Silent Hill f will launch on Sept. 25, Konami revealed during Wednesday’s PlayStation State of Play. It’ll be the first new mainline Silent Hill game in over a decade and the first game in the series overall since last year’s Silent Hill 2 Remake. It follows a student, Hinako, in 1960s Japan — a first for the psychological horror series typically set in rural America — as the town she lives in is overrun with horrifying enemies only a Silent Hill game could produce. A fog descends, causing the town’s citizens to disappear. Hinako comes across what seem to be her fellow students, now turned into terrifying creatures, as she fights her way out of a school with a pipe as her weapon. She also wields a spear when approaching a shrine and the ominous figure before it, whose face is the stuff of nightmares. According to a PlayStation Blog post, Silent Hill f “will have a heavier focus on melee and be more action-oriented” than the Silent Hill 2 remake. Silent Hill f was originally announced in 2022 and is being developed by the Taiwan-based studio Neobards Entertainment with additional support from Japanese developers. Visual novel fans might want to check it out, as Silent Hill f is being written in part by Ryukishi07. The blog post describes Silent Hill f as a “standalone spinoff,” meaning series veterans and newcomers alike will have their socks scared off by it when Silent Hill f is released on PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series X.

Tech AI robots help nurses beat burnout and transform hospital care Hospitals using AI-powered robots to support nurses, redefine patient care Published June 4, 2025 6:00am EDT close AI robots help nurses beat burnout and transform hospital care Artificial intelligence and robotics may help with nursing shortage. NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! The global healthcare system is expected to face a shortage of 4.5 million nurses by 2030, with burnout identified as a leading cause for this deficit. In response, Taiwan's hospitals are taking decisive action by integrating artificial intelligence and robotics to support their staff and maintain high standards of patient care. AI-powered Nurabot (Nvidia)Nurabot: The AI nursing robot changing patient careNurabot, a collaborative nursing robot developed by Foxconn and Kawasaki Heavy Industries with Nvidia's AI technology, is designed to take on some of the most physically demanding and repetitive tasks in clinical care. These include delivering medications, transporting samples, patrolling wards and guiding visitors through hospital corridors. By handling these responsibilities, Nurabot allows nurses to focus on more meaningful aspects of patient care and helps reduce the physical fatigue that often leads to burnout. AI-powered Nurabot (Nvidia)Using AI to build the hospitals of the futureFoxconn's approach to smart hospitals goes beyond deploying robots. The company has developed a suite of digital tools using Nvidia platforms, including AI models that monitor patient vitals and digital twins that simulate hospital environments for planning and training purposes.The process starts in the data center, where large AI models are trained on Nvidia supercomputers. Hospitals then use digital twins to test and train robots in virtual settings before deploying them in real-world scenarios, ensuring that these systems are both safe and effective.ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TRANSFORMS PATIENT CARE AND REDUCES BURNOUT, PHYSICIAN SAYS AI-powered Nurabot (Nvidia)AI robots in real hospitals: Results from Taiwan's Healthcare SystemTaichung Veterans General Hospital (TCVGH), along with other top hospitals in Taiwan, is at the forefront of this digital transformation. TCVGH has built digital twins of its wards and nursing stations, providing a virtual training ground for Nurabot before it is introduced to real hospital floors. According to Shu-Fang Liu, deputy director of the nursing department at TCVGH, robots like Nurabot are augmenting the capabilities of healthcare staff, enabling them to deliver more focused and meaningful care to patients. AI-powered Nurabot (Nvidia)Ways Nurabot reduces nurse burnout and boosts efficiencyNurabot is already making a difference in daily hospital operations. The robot handles medicine deliveries, ward patrols and visitor guidance, which Foxconn estimates can reduce nurse workloads by up to 30%. In one ward, Nurabot delivers wound care kits and educational materials directly to patient bedsides, saving nurses multiple trips to supply rooms and allowing them to dedicate more time to their patients. The robot is also especially helpful during visiting hours and night shifts, when staffing levels are typically lower.Nurses hope future versions of Nurabot will be able to converse with patients in multiple languages, recognize faces for personalized interactions and even assist with lifting patients when needed. For example, a lung patient who needs two nurses to sit up for breathing exercises might only require one nurse with Nurabot's help, freeing the other to care for other patients. AI-powered Nurabot (Nvidia)Kurt's key takeawaysWhen it comes to addressing the nursing shortage, Taiwan is demonstrating that AI and robotics can make a significant difference in hospitals. Instead of spending their shifts running errands or handling repetitive tasks, nurses now have robots like Nurabot to lend a hand. This means nurses can focus their energy on what matters most – caring for patients – while robots handle tasks such as delivering medication or guiding visitors around the hospital.It's a team effort between people and technology, and it's already helping healthcare staff provide better care for everyone.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPHow would you feel if a robot, not a human, delivered your medication during a hospital stay? Let us know by writing us at Cyberguy.com/Contact.For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/Newsletter.Ask Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved. Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on "FOX & Friends." Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

Limited-time offer: Get more than 30% off a Vox Membership. Join today to support independent journalism. Federal civil servants are supposed to enjoy robust protections against being fired or demoted for political reasons. But President Donald Trump has effectively stripped them of these protections by neutralizing the federal agencies that implement these safeguards.An agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hears civil servants’ claims that a “government employer discriminated against them, retaliated against them for whistleblowing, violated protections for veterans, or otherwise subjected them to an unlawful adverse employment action or prohibited personnel practice,” as a federal appeals court explained in an opinion on Tuesday. But the three-member board currently lacks the quorum it needs to operate because Trump fired two of the members.Trump also fired Hampton Dellinger, who until recently served as the special counsel of the United States, a role that investigates alleged violations of federal civil service protections and brings related cases to the MSPB. Trump recently nominated Paul Ingrassia, a far-right podcaster and recent law school graduate to replace Dellinger.The upshot of these firings is that no one in the government is able to enforce laws and regulations protecting civil servants. As Dellinger noted in an interview, the morning before a federal appeals court determined that Trump could fire him, he’d “been able to get 6,000 newly hired federal employees back on the job,” and was working to get “all probationary employees put back on the job [after] their unlawful firing” by the Department of Government Efficiency and other Trump administration efforts to cull the federal workforce. These and other efforts to reinstate illegally fired federal workers are on hold, and may not resume until Trump leaves office.Which brings us to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision in National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, which proposes an innovative solution to this problem.As the Owen opinion notes, the Supreme Court has held that the MSPB process is the only process a federal worker can use if they believe they’ve been fired in violation of federal civil service laws. So if that process is shut down, the worker is out of luck.But the Fourth Circuit’s Owen opinion argues that this “conclusion can only be true…when the statute functions as Congress intended.” That is, if the MSPB and the special counsel are unable to “fulfill their roles prescribed by” federal law, then the courts should pick up the slack and start hearing cases brought by illegally fired civil servants.For procedural reasons, the Fourth Circuit’s decision will not take effect right away — the court sent the case back down to a trial judge to “conduct a factual inquiry” into whether the MSPB continues to function. And, even after that inquiry is complete, the Trump administration is likely to appeal the Fourth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court if it wants to keep civil service protections on ice.If the justices agree with the circuit court, however, that will close a legal loophole that has left federal civil servants unprotected by laws that are still very much on the books. And it will cure a problem that the Supreme Court bears much of the blame for creating.The “unitary executive,” or why the Supreme Court is to blame for the loss of civil service protectionsFederal law provides that Dellinger could “be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and members of the MSPB enjoy similar protections against being fired. Trump’s decision to fire these officials was illegal under these laws.But a federal appeals court nonetheless permitted Trump to fire Dellinger, and the Supreme Court recently backed Trump’s decision to fire the MSPB members as well. The reason is a legal theory known as the “unitary executive,” which is popular among Republican legal scholars, and especially among the six Republicans that control the Supreme Court.If you want to know all the details of this theory, I can point you to three different explainers I’ve written on the unitary executive. The short explanation is that the unitary executive theory claims that the president must have the power to fire top political appointees charged with executing federal laws – including officials who execute laws protecting civil servants from illegal firings.But the Supreme Court has never claimed that the unitary executive permits the president to fire any federal worker regardless of whether Congress has protected them or not. In a seminal opinion laying out the unitary executive theory, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the president must have the power to remove “principal officers” — high-ranking officials like Dellinger who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under Scalia’s approach, lower-ranking government workers may still be given some protection.The Fourth Circuit cannot override the Supreme Court’s decision to embrace the unitary executive theory. But the Owen opinion essentially tries to police the line drawn by Scalia. The Supreme Court has given Trump the power to fire some high-ranking officials, but he shouldn’t be able to use that power as a back door to eliminate job protections for all civil servants.The Fourth Circuit suggests that the federal law which simultaneously gave the MSPB exclusive authority over civil service disputes, while also protecting MSPB members from being fired for political reasons, must be read as a package. Congress, this argument goes, would not have agreed to shunt all civil service disputes to the MSPB if it had known that the Supreme Court would strip the MSPB of its independence. And so, if the MSPB loses its independence, it must also lose its exclusive authority over civil service disputes — and federal courts must regain the power to hear those cases.It remains to be seen whether this argument persuades a Republican Supreme Court — all three of the Fourth Circuit judges who decided the Owen case are Democrats, and two are Biden appointees. But the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning closely resembles the kind of inquiry that courts frequently engage in when a federal law is struck down.When a court declares a provision of federal law unconstitutional, it often needs to ask whether other parts of the law should fall along with the unconstitutional provision, an inquiry known as “severability.” Often, this severability analysis asks which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that the one provision is invalid.The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is essentially a severability opinion. It takes as a given the Supreme Court’s conclusion that laws protecting Dellinger and the MSPB members from being fired are unconstitutional, then asks which law Congress would have enacted if it had known that it could not protect MSPB members from political reprisal. The Fourth Circuit’s conclusion is that, if Congress had known that MSPB members cannot be politically independent, then it would not have given them exclusive authority over civil service disputes.If the Supreme Court permits Trump to neutralize the MSPB, that would fundamentally change how the government functionsThe idea that civil servants should be hired based on merit and insulated from political pressure is hardly new. The first law protecting civil servants, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which President Chester A. Arthur signed into law in 1883.Laws like the Pendleton Act do more than protect civil servants who, say, resist pressure to deny government services to the president’s enemies. They also make it possible for top government officials to actually do their jobs.Before the Pendleton Act, federal jobs were typically awarded as patronage — so when a Democratic administration took office, the Republicans who occupied most federal jobs would be fired and replaced by Democrats. This was obviously quite disruptive, and it made it difficult for the government to hire highly specialized workers. Why would someone go to the trouble of earning an economics degree and becoming an expert on federal monetary policy, if they knew that their job in the Treasury Department would disappear the minute their party lost an election?Meanwhile, the task of filling all of these patronage jobs overwhelmed new presidents. As Candice Millard wrote in a 2011 biography of President James A. Garfield, the last president elected before the Pendleton Act, when Garfield took office, a line of job seekers began to form outside the White House “before he even sat down to breakfast.” By the time Garfield had eaten, this line “snaked down the front walk, out the gate, and onto Pennsylvania Avenue.” Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker, a fact that likely helped build political support for the Pendleton Act.By neutralizing the MSPB, Trump is effectively undoing nearly 150 years worth of civil service reforms, and returning the federal government to a much more primitive state. At the very least, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is likely to force the Supreme Court to ask if it really wants a century and a half of work to unravel.See More:

Silent Hill f will launch on Sept. 25, Konami revealed during Wednesday’s PlayStation State of Play. It’ll be the first new mainline Silent Hill game in over a decade and the first game in the series overall since last year’s Silent Hill 2 Remake. It follows a student, Hinako, in 1960s Japan — a first for the psychological horror series typically set in rural America — as the town she lives in is overrun with horrifying enemies only a Silent Hill game could produce. A fog descends, causing the town’s citizens to disappear. Hinako comes across what seem to be her fellow students, now turned into terrifying creatures, as she fights her way out of a school with a pipe as her weapon. She also wields a spear when approaching a shrine and the ominous figure before it, whose face is the stuff of nightmares. According to a PlayStation Blog post, Silent Hill f “will have a heavier focus on melee and be more action-oriented” than the Silent Hill 2 remake. Silent Hill f was originally announced in 2022 and is being developed by the Taiwan-based studio Neobards Entertainment with additional support from Japanese developers. Visual novel fans might want to check it out, as Silent Hill f is being written in part by Ryukishi07. The blog post describes Silent Hill f as a “standalone spinoff,” meaning series veterans and newcomers alike will have their socks scared off by it when Silent Hill f is released on PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series X.

Image: Nintendo LifeWho had the return of Survival Kids on their bingo cards for 2025? Let alone as a launch title for a brand new Nintendo console? Amidst a storm of third-party ports and first-party giants, Survival Kids quietly sneaked into the Nintendo Switch 2 Direct back in April 2025. And when we saw the Konami logo, something clicked — oh, it's that Survival Kids. The original Game Boy Color game launched way back in 1999 and was just added to the Game Boy app on Nintendo Switch Online. A GBC sequel, the Lost In Blue trilogy on DS, and a Wii game followed, but the series of survival RPGs has been dormant ever since. Until now.Subscribe to Nintendo Life on YouTube815kWatch on YouTube In a partnership with Unity Games — in what is the developer's first-ever game — Konami is flipping the script with this new entry. And, ahead of its Switch 2 release on 5th June, we had a chance to send Richard Jones, Creative Director at Konami Digital Entertainment, some questions about the surprise return of this cult classic series. Available today Nintendo Life: Konami has an extremely deep and rich back catalogue full of games and series that have lain dormant for years. Why did the team choose to bring back Survival Kids? Richard Jones, Creative Director at Konami Digital Entertainment: The reason we wanted to bring Survival Kids back was because the idea of being shipwrecked on an island is such a universally known story throughout the world and throughout generations. It harks back to stories like the Lost Boys from Peter Pan, Swallows and Amazons, or Treasure Island. There's something incredibly evocative about kids having adventures on remote islands. Thematically, the idea of kids on an island having fun and adventures is exactly what video games are about. The opportunity to update this game and play with some of the new Nintendo Switch 2 features was just very exciting. So, it just seemed like a really interesting theme to explore – where we could have fun and turn it into a game for all of the family. A sensation that goes back to everyone’s childhood, like running around the playground pretending to be pirates or whatever. How things change in over 25 years... — Images: Konami That idea of combining childhood adventure with modern co-operative gameplay felt like the perfect way to make something both nostalgic and new. We saw an opportunity to build a game that was more accessible, multiplayer-focused, and designed for families and friends to enjoy together. I think that’s why we liked the theme and thought there was a really good opportunity to update and reinvent it in a new, interesting way for modern audiences. You're working with Unity in what is the company's first fully developed video game. How did that partnership come about? I met with Unity a few years ago at Gamescom. It came to light that they were putting together a team for in-house development. I happened to be looking for external studios to work on a Konami IP, and it seemed like we were on the same sort of trajectory – same ideas around scope, budget, and timescale. So, we carried on talking and started exploring which IPs we’d be interested in working on. We quickly realised we were creatively aligned, and that led naturally into working together. Once we met the team at Unity, we realised what an experienced group of people they’d put together. Everyone throws around words like 'industry veteran,' but these were actual veterans – proper experts in their field with years and years of experience shipping all kinds of games. We knew immediately we were in safe hands – the developers and artists really knew their stuff, and we knew we could work really well with them. Are any of the original developers involved, or has Konami reached out to them about the new project? We love the original Survival Kids games – I remember working on Survival Kids (Stranded Kids, as it was called in the UK) when I first joined Konami. It’s a fantastic game, but we wanted to completely redesign it from the ground up. We had a different vision for what this game should be based on its premise. We wanted it to be more fun, more accessible – something people could play together. From the start, it was always about surviving together. this is very much a respectful reimagining based on the original’s premise - not a direct continuation. It was always going to be a group of kids on an island, working together to solve puzzles in fun ways. Rather than being a really hardcore, punishing RPG like the original, this is a lighter, more inclusive experience. So yeah, this is very much a respectful reimagining based on the original’s premise - not a direct continuation. The original Game Boy game is a single-player survival venture with resource management. How do these aspects translate into multiplayer? We wanted to use the idea of cooking and gathering food as something you could do communally. That was one of the really early ideas – we wanted people to come together around the cooking pot. We explored different iterations — should it be a campfire, should it be something else — and landed on a cooking pot. Everyone can throw bits of food in, and you get this communal pot of soup. Everyone gets something out of it. Rather than linking hunger or exhaustion to failure, we tied stats to improving your character. So, for example, if there's a really tall climbing net, you can’t just climb it straight away – you need to cook and eat food to build up stamina. That way, it encourages cooperation without punishing players. You're cooking to get stronger, not to avoid death. Image: Konami So it keeps that survival theme - but reframes it around teamwork and progression, not punishment. It’s a more approachable, co-op-friendly way to explore the same ideas. It’s all part of the shift from surviving alone to surviving together. What can returning fans expect in terms of new gameplay elements? The game is completely new, so it's a fresh experience. The original had a fairly hardcore, punishing survival design, but this version is less about failure states and more about creating time and space for people to have fun together – whether that’s in split-screen mode, using GameShare in the same room, or online with GameChat. this version is less about failure states and more about creating time and space for people to have fun together The whole point was friends and families gathering, solving puzzles, overcoming obstacles, and having fun. There are still challenges linked to the environment and items - and you can try speedrunning if you want, but at its heart it’s about playing together and enjoying the experience as a group. We want players to come away with a smile on their face at the end of a session. Was it always your goal to be a Switch 2 launch title? Will players be able to use GameShare between Switch 1 and 2? When we started the pitch and early design work, we didn’t even know about Switch 2. But during pre-production, speculation about the new console started to emerge, and it aligned closely with our schedule. We made some educated guesses – assuming the console would have a similar audience, and continue to target ways to play socially. We took a few leaps of faith early on, designing with those assumptions in mind - and they turned out to be close enough. Once we started designing around that, it all made sense – and we reached out to Nintendo to get dev kits and approval. Once they saw what we were doing, I think they realised it was a natural fit. So yes, it now supports new social features like GameChat but also GameShare with compatibility between Switch 1 and Switch 2. (EN: It's since been revealed that you can play Survival Kids via GameShare with up to two additional Switch 1 and/or Switch 2 consoles) Subscribe to Nintendo Life on YouTube815k Are you taking advantage of Switch 2 features like mouse mode or 120fps? We looked into mouse mode, but it didn’t really add anything meaningful to our gameplay. Instead, we focused on features like GameShare and GameChat, which made much more sense for the co-op experience. We also had to be mindful of performance – we’re supporting split screen and GameShare simultaneously, which puts constraints on frame rate. Those trade-offs were intentional - made to ensure a smooth, stable multiplayer experience across all supported modes. With games like Overcooked and Moving Out gaining popularity, how will Survival Kids stand out in a crowded multiplayer launch lineup? Games like Overcooked were definitely in our minds when we started this – the idea of co-op chaos is something we really liked. We approach it slightly differently – using real-time physics, for example. Things like logs rolling away from you or two players struggling to carry a heavy object. It’s deceptively simple, but ends up being chaotic, funny, and memorable - the kind of co-op experience where things go wrong in the best way. What sets Survival Kids apart is its tone - it’s light-hearted, session-based, and designed for friends and family to pick up and play. And it’s one of the few titles launching with full GameShare and GameChat support right out of the box. Image: Konami This interview has been edited lightly for clarity. Thank you to Richard Jones at Konami for taking the time to speak to us! Survival Kids washes onto the Switch 2's shores on the console's launch day, Thursday 5th June. Let us know if you're looking forward to this. Every game coming to Switch 2 on launch day Related Games See Also Share:0 0 Alana has been with Nintendo Life since 2022, and while RPGs are her first love, Nintendo is a close second. She enjoys nothing more than overthinking battle strategies, characters, and stories. She also wishes she was a Sega air pirate. Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment... Related Articles Pokémon Legends: Z-A's Switch 2 And Switch 1 Prices Have Been Revealed And we're pleasantly surprised Nintendo Updates Switch 2 Backwards Compatibility List Doom Eternal, NBA 2K25, and more to get an update Nintendo Appears To Have Updated Mario Kart World's Switch 2 File Size Some other file sizes have also changed Fantasy Life i Gets Switch 2 Release Date With Paid Upgrade Path For Switch 1 Players And it's coming launch day Title: Survival Kids System: Nintendo Switch 2 Also Available For: GBC Publisher: Konami Developer: Unity Games Genre: Adventure Players: 1 Release Date: Nintendo Switch 2 5th Jun 2025 — $49.99 5th Jun 2025 — £44.99 Series: Survival Kids Official Site: nintendo.com Where to buy: Buy on Amazon

One of Elon Musk's austerity operatives discovered that the government had far less glut than he'd banked on — and tellingly, admitting as much publicly got him fired.Sahil Lavingia, a tech founder and erstwhile software engineer with Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), revealed in a recent blog post that he had "got[ten] the boot" from the agency after telling Fast Company last month that the federal workforce had turned out to be way more efficient than he anticipated.In that initial interview, the Gumroad founder said he was impressed to find that his coworkers at the Department of Veterans Affairs "love their jobs" and worked hard at them — an honest admission that seems to have cost him his job.Just a day after the FastCo interview was published, Lavigina found that his "access" — to the VA's computer networks, presumably — had been "revoked without warning.""My DOGE days," the jilted techie wrote, "were over."Lavigina also revealed in the blog post, which detailed his 50-day tenure at the agency, that he didn't end up getting much done — a slap in the face to the agency's mandate to save taxpayer dollars and abolish the "tyranny of bureaucracy," as Musk put it earlier this year."I didn't make any progress on improving the [user experience] of veterans' filing disability claims or automating/speeding up claims processing, like I had hoped to when I started," the former DOGE staffer lamented. "I built several prototypes, but was never able to get approval to ship anything to production that would actually improve American lives — while also saving money for the American taxpayer."He also suggested that DOGE staffers were more like middle managers than actual workers."DOGE was more like having McKinsey volunteers embedded in agencies rather than the revolutionary force I'd imagined," the fired engineer recounted in reference to the McKinsey Corporation, the management consulting firm that allegedly fixed bread pricesformerly employed presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg."The public was seeing news reports of mass firings that seemed cruel and heartless, many assuming DOGE was directly responsible," he continued. "In reality, DOGE had no direct authority. The real decisions came from the agency heads appointed by President Trump, who were wise to let DOGE act as the 'fall guy' for unpopular decisions."It sounds a lot like DOGE jobs are the ultimate a waste of time and taxpayer money — though thankfully, Lavigina volunteered to work there for free.Share This Article

UPDATE 6.07pm: FromSoft has issued a follow up suggestion for players still struggling with matchmaking on Elden Ring Neightreign. In a post on X/Twitter, the developer said: "If you have difficulty matchmaking on PS4 & PS5, please check your NAT type. NAT type 3 may affect matchmaking on PSN. "Check your NAT type with the following steps: Home > Settings > Network > Connection Status > Check Connection Status. "Thank you for your support." Original story follows. ORIGINAL STORY: If you're jumping into Elden Ring Nightreign this weekend and are struggling to find a Player 2 - and/or a Player 3 - you're not alone. In a brief statement posted to official Elden Ring social media accounts about an hour ago (Saturday, 31st May), developer FromSoftware is recommending players "restart the matchmaking process" if they're struggling to find a co-op partner. To see this content please enable targeting cookies. Elden Ring Nightreign For Dummies: Basics For EVERYTHING You Need to Know (But Were Afraid to Ask).Watch on YouTube "Nightfarers. If you encounter issues finding other players when launching an expedition in To see this content please enable targeting cookies. It may not quite fix the issue for all players, however; as one commenter asked in the replies: "How often am I supposed to restart it? Yesterday I spend [sic] several hours restarting it on PS5 to not even play one match…" Finding a co-op partner is pretty important for Nightreign players. As Ed wrote yesterday, he wouldn't recommend Nightreign as a solo game at this point as it's clearly not the intended way to play. However, it seems FromSoftware is aiming to respond to the current backlash to make solo play more feasible, with the studio previously stated it was considering a two-player option post-launch, acknowledging it was "something that was overlooked during development". "FromSoftware's multiplayer spin-off is an exhilarating rush and a celebration of the studio's prior achievements Souls veterans will devour," Ed wrote in our Elden Ring Nightreign review.

By Peter D. Geldart (Petra Books, 2025) The post-WWII years brought a need to house returned veterans and their new families, along with an excitement about new types and forms of housing. Working in the spirit of the age, 35-year-old Ottawa architect James Strutt in 1959 worked with six clients on round houses—a set of designs intended to reduce building costs by using materials most efficiently, while creating modernist, open-plan spaces.  The designs, inspired by the work of Buckminster Fuller and Frank Lloyd Wright, were for single-floor structures in which a curve of rooms and an open living-dining area surround a central hexagonal service core built of concrete block. The whole is topped by a geometrically complex roof, shaped using tongue-and-groove Western Red Cedar to create a hyperbolic paraboloid, or saddle-like shape. Strutt’s own family home of 1956, built according a similar scheme over six weeks for less than $1,800, survives in the Gatineau Hills, near Ottawa, and is being rehabilitated by the National Capital Commission. Author Peter D. Geldart’s family were the original residents of a Strutt-designed round house. Geldart, who has a background in architecture, gives a thorough overview of the architectural drawings of the six round houses using Strutt’s original hand-drawn materials, now held at the National Archives of Canada. These show variations on the theme, with schemes varying from 1,400 to 2,000 square feet, and extra wings swapped out for carports.  By publishing this material, Geldart hopes to contribute to a contemporary revival of Strutt’s ideas. “Is the concept of a ‘low-cost house of 1,000 sq. ft.’ viable in the 21st century?” he asks. “While the house was built to the standards of the day, it can now be built using modern materials and techniques.”  As appeared in the June 2025 issue of Canadian Architect magazine  The post Book Review: The Round Houses of 1959 Designed by Architect James Strutt appeared first on Canadian Architect.

Tech layoffs have continued in 2025. Much of that is being blamed on a combination of a slower economy and the adoption of automation via artificial intelligence. Nearly four in 10 Americans, for instance, believe generative AI (genAI) could diminish the number of available jobs as it advances, according to a study released in October by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. And the World Economic Forum’s Jobs Initiative study found that close to half (44%) of worker skills will be disrupted in the next five years — and 40% of tasks will be affected by the use of genAI tools and the large language models (LLMs) that underpin them. In April, the US tech industry lost 214,000 positions as companies shifted toward AI roles and skills-based hiring amid economic uncertainty. Tech sector companies reduced staffing by a net 7,000 positions in April, an analysis of data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed. This year, 137 tech companies have fired 62,114 tech employees, according to Layoffs.fyi. Efforts to reduce headcount at government agencies by the unofficial US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) saw an additional 61,296 federal workers fired this year. Kye Mitchell, president of tech workforce staffing firm Experis US, believes the IT employment market is undergoing a fundamental transformation rather than experiencing traditional cyclical layoffs. Although Experis is seeing a 13% month-over-month decline in traditional software developer postings, it doesn’t represent “job destruction, it’s market evolution,” Mitchell said. “What we’re witnessing is the emergence of strategic technology orchestrators who harness AI to drive unprecedented business value,” she said. For example, organizations that once deployed two scrum teams of ten people to develop high-quality software are now achieving superior results with a single team of five AI-empowered developers. “This isn’t about cutting jobs; it’s about elevating roles,” Mitchell said. Specialized roles in particular are surging. Database architect positions are up 2,312%, statistician roles have increased 382%, and jobs for mathematicians have increased 1,272%. “These aren’t replacements; they’re vital for an AI-driven future,” she said. In fact, it’s an IT talent gap, not an employee surplus, that is now challenging organizations — and will continue to do so. With 76% of IT employers already struggling to find skilled tech talent, the market fundamentals favor skilled professionals, according to Mitchell. “The question isn’t whether there will be IT jobs — it’s whether we can develop the right skills fast enough to meet demand,” she said. For federal tech workers, outdated systems and slow procurement make it hard to attract and keep top tech talent. Agencies expect fast team deployment but operate with rigid, outdated processes, according to Justin Vianello, CEO of technology workforce development firm SkillStorm. Long security clearance delays add cost and time, often forcing companies to hire expensive, already-cleared talent. Meanwhile, modern technologists want to use current tools and make an impact — something hard to do with legacy systems and decade-long modernization efforts, he added. Many suggest turning to AI to will solve the tech talent shortage, but there is no evidence that AI will lead to a reduction in demand for tech talent, Vianello said. “On the contrary, companies see that the demand for tech talent has increased as they invest in preparing their workforce to properly use AI tools,” he said. A shortage of qualified talent is a bigger barrier to hiring than AI automation, he said, because organizations struggle to find candidates with the right certifications, skills, and clearances — especially in cloud, cybersecurity, and AI. Tech workers often lack skills in these areas because technology evolves faster than education and training can keep up, Vianello said. And while AI helps automate routine tasks, it can’t replace the strategic roles filled by skilled professionals. Seven out of 10 US organizations are struggling to find skilled workers to fill roles in an ever-evolving digital transformation landscape, and genAI has added to that headache, according to a ManpowerGroup survey released earlier this year. Job postings for AI skills surged 2,000% in 2024, but education and training in this area haven’t kept pace, according to Kelly Stratman, global ecosystem relationships enablement leader at Ernst & Young. “As formal education and training in AI skills still lag, it results in a shortage of AI talent that can effectively manage these technologies and demands,” she said in an earlier interview. “The AI talent shortage is most prominent among highly technical roles like data scientists/analysts, machine learning engineers, and software developers.” Economic uncertainty is creating a cautious hiring environment, but it’s more complex than tariffs alone. Experis data shows employers adopting a “wait and watch” stance as they monitor economic signals, with job openings down 11% year-over-year, according to Mitchell. “However, the bigger story is strategic workforce planning in an era of rapid technological change. Companies are being incredibly precise about where they allocate resources. Not because of economic pressure alone, but because the skills landscape is shifting so rapidly,” Mitchell said. “They’re prioritizing mission-critical roles while restructuring others around AI capabilities.” Top organizations see AI as a strategic shift, not just cost-cutting. Cutting talent now risks weakening core areas like cybersecurity, according to Mitchell. Skillstorm’s Vianello suggests that IT job hunters should begin to upgrade their skills with certifications that matter: AWS, Azure, CISSP, Security+, and AI/ML credentials open doors quickly, he said. “Veterans, in particular, have an edge; they bring leadership, discipline, and security clearances. Apprenticeships and fellowships offer a fast track into full-time roles by giving you experience that actually counts. And don’t overlook the intangibles: soft skills and project leadership are what elevate technologists into impact-makers,” Vianello said. Skills-based hiring has been on the rise for several years, as organizations seek to fill specific needs for big data analytics, programing (such as Rust), and AI prompt engineering. In fact, demand for genAI courses is surging, passing all other tech skills courses spanning fields from data science to cybersecurity, project management, and marketing. “AI isn’t replacing jobs — it’s fundamentally redefining how work gets done. The break point where technology truly displaces a position is when roughly 80% of tasks can be fully automated,” Mitchell said. “We’re nowhere near that threshold for most roles. Instead, we’re seeing AI augment skill sets and make professionals more capable, faster, and able to focus on higher-value work.” Leaders use AI as a strategic enabler — embedding it to enhance, not compete with, human developers, she said. Some industry forecasts predict a 30% productivity boost from AI tools, potentially adding more than $1.5 trillion to global GDP. For example, AI tools are expected to perform the lion’s share of coding. Techniques where humans use AI-augmented coding tools, such as “vibe coding,” are set to revolutionize software development by creating source code, generating tests automatically, and freeing up developer time for innovation instead of debugging code.  With vibe coding, developers use natural language in a conversational way that prompts the AI model to offer contextual ideas and generate code based on the conversation. By 2028, 75% of professional developers will be using vibe coding and other genAI-powered coding tools, up from less than 10% in September 2023, according to Gartner Research. And within three years, 80% of enterprises will have integrated AI-augmented testing tools into their software engineering tool chain — a significant increase from approximately 15% early last year, Gartner said. A report from MIT Technology Review Insights found that 94% of business leaders now use genAI in software development, with 82% applying it in multiple stages — and 26% in four or more. Some industry experts place genAI’s use in creating code much higher. “What we are finding is that we’re three to six months from a world where AI is writing 90% of the code. And then in 12 months, we may be in a world where AI is writing essentially all of the code,” Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said in a recent report and video interview. “The real [AI] transformation is in role evolution. Developers are becoming strategic technology orchestrators,” Mitchell from Experis said. “Data professionals are becoming business problem solvers. The demand isn’t disappearing; it’s becoming more sophisticated and more valuable. “In today’s economic climate, having the right tech talent with AI-enhanced capabilities isn’t a nice-to-have, it’s your competitive edge,” she said.

Few issues in the U.S. today are as controversial as diversity, equity, and inclusion—commonly referred to as DEI. Although the term didn’t come into common usage until the 21st century, DEI is best understood as the latest stage in a long American project. Its egalitarian principles are seen in America’s founding documents, and its roots lie in landmark 20th-century efforts such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and affirmative action policies, as well as movements for racial justice, gender equity, disability rights, veterans, and immigrants. These movements sought to expand who gets to participate in economic, educational, and civic life. DEI programs, in many ways, are their legacy. Critics argue that DEI is antidemocratic, that it fosters ideological conformity, and that it leads to discriminatory initiatives, which they say disadvantage white people and undermine meritocracy. Those defending DEI argue just the opposite: that it encourages critical thinking and promotes democracy—and that attacks on DEI amount to a retreat from long-standing civil rights law. Yet missing from much of the debate is a crucial question: What are the tangible costs and benefits of DEI? Who benefits, who doesn’t, and what are the broader effects on society and the economy? As a sociologist, I believe any productive conversation about DEI should be rooted in evidence, not ideology. So let’s look at the research. Who gains from DEI? In the corporate world, DEI initiatives are intended to promote diversity, and research consistently shows that diversity is good for business. Companies with more diverse teams tend to perform better across several key metrics, including revenue, profitability, and worker satisfaction. Businesses with diverse workforces also have an edge in innovation, recruitment, and competitiveness, research shows. The general trend holds for many types of diversity, including age, race, and ethnicity, and gender. A focus on diversity can also offer profit opportunities for businesses seeking new markets. Two-thirds of American consumers consider diversity when making their shopping choices, a 2021 survey found. So-called “inclusive consumers” tend to be female, younger, and more ethnically and racially diverse. Ignoring their values can be costly: When Target backed away from its DEI efforts, the resulting backlash contributed to a sales decline. But DEI goes beyond corporate policy. At its core, it’s about expanding access to opportunities for groups historically excluded from full participation in American life. From this broader perspective, many 20th-century reforms can be seen as part of the DEI arc. Consider higher education. Many elite U.S. universities refused to admit women until well into the 1960s and 1970s. Columbia, the last Ivy League university to go co-ed, started admitting women in 1982. Since the advent of affirmative action, women haven’t just closed the gender gap in higher education—they outpace men in college completion across all racial groups. DEI policies have particularly benefited women, especially white women, by expanding workforce access. Similarly, the push to desegregate American universities was followed by an explosion in the number of Black college students—a number that has increased by 125% since the 1970s, twice the national rate. With college gates open to more people than ever, overall enrollment at U.S. colleges has quadrupled since 1965. While there are many reasons for this, expanding opportunity no doubt plays a role. And a better-educated population has had significant implications for productivity and economic growth. The 1965 Immigration Act also exemplifies DEI’s impact. It abolished racial and national quotas, enabling the immigration of more diverse populations, including from Asia, Africa, southern and eastern Europe, and Latin America. Many of these immigrants were highly educated, and their presence has boosted U.S. productivity and innovation. Ultimately, the U.S. economy is more profitable and productive as a result of immigrants. What does DEI cost? While DEI generates returns for many businesses and institutions, it does come with costs. In 2020, corporate America spent an estimated $7.5 billion on DEI programs. And in 2023, the federal government spent more than $100 million on DEI, including $38.7 million by the Department of Health and Human Services and another $86.5 million by the Department of Defense. The government will no doubt be spending less on DEI in 2025. One of President Donald Trump’s first acts in his second term was to sign an executive order banning DEI practices in federal agencies—one of several anti-DEI executive orders currently facing legal challenges. More than 30 states have also introduced or enacted bills to limit or entirely restrict DEI in recent years. Central to many of these policies is the belief that diversity lowers standards, replacing meritocracy with mediocrity. But a large body of research disputes this claim. For example, a 2023 McKinsey & Company report found that companies with higher levels of gender and ethnic diversity will likely financially outperform those with the least diversity by at least 39%. Similarly, concerns that DEI in science and technology education leads to lowering standards aren’t backed up by scholarship. Instead, scholars are increasingly pointing out that disparities in performance are linked to built-in biases in courses themselves. That said, legal concerns about DEI are rising. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice have recently warned employers that some DEI programs may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anecdotal evidence suggests that reverse discrimination claims, particularly from white men, are increasing, and legal experts expect the Supreme Court to lower the burden of proof needed by complainants for such cases. The issue remains legally unsettled. But while the cases work their way through the courts, women and people of color will continue to shoulder much of the unpaid volunteer work that powers corporate DEI initiatives. This pattern raises important equity concerns within DEI itself. What lies ahead for DEI? People’s fears of DEI are partly rooted in demographic anxiety. Since the U.S. Census Bureau projected in 2008 that non-Hispanic white people would become a minority in the U.S by the year 2042, nationwide news coverage has amplified white fears of displacement. Research indicates many white men experience this change as a crisis of identity and masculinity, particularly amid economic shifts such as the decline of blue-collar work. This perception aligns with research showing that white Americans are more likely to believe DEI policies disadvantage white men than white women. At the same time, in spite of DEI initiatives, women and people of color are most likely to be underemployed and living in poverty regardless of how much education they attain. The gender wage gap remains stark: In 2023, women working full time earned a median weekly salary of $1,005 compared with $1,202 for men—just 83.6% of what men earned. Over a 40-year career, that adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost earnings. For Black and Latina women, the disparities are even worse, with one source estimating lifetime losses at $976,800 and $1.2 million, respectively. Racism, too, carries an economic toll. A 2020 analysis from Citi found that systemic racism has cost the U.S. economy $16 trillion since 2000. The same analysis found that addressing these disparities could have boosted Black wages by $2.7 trillion, added up to $113 billion in lifetime earnings through higher college enrollment, and generated $13 trillion in business revenue, creating 6.1 million jobs annually. In a moment of backlash and uncertainty, I believe DEI remains a vital if imperfect tool in the American experiment of inclusion. Rather than abandon it, the challenge now, from my perspective, is how to refine it: grounding efforts not in slogans or fear, but in fairness and evidence. Rodney Coates is a professor of critical race and ethnic studies at Miami University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.