Big and Small Underwater Faces — 3rd Place. Trips to the Antarctic Peninsula always yield amazing encounters with leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx). Boldly approaching me and baring his teeth, this individual was keen to point out that this part of Antarctica was his territory. This picture was shot at dusk, resulting in the rather moody atmosphere.   Credit: Lars von Ritter Zahony (Germany) / World Ocean’s Day Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. The striking eye of a humpback whale named Sweet Girl peers at the camera. Just four days later, she would be dead, hit by a speeding boat and one of the 20,000 whales killed by ship strikes each year. Photographer Rachel Moore’s captivating image (seen below) of Sweet Girl earned top honors at the 2025 United Nations World Oceans Day Photo Competition. Wonder: Sustaining What Sustains Us — WinnerThis photo, taken in Mo’orea, French Polynesia in 2024, captures the eye of a humpback whale named Sweet Girl, just days before her tragic death. Four days after I captured this intimate moment, she was struck and killed by a fast-moving ship. Her death serves as a heartbreaking reminder of the 20,000 whales lost to ship strikes every year. We are using her story to advocate for stronger protections, petitioning for stricter speed laws around Tahiti and Mo’orea during whale season. I hope Sweet Girl’s legacy will spark real change to protect these incredible animals and prevent further senseless loss.Credit: Rachel Moore (USA) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Now in its twelfth year, the competition coordinated in collaboration between the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, DivePhotoGuide (DPG), Oceanic Global, and  the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. Each year, thousands of underwater photographers submit images that judges award prizes for across four categories: Big and Small Underwater Faces, Underwater Seascapes, Above Water Seascapes, and Wonder: Sustaining What Sustains Us. This year’s winning images include a curious leopard seal, a swarm of jellyfish, and a very grumpy looking Japanese warbonnet. Given our oceans’ perilous state, all competition participants were required to sign a charter of 14 commitments regarding ethics in photography. Underwater Seascapes — Honorable MentionWith only orcas as their natural predators, leopard seals are Antarctica’s most versatile hunters, preying on everything from fish and cephalopods to penguins and other seals. Gentoo penguins are a favored menu item, and leopard seals can be observed patrolling the waters around their colonies. For this shot, I used a split image to capture both worlds: the gentoo penguin colony in the background with the leopard seal on the hunt in the foreground.Credit: Lars von Ritter Zahony (Germany) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Above Water Seascapes – WinnerA serene lake cradled by arid dunes, where a gentle stream breathes life into the heart of Mother Earth’s creation: Captured from an airplane, this image reveals the powerful contrasts and hidden beauty where land and ocean meet, reminding us that the ocean is the source of all life and that everything in nature is deeply connected. The location is a remote stretch of coastline near Shark Bay, Western Australia.Credit: Leander Nardin (Austria) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Above Water Seascapes — 3rd PlaceParadise Harbour is one of the most beautiful places on the Antarctic Peninsula. When I visited, the sea was extremely calm, and I was lucky enough to witness a wonderfully clear reflection of the Suárez Glacier (aka Petzval Glacier) in the water. The only problem was the waves created by our speedboat, and the only way to capture the perfect reflection was to lie on the bottom of the boat while it moved towards the glacier.Credit: Andrey Nosik (Russia) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Underwater Seascapes — 3rd Place“La Rapadura” is a natural hidden treasure on the northern coast of Tenerife, in the Spanish territory of the Canary Islands. Only discovered in 1996, it is one of the most astonishing underwater landscapes in the world, consistently ranking among the planet’s best dive sites. These towering columns of basalt are the result of volcanic processes that occurred between 500,000 and a million years ago. The formation was created when a basaltic lava flow reached the ocean, where, upon cooling and solidifying, it contracted, creating natural structures often compared to the pipes of church organs. Located in a region where marine life has been impacted by once common illegal fishing practices, this stunning natural monument has both geological and ecological value, and scientists and underwater photographers are advocating for its protection. (Model: Yolanda Garcia)Credit: Pedro Carrillo (Spain) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Underwater Seascapes — WinnerThis year, I had the incredible opportunity to visit a jellyfish lake during a liveaboard trip around southern Raja Ampat, Indonesia. Being surrounded by millions of jellyfish, which have evolved to lose their stinging ability due to the absence of predators, was one of the most breathtaking experiences I’ve ever had.Credit: Dani Escayola (Spain) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Underwater Seascapes — 2nd PlaceThis shot captures a school of rays resting at a cleaning station in Mauritius, where strong currents once attracted them regularly. Some rays grew accustomed to divers, allowing close encounters like this. Sadly, after the severe bleaching that the reefs here suffered last year, such gatherings have become rare, and I fear I may not witness this again at the same spot.Credit: Gerald Rambert (Mauritius) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Wonder: Sustaining What Sustains Us — 3rd PlaceShot in Cuba’s Jardines de la Reina—a protected shark sanctuary—this image captures a Caribbean reef shark weaving through a group of silky sharks near the surface. Using a slow shutter and strobes as the shark pivoted sharply, the motion blurred into a wave-like arc across its head, lit by the golden hues of sunset. The abundance and behavior of sharks here is a living symbol of what protected oceans can look like.Credit: Steven Lopez (USA) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org  Above Water Seascapes — 2nd PlaceNorthern gannets (Morus bassanus) soar above the dramatic cliffs of Scotland’s Hermaness National Nature Reserve, their sleek white bodies and black-tipped wings slicing through the Shetland winds. These seabirds, the largest in the North Atlantic, are renowned for their striking plunge-dives, reaching speeds up to 100 kph (60 mph) as they hunt for fish beneath the waves. The cliffs of Hermaness provide ideal nesting sites, with updrafts aiding their take-offs and landings. Each spring, thousands return to this rugged coastline, forming one of the UK’s most significant gannet colonies. It was a major challenge to take photos at the edge of these cliffs at almost 200 meters (650 feet) with the winds up to 30 kph (20 mph).Credit: Nur Tucker (UK/Turkey) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Above Water Seascapes — Honorable MentionA South Atlantic swell breaks on the Dungeons Reef off the Cape Peninsula, South Africa, shot while photographing a big-wave surf session in October 2017. It’s the crescendoing sounds of these breaking swells that always amazes me.Credit: Ken Findlay (South Africa) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Wonder: Sustaining What Sustains Us — Honorable MentionHumpback whales in their thousands migrate along the Ningaloo Reef in Western Australia every year on the way to and from their calving grounds. In four seasons of swimming with them on the reef here, this is the only encounter I’ve had like this one. This pair of huge adult whales repeatedly spy-hopped alongside us, seeking to interact with and investigate us, leaving me completely breathless. The female in the foreground was much more confident than the male behind and would constantly make close approaches, whilst the male hung back a little, still interested but shy. After more than 10 years working with wildlife in the water, this was one of the best experiences of my life.Credit: Ollie Clarke (UK) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Big and Small Underwater Faces — 2nd PlaceOn one of my many blackwater dives in Anilao, in the Philippines, my guide and I spotted something moving erratically at a depth of around 20 meters (65 feet), about 10 to 15 centimeters in size. We quickly realized that it was a rare blanket octopus (Tremoctopus sp.). As we approached, it opened up its beautiful blanket, revealing its multicolored mantle. I managed to take a few shots before it went on its way. I felt truly privileged to have captured this fascinating deep-sea cephalopod. Among its many unique characteristics, this species exhibits some of the most extreme sexual size-dimorphism in nature, with females weighing up to 40,000 times more than males.Credit: Giacomo Marchione (Italy) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Big and Small Underwater Faces – WinnerThis photo of a Japanese warbonnet (Chirolophis japonicus) was captured in the Sea of Japan, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) southwest of Vladivostok, Russia. I found the ornate fish at a depth of about 30 meters (100 feet), under the stern of a shipwreck. This species does not appear to be afraid of divers—on the contrary, it seems to enjoy the attention—and it even tried to sit on the dome port of my camera.Credit: Andrey Nosik (Russia) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Wonder: Sustaining What Sustains Us — 2nd PlaceA juvenile pinnate batfish (Platax pinnatus) captured with a slow shutter speed, a snooted light, and deliberate camera panning to create a sense of motion and drama. Juvenile pinnate batfish are known for their striking black bodies outlined in vibrant orange—a coloration they lose within just a few months as they mature. I encountered this restless subject in the tropical waters of Indonesia’s Lembeh Strait. Capturing this image took patience and persistence over two dives, as these active young fish constantly dart for cover in crevices, making the shot particularly challenging.Credit: Luis Arpa (Spain) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback. President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) Friday that scratched or revised several of his Democratic predecessors’ major cybersecurity initiatives. “Just days before President Trump took office, the Biden Administration attempted to sneak problematic and distracting issues into cybersecurity policy,” the White House said in a fact sheet about Trump’s new directive, referring to projects that Biden launched with his Jan. 15 executive order. Trump’s new EO eliminates those projects, which would have required software vendors to prove their compliance with new federal security standards, prioritized research and testing of artificial intelligence for cyber defense and accelerated the rollout of encryption that withstands the future code-cracking powers of quantum computers. “President Trump has made it clear that this Administration will do what it takes to make America cyber secure,” the White House said in its fact sheet, “including focusing relentlessly on technical and organizational professionalism to improve the security and resilience of the nation’s information systems and networks.” Major cyber regulation shift Trump’s elimination of Biden’s software security requirements for federal contractors represents a significant government reversal on cyber regulation. Following years of major cyberattacks linked to insecure software, the Biden administration sought to use federal procurement power to improve the software industry’s practices. That effort began with Biden’s 2021 cyber order and gained strength in 2024, and then Biden officials tried to add teeth to the initiative before leaving office in January. But as it eliminated that project on Friday, the Trump administration castigated Biden’s efforts as “imposing unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance checklists over genuine security investments.” Trump’s order eliminates provisions from Biden’s directive that would have required federal contractors to submit “secure software development attestations,” along with technical data to back up those attestations. Also now eradicated are provisions that would have required the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to verify vendors’ attestations, required the Office of the National Cyber Director to publish the results of those reviews and encouraged ONCD to refer companies whose attestations fail a review to the Justice Department “for action as appropriate.” Trump’s order leaves in place a National Institute of Standards and Technology collaboration with industry to update NIST’s Software Software Development Framework, but it eliminates parts of Biden’s order that would have incorporated those SSDF updates into security requirements for federal vendors. In a related move, Trump eliminated provisions of his predecessor’s order that would have required NIST to “issue guidance identifying minimum cybersecurity practices” (based on a review of globally accepted standards) and required federal contractors to follow those practices. AI security cut Trump also took an axe to Biden requirements related to AI and its ability to help repel cyberattacks. He scrapped a Biden initiative to test AI’s power to “enhance cyber defense of critical infrastructure in the energy sector,” as well as one that would have directed federal research programs to prioritize topics like the security of AI-powered coding and “methods for designing secure AI systems.” The EO also killed a provision would have required the Pentagon to “use advanced AI models for cyber defense.” On quantum computing, Trump’s directive significantly pares back Biden’s attempts to accelerate the government’s adoption of post-quantum cryptography. Biden told agencies to start using quantum-resistant encryption “as soon as practicable” and to start requiring vendors to use it when technologically possible. Trump eliminated those requirements, leaving only a Biden requirement that CISA maintain “a list of product categories in which products that support post-quantum cryptography … are widely available.” Trump also eliminated instructions for the departments of State and Commerce to encourage key foreign allies and overseas industries to adopt NIST’s PQC algorithms. The EO dropped many other provisions of Biden’s January directive, including one requiring agencies to start testing phishing-resistant authentication technologies, one requiring NIST to advise other agencies on internet routing security and one requiring agencies to use strong email encryption. Trump also cut language directing the Office of Management and Budget to advise agencies on addressing risks related to IT vendor concentration. In his January order, Biden ordered agencies to explore and encourage the use of digital identity documents to prevent fraud, including in public benefits programs. Trump eliminated those initiatives, calling them “inappropriate.”  Trump also tweaked the language of Obama-era sanctions authorities targeting people involved in cyberattacks on the U.S., specifying that the Treasury Department can only sanction foreigners for these activities. The White House said Trump’s change would prevent the power’s “misuse against domestic political opponents.” Amid the whirlwind of changes, Trump left one major Biden-era cyber program intact: a Federal Communications Commission project, modeled on the Energy Star program, that will apply government seals of approval to technology products that undergo security testing by federally accredited labs. Trump preserved the language in Biden’s order that requires companies selling internet-of-things devices to the federal government to go through the FCC program by January 2027.

Australian director Sean Byrne is one of horror’s premiere mixologists. His debut, 2009’s The Loved Ones, meshed teen romance with gruesome Hostel-style extremism. 2015’s The Devil’s Candy put a heavy metal spin on the haunted-house romp. His new film, Dangerous Animals, in theaters now, raises a question no one was asking about a classic B-movie subgenre: When is a killer shark movie not a killer shark movie?  Answer: When the killer shark is just a weapon in a human killer’s hands.  Despite arriving just in time for the 50th anniversary of Jaws, Dangerous Animals has less in common with it (or with The Shallows or 47 Meters Down) and is more in line with Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Saw (or one of Australia’s modern horror successes, Wolf Creek). Hassie Harrison (Yellowstone) stars as Zephyr, an American surfer floating around the Australian coast looking for the perfect waves — and maybe the right romance. She does not find it in Tucker (Jai Courtney of Terminator Genisys), who abducts her off the beach before dawn and locks her up with another tourist, Heather (Ella Newton), on his shark expedition boat. Tucker is a mega-creep who gets off on shark attacks. Zephyr and Heather are his latest chum. At 90 minutes, Dangerous Animals is lean and mean fun. Zephyr is no damsel in distress, and quickly plots an escape from what looks like an impossible situation. Tucker has driven them out to the middle of the ocean where he can gets wasted on cheap liquor, dance to disco tunes, and prepare to ritualistically dunk his prey into shark-infested waters. He’s an absolute psychopath, and Byrne lets Courtney completely off the possible-Hollywood-leading-man leash. The actor is frothing at the mouth and twitching in his eyes throughout the deranged picture, with a level of egolessness that manifested slightly when he played [checks notes] Captain Boomerang in Suicide Squad. This is better. Harrison summons her own power in the face of Courtney’s towering physique in Zephyr’s multiple escape attempts. Byrne takes full advantage of the claustrophobic setting of the boat — and the vast emptiness of the sea surrounding it. It’s a geographically coherent but unsettling maze for a cat shark-and-mouse game that rarely succumbs to contrivances to ratchet up the tension. Getting off a boat surrounded by sharks just seems really tough! And for as blockheaded as Tucker seems, he’s devoted much of his life to building the ultimate floating prison. While Dangerous Animals never goes full Deep Blue Sea with far-fetched shark kills, Byrne, by way of Tucker’s fetish, still sets up some nightmarish attacks. Tucker doesn’t just like to watch sharks tear his victims to shreds, he also videotapes them on a 1990s-era camera for future VHS viewing. So the deaths are slow and savage, with Courtney’s wide-eyed gaze committing as much violence as the razor-sharp shark teeth. There’s blood in the water, and all over this killer’s hands. In the days of so-called “elevated horror,” Dangerous Animals delivers earnest thrills with a simple-yet-innovative slasher premise. In my mind, the freshest horror movies find a kernel of specificity in a timeless premise. Byrne’s movie isn’t far off from the Halloween formula — big guy hunts down indomitable woman with scary weapon of choice — but whisking us to Australia, sending us to sea, and the what-if of a sightseeing tour guide with a hard-on for shark attacks is the focused lens a filmmaker needs to deliver something new. Sick, but new.

It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

LEGO has released a ton of new Harry Potter sets for June, but perhaps the most quirky and delightful build in the bunch is the Chomping Monster Book of Monsters set. It's a recreation of the iconic book we first see in the third Harry Potter film (The Prisoner of Azkaban) and it absolutely looks the part. More importantly, though, it actually chomps.Out June 1Chomping Monster Book of Monsters$59.99 at LEGOThe new Monster Book of Monsters set has a lot of cool details on the outside that made it fun to put together, but it's what on the inside that makes it fun to play with after. LEGO provided IGN with a copy of the set for a test build and I got the chance to put it together myself. At only 518 pieces, I was able to build the whole thing in one evening before I went to bed and had my nephews playing with it the next morning.We Build the LEGO Harry Potter Monster Book of MonstersSet #76449 is actually the second iteration of the LEGO Monster Book of Monsters. The first rendition was a Gift with Purchase (set #30628), called The Monster Book of Monsters, released back in 2020 with a lot fewer pieces and a more simplistic style. The newer Chomping Monster Book of Monsters looks a lot more realistic and includes actual chomping action. It also includes a Neville Longbottom minifigure that is holding a much smaller version of the book. It's a fairly easy build, but it was fun to put together and the chomping action was a nice touch.The build is split up into four sections and you get one bag of LEGO bricks for each part. You start by putting together your little Neville Longbottom minifigure. He has two different face options to chooose from, so you can make him either smiley or terrified. I decided to go with smiley and placed him near the pieces as I put together everything else. The first part of the build is basically putting together the framework for the book.This is the longest step in the whole process and it admittedly takes quite a bit of time until it really starts looking like something. You're building what will later become the chassis that your little chomping motor and wheels will later sit in, so it's important you get everything facing the right direction. It really helped me that you use red bricks to indicate the back and blue bricks for the front or I definitely would have made a mistake along the way.It doesn't actually resemble anything like a monster book until you start adding some of the exterior pieces. There are light brown panels with a ridge that will look like pages once you're finished putting them together. The dark brown pointy pieces you add on the front and sides are what really start making it look like what you see on the box. You'll also add smooth panels on the back of each rectangle that will eventually fit together to form the entire base of the book.The one thing I didn't particularly enjoy about this build was how repetitive it felt to build both sides of the book itself. There were some small differences between the top and the bottom of the book, but for the most part the build felt exactly the same. So it ended up being a bit repetitive to have to do basically the same step twice. That being said, it was extremely satisfying when I finally got to be able to connect the two halves at the spine. You thread a few long pieces through the back hinge and suddenly you've got what looks to be a hollowed out book.The next portion of this build is where it really started to become fun. Once you're done with the overall structure, you move on to building the cover of the book. You start out with a series of large flat brown pieces that form the base of your cover. These are held together by two long flat pieces that are also thankfully color coordinated to indicate which side is up. Once you have the base assembled, you start adding all of the cool little details that bring the set to life. This includes the actual title of the book as well as the beady little eyes and spikey little feelers.Once you snap the cover onto the top of your book frame, it starts looking like a legit Monster Book of Monsters. And while the cover is really the turning point, it's all of the additional details you add on after this that start to give it an air of life. As you build the frame and the cover of the book you will have added a bunch of what appear to be little LEGO arms near the front pages. These will become the holders for the book's spiny little teeth. There are twelve of these in total and once they're snapped in you can articulate them in whatever direction feels right.The larger teeth get added after that, which is when it starts to look like it could actually chomp you. The instructions tell you to add one set of teeth at a time, but I decided to build them both first and add them all at once for dramatic effect. When all of the teeth are attached, you'll have what looks to be a Monster Book of Monsters that's actually capable of doing some chomping.The final step of this set is the most interesting part. At this point you've built a fairly realistic monster book, but it's still an empty shell waiting for some internal components to get it running. Now you essentially have to build a working pull-back car that you place inside so it can get to chomping on its own.The motorized aspect of this build is pretty straightforward, but it's a nice break from all of the detail work I had just done to be suddenly building a little wheeled car. It was also really fun to see how well the little car I'd just built snapped into place on the inside of the book itself.After I fully put everything together, I immediately tried out the rolling chomping action. It's a neat trick that turns what looks like a display set into an actual toy you can play with. The roll-back mechanism only goes so far back, so it doesn't actually roll that far, but the chomping action makes up for the lack of distance. As it moves forward you can actually hear the teeth clacking together. I had both of my younger nephews play with the set afterwards and they enjoyed playing with it almost as much as l did. The gimmick wears off fairly quickly after you've done it a few times, but afterwards you still have a really cool looking set you can display somewhere.The price of the set is fairly reasonable at $60, placing it well below some of the most expensive sets on the market right now. Any of the franchise-specific sets that come out are always going to be more expensive than a non-franchise set with a similar number of pieces, and this has consistently remained true for all LEGO Harry Potter sets. All-in-all, it's a set I'd recommend to any fan of Harry Potter and LEGO. It's a fun and simple build you can knock out in an afternoon, and the finished product would make for a great Harry Potter gift you can display on a shelf or your desk.LEGO Harry Potter Chomping Book of Monsters, Set #76449, retails for $59.99, and it is composed of 518 pieces. It is available at the LEGO Store beginning on June 1, 2025.

to a T – what a strange thing to happen (Annapurna Interactive) Having your arms stuck in a permeant T-pose leads to a wonderfully surreal narrative adventure, in this new indie treat from Katamari creator Keita Takahashi. Keita Takahashi seems to be a very nice man. We met him back in 2018, and liked him immensely, but we’re genuinely surprise he’s still working in the games industry. He rose to fame with the first two Katamari Damacy games but after leaving Bandai Namco his assertion that he wanted to leave gaming behind and design playgrounds for children seemed like a much more obvious career path, for someone that absolutely doesn’t want to be stuck making sequels or generic action games. That’s certainly not been his fate and while titles like Noby Noby Boy and Wattam were wonderfully weird and inventive they weren’t the breakout hits that his bank balance probably needed. His latest refusal to toe the line probably isn’t destined to make him a billionaire either, but we’re sure that was never the point of to a T. Instead, this is just a relentlessly sweet and charming game about the evils of bullying and the benefits of being nice to people. It’s frequently surreal and ridiculous, but also capable of being serious, and somewhat dark, when it feels the need. Which given all the signing giraffes is quite some accomplishment. The game casts you as a young schoolkid whose arms are permanently stuck in a T-pose, with both stretched out 90° from his torso. If you’re waiting for an explanation as to why then we’re afraid we can’t tell you, because your character (who you can customise and name as you see fit, along with his dog) doesn’t know either. You find out eventually and the answer is… nothing you would expect. This has all been going on for a while before the game starts, as you’re by now well used to sidling through doors and getting your dog to help you dress. You’re also regularly bullied at school, which makes it obvious that being stuck like this is just a metaphor for any difference or peculiarity in real-life. Although the specific situations in to a T are fantastical, including the fact that the Japanese village you live in is also populated by anthropomorphic animals (most notably a cadre of food-obsessed giraffes), its take on bullying is surprisingly nuanced and well written. There’re also some fun songs that are repeated just enough to become unavoidable earworms. The problem is that as well meaning as all this is, there’s no core gameplay element to make it a compelling video game. You can wander around talking to people, and a lot of what they say can be interesting and/or charmingly silly, but that’s all you’re doing. The game describes itself as a ‘narrative adventure’ and that’s very accurate, but what results is the sort of barely interactive experience that makes a Telltale game seem like Doom by comparison. There are some short little mini-games, like cleaning your teeth and eating breakfast, but the only goal beyond just triggering story sequences is collecting coins that you can spend on new outfits. This is gamified quite a bit when you realise your arms give you the ability to glide short distances, but it’s still very basic stuff. One chapter also lets you play as your dog, trying to solve an array of simple puzzles and engaging in very basic platforming, but while this is more interactive than the normal chapters it’s still not really much fun in its own right. More Trending Everything is all very charming – the cartoonish visuals are reminiscent of a slightly more realistic looking Wattam – but none of it really amounts to very much. The overall message is about getting on with people no matter their differences, but while that doesn’t necessarily come across as trite it’s also not really the sort of thing you need a £15 video game, with zero replayability, to tell you about. It also doesn’t help that the game can be quite frustrating to play through, making it hard to know what you’re supposed to do next, or where you’re meant to be going. The lack of camera controls means it’s hard to act on that information even if you do know what destination you’re aiming for, either because the screen is too zoomed in, something’s blocking your view, or you keep getting confused because the perspective changes. As with Wattam, we don’t feel entirely comfortable criticising the game for its failings. We’ll take a game trying to do something new and interesting over a workmanlike sequel any day of the week – whether it succeeds or not – but there’s so little to the experience it’s hard to imagine this fitting anyone to a T. to a T review summary In Short: Charming, silly, and occasionally profound but Keita Takahashi’s latest lacks the gameplay hook of Katamari Damacy, even if it is surprisingly well written. Pros: Wonderfully and unashamedly bizarre, from the premise on down. A great script, that touches on some dark subjects, and charming visuals and music. Cons: There’s very little gameplay involved and what there is, is either very simple or awkward to control. Barely five hours long, with no replayability. Score: 6/10 Formats: PlayStation 5 (reviewed), Xbox Series X/S, and PCPrice: £15.49Publisher: Annapurna InteractiveDeveloper: uvulaRelease Date: 28th May 2025Age Rating: 7 Who knew giraffes were so good at making sandwiches (Annapurna Interactive) Email gamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below, follow us on Twitter, and sign-up to our newsletter. To submit Inbox letters and Reader’s Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use our Submit Stuff page here. For more stories like this, check our Gaming page. GameCentral Sign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

And it's typography that brings the teeth.

Scientists Investigate 2.2-Million-Year-Old Tooth Enamel to Unravel the Mysteries of Ancient Human Relatives By studying proteins preserved in teeth, researchers determined the sex of four Paranthropus robustus individuals that lived in southern Africa This skull of a 1.8-million-year-old Paranthropus robustus individual was unearthed in South Africa, but it was not one of the fossils included in the study. José Braga and Didier Descouens via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 4.0 Paranthropus robustus was a prehistoric, two-legged human relative that lived in southern Africa roughly two million years ago. Scientists have unearthed various P. robustus fossils, but because of the specimens’ age, they haven’t been able to glean much from them. Now, using a novel method, researchers say they’ve determined the sex of four P. robustus individuals by studying their teeth. The new analysis, published Thursday in the journal Science, also reveals insights into the genetic diversity of the broader Paranthropus genus. For the study, the team analyzed teeth discovered in a cave at the Swartkrans paleoanthropological site in South Africa, reports Live Science’s Kristina Killgrove. Because the fossils were so old—dating to between 1.8 million and 2.2 million years ago—researchers could not recover ancient DNA from them. So, instead, they turned to the relatively new field of paleoproteomics, or the study of preserved proteins. Ancient DNA degrades over time, particularly in hot places like southern Africa. So far, scientists studying hominin remains on the continent have only been able to successfully sequence DNA from material that’s less than 20,000 years old. But proteins can survive much longer than DNA, particularly in hard tooth enamel. When they analyzed the fossilized enamel of the P. robustus teeth, the researchers were able to identify specific protein sequences found only in males. This allowed them to determine that two of the P. robustus individuals were male and two were female. They were surprised to learn that one individual, named SK 835, was male. Based on the comparatively small size of that individual’s teeth, researchers had previously thought SK 835 was female, since male hominins tend to be larger than females, on average. This marks an important finding, as it supports the idea that dental measurements are not the most reliable way to determine the sex of ancient hominins. “Paleoanthropologists have long known that our use of tooth size to estimate sex was fraught with uncertainty, but it was the best we had,” says Paul Constantino, a paleoanthropologist at Saint Michael’s College who was not involved with the research, to ScienceNews’ Bruce Bower. “Being able to accurately identify the sex of fossils using proteins will be hugely impactful.” Further analyses of the fossils’ amino acid sequences revealed that SK 835 was less closely related to the other three individuals than they were to each other. That means it’s possible SK 835 represents a different species altogether—maybe the newly proposed Paranthropus capensis. After all, the team writes in the paper, the recent description of that species shows Paranthropus diversity “is currently underestimated and needs to be investigated further.” Or, perhaps the small size of SK 835’s teeth can be explained by microevolution—variations between P. robustus groups living at different sites. Scientists say they will need to get their hands on more Paranthropus fossils from multiple places to know for certain, per Science News. Moving forward, researchers hope they can one day use paleoproteomic methods to map the entire human family tree. Right now, however, their “ability to distinguish between different species is limited by the small number of different proteins present in enamel,” three of the study authors tell Live Science in an email. Scientists are also exploring other protein-sequencing techniques that are less destructive to fossil samples than the current methods. In the meantime, they’re excited about the potential of paleoproteomics to help them learn even more about humans’ ancient ancestors. “It opens entirely new avenues for understanding our evolutionary history [in Africa],” study co-author Marc Dickinson, a chemist at the University of York in England, says in a statement. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.