Ready or not–and despite a spotty safety record–the EV maker is racing to launch a pilot ride service in Austin to show off its self-driving chops. Elon Musk is rolling out a handful of Tesla robotaxis in Austin next month, where up to 20 self-driving electric Model Ys will be unleashed to ferry passengers around the Texas city’s streets. He’s betting the future of Tesla on their success, as the automaker’s electric vehicle revenue tanks thanks to faster-growing Chinese rivals and a political backlash against Musk’s right-wing politics and role as job-slasher-in-chief for the Trump Administration. But there’s a big hitch: Tesla hasn’t proven its self-driving taxis are safe enough to start delivering rides. Given its misleadingly named Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) software’s deadly track record, Musk’s failure to provide detailed safety and technical data about Tesla’s technology and his determination to rely on cheap cameras instead of more robust sensors to navigate complicated urban environments, the Austin rollout could be a debacle. For the latest in cleantech and sustainability news, sign up here for our Current Climate newsletter. “It's going to fail for sure,” Dan O’Dowd, a long-time critic of Musk’s autonomous driving claims who’s spent his own money on Super Bowl commercials to call out Autopilot and FSD safety flaws, told Forbes. His anti-Tesla initiative, The Dawn Project, tests every update of FSD, a more advanced version of which is powering Musk’s robotaxis in Austin, as soon as they’re available. That update is to roll out to all Tesla drivers who pay a $99 monthly subscription fee. A pre-production Tesla Cybercab at the Petersen Automotive Museum in Los Angeles.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. O’Dowd has been putting the current version of FSD through its paces. “We drove it around Santa Barbara for 80 minutes and there were seven failures,” said O’Dowd, whose company Green Hills Software supplies security tech to defense and aerospace industry customers. “If there had not been a driver sitting in the driver's seat, it would’ve hit something.” While the company hasn’t booked a dollar of robotaxi revenue, that hasn’t stopped the world’s wealthiest person from declaring victory. “I don’t see anyone being able to compete with Tesla at present,” Musk said on the company’s April 22 results call. His assessment may be premature.“I was looking for a signal this was ready. I didn't get that.”   The sole public demonstration of Tesla’s robotaxi chops was staged drives of its new “Cybercab” at Warner Brothers Studio in Los Angeles last October. The event included hauling invited Tesla fans around a fake cityscape–free of pedestrians but with lots of Tesla technicians keeping close tabs on vehicles. It struck safety researcher Noah Goodall, who published a technical analysis of Tesla’s safety data, independently from his role with the Virginia Department of Transportation, as more amusement park attraction than real-world test. “It was just operating vehicles on a closed track on a movie lot. It was not impressive at all,” he said. “Navigating a real urban environment with uncertainty, other parties moving around, situations where just braking is not enough, that’s difficult. I was looking for a signal this was ready. I didn't get that.” Autonomy Promises In the decade since Tesla began selling customers its Autopilot and FSD features–for which it currently charges $8,000–the software has been linked to several fatal accidents where human drivers trusted the tech to drive their car, only for it to crash. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened multiple probes of Tesla’s Autopilot feature since 2016, including one last year to determine if it needed additional safety features after linking Autopilot to those 13 deaths. Last October, NHTSA also began investigating problems with FSD linked to two fatalities. Despite the names, this software has always been designed to have a human behind the wheel. For the past decade, Musk has repeatedly claimed “full autonomy”–where a car can drive without human assistance–was only months or a year away, repeatedly missing his targets. Now, with Tesla’s EV sales down 13% in the first quarter, the company needs some buzz to reassure investors CEO Musk can turn things around. Robotaxis, as well as AI and humanoid robots, are exactly that, according to Musk. So it’s running extensive tests in downtown Austin. “There’s just always a convoy of Teslas going all over to Austin in circles,” Musk said on the call. But a recent Business Insider story, citing interviews with former Tesla test drivers, doesn’t inspire confidence. The program “feels very forced,” one former worker said. "It's this breakthrough moment for Tesla, but there is also this feeling of so many last-minute details being up in the air.”The downtown Austin skyline.Getty Images Tesla’s program will operate in a very limited area of Austin and rely heavily on remote operators to minimize accidents, according to an executive with another autonomous tech company, based on conversations with Texas officials, who asked not to be identified as the matter isn’t public. To back up the AI driving the vehicles, Tesla has also hired human staff to monitor and assist if they get into jams, taking full control if necessary. “As we iterate on the AI that powers them, we need the ability to access and control them remotely,” the company said in a posting for one such job. Alphabet Inc.’s Waymo, the leader in robotaxi tech, also uses remote operators to assist the vehicles by providing suggested solutions to tricky situations, but those people don’t actually drive them. Lag and latency in cellular networks make remote operations unsafe. Limited Data Along with limited tests, there’s a dearth of trustworthy data about how well Tesla’s self-driving software operates. The company does file occasional safety performance reports about the software, but it’s not peer-reviewed by outside technical experts and it frames the data as positively as possible, according to Goodall, a technical witness in a lawsuit against Tesla over the death of Walther Huang, killed in 2018 when his Model X slammed into a highway divider while running on Autopilot. “With Full Self Driving, when they first started publishing numbers on that, they neglected to share that they’d only rolled the software out to drivers who had a very high safety score of 90 or above,” he said. “So of course the data showed it was safer, as your safest drivers were the only ones that had it.” By contrast, Waymo frequently posts detailed reports on how its robotaxis are performing, claiming the data is peer-reviewed by experts. Tesla also hasn’t yet shared details with the public about where in Austin it will offer its robotaxi service or exactly how it will operate. The city’s police and fire departments told Forbes the company contacted Austin’s Autonomous Vehicle Task Force, which includes their staff, and the city provided Tesla with “maps of schools and school zones; information about traffic control for special events; and information about our fire and police vehicles and procedures.” But a request to see communications between Tesla and the city was denied. “The City of Austin is withholding responsive documents without a ruling from the Attorney General’s office, as permitted by law,” it said in an email. “All responsive information has been withheld due to 3rd party.” The city didn’t respond to a question to confirm Tesla is that third party. The company, Musk and Ashok Elluswamy, head of Tesla’s autonomous vehicle program, didn’t respond to emails about the Austin rollout. NHTSA this week requested details about Tesla’s Austin plans to understand how the vehicles perform in bad weather. It’s been investigating Tesla collisions involving Autopilot and FSD in poor visibility situations since last October. It’s not clear if the company has responded yet. Tesla has had a permit to test autonomous vehicles in California for a decade, which requires companies to share safety data. Numerous competitors, including Waymo, Amazon’s Zoox, which hopes to operate robotaxis this year, Nuro and even Apple, which abandoned its program, have all submitted data on test miles logged including “disengagements”–when a human driver has to take over–as well as accident reports. Tesla hasn’t. Not Just Driving It’s hard to talk about Musk’s robotaxi dreams without comparing his approach to Waymo’s. The Alphabet unit has spent 16 years and billions of dollars trying to master every aspect of what a robotaxi has to do. Long before it gave its first paid rides to customers in Phoenix in 2018, the company tested intensely on public roads, privately at the “Castle,” its test facility at a decommissioned Air Force base in Central California, and with endless miles in virtual simulation to train its AI.A Waymo robotaxi in San Francisco.dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images Recognizing that robotaxis aren’t just a technical challenge, it also recruited people from the airline industry and businesses specializing in customer service. For robotaxis to work, the cars have to be good at doing small things that can be tough to master but are critical, like picking up and dropping off passengers. “We've been working on that for a long time,” said Chris Ludwick, director of Waymo’s product management team. “The first challenge with PUDO (the company’s shorthand for pickup, drop-off) is that when you get there, the on-road scene is going to be somewhat different each time. You may encounter construction or a stopped delivery truck or something like that. This leads to a whole suite of challenges of what do you do when you can't do the exact thing that you said to the rider when they requested the ride.” That includes developing a sophisticated app to guide passengers to the safest, most convenient spots for them and other road users. “You can't just block traffic. That's unacceptable. If you do that the community gets upset,” Ludwick said. “There's just a lot of small details you have to get right.” As far as safety, Waymo has avoided major accidents, injuries and fatalities so far, but its AI-enabled driver isn’t flawless. The company just recalled software in its fleet to fix a flaw that could cause vehicles to hit chains, gates and other barriers, following a NHTSA investigation. Cheaper Robotaxis In all the years Musk has promised autonomous Teslas and a robotaxi service, he hasn’t talked about what it’s doing to master ride-service essentials. But he does talk a big game about Tesla’s cost advantage. “The issue with Waymo’s car is it costs way more money,” the billionaire said on Tesla’s results call. “Their car is very expensive, made in low volume. Teslas probably cost 25% or 20% of what a Waymo costs and are made in very high volume,” last month. A base Model Y with FSD software costs consumers about $55,000 before taxes. While Waymo doesn’t disclose the cost of its modified, electric Jaguar I-PACE robotaxis, the lidar, radar, computers and other sensors mean it’s likely double that of Tesla’s vehicles. Those costs should drop substantially over the next year or so as Waymo shifts to lower-cost sensors and cheaper vehicles, including Hyundai’s Ioniq 5 and a small electric van from China’s Zeekr. Boasts about cheaper Tesla robotaxis will be meaningless if they can’t safely pick up and drop off riders without causing traffic jams, yielding to pedestrians or avoiding collisions. That’s made harder by the fact that Tesla uses eight 5-megapixel cameras as the main sensors for its system–far lower resolution than the 48-megapixel system on Apple’s iPhone 16. They’re inexpensive, but struggle with sunlight glare and low light conditions. Musk denied that was the case on Tesla’s April 22 call, but tests by O’Dowd’s Dawn Project after that found FSD disengages when directly facing the sun.“He thinks having [lidar] does not add enough benefit to outweigh the cost. This is a pretty typical engineering argument in general but incorrect in this particular case.” “We went out and took the car and drove it directly into the setting sun and guess what: it gave up,” O’Dowd said. “It starts flashing and it starts panicking, red lights going, it starts making noises, says put your hands back on the wheel.” By contrast, Waymo uses multiple sensors, including the much more expensive lidar, to ensure its vehicles see all potential road hazards, in daylight or at night, in 3D.Elon Musk attends a Cabinet meeting with President Donald Trump on April 30, 2025.The Washington Post via Getty Images “Musk has repeatedly said lidar is expensive and not needed,” said Missy Cummings, an artificial intelligence expert who advised NHTSA on autonomous vehicles. “He thinks having it does not add enough benefit to outweigh the cost. This is a pretty typical engineering argument in general but incorrect in this particular case.” After the Austin rollout, Musk said last month the goal is to expand to other U.S. markets, China and Europe, “limited only by regulatory approvals.” And one day soon, he envisions every person who owns a Tesla flipping a switch and deploying their car while not in use to a Tesla robotaxi network, helping them make additional cash on the side (as long as they pay Tesla $99 per month).“It’s all lies.” The world’s wealthiest person has achieved remarkable things with Tesla’s EVs, SpaceX rockets and Starlink satellites. But for years he’s also repeatedly failed to deliver big ideas he touted as potential game-changers or massive moneymakers, including battery swapping stations, solar tile roofs, the Hyperloop and high-speed underground transportation networks created by his Boring Co. Whether self-driving vehicles join that list remains to be seen. After repeatedly promising and failing to deliver vehicles that safely drive themselves for the past decade, let alone pick up riders, his track record isn’t looking good. Critics have a harsher interpretation. “It's all lies, everything he says,” said O’Dowd. More from Forbes

Seeking closure Meta argues enshittification isn’t real in bid to toss FTC monopoly trial How many ads is too many? Meta denies ad load harms users in bid to end trial early. Ashley Belanger – May 16, 2025 12:01 pm | 13 Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Meta Platforms Inc., departs federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 16, 2025. Credit: Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Meta Platforms Inc., departs federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 16, 2025. Credit: Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Meta thinks there's no reason to carry on with its defense after the Federal Trade Commission closed its monopoly case, and the company has moved to end the trial early by claiming that the FTC utterly failed to prove its case. "The FTC has no proof that Meta has monopoly power," Meta's motion for judgment filed Thursday said, "and therefore the court should rule in favor of Meta." According to Meta, the FTC failed to show evidence that "the overall quality of Meta’s apps has declined" or that the company shows too many ads to users. Meta says that's "fatal" to the FTC's case that the company wielded monopoly power to pursue more ad revenue while degrading user experience over time (an Internet trend known as "enshittification"). And on top of allegedly showing no evidence of "ad load, privacy, integrity, and features" degradation on Meta apps, Meta argued there's no precedent for an antitrust claim rooted in this alleged harm. "Meta knows of no case finding monopoly power based solely on a claimed degradation in product quality, and the FTC has cited none," Meta argued. Meta has maintained throughout the trial that its users actually like seeing ads. In the company's recent motion, Meta argued that the FTC provided no insights into what "the right number of ads" should be, "let alone" provide proof that "Meta showed more ads" than it would in a competitive market where users could easily switch services if ad load became overwhelming. Further, Meta argued that the FTC did not show evidence that users sharing friends-and-family content were shown more ads. Meta noted that it "does not profit by showing more ads to users who do not click on them," so it only shows more ads to users who click ads. Meta also insisted that there's "nothing but speculation" showing that Instagram or WhatsApp would have been better off or grown into rivals had Meta not acquired them. The company claimed that without Meta's resources, Instagram may have died off. Meta noted that Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom testified that his app was “pretty broken and duct-taped” together, making it "vulnerable to spam" before Meta bought it. Rather than enshittification, what Meta did to Instagram could be considered "a consumer-welfare bonanza," Meta argued, while dismissing "smoking gun" emails from Mark Zuckerberg discussing buying Instagram to bury it as "legally irrelevant." Dismissing these as "a few dated emails," Meta argued that "efforts to litigate Mr. Zuckerberg’s state of mind before the acquisition in 2012 are pointless." "What matters is what Meta did," Meta argued, which was pump Instagram with resources that allowed it "to 'thrive'—adding many new features, attracting hundreds of millions and then billions of users, and monetizing with great success." In the case of WhatsApp, Meta argued that nobody thinks WhatsApp had any intention to pivot to social media when the founders testified that their goal was to never add social features, preferring to offer a simple, clean messaging app. And Meta disputed any claim that it feared Google might buy WhatsApp as the basis for creating a Facebook rival, arguing that "the sole Meta witness to (supposedly) learn of Google’s acquisition efforts testified that he did not have that worry." Meta hopes to avoid breakup The monopoly trial is supposed to run through June, but Meta is hoping that US District Judge James Boasberg will agree that the FTC has failed to make its case and end the trial early. Granting Meta's motion would remove any threat of a breakup of its family of apps while also letting Meta off the hook of raising its defense. This could spare Meta any potential further embarrassment of having its founder's unvarnished internal emails picked apart in public. For Boasberg, it will likely come down to the FTC's market definition alleging that Meta dominates and forecloses rivals in a personal social networking services market that Meta says is a "fiction." If Boasberg buys Meta's argument that TikTok is actually Meta's biggest rival—and not Snap or MeWe—Meta could have an easier time shutting down the case. The FTC has not yet commented on the motion, but the agency was determined to go through with the trial, rejecting a reportedly $1 billion settlement offer from Meta. Holding out for $30 billion, the FTC appeared confident in presenting its case, arguing that TikTok—which attracts users broadcasting to strangers—is not a substitute for Meta's apps, which are designed to connect friends and family. The FTC likely expects to see the trial through to the end, when the agency, in a win, will likely try to force Meta to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp. That's not necessarily an inevitability in a Meta loss, though. If Boasberg denies Meta's motion, Meta will have to present more evidence and deliver closing arguments before a second phase of the trial would litigate potential remedies. Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience. 13 Comments

(Photo by Jesse Grant/Getty Images for Airbnb) Welcome back to This Week in Stratechery! As a reminder, each week, every Friday, we’re sending out this overview of content in the Stratechery bundle; highlighted links are free for everyone. Additionally, you have complete control over what we send to you. If you don’t want to receive This Week in Stratechery emails (there is no podcast), please uncheck the box in your delivery settings. On that note, here were a few of our favorites this week. Airbnb and the Limits of Founder Mode. Wednesday’s Daily Update was Stratechery at its very best. The focus was this week’s news that Airbnb is relaunching its app and expanding its purview to include a new Services offering and a revamped, curated approach to selling Experiences, all in the hopes of making the Airbnb app more than just a once or twice-a-year destination for users around the world. Responding to those ambitions, Ben synthesizes analysis of Airbnb’s past experiments, comments from Founder and CEO Brian Chesky, honesty about what the Airbnb experience entails today, and reflections on the gap between how Chesky wants his company to be seen and where market forces have taken it instead. The piece is filled with themes that apply more broadly across tech, and if you missed it this week, it’s worth your time over the weekend. — Andrew Sharp Inside the NBA Lottery in Chicago. The NBA Playoffs continue apace, but this week also brought high drama for the dregs of the league, as the NBA held its annual Draft Lottery in Chicago. My co-host Ben Golliver was inside the drawing room for the Washington Post as the Dallas Mavericks(!), with 1.8% odds(!!), took home the number one pick. Greatest of All Talk recapped the whole evening earlier this week, including a look at how the NBA conducts this business every year, abject heartbreak for my Washington Wizards, and conspiracy theories that were ubiquitous and unavoidable after another team lost its once-in-a-generation superstar to Los Angeles and was rewarded with a chance at a franchise player (in this case, Duke’s Cooper Flagg). All of it is the height of absurdity, which is to say, it’s exactly the sort of event that makes for a great podcast. — AS Do You Know What a Femtosecond Is? If you don’t, fear not, because 72 hours ago I was right there with you. Then I watched Jon Yu’s video explaining a) what a femtosecond is (spoiler: one quadrillionth of a second); b) what femtosecond lasers are; and c) the ways in which those lasers are used today. A field of study that began with measuring horses galloping and a machine called a phosphoroscope later spawned micro-chemistry, and today is dominated by lasers that are integral to everything from Lasik surgery to semiconductor manufacturing. This is a video that will make anyone smarter, but what I appreciated was the reminder to be amazed and delighted by the long (and continuing!) history of human curiosity and ingenuity. Check it out below, or, if you prefer it in podcast form, Stratechery subscribers can access the entire Asianometry catalog here. — AS Stratechery Articles and Updates OpenAI Restructuring, Microsoft’s Rights, Simo and Windsurf — OpenAI is tying up all its loose ends in preparation for being the user interface for AI Airbnb’s New App, Experiences and Services, Chesky’s Founder Mode — Airbnb has a new app with new offerings for experience and services; I’m not sure the economics make sense for either. An Interview with Ben Thompson at the MoffettNathanson Media, Internet, and Communications Conference — An interview with Ben Thompson about AI and Big Tech. Dithering with Ben Thompson and Daring Fireball’s John Gruber Asianometry with Jon Yu How Did China’s LFP Batteries Get So Cheap? Sharp China with Andrew Sharp and Sinocism’s Bill Bishop A 90-Day Pause, Big Tariff Reductions and What De-Escalation Might Mean for the U.S. and China Greatest of All Talk with Andrew Sharp and WaPo’s Ben Golliver The Mavs and a Lottery Stunner, A Very Bad Night for the Celitcs, OKC-Denver and the Cavs Crash Out in Indy Sharp Tech with Andrew Sharp and Ben Thompson Airbnb and Its Varied Ambitions, The High Agency Golden Era, HBO Max and the End of an Error This week’s Stratechery video is on Apple and the Ghosts of Companies Past.

Air travel is remarkably, astonishingly safe. Every year, commercial US airlines take more than 800 million domestic passengers to their destinations, and in a typical year, zero of them are killed and very few are injured. It’s a track record made possible by a fairly intense commitment to safety. But increasingly over the last few years, we’ve been testing these limits.This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter.Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.Right now the example in the headlines is New Jersey’s Newark Liberty International Airport, which had three air traffic controllers on duty when it was supposed to have 14 and which over the last couple of weeks suffered three “communications blackouts” where air traffic controllers couldn’t communicate with approaching planes.But it’s not just Newark. There has been an alarming rise in near-misses, communications blackouts, and other serious problems over the last few years at airports across the country, often a consequence of understaffing and high traffic. The midair collision near Reagan National Airport in Washington earlier this year that killed over 60 people was the deadliest air crash in the US since 2001.Even with the Washington disaster, very few of these incidents, thankfully, get anyone killed. That’s because the US achieves the astonishing safety of our air travel system with defense in depth, which means a bunch of different things have to go wrong for a crash to happen.Planes have on-board systems that should alert them if they’re too near another plane, even if air traffic control is sleeping on the job. There are backup emergency frequencies in case a communications blackout occurs. There are pre-published procedures for what to do in the event of a landing that looks unsafe, so if the pilots find themselves abruptly entirely out of contact with the ground, or coming in for a landing on a runway that they realize too late isn’t clear, they have been trained on precisely how to respond.Pushing our defenses against disaster to the limitsIn the risk analysis world, this is called the “Swiss cheese” model of how to prevent a disaster. Every layer of a system made up of humans — with all our flaws — is going to have some gaps. Air traffic controllers will have a bad day, or be tired, or let something slip their mind. Technological solutions will have limitations and edge cases. Pilots will make mistakes or have a medical emergency or get confused by unusual instructions. So each layer of the defenses against disaster has “holes” in it. But so long as the holes don’t all line up — so long as there isn’t a gap in every single layer at the same time — the defenses hold, and the planes land safely. All of this means that despite the absurd strain on air traffic controllers, flying out of Newark is still almost certainly going to go fine. But to achieve and maintain the exceptionally low accident levels that we’ve taken pride in over the last 20 years, “almost certainly” isn’t good enough. If you want not just 99.9 percent of planes but every single plane, every single year, to land safely, you can’t afford to let one of the layers of our defenses get more and more full of holes. A “near miss” where several layers of defenses fail should be taken incredibly seriously and prompt changes, even if one other layer sufficed to save us.Any event which would have been a mass casualty event if not for the good judgment and quick thinking of the pilots, or if not for good weather, or if not for an activation of the automatic TCAS collision avoidance system, needs to be treated as a major emergency. If we let near-misses become business as usual, then it’s inevitable that some percentage of them will convert into actual mass disasters — as happened in Washington this January, where a helicopter and plane collided in an airspace that was known to have risky amounts of helicopter traffic and a bunch of alarming near-misses.This is, of course, important in its own right, since every single commercial plane crash is a preventable tragedy. But it’s also, I sometimes fear, a symptom of a broader cultural malaise. Plane crashes used to be horrifyingly common. We made them rarer through a comprehensive, aggressive program to add layers of defense against human error, revising our procedures through tragedy after tragedy. And we succeeded.If you read the description of almost any plane crash that occurred in the 1970s, one thing stands out: It could not have happened today. Through mechanical improvements, procedural improvements, training improvements, and backup systems, we’ve built planes that are much, much harder to crash. But then, as frequent deadly plane crashes became a distant cultural memory, we immediately started testing how far we could underresource those systems. We ignored near-misses and staffing shortages; we failed to heed warnings that our systems are in trouble and our procedures need changes. Boeing pushed out a dangerous new plane, hoping that other layers of our collective defenses against crashes would suffice to keep them in the air; in the US, those other layers were sufficient, but in poorer countries, they were not. We’ve lost our fearThe parallels to other areas of modern life stand out. It used to be that half of children were dead before age 5; vaccination changed that, but in the world made safe by vaccination, parents grew skeptical of it. Now kids are dying of measles again. It’s been observed that “what if we hike tariffs?” is an idea that comes around once a century or so, and goes badly enough we’re warned off it for a while. We have to touch the hot stove ourselves to learn that it burns us, it seems: The cultural memory doesn’t last for all that long.This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, by itself. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where caution only ever ratchets up; safety is a trade-off, and it’s reasonable to relax precautions if we still get good results without those precautions. But in some cases — like understaffing air traffic control or not vaccinating against measles — the precaution in question passes any reasonable cost-benefit calculation. Our “lesson” is taught by the deaths of innocent people. And more terrifyingly, it’s not clear we’re even learning from our brush with reality. Were the deaths of children in Texas enough to turn around measles vaccination rates? Did the crash over the Potomac teach us to start paying more attention to near-misses? It’s too early to say, but it doesn’t look good so far — and that is what really scares me.A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!You’ve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you — join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More: Future Perfect

This is today's edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what's going on in the world of technology. This baby boy was treated with the first personalized gene-editing drug Doctors say they constructed a bespoke gene-editing treatment in less than seven months and used it to treat a baby with a deadly metabolic condition. The rapid-fire attempt to rewrite the child’s DNA marks the first time gene editing has been tailored to treat a single individual. The baby who was treated, Kyle “KJ” Muldoon Jr., suffers from a rare metabolic condition caused by a particularly unusual gene misspelling. Researchers say their attempt to correct the error demonstrates the high level of precision new types of gene editors offer.The project also highlights what some experts are calling a growing crisis in gene-editing technology. That’s because even though the technology could cure thousands of genetic conditions, most are so rare that companies could never recoup the costs of developing a treatment for them. Read the full story.—Antonio Regalado Access to experimental medical treatments is expanding across the US —Jessica Hamzelou A couple of weeks ago I was in Washington, DC, for a gathering of scientists, policymakers, and longevity enthusiasts. They had come together to discuss ways to speed along the development of drugs and other treatments that might extend the human lifespan. One approach that came up was to simply make experimental drugs more easily accessible. Now, the state of Montana has passed a new bill that sets out exactly how clinics can sell experimental, unproven treatments in the state to anyone who wants them. The passing of the bill could make Montana something of a US hub for experimental treatments. But it represents a wider trend: the creep of Right to Try across the US. And a potentially dangerous departure from evidence-based medicine. Read the full story. This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. Take a new look at AI’s energy use Big Tech's appetite for energy is growing rapidly as adoption of AI accelerates. But just how much energy does even a single AI query use? And what does it mean for the climate? Join editor in chief Mat Honan, senior climate reporter Casey Crownhart, and AI reporter James O'Donnell at 1.30pm ET on Wednesday May 21 for a subscriber-only Roundtables conversation exploring AI's energy demands now and in the future. Register here. The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 xAI has blamed Grok’s white genocide fixation on an ‘unauthorized modification’ Made by an unnamed employee at 3.15am. (TechCrunch)+ The topic is one the far-right comes back to again and again. (The Atlantic $)+ Memphis residents are struggling to live alongside xAI’s supercomputer. (CNBC) 2 Meta has delayed the launch of its next flagship AI model Its engineers are struggling to improve its Behemoth LLM enough. (WSJ $)3 Elon Musk is tapping up friends and allies for federal jobs It’s creating an unprecedented web of potential conflicts of interests. (WSJ $)+ Musk is posting on X less than he used to. (Semafor)4 The US is slashing funding for scientific research Such projects produced GPS, LASIK eye surgery, and CAPTCHAs. (NYT $)+ US tech visa applicants are under seriously heavy scrutiny. (Wired $)+ The foundations of America’s prosperity are being dismantled. (MIT Technology Review)They’re focusing on improving chatbots’ memory—but critics are worried. (5 Big Tech wants its AI agents to remember everything about you 🧠FT $)+ AI agents can spontaneously develop human-like behavior. (The Guardian)+ Generative AI can turn your most precious memories into photos that never existed. (MIT Technology Review)6 People keep making anti-DEI modifications for The Sims 4 And the gamemaker EA’s attempts to stamp them out aren’t working. (Wired $) 7 This chatbot promises to help you get over your ex  Closure creates an AI version of ex-partners for users to vent their frustrations at. (404 Media)+ The AI relationship revolution is already here. (MIT Technology Review)8 How this AI song became a viral megahit in JapanYAJU&U is completely inescapable, and totally nonsensical. (Pitchfork) + AI is coming for music, too. (MIT Technology Review) 9 Your future overseas trip could be by zeppelin If these startups get their way. (WP $)+ Welcome to the big blimp boom. (MIT Technology Review)10 Are you a ‘dry texter’? 💬 It’s a conflict-averse teen’s worst nightmare. (Vox) Quote of the day “It’s OK to be Chinese overseas.” —Chris Pereira, the CEO of iMpact, a communications firm advising Chinese companies expanding abroad, tells Rest of World that DeepSeek has given Chinese startups the confidence not to hide their origins. One more thingWe’ve never understood how hunger works. That might be about to change. When you’re starving, hunger is like a demon. It awakens the most ancient and primitive parts of the brain, then commandeers other neural machinery to do its bidding until it gets what it wants. Although scientists have had some success in stimulating hunger in mice, we still don’t really understand how the impulse to eat works. Now, some experts are following known parts of the neural hunger circuits into uncharted parts of the brain to try and find out. Their work could shed new light on the factors that have caused the number of overweight adults worldwide to skyrocket in recent years. And it could also help solve the mysteries around how and why a new class of weight-loss drugs seems to work so well. Read the full story. —Adam Piore We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet 'em at me.)+ Who knew—Harvard Law School’s Magna Carta may be the real deal after all.+ Early relatives of reptiles might have walked the Earth much earlier than we realised.+ New York University’s MFA Students are a talented bunch.+ The Raines sandwich sounds unspeakably awful 🥪

John Edwards, Technology Journalist & AuthorMay 16, 20255 Min ReadSkorzewiak via Alamy Stock PhotoA great IT idea is as good as gold. That's why an unscrupulous consultant may decide to take one of your organization's original methods or practices to another client -- perhaps even a rival -- without first asking for permission. While most consultants play fair, issues do sometimes come up, observes John Pennypacker, a vice president at AI technology firm Deep Cognition. "Someone working at your office learns your methods on Monday -- by Tuesday those same tricks might help another client," he says in an online interview. Tech companies face the biggest danger. "Your special formula or unique program code gives you your market advantage." Most consultants are professionals who play by the rules, but idea theft still happens, says Adhiran Thirmal, senior solutions engineer at security service and technology provider Security Compass. "Some consultants work across multiple companies in the same industry, and the temptation to reuse a good idea is real," he warns in an online discussion. "It's not always malicious -- sometimes they don't even realize they're crossing a line." That's why ensuring legal protection and building clear communication channels upfront are important. Proving Originality It’s all about holding onto detailed documentation, Thirmal says. "Keep track of emails, meeting minutes, whiteboard sketches -- anything that shows when and where the idea was created," he advises in an email interview. If it's a major innovation, consider filing for a patent, copyright, or trademark to establish official ownership. "Even small things, such as internal Slack messages or version histories, can serve as proof, if needed." Related:Before engaging a consultant, be sure to put protections into place, recommends Iliyan Paskalev, founder of MyHumanoid, a robotics and humanoids information website. "Clearly define within the contract that all ideas, strategies, and materials shared remain the property of your organization," he notes in an online interview. Paskalev also suggests closing any loopholes by using work-for-hire agreements explicitly stating that any contributions made by the consultant belong to your company. Preventive Steps The best defense is a good offense, Thirmal says. Before sharing any sensitive information, get the consultant to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and, if needed, a non-compete agreement. "These legal documents set clear boundaries on what can and can't do with your ideas." He also recommends retaining records -- meeting notes, emails, and timestamps -- to provide documented proof of when and where the idea in question was discussed. "If possible, develop key parts of the idea internally first before bringing in outside help." Related:Control what the consultant can see, Pennypacker advises. "Share only what they must know to do their job," he says. Document everything. "Keep emails, notes from meetings, and early drafts -- they prove where ideas started." Pay close attention to what the consultant or consulting team do daily. "Make sure they follow the rules you set." Move fast when you see your ideas being stolen, Pennypacker says. "Look for certain danger signs." Has a product like yours appeared after your project ended? Did your methods show up in competitors' offerings? Has the consultant broken the secrecy agreement? These signs all indicate it may be time to consult a lawyer. Remediation Actions If a consultant takes an idea and commercializes it, or shares it with a competitor, it's time to consult legal counsel, Paskalev says. The legal case's strength will hinge on the exact wording within contracts and documentation. "Sometimes, a well-crafted cease-and-desist letter is enough; other times, litigation is required." If you suspect a consultant has taken your idea and used it elsewhere, gather all of the evidence -- emails, agreements, and meeting records, Thirmal recommends. Then, try to address the matter informally. "If that doesn’t work, and the stakes are high -- such as lost revenue or competitive advantage -- it’s time to bring in a lawyer," he suggests. "If they broke an NDA or misused proprietary information, you may have legal grounds for action." Related:Compensation depends on the amount of damage inflicted. "If the theft results in a loss of market advantage, organizations can demand licensing fees, royalties, or outright financial damages," Paskalev says. "In some cases, businesses have successfully negotiated settlements or forced a buyout of their stolen IP rights." Last Thoughts The best way to protect ideas isn't through contracts -- it's by being proactive, Thirmal advises. "Train your team to be careful about what they share, work with consultants who have strong reputations, and document everything," he states. "Protecting innovation isn’t just a legal issue -- it's a strategic one." Innovation is an IT leader's greatest asset, but it's also highly vulnerable, Paskalev says. "By proactively structuring consultant agreements, meticulously documenting every stage of idea development, and being ready to enforce protection, organizations can ensure their competitive edge." Pennypacker has one final bit of advice: "Guard your company's thinking like you would guard its bank account." About the AuthorJohn EdwardsTechnology Journalist & AuthorJohn Edwards is a veteran business technology journalist. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and numerous business and technology publications, including Computerworld, CFO Magazine, IBM Data Management Magazine, RFID Journal, and Electronic Design. He has also written columns for The Economist's Business Intelligence Unit and PricewaterhouseCoopers' Communications Direct. John has authored several books on business technology topics. His work began appearing online as early as 1983. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, he wrote daily news and feature articles for both the CompuServe and Prodigy online services. His "Behind the Screens" commentaries made him the world's first known professional blogger.See more from John EdwardsWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

This is today's edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what's going on in the world of technology. This baby boy was treated with the first personalized gene-editing drug Doctors say they constructed a bespoke gene-editing treatment in less than seven months and used it to treat a baby with a deadly metabolic condition. The rapid-fire attempt to rewrite the child’s DNA marks the first time gene editing has been tailored to treat a single individual. The baby who was treated, Kyle “KJ” Muldoon Jr., suffers from a rare metabolic condition caused by a particularly unusual gene misspelling. Researchers say their attempt to correct the error demonstrates the high level of precision new types of gene editors offer.The project also highlights what some experts are calling a growing crisis in gene-editing technology. That’s because even though the technology could cure thousands of genetic conditions, most are so rare that companies could never recoup the costs of developing a treatment for them. Read the full story.—Antonio Regalado Access to experimental medical treatments is expanding across the US —Jessica Hamzelou A couple of weeks ago I was in Washington, DC, for a gathering of scientists, policymakers, and longevity enthusiasts. They had come together to discuss ways to speed along the development of drugs and other treatments that might extend the human lifespan. One approach that came up was to simply make experimental drugs more easily accessible. Now, the state of Montana has passed a new bill that sets out exactly how clinics can sell experimental, unproven treatments in the state to anyone who wants them. The passing of the bill could make Montana something of a US hub for experimental treatments. But it represents a wider trend: the creep of Right to Try across the US. And a potentially dangerous departure from evidence-based medicine. Read the full story. This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. Take a new look at AI’s energy use Big Tech's appetite for energy is growing rapidly as adoption of AI accelerates. But just how much energy does even a single AI query use? And what does it mean for the climate? Join editor in chief Mat Honan, senior climate reporter Casey Crownhart, and AI reporter James O'Donnell at 1.30pm ET on Wednesday May 21 for a subscriber-only Roundtables conversation exploring AI's energy demands now and in the future. Register here. The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 xAI has blamed Grok’s white genocide fixation on an ‘unauthorized modification’ Made by an unnamed employee at 3.15am. (TechCrunch)+ The topic is one the far-right comes back to again and again. (The Atlantic $)+ Memphis residents are struggling to live alongside xAI’s supercomputer. (CNBC) 2 Meta has delayed the launch of its next flagship AI model Its engineers are struggling to improve its Behemoth LLM enough. (WSJ $)3 Elon Musk is tapping up friends and allies for federal jobs It’s creating an unprecedented web of potential conflicts of interests. (WSJ $)+ Musk is posting on X less than he used to. (Semafor)4 The US is slashing funding for scientific research Such projects produced GPS, LASIK eye surgery, and CAPTCHAs. (NYT $)+ US tech visa applicants are under seriously heavy scrutiny. (Wired $)+ The foundations of America’s prosperity are being dismantled. (MIT Technology Review)They’re focusing on improving chatbots’ memory—but critics are worried. (5 Big Tech wants its AI agents to remember everything about you 🧠FT $)+ AI agents can spontaneously develop human-like behavior. (The Guardian)+ Generative AI can turn your most precious memories into photos that never existed. (MIT Technology Review)6 People keep making anti-DEI modifications for The Sims 4 And the gamemaker EA’s attempts to stamp them out aren’t working. (Wired $) 7 This chatbot promises to help you get over your ex  Closure creates an AI version of ex-partners for users to vent their frustrations at. (404 Media)+ The AI relationship revolution is already here. (MIT Technology Review)8 How this AI song became a viral megahit in JapanYAJU&U is completely inescapable, and totally nonsensical. (Pitchfork) + AI is coming for music, too. (MIT Technology Review) 9 Your future overseas trip could be by zeppelin If these startups get their way. (WP $)+ Welcome to the big blimp boom. (MIT Technology Review)10 Are you a ‘dry texter’? 💬 It’s a conflict-averse teen’s worst nightmare. (Vox) Quote of the day “It’s OK to be Chinese overseas.” —Chris Pereira, the CEO of iMpact, a communications firm advising Chinese companies expanding abroad, tells Rest of World that DeepSeek has given Chinese startups the confidence not to hide their origins. One more thingWe’ve never understood how hunger works. That might be about to change. When you’re starving, hunger is like a demon. It awakens the most ancient and primitive parts of the brain, then commandeers other neural machinery to do its bidding until it gets what it wants. Although scientists have had some success in stimulating hunger in mice, we still don’t really understand how the impulse to eat works. Now, some experts are following known parts of the neural hunger circuits into uncharted parts of the brain to try and find out. Their work could shed new light on the factors that have caused the number of overweight adults worldwide to skyrocket in recent years. And it could also help solve the mysteries around how and why a new class of weight-loss drugs seems to work so well. Read the full story. —Adam Piore We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet 'em at me.)+ Who knew—Harvard Law School’s Magna Carta may be the real deal after all.+ Early relatives of reptiles might have walked the Earth much earlier than we realised.+ New York University’s MFA Students are a talented bunch.+ The Raines sandwich sounds unspeakably awful 🥪

John Edwards, Technology Journalist & AuthorMay 16, 20255 Min ReadSkorzewiak via Alamy Stock PhotoA great IT idea is as good as gold. That's why an unscrupulous consultant may decide to take one of your organization's original methods or practices to another client -- perhaps even a rival -- without first asking for permission. While most consultants play fair, issues do sometimes come up, observes John Pennypacker, a vice president at AI technology firm Deep Cognition. "Someone working at your office learns your methods on Monday -- by Tuesday those same tricks might help another client," he says in an online interview. Tech companies face the biggest danger. "Your special formula or unique program code gives you your market advantage." Most consultants are professionals who play by the rules, but idea theft still happens, says Adhiran Thirmal, senior solutions engineer at security service and technology provider Security Compass. "Some consultants work across multiple companies in the same industry, and the temptation to reuse a good idea is real," he warns in an online discussion. "It's not always malicious -- sometimes they don't even realize they're crossing a line." That's why ensuring legal protection and building clear communication channels upfront are important. Proving Originality It’s all about holding onto detailed documentation, Thirmal says. "Keep track of emails, meeting minutes, whiteboard sketches -- anything that shows when and where the idea was created," he advises in an email interview. If it's a major innovation, consider filing for a patent, copyright, or trademark to establish official ownership. "Even small things, such as internal Slack messages or version histories, can serve as proof, if needed." Related:Before engaging a consultant, be sure to put protections into place, recommends Iliyan Paskalev, founder of MyHumanoid, a robotics and humanoids information website. "Clearly define within the contract that all ideas, strategies, and materials shared remain the property of your organization," he notes in an online interview. Paskalev also suggests closing any loopholes by using work-for-hire agreements explicitly stating that any contributions made by the consultant belong to your company. Preventive Steps The best defense is a good offense, Thirmal says. Before sharing any sensitive information, get the consultant to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and, if needed, a non-compete agreement. "These legal documents set clear boundaries on what can and can't do with your ideas." He also recommends retaining records -- meeting notes, emails, and timestamps -- to provide documented proof of when and where the idea in question was discussed. "If possible, develop key parts of the idea internally first before bringing in outside help." Related:Control what the consultant can see, Pennypacker advises. "Share only what they must know to do their job," he says. Document everything. "Keep emails, notes from meetings, and early drafts -- they prove where ideas started." Pay close attention to what the consultant or consulting team do daily. "Make sure they follow the rules you set." Move fast when you see your ideas being stolen, Pennypacker says. "Look for certain danger signs." Has a product like yours appeared after your project ended? Did your methods show up in competitors' offerings? Has the consultant broken the secrecy agreement? These signs all indicate it may be time to consult a lawyer. Remediation Actions If a consultant takes an idea and commercializes it, or shares it with a competitor, it's time to consult legal counsel, Paskalev says. The legal case's strength will hinge on the exact wording within contracts and documentation. "Sometimes, a well-crafted cease-and-desist letter is enough; other times, litigation is required." If you suspect a consultant has taken your idea and used it elsewhere, gather all of the evidence -- emails, agreements, and meeting records, Thirmal recommends. Then, try to address the matter informally. "If that doesn’t work, and the stakes are high -- such as lost revenue or competitive advantage -- it’s time to bring in a lawyer," he suggests. "If they broke an NDA or misused proprietary information, you may have legal grounds for action." Related:Compensation depends on the amount of damage inflicted. "If the theft results in a loss of market advantage, organizations can demand licensing fees, royalties, or outright financial damages," Paskalev says. "In some cases, businesses have successfully negotiated settlements or forced a buyout of their stolen IP rights." Last Thoughts The best way to protect ideas isn't through contracts -- it's by being proactive, Thirmal advises. "Train your team to be careful about what they share, work with consultants who have strong reputations, and document everything," he states. "Protecting innovation isn’t just a legal issue -- it's a strategic one." Innovation is an IT leader's greatest asset, but it's also highly vulnerable, Paskalev says. "By proactively structuring consultant agreements, meticulously documenting every stage of idea development, and being ready to enforce protection, organizations can ensure their competitive edge." Pennypacker has one final bit of advice: "Guard your company's thinking like you would guard its bank account." About the AuthorJohn EdwardsTechnology Journalist & AuthorJohn Edwards is a veteran business technology journalist. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and numerous business and technology publications, including Computerworld, CFO Magazine, IBM Data Management Magazine, RFID Journal, and Electronic Design. He has also written columns for The Economist's Business Intelligence Unit and PricewaterhouseCoopers' Communications Direct. John has authored several books on business technology topics. His work began appearing online as early as 1983. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, he wrote daily news and feature articles for both the CompuServe and Prodigy online services. His "Behind the Screens" commentaries made him the world's first known professional blogger.See more from John EdwardsWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

Recently a friend mentioned how much of a shame it was that, generally speaking, there are few of those backdoor “classic” reimaginings today like the ones we had growing up. And after thinking for a moment, I agreed. Children and teens of the ‘90s were treated to an embarrassment of riches when it came to the Bard and Bard-adjacent films. Nearly every week seemed to offer another modernization of William Shakespeare, Jane Austen, or Geoffrey Chaucer, all retrofitted with a wink and a nudge to appeal to teenagers reading much the same texts in high school or university. But then when looking back at the sweep of 1990s cinema beyond just “teen movies,” it was more than only Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger vehicles that were getting the classical treatment. In fact the ‘90s, and to a large extent the ‘80s as well, was an era ripe with indie studios and Hollywood majors treating classic literature (if largely of the English variety) with the sanctity nowadays reserved for comic books and video games. It was a time when some of the most exciting or ambitious artists working in the industry sought to trade in the bullets and brutality of New Hollywood from a decade or two earlier in favor of the even more brutal constraints of corsets and top hats. Shakespeare was arguably bigger business in tinsel town than at any other point during this period, and we saw some of the most faithful and enduring adaptations of Austen or Louisa May Alcott make it to the screen. Why is that and can it happen again? Let’s look back at the golden age of period piece costumed dramas and splashy literary adaptations… Mozart and Merchant Ivory Since the beginning of the medium, moviemakers have looked back at well-worn and familiar stories for inspiration and audience familiarity. Not too many years after making his enduring trip to the moon, Georges Méliès adapted Hamlet into a roughly 10-minute silent short in 1907. And of course before Kenneth Branagh, Laurence Olivier had Hollywood falling in love with the Bard… at least as long it was Larry in the tights. Even so, literary adaptations were often constrained, particularly in Hollywood where filmmakers had to contend with the limitations of censorship via the Hays Code and preconceived notions about what an American audience would enjoy. The most popular costumed dramas tended to therefore be vanity projects or something of a more sensational hue—think biblical or swords and sandals epics. So it’s difficult to point to an exact moment where that changed in the 1980s, yet we’d hazard to suggest the close together Oscar seasons of 1984 and 1986 had a lot to do with it. After all, the first was the year that Miloš Forman’s AmadeusA Room with a View. Considered by Forster scholars one of the author’s slighter works, the film had critics like Roger Ebert swooning that it was a masterpiece. In the case of Amadeus, the director of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)—a zeitgeist-shaping portrait of modern oppression and control from about a decade earlier—was taking the story of Mozart and making it a punk rock tragicomedy. Based on a Peter Shaffer play of the same name, Forman and Shaffer radically reimagined the story, making it both funnier and darker as Forman strove to pose Mozart as a modern day rebel iconoclast with his wig resembling as much Sid Vicious as the Age of Enlightenment. Located atop Tom Hulce’s giggling head, it signaled a movie that had all the trappings of melodrama but felt accessible and exciting to a wide modern audience. It went on to do relatively big business and win Best Picture. While not the first period film to do so, it was the first in a long while set in what could be construed as the distant past (Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi won the year before but that was based on a subject matter in the living memory of most Academy voters). Otherwise, most of the recent winners were dramas or dramedies about the modern world: Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), The Deer Hunter (1978), and Annie Hall (1977). They reflected an audience that wanted to get away from the artificiality of their parents’ cinema, which in the U.S. associated historical costumes with the (grand) phoniness of Ben-Hur (1959) or Oliver! (1968). Yet perhaps the movie that proved this was the beginning of a popular trend came a few years later via the British masterpiece A Room with a View. To be sure, the partnership of Merchant and Ivory had been going for more than 20 years by the time they got to adapting Forster, including with several other costumed dramas and period pieces. However, those films were mixed with modern comedies and dramas like rock ’n roll-infused The Guru (1969) and Jane Austen in Manhattan (1980). More importantly, all of these films tended to be art house pictures; small chamber pieces intended for a limited audience. Yet as the marketing campaign would later trumpet about A Room with a View—the ethereal romantic dramedy which introduced Daniel Day-Lewis and a fresh-faced Helena Bonham Carter to the U.S.—this movie had the “highest single theatre gross in the country!” (It’s fun to remember a time when a movie just selling out in New York every day could make it a hit.) The film’s combination of Forster’s wry satire and cynicism about English aristocracy in the late Victorian and early Edwardian era, coupled with the sweeping romance of Puccini arias and Tuscan countrysides, made it a massive success. It also defined what became the “Merchant Ivory” period piece forever after, including in future Oscar and box office darlings like the Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, and Carter-starring Howard’s End (1992), and Hopkins and Thompson’s reunion in The Remains of the Day (1993). These were all distinctly British and understated pictures, with Remains being an outright tragedy delivered in a hushed whisper, but their relative success with a certain type of moviegoer and Academy voter signaled to Hollywood that there was gold up in ‘em hills. And soon enough, more than just Forman on the American side was going up there to mine it. Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox! 20th Century Studios Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann, and the Auteur’s Costumed Drama In 1990, Michael Mann was one of the hottest creatives working in Hollywood. As the executive producer and sometime-director on NBC’s edgy (by ‘80s standards) police drama, Miami Vice, he played a direct hand in proving American television could be “gritty” and artistic. Even the episodes he didn’t helm were defined by the standards he insisted upon—such as never putting cool guys Crockett and Tubbs in a red or brown car. It would clash with the neon-light-on-celluloid aesthetic that Mann developed for the series. As that series was winding down by 1990, Mann was more in demand than ever to make any film project he might have wanted—something perhaps in-keeping with Vice or gritty crime thrillers he’d made in the ’80s like serial killer thriller Manhunter (1986). Instead he sought to adapt a childhood favorite for the screen, James Fenimore Cooper’s 19th century American frontier novel, The Last of the Mohicans. Certainly a problematic text in its original form with its imperial-fantasy riff on the French and Indian War (or Seven Years War) where Indigenous tribes in what is today upstate New York were either reduced to the noble or cruel savage stereotypes, the text proved a jumping off point for Mann to craft a gripping, primal, and prestigious film. He also made a movie that far exceeded its source material with The Last of the Mohicans being an often wordless opera of big emotions played in silence by Day-Lewis, Madeleine Stowe, and Wes Studi, all while Trevor Jones and Randy Edelman’s musical score looms like thunderclouds across the mountainous landscape. It is an elevated action movie, and a beautiful drama that did bigger business in the U.S. than Disney’s Beauty and the Beast and Tom Cruise vehicle A Few Good Men in the same year. It also would create a precedent we’d see followed time and again throughout the rest of the decade. Some of the biggest and most respected filmmakers of the moment, many of them praised under auteur theory, were looking to literary classics for an audience that craved them. After the one-two genre punch of Goodfellas (1990) and Cape Fear (1991), Martin Scorsese made one of his most ambitious and underrated films: a stone-cold 1993 masterpiece inspired by an Edith Wharton novel, The Age of Innocence. It’s a story that Scorsese argues is just as brutal, if not more so, than his gangster pictures. Indeed, The Age of Innocence remains the best cinematic representation of the Gilded Age in the U.S., capturing the lush pageantry of the most elite New Yorkers’ lifestyles in their robber baron heyday, as well as how class snobbery metastasized into a ruthless tribalism that doomed the romantic yearnings of one conformist attorney (again Daniel Day-Lewis) and this would-be divorcée love of his life (Michelle Pfeiffer). It might not have been a hit in its time, but Ang Lee’s breakout in the U.S. a year later definitely was. The Taiwanese filmmaker was already the toast of international and independent cinema via movies like The Wedding Banquet (1993) and martial arts-adjacent Pushing Hands (1991), but it is when he directed a flawless adaptation of Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility in 1995 that he became a Hollywood favorite who would soon get movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) and Hulk (2003) greenlit. Sense and Sensibility benefits greatly, too, from a marvelous cast with Emma Thompson, Hugh Grant, Kate Winslet, and Alan Rickman among its ensemble. It also captured the sophisticated satirical and melancholic underpinnings of Austen’s pen that most previous Hollywood adaptations never scratched. It set a standard that most of the best Austen adaptations to this day are measured by, be it Joe Wright and Keira Knightley’s cinematic take on Pride and Prejudice a decade later, various attempts at Emma from the 1990s with Gwyneth Paltrow to this decade with Anya Taylor-Joy, or even Netflix’s recent Dakota Johnson-led Persuasion adaptation. Columbia / Sony A Dark Universe of Gods and Monsters Meanwhile, right before Columbia Pictures greenlit Scorsese’s The Age of Innocence and later Gillian Armstrong’s still delightful (and arguably definitive) interpretation of Little Women in 1994, the same studio signed off on its first period piece with Winona Ryder attached to star. And it was Dracula. Considered a folly of hubris at the time by rivals who snickered to Variety it should be renamed “Bonfire of the Vampires” (in reference to a notorious Brian De Palma bomb from 1990), Bram Stoker’s Dracula was Francis Ford Coppola’s lurid and magnificent reimagining of Stoker’s definitive Victorian novel. Published in 1897 with on-the-nose metaphors for London society’s anxieties over foreigners, sexual promiscuity and disease, and the so-called “New Woman” working in the professional classes, Coppola saw all of that potential in the well-worn and adapted vampire novel. He also correctly predicted there was a box office hit if he could bring all those elements out in an exciting and anachronistic fever dream for the MTV generation. Love or hate Coppola’s looseness with Stoker’s novel—which is pretty audacious since he put the author’s name in the title—Coppola crafted one of the most sumptuous and expensive depictions of Victorian society ever put onscreen, winning costume designer Eiko Ishioka an Oscar for the effort. He also made an unexpected holiday hit that played like bloody gangbusters alongside Home Alone 2 and Aladdin that winter. It set a standard for what can in retrospect be considered a pseudo “dark universe” of classic literary monsters getting ostensibly faithful and expensive adaptations by Hollywood. Coppola himself produced Kenneth Branagh’s Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994), a film that is actually in many ways closer to the thematic letter of its author than Bram Stoker’s Dracula ever was. It was also a worse movie that flopped, but it looked spectacular as the only major Frankenstein movie to remember Shelley set the story during the Age of Enlightenment in the late 18th century. Yet while Frankenstein failed, Tom Cruise and Neil Jordan would have a lot of success in the same year adapting Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire. The book admittedly was recent, having been published in 1976, but the story’s roots and setting in 18th and 19th century bayou occultism were not. It was also a grandiose costumed drama where the guy who played Top Gun’s Maverick would sink fangs into young Brad Pitt’s neck in a scene dripping in homoeroticism. This trend continued throughout the ‘90s with some successes, like Tim Burton’s wildly revisionist (and Coppola-produced) Sleepy Hollow in 1999, and some misses. For instance, did you remember that Julia Roberts at the height of her stardom appeared in a revisionist take on Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde where she played the not-so-good doctor’s maid? It’s called Mary Reilly (1996), by the by. The Samuel Goldwyn Company The Resurgence of Shakespeare Of course when talking about classic literature and storytelling, one name rises above most others in the schools and curriculums of the English-speaking world. Yet curiously it was only in the 1990s that someone really lit on the idea of making a movie directly based on the Bard tailored almost exclusively for that demographic: Baz Luhrmann in 1996, who reconfigured the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet into the visual language of MTV. He even stylized the title as William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet. That proved the tip of an anachronistic iceberg whose cast included Leonardo DiCaprio at the height of his heartthrob powers as Romeo and real-life teenager Claire Danes as his Capulet amore. Their Verona was a Neverland composite of Miami, Rio de Janeiro, and the nightly news, with hyper music video editing and frenetic neon-hued melodrama. Some older scholars viewed Luhrmann’s anachronisms as an abomination, but as a Millennial, I can attest we loved this thing back in the day. Many still do. But it was hardly the first box office breakout for Shakespeare in the ‘90s. When the decade began, the helmer of another cinematic Romeo and Juliet classic from a different era, Franco Zeffirelli, attempted to make Hamlet exciting for “kids these days” by casting Mel Gibson right in the midst of his Lethal Weapon popularity as the indecisive Dane. To the modern eye, it is hard to remember Gibson was a heartthrob of sorts in the ‘80s and early ‘90s—or generally viewed as a dashing star worthy of heroic leading men roles. Nonetheless, there is quite a bit to like about Hamlet (1990) if you can look past Gibson’s off-screen behavior in the following decades, or the fact Zeffirelli cuts what is a four-hour play down to less than 2.5 hours. Gibson actually makes for a credible and genuinely mad Hamlet (perhaps not a surprise now), and Zeffirelli mines the medieval melancholy of the story well with production design, costumes, and location shooting at real Norman castles. Plus, Helena Bonham Carter remains the best Ophelia ever put to screen. Hamlet (1990) would eventually be overshadowed, though, both by Gibson’s awful behavior and because of a much grander and bombastic adaptation from the man who became the King of Shakespeare Movies in the ‘90s: Kenneth Branagh. Aye, Branagh might deserve the most credit for the Shakespearean renaissance in this era, beginning with his adaptation of Henry V (1989), which featured the makings of Branagh’s troupe of former RSC favorites turned film actors: Derek Jacobi, Brian Blessed, and of course his future wife (and ex), Emma Thompson. Together the pair would mount what is in this writer’s opinion the best film ever based on a Shakespeare play, the divine and breezy Much Ado About Nothing (1993), a perfect encapsulation of perhaps the first romantic comedy ever written that features Branagh and Thompson as the sharp-tongued, dueling lovers Benedict and Beatrice. It also features Denzel Washington as a dashing Renaissance prince, Kate Beckinsale in her breakout role, and a gloriously over-the-top score by Patrick Doyle. It would define the style of Branagh’s following ‘90s efforts, whether they went off-the-rails like in the aforementioned Frankenstein, or right back on them in the 70mm-filmed, ultra wide and sunny adaptation of Hamlet he helmed in 1996. Avoiding the psychological and Freudian interpretations of the Danish prince chased by Olivier and Zeffirelli, Branagh turns Hamlet into a romantic hero spearheading an all-star ensemble cast. At the play’s full four-hour length, Hamlet (1996) is indulgent. Yet somehow that befits the material. Branagh would also star as Iago in Oliver Parker’s Othello (1995) opposite Laurence Fishburne and reconfigure the Bard as a musical in his own directorial effort, Love’s Labour’s Lost (2000). It paved the way for more outside-the-box Shakespeare movies by the end of the decade like Julie Taymor’s deconstructionist Titus (1999) and the A Midsummer Night’s Dream from 1999 where Kevin Kline turns into an ass and makes out with Michelle Pfeiffer. CBS via Getty Images The Birth of the Teenage Shakespeare Remix (and Austen, and Chaucer, and…) As popular as the Shakespeare movie became in the ‘90s, what’s curiously unique about this era is the simultaneous rise of movies that adapted either the Bard or other highly respected literary writers and turned them into a pure teenage dream. We’re talking moving past modernizing Romeo and Juliet like Luhrmann did, or repurposing it for high New York society like Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim aimed with West Side Story. These were straight, unapologetic youth films that also proved clever reworkings of classic storytelling structure. Among the best directly derived from Shakespeare is the movie that made Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger Gen-X icons, 10 Things I Hate About You (1999), a happily campy update of The Taming of the Shrew set in a fairytale high school also populated by future Christopher Nolan favorites like Joseph Gordon-Levitt and David Krumholtz. Stiles would, in fact, do this kind of remix a number times in the more serious-faced modernization of Othello, O (2000), which also starred Mekhi Phifer as a tragically distrusting high school sports star instead of warrior, and Michael Almereyda and Ethan Hawke’s own Hamlet (2000), the third Hamlet movie in 10 years, albeit this one set in turn-of-the-century NYC. Ledger also returned to the concept by adapting another, even older literary giant, in this case the medieval poet Geoffrey Chaucer, for A Knight’s Tale (2001), an anachronistic blending of the medieval and modern where peasants grooved in the jousting tournament stands to Queen. There was also the strange attempt to turn Pierre Choderlos de Laclos’ Dangerous Liaisons from 1782 into an erotic thriller for teens (the ‘90s were weird, huh?) via the lusty Cruel Intentions However, easily the best of these remains Amy Heckerling’s CluelessEmma from the Regency period to a fairytale version of 1990s Beverly Hills. Foregoing modern fads and simply inventing her own—with the assumption anything she wrote in 1994 would be dated by ’95—Heckerling create a faux yet now authentically iconic language and fashion style via Cher (Alicia Silverstone), a charmed SoCal princess who is so well-meaning in her matchmaking mischief that she defies any attempts to detest her entitlement or vanity. You kind of are even low-key chill that the happy ending is she hooks up with her step brother (Paul Rudd). It’s a classic! And the Rest There are many, many more examples we could examine from this era. These can include the sublime like the Gillian Armstrong-directed Little Women of 1994 starring Winona Ryder, Claire Danes, and Kirsten Dunst; and they can include the wretched like the Demi Moore and Gary Oldman-led The Scarlet Letter (1995). There were more plays adapted, a la Arthur Miller’s The Crucible (again with Ryder and Day-Lewis!), and then those that just had some fun with playwrights, as seen in the over-celebrated Shakespeare in LoveBraveheart (1995). More than a few of these won Best Picture Oscars as well, including Braveheart, Shakespeare in Love, and James Cameron’s little 1997 movie you might have heard about elsewhere: Titanic. And yet, this type of film has by and large gone away. Once in a while one comes along that still works, such as Greta Gerwig’s own revisionist interpretation of Little Women. That beautiful film was a good-sized hit in 2019, but it did not exactly usher in a new era of literary adaptations. Now such projects, like everything else not considered four-quadrant intellectual property by studio bean counters, is mostly relegated to long-form stream series. Which in some cases is fine. Many would argue the best version of Pride & Prejudice was the BBC production… also from the ‘90s, mind. But whether it is original period piece films or adaptations, unless you’re Robert Eggers (who arguably isn’t making films for the same mainstream sensibility the likes of Gerwig or, for that matter, Coppola were), period piece storytelling and “great adaptations” have been abandoned to the small screen and full-on wish fulfillment anachronisms like Bridgerton. This seems due to studios increasingly eschewing anything that isn’t reliably based on a brand that middle-aged adults loved. But in that case… it might be worth reminding them that ‘90s kids are getting older and having children of their own. There may again be a market beyond the occasional Gerwig swing, or Eggers take on Dracula, for classic stories; a new audience being raised to want modern riffs inspired by tales that have endured for years and centuries. These stories are mostly in the public domain too. And recent original hits like Sinners suggests you don’t even need a classic story to connect with audiences. So perhaps once again, a play’s the thing in which they can catch the conscience of the… consumer? Or something like that.

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. This baby boy was treated with the first personalized gene-editing drug Doctors say they constructed a bespoke gene-editing treatment in less than seven months and used it to treat a baby with a deadly metabolic condition. The rapid-fire attempt to rewrite the child’s DNA marks the first time gene editing has been tailored to treat a single individual.The baby who was treated, Kyle “KJ” Muldoon Jr., suffers from a rare metabolic condition caused by a particularly unusual gene misspelling. Researchers say their attempt to correct the error demonstrates the high level of precision new types of gene editors offer. The project also highlights what some experts are calling a growing crisis in gene-editing technology. That’s because even though the technology could cure thousands of genetic conditions, most are so rare that companies could never recoup the costs of developing a treatment for them. Read the full story.—Antonio Regalado Access to experimental medical treatments is expanding across the US —Jessica Hamzelou A couple of weeks ago I was in Washington, DC, for a gathering of scientists, policymakers, and longevity enthusiasts. They had come together to discuss ways to speed along the development of drugs and other treatments that might extend the human lifespan. One approach that came up was to simply make experimental drugs more easily accessible. Now, the state of Montana has passed a new bill that sets out exactly how clinics can sell experimental, unproven treatments in the state to anyone who wants them. The passing of the bill could make Montana something of a US hub for experimental treatments. But it represents a wider trend: the creep of Right to Try across the US. And a potentially dangerous departure from evidence-based medicine. Read the full story. This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. Take a new look at AI’s energy use Big Tech’s appetite for energy is growing rapidly as adoption of AI accelerates. But just how much energy does even a single AI query use? And what does it mean for the climate?Join editor in chief Mat Honan, senior climate reporter Casey Crownhart, and AI reporter James O’Donnell at 1.30pm ET on Wednesday May 21 for a subscriber-only Roundtables conversation exploring AI’s energy demands now and in the future. Register here. The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 xAI has blamed Grok’s white genocide fixation on an ‘unauthorized modification’Made by an unnamed employee at 3.15am. (TechCrunch)+ The topic is one the far-right comes back to again and again. (The Atlantic $)+ Memphis residents are struggling to live alongside xAI’s supercomputer. (CNBC) 2 Meta has delayed the launch of its next flagship AI modelIts engineers are struggling to improve its Behemoth LLM enough. (WSJ $)  3 Elon Musk is tapping up friends and allies for federal jobsIt’s creating an unprecedented web of potential conflicts of interests. (WSJ $)+ Musk is posting on X less than he used to. (Semafor) 4 The US is slashing funding for scientific researchSuch projects produced GPS, LASIK eye surgery, and CAPTCHAs. (NYT $)+ US tech visa applicants are under seriously heavy scrutiny. (Wired $)+ The foundations of America’s prosperity are being dismantled. (MIT Technology Review)5 Big Tech wants its AI agents to remember everything about you They’re focusing on improving chatbots’ memory—but critics are worried. (FT $)+ AI agents can spontaneously develop human-like behavior. (The Guardian)+ Generative AI can turn your most precious memories into photos that never existed. (MIT Technology Review) 6 People keep making anti-DEI modifications for The Sims 4And the gamemaker EA’s attempts to stamp them out aren’t working. (Wired $) 7 This chatbot promises to help you get over your ex Closure creates an AI version of ex-partners for users to vent their frustrations at. (404 Media)+ The AI relationship revolution is already here. (MIT Technology Review) 8 How this AI song became a viral megahit in JapanYAJU&U is completely inescapable, and totally nonsensical. (Pitchfork)+ AI is coming for music, too. (MIT Technology Review) 9 Your future overseas trip could be by zeppelinIf these startups get their way. (WP $)+ Welcome to the big blimp boom. (MIT Technology Review) 10 Are you a ‘dry texter’? It’s a conflict-averse teen’s worst nightmare. (Vox) Quote of the day “It’s OK to be Chinese overseas.” —Chris Pereira, the CEO of iMpact, a communications firm advising Chinese companies expanding abroad, tells Rest of World that DeepSeek has given Chinese startups the confidence not to hide their origins. One more thingWe’ve never understood how hunger works. That might be about to change. When you’re starving, hunger is like a demon. It awakens the most ancient and primitive parts of the brain, then commandeers other neural machinery to do its bidding until it gets what it wants. Although scientists have had some success in stimulating hunger in mice, we still don’t really understand how the impulse to eat works. Now, some experts are following known parts of the neural hunger circuits into uncharted parts of the brain to try and find out. Their work could shed new light on the factors that have caused the number of overweight adults worldwide to skyrocket in recent years. And it could also help solve the mysteries around how and why a new class of weight-loss drugs seems to work so well. Read the full story. —Adam Piore We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)+ Who knew—Harvard Law School’s Magna Carta may be the real deal after all.+ Early relatives of reptiles might have walked the Earth much earlier than we realised.+ New York University’s MFA Students are a talented bunch.+ The Raines sandwich sounds unspeakably awful