sitting quietly. Brisk walking is about four METs, the researchers estimated, and jogging is around 10 METs. To get to 20 MET hours a week, a participant would have to do five hours of brisk walking a week (e.g., five hour-long walks a week) or jog for two hours a week (e.g., four 30-minute jogs per week). “Quite impressive” The exercise group, which had supervised exercise for the first six months of the three-year intervention, reported more exercise over the study. At the end, the exercise group was averaging over 20 MET hours per week, while the education group's average was around 15 MET hours per week. The exercise group also scored better at cardiorespiratory fitness and physical functioning. Still, with the health education, the control group also saw a boost to their exercise during the trial, with their average starting around 10 MET hours per week. These findings "raise the possibility of an even more powerful effect of exercise on cancer outcomes as compared with a completely sedentary control group," the researchers note. For now, it's not entirely clear how exercise keeps cancers at bay, but it squares with numerous other observational studies that have linked exercise to better outcomes in cancer patients. Researchers have several hypotheses, including that exercise might cause "increased fluid shear stress, enhanced immune surveillance, reduced inflammation, improved insulin sensitivity, and altered microenvironment of major sites of metastases," the authors note. In the study, exercise seemed to keep local and distant colon cancer from recurring, as well as prevent new cancers, including breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers. Outside experts hailed the study's findings. "This indicates that exercise has a similarly strong effect as previously shown for chemotherapy, which is really quite impressive," Marco Gerlinger, a gastrointestinal cancer expert at Queen Mary University of London, said in a statement. "One of the commonest questions from patients is what they can do to reduce the risk that their cancer comes back. Oncologists can now make a very clear evidence-based recommendation." "Having worked in bowel cancer research for 30 years, this is an exciting breakthrough in the step-wise improvement in cure rates," David Sebag-Montefiore, a clinical oncologist at the University of Leeds, said. "The great appeal of a structured moderate intensity exercise is that it offers the benefits without the downside of the well-known side effects of our other treatments." Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes. 42 Comments

Given their abundance in American backyards, gardens and highway corridors these days, it may be surprising to learn that white-tailed deer were nearly extinct about a century ago. While they currently number somewhere in the range of 30 million to 35 million, at the turn of the 20th century, there were as few as 300,000 whitetails across the entire continent: just 1% of the current population. This near-disappearance of deer was much discussed at the time. In 1854, Henry David Thoreau had written that no deer had been hunted near Concord, Massachusetts, for a generation. In his famous “Walden,” he reported: “One man still preserves the horns of the last deer that was killed in this vicinity, and another has told me the particulars of the hunt in which his uncle was engaged. The hunters were formerly a numerous and merry crew here.” But what happened to white-tailed deer? What drove them nearly to extinction, and then what brought them back from the brink? As a historical ecologist and environmental archaeologist, I have made it my job to answer these questions. Over the past decade, I’ve studied white-tailed deer bones from archaeological sites across the eastern United States, as well as historical records and ecological data, to help piece together the story of this species. Precolonial rise of deer populations White-tailed deer have been hunted from the earliest migrations of people into North America, more than 15,000 years ago. The species was far from the most important food resource at that time, though. Archaeological evidence suggests that white-tailed deer abundance only began to increase after the extinction of megafauna species like mammoths and mastodons opened up ecological niches for deer to fill. Deer bones become very common in archaeological sites from about 6,000 years ago onward, reflecting the economic and cultural importance of the species for Indigenous peoples. Despite being so frequently hunted, deer populations do not seem to have appreciably declined due to Indigenous hunting prior to AD 1600. Unlike elk or sturgeon, whose numbers were reduced by Indigenous hunters and fishers, white-tailed deer seem to have been resilient to human predation. While archaeologists have found some evidence for human-caused declines in certain parts of North America, other cases are more ambiguous, and deer certainly remained abundant throughout the past several millennia. Human use of fire could partly explain why white-tailed deer may have been resilient to hunting. Indigenous peoples across North America have long used controlled burning to promote ecosystem health, disturbing old vegetation to promote new growth. Deer love this sort of successional vegetation for food and cover, and thus thrive in previously burned habitats. Indigenous people may have therefore facilitated deer population growth, counteracting any harmful hunting pressure. More research is needed, but even though some hunting pressure is evident, the general picture from the precolonial era is that deer seem to have been doing just fine for thousands of years. Ecologists estimate that there were roughly 30 million white-tailed deer in North America on the eve of European colonization—about the same number as today. A 16th-century engraving depicts Indigenous Floridians hunting deer while disguised in deerskins. [Photo: Theodor de Bry/DEA Picture Library/De Agostini/Getty Images] Colonial-era fall of deer numbers To better understand how deer populations changed in the colonial era, I recently analyzed deer bones from two archaeological sites in what is now Connecticut. My analysis suggests that hunting pressure on white-tailed deer increased almost as soon as European colonists arrived. At one site dated to the 11th to 14th centuries (before European colonization) I found that only about 7% to 10% of the deer killed were juveniles. Hunters generally don’t take juvenile deer if they’re frequently encountering adults, since adult deer tend to be larger, offering more meat and bigger hides. Additionally, hunting increases mortality on a deer herd but doesn’t directly affect fertility, so deer populations experiencing hunting pressure end up with juvenile-skewed age structures. For these reasons, this low percentage of juvenile deer prior to European colonization indicates minimal hunting pressure on local herds. However, at a nearby site occupied during the 17th century—just after European colonization—between 22% and 31% of the deer hunted were juveniles, suggesting a substantial increase in hunting pressure. This elevated hunting pressure likely resulted from the transformation of deer into a commodity for the first time. Venison, antlers and deerskins may have long been exchanged within Indigenous trade networks, but things changed drastically in the 17th century. European colonists integrated North America into a trans-Atlantic mercantile capitalist economic system with no precedent in Indigenous society. This applied new pressures to the continent’s natural resources. Deer—particularly their skins—were commodified and sold in markets in the colonies initially and, by the 18th century, in Europe as well. Deer were now being exploited by traders, merchants and manufacturers desiring profit, not simply hunters desiring meat or leather. It was the resulting hunting pressure that drove the species toward its extinction. 20th-century rebound of white-tailed deer Thanks to the rise of the conservation movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, white-tailed deer survived their brush with extinction. Concerned citizens and outdoorsmen feared for the fate of deer and other wildlife, and pushed for new legislative protections. The Lacey Act of 1900, for example, banned interstate transport of poached game and—in combination with state-level protections—helped end commercial deer hunting by effectively de-commodifying the species. Aided by conservation-oriented hunting practices and reintroductions of deer from surviving populations to areas where they had been extirpated, white-tailed deer rebounded. The story of white-tailed deer underscores an important fact: Humans are not inherently damaging to the environment. Hunting from the 17th through 19th centuries threatened the existence of white-tailed deer, but precolonial Indigenous hunting and environmental management appear to have been relatively sustainable, and modern regulatory governance in the 20th century forestalled and reversed their looming extinction. Elic Weitzel, Peter Buck Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Smithsonian Institution This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

If you’re reading this, congratulations: You’ve survived live ten years past the impossible future of Back to the Future — the one from 2015 with flying cars, wall-sized televisions, and rehydrated pizzas. (Hey, one correct prediction out of three ain’t a bad batting average.) We live in the days of futures’ past.From this we can learn two things: One, the real world sucks compared to the one we were promised by the movies of our childhoods. And two, the science-fiction genre always needs to keep moving forward, because time always moves forward as well. Technology that sounded impossible 30 years ago looks laughably old fashioned today. Progress comes so rapidly (except when it comes to flying cars and rehydrated pizzas, I guess) that sci-fi needs to move fast too.Thankfully, the last ten years have given us an incredible array of futuristic (or sometimes dystopian) sci-fi visions. The list below collects the ten best, ranked in preferential order by yours truly. In a few years, their concepts and technologies will no doubt look just as outdated as Marty McFly Jr.’s adjustable jacket and psychedelic baseball hat. The movies themselves will endure anyway, because they are that good.The Best Sci-Fi Films of the Last 10 Years (2015-2024)These science-fiction films redefined a great genre for our modern world.Honorable Mentions (in Alphabetical Order):Arrival, Dune Part Two, Everything Everywhere All at Once, The Martian, Poor Things, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Star Trek Beyond, Tenet, Upgrade, War For the Planet of the Apes.READ MORE: The 10 Best Comedies of the Last 10 YearsThe 10 Worst Sequels of the Last 10 Years (2015-2024)Audiences always push for sequels to their favorite movies. Sometimes, that backfires big time.

You Can Now Visit the Small House Where Charlotte, Emily and Anne Brontë Were Born The newly renovated Brontë Birthplace in Bradford, England, was the three sisters’ home until 1820, when the family moved to a nearby parsonage The Brontë children were born near this fireplace, pictured mid-renovation. Matt Gibbons / Brontë Birthplace In the early 19th century, three sisters were born in a small house in northern England: Charlotte, Emily and Anne Brontë. Each one would grow up to become a pivotal figure in English literature, with Charlotte writing Jane Eyre (1847), Emily writing Wuthering Heights (1847) and Anne writing The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (1848). Now, that house in Bradford, England, where they were born has been restored and reopened to the public as a museum—and soon-to-be hotel. On May 15, Queen Camilla visited the village of Thornton to open the Brontë Birthplace in an official ceremony. After a year and a half of fundraising and renovations, the house is now a functioning educational center. Come July, its bedrooms will also be open to overnight guests, according to the Guardian’s David Barnett. The Brontë Birthplace pictured in 2008 Tim Green via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY 2.0 “This house is no longer just a place of literary history,” says Katharine Barnett, chair of the Brontë Birthplace, in a statement from the museum. “It is a living, breathing space filled with creativity, education and community pride.” The novelists’ parents were Patrick and Maria Brontë, an Irish clergyman and a Cornish gentlewoman who married in 1812. They had two daughters, Maria and Elizabeth, before moving to the Thornton house in 1815. Charlotte was born in 1816, Emily in 1818 and Anne in 1820. A brother, Branwell, was also born in 1817. When Anne was just three months old, Patrick was appointed the reverend of a nearby church, and the family moved to the Haworth parsonage. The two eldest children died soon after, but the younger four children survived. As they grew older, they also thrived as playmates, inventing “invented imaginary worlds together and [writing] about them in tiny books,” per the Brontë Parsonage Museum. Queen Camilla and Christa Ackroyd touring the Brontë Birthplace on May 15, 2025 Matt Gibbons / Brontë Birthplace By the mid-19th century, the three sisters were publishing novels under the pseudonyms Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell. Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights would become two of the most renowned books ever written in English. After the family left the sisters’ birthplace, the building was repurposed several times. It has served as a butcher’s shop and a cafe, which shuttered during the pandemic, according to the Guardian. With the building up for grabs, a group of advocates—including journalist Christa Ackroyd and Brontë relative Nigel West—raised the £650,000 (more than $700,000) needed to purchase and renovate it. Every four years, the United Kingdom chooses a “City of Culture,” and this year’s selection is Bradford. Camilla opened the Brontë Birthplace as part of her honorary visit to the chosen city. A crowd gathered to welcome her. As Tom Golesworthy, a resident of Leeds who attended the opening ceremony, tells the Telegraph & Argus’ Brad Deas, “It makes you proud to be British.”The Haworth parsonage already attracts nearly one million visitors each year, per the Guardian. The Brontë Birthplace team hopes that those visitors will now add the Thornton house, which is only six miles away, to their itineraries. When the Brontës lived in the home, all six children likely slept in the house’s largest upstairs bedroom, while their parents slept next door, reports the Guardian. Both rooms, as well as a third that was added to the house later, will be available for overnight stays. “This will be the only place in the world where you can sleep in the same room that the Brontës slept in,” West tells the Guardian. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

News Animals Genetics might save the rare, elusive saola — if it’s not already extinct Environmental DNA could help scientists search for the large deerlike mammals in Southeast Asia The saola “Martha” was captured in Laos in 1996 and survived for a few weeks in a menagerie. She is the only living saola ever seen by Western scientists. World Wildlife Fund By Tom Metcalfe 2 hours ago It’s not looking good for the saola. If it still exists, it is one of the world’s rarest large mammals — a deerlike creature from the mountainous rainforests of Vietnam and Laos that’s been called “Asia’s unicorn” because of its scarcity. But the last living saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis) was seen in 2013, in photographs from a motion-triggered trail camera. Even hopeful experts think there are now fewer than 100 still alive. “That number is extremely optimistic,” says University of Copenhagen wildlife geneticist Rasmus Heller. “The real number is probably much lower … and it’s possible that there are actually zero.” Sign up for our newsletter We summarize the week's scientific breakthroughs every Thursday.

Peter David, the highly regarded novelist and writer of comics like The Incredible Hulk, Young Justice, and X-Factor, has died at 68. The news was confirmed by David's friend and colleague Keith R.A. DeCandido via Facebook.David enjoyed a long and prolific career at Marvel and DC over several decades. He may be best remembered for his 12-year run on Marvel's The Incredible Hulk series, a sprawling saga that redefined the relationship between Bruce Banner and his alter ego and earned David and artist Dale Keown an Eisner Award in 1992. As much as Frank Miller is viewed as the definitive Daredevil writer/artist and Chris Claremont the definitive X-Men writer, David is widely regarded as the most important and influential Hulk writer of all time. Art by George Perez. (Image Credit: Marvel)David is also well known for co-creating Spider-Man 2099 and for his two runs on X-Factor. David's original X-Factor run saw the team, which was originally a reunion of the original five X-Men, remade into a government-sanctioned mutant strike force. His second X-Factor run again reinvented the team, this time as a detective agency led by Madrox the Multiple Man. At DC, David enjoyed successful and influential stints on books like Aquaman, Supergirl, and Young Justice. David also regularly worked on the Star Trek franchise in both comic book and prose form, with his best-known Trek work being the 1994 novel Q-Squared. Outside of books and comics, David worked on television shows like Babylon 5, Young Justice, and Ben 10: Alien Force and wrote video games like Shadow Complex and Spider-Man: Edge of Time.A Visual History of HulkDavid suffered from poor health in recent years, beginning with a stroke in 2012. His health issues prompted family friend Graham Murphy to organize a GoFundMe campaign in 2022 and again in 2025. David is survived by his wife, Kathleen O'Shea David, and his four children.Jesse is a mild-mannered staff writer for IGN. Allow him to lend a machete to your intellectual thicket byfollowing @jschedeen on BlueSky.

Published May 25, 2025 10:00am EDT close A skydiver lost his iPhone during a 14,000-foot fall, but, miraculously, it survived without a scratch A skydiver lost his iPhone during a 14,000-foot fall, but the phone miraculously survived without a scratch. Fingerprint sensors have been around for quite some time, and they’ve become a standard feature in most smartphones. Apple introduced Touch ID on the iPhone 5s in 2013. Since then, it has appeared on 12 major iPhone models (and some iPads as well). Though Apple removed it from most phones after the iPhone 8, it’s still found in the iPhone SE series. On the flip side, almost every Android phone on the market has a fingerprint scanner. But are fingerprint scanners impossible to bypass? Frank from Deerton, Michigan, asked a similar question that I want to highlight and address because it helps all of us:"Can a website be hacked/compromised with password and fingerprint protection (multiple verification)?"I get what you’re saying, Frank. You’d think that since a fingerprint scanner literally requires your fingerprint, it couldn’t be bypassed. But you’d be wrong. While fingerprint scanners are generally more secure than facial recognition and passwords, they’re not foolproof. In fact, there are several ways bad actors can bypass them to steal your identity. A smartphone on a table   (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)5 ways bad actors can bypass fingerprint scannersThere are multiple ways hackers use to bypass fingerprint scanners. Below, I will discuss five of the more prominent methods. 1. Masterprints and DeepMasterPrintsHackers exploit the concept of "masterprints," which are fingerprints engineered to match multiple individuals' prints. Researchers at NYU Tandon developed "DeepMasterPrints" using machine learning to generate synthetic fingerprints that can deceive sensors by mimicking common fingerprint features. These artificial prints can match with a significant percentage of stored fingerprints, especially on devices with less stringent security settings. 2. Forged fingerprints using 3D printingAnother trick hackers use is making fake fingerprints. They can lift prints off things you’ve touched and then use stuff like fabric glue or even 3D printers to make molds. For example, researchers at Cisco Talos tried out a bunch of different ways to do this using 3D printing and tested them on phones like the iPhone 8 and Samsung S10; laptops like the Samsung Note 9, Lenovo Yoga and HP Pavilion X360; and even smart gadgets like padlocks.On average, the fake fingerprints worked about 80% of the time. They were able to fool the sensors at least once. Interestingly, they couldn’t crack the biometric systems on Windows 10 devices, but they pointed out that doesn’t necessarily mean those are more secure. It just means this particular method didn’t work on them.19 BILLION PASSWORDS HAVE LEAKED ONLINE: HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF3. Brute force attacks via BrutePrintAttackers have found a cheap way to break into smartphones by brute force fingerprint authentication. The method, called BrutePrint, lets attackers get around the usual limits that stop too many failed fingerprint attempts. It works by taking advantage of two previously unknown flaws in the fingerprint system. These flaws, named Cancel-After-Match-Fail (CAMF) and Match-After-Lock (MAL), exist because of weak protection for fingerprint data on a part of the hardware called the Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI).Basically, BrutePrint uses a hardware-based man-in-the-middle attack to hijack fingerprint data. It sits between the fingerprint sensor and the phone’s secure area (called the Trusted Execution Environment) and tries as many fingerprint images as needed until it finds a match. The relieving part is that the attacker needs to have physical access to the phone for this method to work.4. Side-channel attacks with PrintListenerPrintListener is a side-channel attack that captures the sound of a finger swiping on a screen to extract fingerprint features. It might sound like something out of a sci-fi movie, but researchers have already built a proof of concept. By analyzing the friction sounds, attackers can reconstruct fingerprint patterns, potentially enhancing the effectiveness of masterprint attacks.5. Exploiting unsecured fingerprint data storageSome devices store fingerprint data without adequate encryption. If attackers gain access to this unprotected data, they can replicate fingerprints to bypass authentication. For example, in 2024, a misconfigured server exposed nearly 500 GB of sensitive biometric data, including fingerprints, facial scans and personal details of law enforcement applicants. Image of a smartphone   (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)So, can you trust fingerprint scanners?Fingerprint scanners make it easy and fairly secure to unlock your devices. Since everyone has unique fingerprints, you don’t need to remember complicated passwords. Just a quick touch and you are in. Most modern devices store your fingerprint data in secure parts of the system, and they use things like liveness detection to make sure someone is not trying to trick the scanner with a fake finger.Still, no security method is perfect. Skilled attackers have found ways to get past fingerprint scanners using high-resolution photos or 3D-printed fingers or by taking advantage of flaws in how the scanner communicates with the rest of the device. The risk really depends on how well the scanner is designed and how much effort someone puts into breaking it. For most people, fingerprint authentication is quick, easy and secure enough. However, if you are dealing with very sensitive information, relying only on biometrics might not be the best idea. A person using a fingerprint for security verification purposes    (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)6 ways to protect your fingerprint dataSafeguard your biometric identity with these essential security measures.1. Choose trusted phone brands: If you're buying a phone, stick with well-known brands like Apple, Samsung or Google. These companies take extra steps to protect your fingerprint data by storing it in secure areas of the phone that are harder to access. Cheaper or lesser-known brands may not have these protections, which makes it easier for attackers to steal your data.2. Keep your phone updated: Phone updates are not just about new features. They fix security problems that hackers might use to break into your device. If your phone asks you to install an update, do it. Most phones also let you turn on automatic updates, so you don’t have to worry about remembering. Keeping your software updated is one of the easiest and most important ways to stay protected.3. Use strong antivirus software: Install strong antivirus software to detect malware that could compromise biometric data storage. Strong antivirus software offers real-time threat detection, anti-phishing and privacy features to block unauthorized access to fingerprint data. The best way to safeguard yourself from malicious links that install malware, potentially accessing your private information, is to have strong antivirus software installed on all your devices. This protection can also alert you to phishing emails and ransomware scams, keeping your personal information and digital assets safe. Get my picks for the best 2025 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android and iOS devices.WHAT IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)?4. Don’t rely only on your fingerprint: Using a fingerprint to unlock your phone is convenient, but it shouldn’t be your only line of defense, especially for sensitive apps like banking or email. Always set up a PIN, password or pattern as a backup on your iPhone and Android. This way, even if someone manages to copy your fingerprint, they still need another piece of information to get in.5. Be careful about who handles your phone: If someone else uses your phone, especially a stranger or someone you don’t know well, they might be able to copy your fingerprint from the screen. It’s rare, but it happens. To reduce this risk, avoid handing your phone to people unnecessarily and wipe your screen occasionally to remove any clear fingerprints.6. Only use fingerprint login with trusted apps: Not every app that asks for your fingerprint is trustworthy. It’s safest to use fingerprint login only with apps from known and reliable companies, like your bank, phone manufacturer or email provider. If an unfamiliar app asks for fingerprint access, it’s better to skip it and use your password instead.7. Consider using a personal data removal service: Even fingerprint scanners can be bypassed, and large amounts of personal and biometric data have been exposed in breaches. Using a personal data removal service helps reduce your risk by removing your sensitive information from public databases and data broker sites, making it harder for hackers to piece together details that could be used to steal your identity. Check out my top picks for data removal services here. Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web.Kurt’s key takeawayPasswords are generally easier to hack than biometric data like fingerprints or facial recognition. However, the key difference is that passwords can be changed if they’re compromised. Your biometrics cannot. Most modern devices allow both options, and biometrics can offer an extra layer of security by making it harder for someone else to access your phone or apps. They're also fast and convenient, since you don’t need to remember or type anything. That said, in most cases, your device still falls back on a password or PIN when biometric identification doesn’t work, so both systems often go hand in hand.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPWith the increasing sophistication of methods to bypass fingerprint security, what should companies be doing to stay ahead of these threats and better protect user data? Let us know by writing us atCyberguy.com/ContactFor more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/NewsletterAsk Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to coverFollow Kurt on his social channelsAnswers to the most asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com.  All rights reserved.   Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on "FOX & Friends." Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.