Despite its appearance as just another arcady sandbox game, Deliver At All Costs is shockingly story-minded. So much so, that its constant focus on narrative might deter those just looking for some dumb fun. And after seeing the narrative through to the end, I wouldn’t blame them, given how hard the game tries to be a grand tapestry of storytelling excellence. The adventure is structured into three acts, each with a unique town to explore and complete missions in. One act even features a time skip accompanied by a moment of no return. So even if you just want to ignore story and focus on acing deliveries and causing mayhem in the streets, you still have to go through some cutscenes and narrative progression to unlock the next towns and side missions.   "The majority of the side content in Deliver At All Costs isn’t very enticing." Not that the side missions are worth doing anyway. The majority of side content in Deliver At All Costs isn’t very enticing. The rewards aren’t worth it and the fetch quest design doesn’t warrant the effort. I’d only recommend going out of your way for the side content if you’re already keen on exploring the various maps. The treasure chests and small boxes hidden throughout the game give cash that is used on materials for vehicle upgrades; however, a majority of upgrades can be purchased from the main story mission rewards anyway. I expected to have fun with the vehicle upgrades, but ended up sorely disappointed in their limited application. This is because upgrades cannot be used outside of curated story missions; bummer. Not that the crane attachment or extreme hauling capacity upgrade aren’t fun to play with; they are rather fun, but exclusively used for their particular missions. Again, if you’re expected a zany vehicular sandbox with a lot of options and unlockables, Deliver At All Costs isn’t that. The reason I keep associating the game with sandbox playability is due to its map design. It has an old-school 2D Grand Theft Auto style of isometric driving. In between story missions, you’re given the leisure to roam around town freely. All of your driving and running around is done through a top-down isometric camera angle that gives the environments a nice diorama look to them, and what’s more, you can move the camera between two different angles in case it’s difficult to see something. "Speaking of scenery, there’s a surprising amount of activity going on while you’re driving around delivering stuff." All the unique shops and landmarks of this diorama give off a classic vibe well. Oh, and the soundtrack fits the setting wonderfully. Lounge jazz and instrumental surfer rock accompany your deliveries, and it rarely gets repetitive. Tying it into GTA even more is the radio, with infrequent broadcasts that add flavor lore to the setting. Each town has multiple districts, each with their own theme, which helps vary up the scenery just that much more. Speaking of scenery, there’s a surprising amount of activity going on while you’re driving around delivering stuff. NPCs go about their business, birds glide across the sky, and plenty of vehicle traffic accompany the streets. In fact, there’s often a tad too much activity. Streets are so packed with cars and people that collisions are unavoidable. "NPCs roam the streets and become aggressive when threatened." I like how populated the game is, but it’s tuned a bit too high, getting in the way of enjoyability a lot of the time. Perhaps, it would have been better balanced to up the street traffic the further you get into the game, especially since the towns progress from rural to metropolitan through the course of the narrative. At the very least, there’s an attractive mini-map with well designed labels and indicators. Navigation is aided with helpful arrows showing the way to a mission destination too. But you aren’t merely delivering parcels to a destination in a given time limit; there’s a variety of ways the game mixes up its missions. Part of the game’s initial draw is its physics-based driving, which manifests in hilarious ways. One of the first missions tasks you with delivering a truck full of rotted watermelons. The first step is to bring them to a sanitizer, then you paint them so they look presentable, all while avoiding traffic and trying not to knock them over as they roll around in the back of the truck. It’s one of the enjoyable missions in the game, and one that demonstrates the physics gameplay best. I like how the missions get progressively more wacky and clever as you progress too. You even become a UFO hunter during one late-game job. It’s just too bad the very high traffic and wonky controls hamper the overall experience. "I like how the missions get progressively more wacky and clever as you progress." The driving controls are rather simple. Just aim in the direction you want to drive and hold the accelerate button. It’s the high sensitivity of the acceleration and the hard braking and turning that contribute to a somewhat frustrating experience. The high traffic just further compounds the controls to make for a somewhat clunky driving experience. Vehicles don’t differ in how they drive either, though you really only have the one truck for a large majority of the game anyway, so it doesn’t really make a difference. And the cars aren’t great to look at either. Heck, nothing looks particularly nice in the game, especially the characters. Facial animations are frankly bad and the bland art style doesn’t make up for the graphical shortcomings. What’s worse is there’s still some pretty substantial load times in-between regions, which hurts the flow of the open-world. But the element that gets hurt from graphics the most is the mixed story. It’s hard to take the drama seriously when its presented so poorly. There’s an attempt at cinematic camera angles during cutscenes, but textures are featureless and close-ups of people’s faces are serious PS1 quality stuff. Thankfully, a handful of characters are quite likable despite what their low poly models suggest. Winston’s delivery mates have surprising depth and a good amount of backstory. And Winston himself is a fully fledged personality and someone you can imagine working with. "Winston’s delivery mates have surprising depth and a good amount of backstory." Characters like Norman are instantly likeable while Winston’s arch-nemesis and hardline boss, Donovon, is perfectly punchable. I’m also impressed with a majority of the dialogue writing. Characters speak with a down-to-earth tone and level of informality that makes them realistic, even if they look like untextured Unity assets. Going back to where I started the review, the game goes surprisingly hard on the story axis, but it doesn’t fully land for me. The wacky yet earnest tone is great, but the execution of the plot doesn’t wrap up in a satisfying way. Winston’s mysterious past and the true motives of the delivery company’s executives had so much potential for an intriguing narrative thread. But alas, the finale just kinda falls flat without the payoff that the game was teasing. "The game goes surprisingly hard on the story front, but it didn’t fully land for me." As a whole, Delivery At All Costs delivers a zany and fun, though frustrating, isometric delivery experience with a story that tries a bit too hard. I can easily see this game being a cult classic, but for a majority of gamers, it won’t deliver a truly stunning experience. If you’re looking for a game with a wacky and inventive premise that experiments a bit, and don’t mind gameplay and graphics from three generations ago, give Deliver At All Costs a try and it might just deliver. This game was reviewed on the PlayStation 5.

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.

ZeniMax Workers United just became the biggest game developer union in the country yet to win a contract at a major publisher. The group of over 300 quality assurance testers across franchises like Fallout and Doom secured an agreement with Microsoft that includes wage increases, salary minimums, and crediting procedures. Suggested ReadingWhy People Are Rushing To Sell Their Xbox Series X To GameStop Right Now Share SubtitlesOffEnglishSuggested ReadingWhy People Are Rushing To Sell Their Xbox Series X To GameStop Right Now Share SubtitlesOffEnglishWhy People Are Rushing To Sell Their Xbox Series X To GameStop Right Now “Video games have been the revenue titan of the entire entertainment industry for years, and the workers who develop these games are too often exploited for their passion and creativity. Organizing unions, bargaining for a contract, and speaking with one collective voice has allowed workers to take back the autonomy we all deserve,” ZeniMax QA tester and bargaining committee member Jessee Leese said in a press release. “Our first contract is an invitation for video game professionals everywhere to take action. We’re the ones who make these games, and we’ll be the ones to set new standards for fair treatment.”The contract will now go to the full membership for review with a ratification vote planned for June 20. Once completed, ZeniMax devs, including staff at Bethesda Game Studios, will have won the biggest collective bargaining agreement yet of any of the major gaming unions that have formed in recent years. Sega of America staff secured their first union contract last year, while developers at other Microsoft-owned studios, including the Overwatch 2 and World of Warcraft teams at Blizzard, as well as Call of Duty testers at Raven Software, continue bargaining. The ZeniMax contract comes just two months after union employees there threatened to go on strike if an agreement wasn’t reached following a nearly two-year-long negotiation process. The Communications Workers of America, which represents ZeniMax Workers United and other Microsoft gaming unions, previously filed an unfair labor practice charge against the tech giant claiming it was slow-walking the talks. The new contract, once ratified, will provide important benchmarks for other teams currently hashing out agreements. Correction 5/30/2025 6:56 p.m. ET: Sega of America workers were the first union at a major gaming company to secure a contract. .

Bryant Francis, Senior EditorMay 30, 20253 Min ReadImage via ZeniMax Workers United-CEWA.At a GlanceZeniMax Workers Untied-CWA has signed a tentative contract agreement with Microsoft after two years of negotiating.Unionized QA workers at ZeniMax celebrated a huge win today with the news that their union, ZeniMax Workers United-CWA, and ZeniMax parent company Microsoft finally reached a tentative contract agreement two years after unionizing in 2023.The new contract includes "substantial" across-the-board wage increases and new minimum salaries for employees and policies for introducing AI tools in the workplace (policies first agreed upon in late 2023).It also includes protections against arbitrary dismissal, grievance procedures, and a robust crediting policy to ensure QA workers are recognized for their work on ZeniMax games. The CWA declared that the agreement "sets new standards" for the video game industry."Video games have been the revenue titan of the entire entertainment industry for years, and the workers who develop these games are too often exploited for their passion and creativity," said ZeniMax QA tester Jessee Leese, who is a member of the bargaining committee. "Our first contract is an invitation for video game professionals everywhere to take action."The agreement follows a brief public spat between the two parties from November 2024 through April 2025. The union has spoken out against Microsoft's decision to outsource more work to outside contractors and accused it of "hindering" contract negotiations, briefly going on strike last year and voting to authorize a second strike this spring. Microsoft denied the accusation, saying made "fair" proposals to the bargaining committee (Raven Software union members made similar claims about Microsoft in August 2024).Related:That the two groups could go from public verbal sparring to a successful bargaining agreement in under two months shows that some form of progress came after workers threatened that second strike.Unions possess negotiation tools that individuals don'tAdapting the union's contract and tactics is a potentially powerful way to In 2024 ZeniMax union leaders Autumn Mitchell and Chris Lusco broke down the benefits of the unionization process in a conversation on the Game Developer Podcast, explaining that choosing to unionize has created new bargaining opportunities that individual employees don't possess.For instance, the pair discussed the concept of "recall rights," a term the included in the bargaining agreement that requires employers to offer laid-off employees a chance to return to the company if they reopen their positions within 2-3 years after being laid off. Unionizing workers in the United States also benefit what's known as a "status quo" condition for workers' contracts that are immediately imposed when a union is declared, preventing their employer from suddenly shrinking benefits.Related:"We're talking about eliminating that 'revolving door' at least to some degree," Mitchell said at the time, in reference to how high turnover can gut a studio's institutional knowledge.Their tactics will certainly be useful to other unions negotiating bargaining agreements with Microsoft. At neighboring subsidiary Activision Blizzard, the developers working on the Warcraft and Overwatch series are waging their own (verbal) battle with the company, as are the employees at Raven Software and workers across Activision Blizzard's QA teams.Read more about:Top StoriesUnionizationXboxAbout the AuthorBryant FrancisSenior Editor, GameDeveloper.comBryant Francis is a writer, journalist, and narrative designer based in Boston, MA. He currently writes for Game Developer, a leading B2B publication for the video game industry. His credits include Proxy Studios' upcoming 4X strategy game Zephon and Amplitude Studio's 2017 game Endless Space 2.Follow Bryant Francis, Senior Editor, on Bluesky or LinkedIn.See more from Bryant FrancisDaily news, dev blogs, and stories from Game Developer straight to your inboxStay UpdatedYou May Also Like

Lousy ROI Elon Musk counts the cost of his four-month blitz through US government Term at DOGE did serious damage to his brands, only achieved a fraction of hoped-for savings. Joe Miller and Alex Rogers, Financial Times – May 30, 2025 9:28 am | 59 Elon Musk wields a chainsaw at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February to illustrate his aim to cut government waste Credit: Jose Luis Magana/AP Elon Musk wields a chainsaw at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February to illustrate his aim to cut government waste Credit: Jose Luis Magana/AP Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Elon Musk’s four-month blitz through the US government briefly made him Washington’s most powerful businessman since the Gilded Age. But it has done little for his reputation or that of his companies. Musk this week formally abandoned his role as the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), which has failed to find even a fraction of the $2 trillion in savings he originally pledged. On Thursday, Donald Trump lamented his departure but said Musk “will always be with us, helping all the way.” Yet the billionaire will be left calculating the cost of his involvement with Trump and the meagre return on his $250 million investment in the US president’s election campaign. “I appreciate the fact that Mr Musk put what was good for the country ahead of what was good for his own bottom line,” Tom Cole, the Republican chair of the House Appropriations Committee, told the Financial Times. After Doge was announced, a majority of American voters believed Musk would use the body to “enrich himself and undermine his business rivals,” according to a survey, instead of streamlining the government. Progressive groups warned that he would be “rigging federal procurement for billionaires and their pals” and cut regulations that govern his companies Tesla and SpaceX. Democratic lawmakers said Doge was a “cover-up” of a more sinister, self-serving exercise by the world’s richest person. Early moves by the Trump administration suggested Musk might get value for money. A lawsuit brought by the Biden administration against SpaceX over its hiring practices was dropped in February, and regulators probing his brain-implant company Neuralink were dismissed. Musk’s satellite Internet business Starlink was touted by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as a potential beneficiary of a $42 billion rural broadband scheme. An executive order calling for the establishment of a multibillion-dollar Iron Dome defense system in the US looked set to benefit Musk, due to SpaceX’s dominance in rocket launches. The gutting of various watchdogs across government also benefited Musk’s businesses, while a number of large US companies rushed to ink deals with Starlink or increase their advertising spending on X. Starlink also signed agreements to operate in India, Pakistan, and Vietnam, among other countries it has long wished to expand into. But while Doge took a scythe to various causes loathed by Musk, most notably international aid spending and government contracts purportedly linked to diversity initiatives or “woke” research, it also caused severe blowback to the billionaire’s businesses, particularly Tesla. At one point during his Doge tenure, Tesla’s stock had fallen 45 percent from its highest point last year, and reports emerged that the company’s board of directors had sought to replace Musk as chief executive. The 53-year-old’s personal wealth dropped by tens of billions of dollars, while his dealerships were torched and death threats poured in. Some of the brand damage to Tesla, until recently Musk’s primary source of wealth, could be permanent. “Eighty percent of Teslas in the US were sold in blue zip codes,” a former senior employee said. “Obviously that constituency has been deeply offended.” Starlink lost lucrative contracts in Canada and Mexico due to Musk’s political activities, while X lost 11 million users in Europe alone. Probes of Tesla and SpaceX by government regulators also continued apace, while the Trump administration pressed ahead with plans to abolish tax credits for electric vehicles and waged a trade war vehemently opposed by Musk that threatened to further damage car sales. In the political arena, few people were cheered by Doge’s work. Democrats were outraged by the gutting of foreign aid and by Musk’s 20-something acolytes gaining access to the Treasury’s payment system, along with the ousting of thousands of federal workers. Republicans looked askance at attempts to target defense spending. And true budget hawks were bitter that Musk could only cut a few billion dollars. Bill Gates even accused Musk of “killing the world’s poorest children” through his actions at Doge. Musk, so used to getting his way at his businesses, struggled for control. At various points in his tenure he took on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Transport Secretary Sean Duffy, and trade tsar Peter Navarro, while clashing with several other senior officials. Far from being laser-focused on eliminating waste, Musk’s foray into government was a “revenge tour” against a bureaucracy the billionaire had come to see as the enemy of innovation, a former senior colleague of Musk’s said, highlighting the entrepreneur’s frustration with COVID-19 regulations in California, his perceived snub by the Biden administration, and his anger over his daughter’s gender transition. Trump’s AI and crypto tsar, David Sacks, an influential political voice in the tech world, “whipped [Musk] up into a very, very far-right kind of mindset,” the person added, to the extent that was “going to help this administration in crushing the ‘woke’ agenda.” Neither Musk nor Sacks responded to requests for comment. Musk, who claimed Doge only acted in an “advisory role,” this week expressed frustration at it being used as a “whipping boy” for unpopular cuts decided by the White House and cabinet secretaries. “Trump, I think, was very savvy and allowed Doge to kind of take all those headlines for a traditional political scapegoat,” said Sahil Lavingia, head of a commerce start-up who worked for Doge until earlier this month. Musk, he added, might also have been keen to take credit for the gutting of USAID and other moves but ultimately garnered unwanted attention. “If you were truly evil, [you] would just be more quiet,” said Lavingia, who joined the initiative in order to streamline processes within government. “You would do the evil stuff quietly.” The noise surrounding Musk, whose ability to dominate news cycles with a single post on his social media site X rivaled Trump’s own hold on the headlines, also frustrated the administration. This week, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller took to X to indirectly rebut the billionaire’s criticism of Trump’s signature tax bill, which he had lambasted for failing to cut the deficit or codify Doge’s cuts. Once almost synonymous with Musk, Doge is now being melded into the rest of government. In a briefing on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that following Musk’s departure, cabinet secretaries would “continue to work with the respective Doge employees who have onboarded as political appointees at all of these agencies.” She added: “The Doge leaders are each and every member of the President’s Cabinet and the President himself.” Doge’s aims have also become decidedly more quotidian. Tom Krause, a Musk ally who joined Doge and was installed at Treasury, briefed congressional staff this week on improvements to the IRS’s application program interfaces and customer service, according to a person familiar with the matter. Other Doge staffers are doing audits of IT contracts—work Lavingia compares with that done by McKinsey consultants. Freed from the constraints of being a government employee, Musk is increasingly threatening to become a thorn in Trump’s side. Soon after his Doge departure was announced, he again criticized the White House, this time over its plan to cancel clean energy tax credits. “Teddy Roosevelt had that great adage: ‘speak softly but carry a big stick’,” Fred Thiel, the chief executive of Bitcoin mining company MARA Holdings, told the FT. “Maybe Elon’s approach was a little bit different.” © 2025 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way. Joe Miller and Alex Rogers, Financial Times Joe Miller and Alex Rogers, Financial Times 59 Comments

OpinionMay 26, 20257 min readScientific Strategies to Help Kids Meet the Challenges of a Cruel WorldResearch has shown ways parents can help children cope with the stressors of modern lifeBy Clara Moskowitz Mary Long/Getty ImagesBetween climate change, economic anxiety and political turmoil, the world can feel like a scary place, especially for kids. Today’s young people have already been through a deadly global pandemic, they regularly drill to prepare for school shootings, and they must learn to navigate an age of misinformation and danger online. These stressors seem to be taking a toll; measurements show anxiety and sleep deprivation among adolescents are rising, and even teen suicide attempts are increasing.To parents, the situation can feel overwhelming. The good news is, there’s a lot parents can do to help their kids meet the challenges of the world we live in, writes parenting journalist (and frequent Scientific American contributor) Melinda Wenner Moyer. In her new book Hello, Cruel World! Science-Based Strategies for Raising Terrific Kids in Terrifying Times (Penguin Random House, May 2025) Moyer surveys scientific research on kids’ mental health and ways to improve it.Moyer divides her book into three sections focused on evidence-backed tips for helping young people cope with challenges, connect to others, and cultivate strong characters. Scientific American spoke to her about how to shield kids from online misinformation, nurture self-compassion and get your children to open up with you.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]The concept of the book, this “cruel world,” resonates so much with me as a parent, and I'm sure with so many people. Tell me a bit more about how you started feeling like the world is becoming a really tough place for kids.I have had this growing anxiety and angst as a parent, just thinking about the world that my kids were coming into and that they were going to inherit from us. There are so many things looming, you know, climate change and disinformation. I was also getting so many comments from parents saying, “I'm just so scared on behalf of my kids, and I don't know what I can do to prepare them and help them get them ready for this world that we're going to hand them.” And I'm always trying to think of solutions and trying to figure out ways to reassure both myself and my readers. We do have some control here. And so I started researching, what are the key skills that we know can help kids get through all this? I was really trying to come up with concrete strategies that I could communicate to parents to help them feel a little less worried, a little more in control, and feel like they really could do something as parents, because I think parenting is a form of activism. We are raising the next generation of kids, and through our parenting, we can change the world.In what specific ways do you think there are challenges that kids are facing today that previous generations haven't really had to face before?We know from the research that there are a lot of tweens and teens who are struggling with mental health issues. Whether or not you think that the statistics are as bad as they seem, there seems to be a signal there that we should pay attention to. And so a big part of the book is about: How can we help kids cope? What are the things we can do to help them manage their emotions in healthy ways, rather than unhealthy ways?Another big one is technology. Every generation panics about technology, and so the question is, well, how much different is our situation today than it was when the TV came out, or the printing press—these were all big changes at the time. But I think this is certainly the first generation where kids have a handheld connection to technology, potentially at all times. That does feel momentous.One message in the book that really spoke to me was that helping our kids is also about helping ourselves—that we can’t teach kids things like self-compassion, or balancing work and leisure, or all these other lessons, until we can embody them ourselves.I do think a really overlooked aspect of child health and development is: How are the parents doing? What’s their mental health like? What are the skills that they have or don't have? Because we are teaching our kids so much through the choices we make. You know, are we beating ourselves up when we burn dinner? Are we constantly putting ourselves down? Our kids are learning from that and thinking, okay, I should be doing this too. I think we do overlook the role of our own well-being. This is really important because our kids are watching us.I want to be careful too: I’m not saying this to put more pressure on parents. We already have so many expectations of ourselves to ensure that our kids are succeeding at everything they do, that they're comfortable all the time, that they’re protected all the time, that they’re happy all the time. We have these expectations about what we should be doing as parents that are both unrealistic and unhelpful. When we overprotect, when we over-coddle, that actually undermines the development of key skills for them. Problem solving and resilience and emotional regulation, these are all skills that kids learn through practice. They need to be sad, they need to be disappointed and frustrated. They need to fail and experience what that is and understand that that’s part of the process of learning. So a lot of what I'm trying to do is give parents permission to step back a little bit and to relax.You write in the book a lot about connection—how a strong connection between parents and kids is important for their mental health and is protective against some of the things we worry about, such as bad influences from social media. How do you make sure your connection is strong?If you're worried you’re not connecting enough with your kids, then there are things you can do. I was really surprised at the power of listening to our kids—like really listening. I think we hear a lot about talking to your kids. And I think sometimes that can be misinterpreted as, lecture to your kids, you know, tell them not to do this and not to do that, and set rules and communicate the rules. But it’s also really listening to them in a respectful way, and being willing to consider their perspective, which you may not always agree with.And when they open up to you, drop everything. It’s impossible sometimes, but when they are opening up to you, even if it’s in a very inconvenient time, try to allow it and stop what you’re doing. Kids often like to connect right before bedtime, which is the most frustrating time ever, right? But we should really allow the connection to happen on their terms, because that’s a form of giving our kids some autonomy. If you’re getting from your kids some willingness to be vulnerable with you, I think that that is a really good sign.There’s a relationship between feeling listened to and being willing to be self-reflective and also intellectually humble, which I think is really interesting. So when we feel heard, when we feel safe and not threatened, we’re much more willing to consider what we don’t know, and to acknowledge uncertainty within ourselves.What can parents do if we’re worried about the information, the bad actors, the scary, negative stuff that our kids are coming across online? What can we do to help them tell the difference between misinformation, lies and reality online?There’s very little media literacy education happening in schools. It really helps if the parent has some of those skills already, because then they can model media literacy and information literacy a little better for kids. So I encourage parents to try to learn about media literacy.One thing that every media literacy expert said to me was to ask your kids open-ended questions about what they’re seeing and hearing in the media. It’s such a beautifully simple approach, but apparently it’s very, very powerful. So this could be anything, like with little kids, asking: What do you like about this show? Or why do you think that character just did what they did? It could also involve talking about how movies and cartoons are made. And when kids get older, you can ask even bigger questions, like: Who made this? Why was it made? Why is it being presented this way? What or who is missing from this? Who might benefit from this? Who might be harmed by it? Getting kids to think about these big-picture questions about the media can be super helpful in fostering this sort of curiosity and this questioning perspective in kids.These are some really wonderful tips, and I’m going to try to put them into practice. As a parent, I'm always reading and trying to learn how to be the best parent I can be. But sometimes I wonder how much it really matters what we do and how we parent. How much of who our kids are and who they’re going to turn out to be, is completely out of our control anyway?People still debate this. We know genetics, of course, really matter. We know that temperament and personality, these are not things that we’re probably going to be able to shift in our kids. But we also do know that a lot of what we’re passing on to our kids is through the relationships we build with them, through the conversations we’re having with them to help them understand how the world works, to help them understand what they can do to build stronger relationships, how they can interact with people. They really do learn a lot from our modeling, in terms of how to behave, how to manage conflict, how to think about different situations. We know that there are a lot of skills that kids learn through observing others, through the conversations they have with others, through the opportunities they’re given to develop skills.A big example is resilience. We know that kids who are overprotected, prevented from failing, from experiencing challenges, that those are kids who are going to grow up not knowing how to problem solve and not knowing how to deal with feelings of frustration. They haven’t been given opportunities to develop emotional regulation skills and they will really suffer for that when they get older. So I feel like we do have a lot of power in terms of the perspective that we help kids develop about the world, about why it looks the way it does. We can give them the opportunities at a young age to develop skills that will serve them the rest of their lives.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

A potentially devastating new round of tariffs looming over the European Union’s trade relationship with the U.S. will be pushed back for at least a month as negotiations continue.  President Trump on Friday announced plans for a 50% tariff on EU goods, expressing frustration with the 27-country bloc and repeating his talking points about the trade deficit between the U.S. and the EU. After a call over the weekend with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Trump agreed to a new deadline of July 9 to give the U.S. and EU time to hash out a deal.  “I agreed to the extension—July 9, 2025—it was my privilege to do so,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “The Commission President said that talks will begin rapidly. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump’s cooperative comments were a tone shift from his Friday mood toward the bloc, when he described the talks as “going nowhere” and slammed the EU for being difficult to deal with. Von der Leyen reiterated that the EU needs until July to sort out the details of a new trade deal—and to talk its way out of Trump’s threatened 50% tariff, which would devastate existing trade norms between the global powers. “The EU and U.S. share the world’s most consequential and close trade relationship,” Von der Leyen said on X. “Europe is ready to advance talks swiftly and decisively.” On Friday, Trump also rounded on Apple, threatening to implement a 25% tariff if the Cupertino, California-based iPhone maker doesn’t bring its manufacturing stateside. The passing attack was enough to prompt a dip in Apple’s shares as investors fretted over the high price tag of a hypothetical U.S.-made iPhone and the logistic impossibility of the company relocating its vast production operation, which is largely based in China. The fresh trade threats against the EU are just the latest turn on Trump’s trade roller-coaster ride, which has thrown global alliances into chaos, upended markets, and raised a new round of red flags that U.S. consumers may again be facing higher prices on everyday goods.

On Friday, President Trump publicly threatened a 25% tariff on all iPhones not made in the United States, catching both Apple and his own administration off guard. Now, The New York Times reports it seems the move was likely payback for Tim Cook skipping Trump’s recent Middle East trip. The President goes east You’ve probably seen a few photos from Trump’s CEO-studded tour of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. From Nvidia’s Jensen Huang to OpenAI’s Sam Altman, the president’s entourage read like a Silicon Valley star lineup. But one high-profile exec was missing: Apple CEO Tim Cook, who had been invited but declined. And according to the Times, that decision stuck with Trump throughout the trip. During a speech in Riyadh, for instance, the president praised Huang for showing up, then took a shot: “Tim Cook isn’t here, but you are.” Later, in Qatar, he told attendees he had “a little problem with Tim Cook”, as he criticized Apple’s growing manufacturing footprint in India. Hours later, the tariff threat went live: “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhone’s that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else. If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S. Thank your for your attention to this matter!” Trump and his allies have been pushing for Apple to bring iPhone manufacturing stateside, but Friday’s threat felt less like a strategic move and more like targeted punishment. Apple had just narrowly avoided a 145% China-related tariff in April, and now it’s facing a new one. As Tripp Mickle notes in the Times’ report, the recent shift in tone has put Apple in an unprecedented position regarding its relationship with Trump. During his first term, Cook managed to keep Apple out of the White House’s crosshairs by playing diplomat-in-chief, showing up when it counted and making just enough concessions to keep the peace. Now, it appears Trump is demanding that Cook, who personally donated US$1 million to his inauguration, abide by his whims further. And as Cook seems to be drawing the line, this appears to be frustrating Trump, who has always boasted about his close relationship with Apple’s CEO. Whether the new tariff actually comes to pass is still an open question. But the message has already landed: skip the photo ops, and there’s a price to pay. Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed.  FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

NVIDIA's next big rival is not another Big Tech company from the West but Huawei, the firm on track to dominate the AI segment in China. Huawei Could Very Well Make NVIDIA Irrelevant In The Chinese AI Markets, Marking a Massive Blow To The Company's Business When it comes to acknowledging competition, Team Green has done little despite being in the market for more than three decades, where you have rivals like Intel or AMD. Under NVIDIA's CEO Jensen Huang, the firm has managed to dominate its business segment for several years now, but now there's an "undeniable" panic within Jensen's camp, which is mainly due to how big of a rival has Huawei emerged itself to be, to a point where NVIDIA now feels threatened by the company. When looking at Chinese markets alone, Huawei dominates every space, including the AI segment. One of the reasons why Huawei has become such a significant factor for NVIDIA is that the US restrictions have forced Team Green to distance itself from the Chinese AI markets, which has given Huawei a massive opportunity, and the firm has capitalized on this. Based on what we know until now, the Chinese tech giant offers its Ascend 910B and 910C chips for the region, which are said to be equivalent in performance relative to the likes of NVIDIA's H100 AI accelerators, which are some of the most high-end chips out there. When you look at NVIDIA's position, the company is forced to sell its stripped-down solutions to the Chinese markets, and Team Green's upcoming AI chip is said to further bridge the performance gap by integrating relatively weaker technologies such as GDDR7. In terms of raw power, NVIDIA's next chip might not match what Huawei offers, which could be a massive blow to the company. However, Jensen will likely rely on his company's software ecosystem in order to be competent in domestic markets, but we know Huawei is fond of developing capable alternatives. Huawei isn't just building up AI chips; it has managed to vertically integrate the supply chain, from semiconductors to memory production. The Chinese giant is said to operate multiple fabs under different subsidiaries, and is claimed to have achieved persistent 7nm production. So NVIDIA isn't just rivaling a tech company here, it is in competition with one of China's largest business entities in terms of production, hence becoming obsolete isn't too far away for NVIDIA in China. NVIDIA's urgency to maintain its position in China is evident from Jensen's recent statements about US policies and how Team Green has been affected by the AI Diffusion policy. The company's future in China is definitely uncertain, and even after desperate attempts, NVIDIA will have a tough time maintaining its position. Deal of the Day

Five years ago, George Floyd was murdered by a Minneapolis police officer after Floyd was suspected of using a counterfeit $20 bill. His death ignited a series of protests in the United States that gave new energy to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, and which seemed—at the time—to reshape society, online and offline. As the protests that were born out of Floyd’s death reached their zenith in June 2020, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote a poignant message: “To members of our Black community: I stand with you. Your lives matter. Black lives matter.” Zuckerberg also pledged that Meta would revise its content policies to tamp down on hate speech. At the same time, platforms like Twitter—now X—took the unprecedented step of limiting the reach of posts by then-sitting U.S. president Donald Trump, after he warned protestors in Minneapolis responding to Floyd’s death that “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Reddit updated its hate speech policy; TikTok had to apologize that its algorithm inadvertently suppressed BLM content. Five years on from Floyd’s death, a lot has changed, including social media’s tolerance for hate speech, incitement to violence, and racism. “Given the rollback of a lot of DEI friendly policies, I’d say we can tell how performative those approaches were,” says Carolina Are, a researcher at the Center for Digital Citizens at Northumbria University. “Platforms are private companies, not public institutions despite their overshare of online civil space, so they will always seek to protect their bottom line,” says tèmítópé lasade-anderson, executive director at Glitch, a charity focused on digital rights. The end of DEI Perhaps one of the most obvious examples of that backsliding was Meta terminating its major diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs for hiring, training and picking suppliers in response to a “changing” approach to DEI within the United States. That change happened in January, as soon as Donald Trump took office as president. The ease with which those programs were rolled back hints at how firmly the statements made immediately after Floyd’s death were held within tech organizations. “Companies of all stripes are conspicuously scaling back DEI programs for employees, and platforms are no exception,” says Daphne Keller., director of the program on platform regulation at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center. Keller says that change isn’t just trying to reflect the political winds. “The Trump administration has made it clear that companies risk having multi-million dollar mergers blocked or government contracts terminated if they do not eliminate efforts to diversify hiring, training, and promotion,” she says. It’s in that light—tech companies being threatened with losing out on cash—that the decisions are being made, Keller reckons. Meta did not respond to a request to comment for this story. The “free speech” platform In Elon Musk’s case, after he took over X, the company adopt new policies to allow more leeway for, Musk claimed, people to say things that could be offensive, but not illegal, while simultaneously. cracking down on the ability to say other words, such as cisgender. Hate speech and racist tweets rose by nearly half in the period after Elon Musk took over Twitter, according to a February 2025 study by researchers at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering. Neither Musk nor X’s press office responded to a request for this story. “In general I’d say platforms have been aligning with anti-DEI initiatives, showing that their pro-BLM stances were entirely performative,” says Are. Whether that’s totally fair is uncertain. Roy Austin, a civil rights attorney of three decades standing who was hired as vice president for civil rights at Meta around six months after Floyd’s death, left the company in March 2025. His parting message was largely positive about his time at the company, while acknowledging “the complexity and challenges of our work.” (Austin declined to speak for this story.) Meta’s January winding back of its policies was roundly criticized by some of the same civil rights organizations who the social network had often called on to advise Meta on its decision-making. The platform had shown a “cynical disregard” for the diversity of its user base, the letter, organized by the nonprofit Common Cause, read. Yet Meta’s latest transparency report shows that hate speech has dropped on Facebook, from the average user encountering around 10 posts containing it for every 10,000 they saw, to around two today. That data stops, however, before the big change in January took place. What it looks like five years on from BLM protestors chanting “No justice, no peace” on streets around the United States will have to wait for the company’s next transparency report.