Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents What is Sinners about? Is Sinners worth watching? How to watch Sinners at home The best HBO Max streaming deals The best streaming deals to watch 'Sinners' at home: WATCH NOW Buy 'Sinners' on Prime Video $24.99 WATCH NOW Rent 'Sinners' on Prime Video $19.99 WATCH LATER Max (With Ads) annual subscription $99.99/year (save $19.89) WATCH LATER Max Standard annual subscription $169.99/year (save $33.89) WATCH LATER FOR FREE Max Basic With Ads for Cricket customers Free for Cricket customers on the $60/month unlimited plan (save $9.99/month) WATCH LATER FOR FREE Max Basic With Ads Free for DashPass annual plan subscribers (save $9.99 per month) WATCH LATER Max Student $4.99 per month for 12 months (save 50%) WATCH LATER Disney+, Hulu, and Max $16.99 per month (with ads), $29.99 per month (no ads) (save up to 38%) Black Panther director Ryan Coogler is back with another smash hit. The third movie Warner Bros. has released in 2025 that features an A-lister playing dual roles, Sinners is "easily one of the best movies of the year," according to Mashable's head movie critic.Besides Michael B. Jordan times two, it stars Hailee Steinfeld (Hawkeye), Jack O’Connell (Ferrari), Wunmi Mosaku (Passenger), Jayme Lawson (The Woman King), Omar Benson Miller (True Lies), and Delroy Lindo (Da 5 Bloods). With bits of horror, history, and musical theater all sprinkled in, it's a genre-fluid movie in every sense of the term. If you haven't caught it in theaters yet, there's still time. However, if you'd rather watch it at home, it's now available on digital-on-demand services as of June 3. Here's everything you need to know about how to watch Sinners at home. You May Also Like What is Sinners about?Set in the 1930s Jim Crow-era South, Sinners stars Michael B. Jordan in a dual role as Smoke and Stack, twin brothers who return to their hometown with the goal of setting up a juke joint — only for its grand opening to be disrupted by something supernaturally monstrous."There are vampires in the film, but it's really about a lot more than just that. It's one of many elements, and I think we're gonna surprise people with it," director Ryan Coogler explained at a press conference.Check out the official trailer: Is Sinners worth watching?Sinners is a huge success story for original horror. It's only the second movie in 2025 to pass the $250 million domestic box office milestone and is one of the 10 highest-grossing horror movies to date. Not only has it been a smash hit at the box office, now climbing to over $338 million worldwide and $258 million domestically, but the reviews are outstanding. It currently holds a near-perfect 97 percent critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 96 percent audience rating. That's no easy feat."Sinners is more than a hell of a thrilling vampire movie. Like Black Panther, it expands beyond the expectations of its genre to become a magnificent film, emanating with spirit, power, and purpose," Mashable's Kristy Puchko writes in her review of the film. "Smoothly blending vampire horror into a unique tale of regret, resilience, and redemption, Coogler and Jordan have made a cinematic marvel that is terrifying, satisfying, and unforgettable."Read our full review of Sinners.How to watch Sinners at home Credit: Warner Bros. Sinners smashed into theaters on April 18, 2025, and is still floating around in select theaters nationwide. However, if you would rather watch it at home, there are now a couple of different options: purchasing via digital video-on-demand or renting via digital video-on-demand. It will also eventually be streaming, offering a third option.Buy or rent Sinners on digitalAs of June 3, Sinners is available to purchase or rent on digital video-on-demand platforms like Prime Video. You can purchase the movie for your digital collection or rent it for 30 days. If you choose to rent, just note that you'll have 30 days to watch, but only 48 hours to finish once you begin.You can purchase and rent the film at the following retailers:Prime Video — buy for $24.99, rent for $19.99Apple TV — buy for $24.99, rent for $19.99Fandango at Home (Vudu) — buy for $24.99, rent for $19.99 Opens in a new window Credit: Prime Video Rent or buy 'Sinners' at Prime Video $19.99 or $24.99 Stream Sinners on MaxAs a Warner Bros. Pictures film, we expect that Sinners will make its streaming debut on Max (soon to be called HBO Max once again) — the Warner Bros.-owned streaming service. While there is no official streaming date yet, we'll be keeping our eyes peeled. Based on the digital-to-streaming trajectory of other recent theatrical hits from Warner Bros. like Companion, Mickey 17, and Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, we expect that Sinners will make its streaming debut sometime around late July to mid-August.Max subscriptions start at $9.99 per month, but there are a few different ways to save some money on your plan. Check out the best Max streaming deals below.The best HBO Max streaming dealsBest for most people: Save 16% on Max Basic annual subscription Opens in a new window Credit: Max Max Basic with ads yearly subscription $99.99 per year (save $19.89) The Max Basic plan with ads typically goes for $9.99 per month, but if you pay for the entire year up front, that cost drops down to $8.33 per month. An annual plan is just $99.99 total, which saves you about 16% compared to the monthly plan. Related Stories Mashable Deals Want more hand-picked deals from our shopping experts? Sign up for the Mashable Deals newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up! Best Max deal with no ads: Save up to 16% on a Max Standard annual subscription Opens in a new window Credit: Max Max Standard annual subscription $169.99 per year (save $33.89) Similarly, you can opt for the annual Max Standard or Premium plans and save about 16% if you'd rather go ad-free. The Standard tier costs either $16.99 per month or $169.99 per year (about $14.16 per month), while the Premium tier costs either $20.99 per month or $209.99 per year (about $17.50 per month). While both tiers offer ad-free viewing, the Premium tier goes a step further with 4K Ultra HD video quality, Dolby Atmos immersive audio, and the ability to download more offline content.Get HBO Max for free: Switch to Cricket's $60/month unlimited plan Opens in a new window Credit: Cricket / Max Max (with ads) Free for Cricket customers on the $60/month plan If you switch your phone plan to Cricket's $60 per month unlimited plan, you'll get HBO Max included for no extra cost. When you open up the HBO Max app, you'll just select Cricket as your provider and use your credentials to log in. That's all, folks.Get HBO Max for free: Sign up for DashPass annual plan Opens in a new window Credit: DoorDash / Max Max (with ads) Free with DashPass annual plan ($8/month) Another way to get HBO Max for free in 2025 is by signing up for a DoorDash DashPass annual plan for $96 per year ($8 per month). A DashPass membership gets you $0 delivery fees and reduced service fees on eligible DoorDash orders all year long. You'll just have to activate your HBO Max with ads subscription through your DoorDash account to get started. If you'd rather watch ad-free, you can upgrade for a discounted rate as well.Best HBO Max deal for students: Save 50% on Max Basic with ads Opens in a new window Credit: Max Max Student $4.99 per month for 12 months College students looking to expand their movie horizons can get an entire year of HBO Max with ads for half price. Just verify your student status with UNiDAYS and retrieve the unique discount code to drop the price from $9.99 to $4.99 per month.Best bundle deal: Get Max, Disney+, and Hulu for up to 38% off Opens in a new window Credit: Disney / Hulu / Max Disney+, Hulu, and Max $16.99 per month (with ads), $29.99 per month (no ads) For the most bang for your buck, check out the Disney+ bundle deal that includes Disney+, Hulu, and Max for just $16.99 per month with ads. That lineup of streamers would usually cost you $25.97 per month, so you'll keep an extra $9 in your pocket monthly.If you'd rather go ad-free, the bundle will run you $29.99 per month as opposed to $48.97. That's up to 38% in savings for access to all three streaming libraries.

Mauricio Rocha | TaAU | Alejandro Castro | OMA | Michel Desvigne | Robert Moses | El Equipo Mazzanti | ContraFuerte |  Batlleiroig | Christian Kerez Earlier this year, news broke that levels of fine particulate matter in Paris had dropped by an astounding 55 per cent since 2005. Through a combination of regulation and public policy, the city has vastly reduced the number of cars on its streets, introducing bike lanes and public green spaces in the place of around 50,000 parking spaces. This issue is dedicated to roads and the architectures that support them. Cities around the world are reckoning with 20th-century car-oriented urban planning, as epitomised by Robert Moses’s New York (p36). Existing roads are increasingly repurposed for broader uses, prioritising pedestrians, cyclists and other forms of movement. São Paulo’s Minhocão has been gradually reclaimed by residents, and the restoration of a historical promenade in Reus is inclusive for all. Meanwhile, OMA’s new bridge in Bordeaux is designed to host public events – as well as six lanes of motorised traffic. Elsewhere, automobile infrastructure continues to expand; in Bahrain, four new car parks stand largely empty, and a roadside service station in Colombia is yet to be occupied. Roads promise prosperity and progress, often with expansionist ambitions; as Nadi Abusaada writes, ‘The road is both the myth and mechanism of the colonial frontier’.  Electric vehicles are now heralded as the future of transport, but as Nelo Magalhães writes in this issue’s keynote, ‘EVs do nothing to change the mass of roads or the issue of their maintenance’. The shift needed is more radical and wide‑reaching.  1522: Roads cover (above)Highway #5, Los Angeles, California, USA (2009) is part of Edward Burtynsky: The Great Acceleration, an exhibition on view at the International Center of Photography in New York City until 28 September. In it, a motorway bulldozes its way through suburbia, sending out smaller branches that further subdivide it. Credit: © Edward Burtynsky, courtesy Flowers Gallery, London folio (lead image)Home follows a family living in a house next to an uncompleted motorway, who reclaim it, temporarily, as an extension of their home. Credit: Album / Alamy keynote How much does your road weigh? Nelo Magalhãesbuilding Malecón de Villahermosa by Taller de Arquitectura Mauricio Rocha, TaAU and Alejandro Castro in Villahermosa, Mexico Laure Nashed building Simon Veil bridge by OMA and Michel Desvigne Paysagiste in Bordeaux, France John Bingham-Hall reputations Robert Moses Andy Battlebuilding Control and operations centre by El Equipo Mazzanti and ContraFuerte in Bolombolo, Colombia Felipe Walter essay Cape to Cairo Sara Salem essay A short history of the roadblock Jan-Werner Müller outrage The Amazonian road to COP30 Martha Dillonrevisit Schlangenbader Straße estate in Berlin, Germany Sophie Lovell essay Living with the Big Worm Richard J Williamsbuilding Passeig de Boca de la Mina by Batlleiroig in Reus, Spain Blanca Pujals essay Taking Norway’s scenic routes Tomà Berlanda building Pearling Path car parks by Christian Kerez in Muharraq, Bahrain Oliver Wainwright typology Petrol station Tom Wilkinson essay The road is the frontier Nadi Abusaada

If you wanted to get a COVID vaccine during pregnancy, to protect yourself and your future baby from the virus, that may soon be difficult to impossible. According to a short video posted on X, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, who is also a noted anti-vaccine activist, said that the COVID-19 vaccine “has been removed” from the list of vaccines recommended in pregnancy, as well as the list of vaccines recommended for healthy children. This announcement sidesteps the usual regulatory process, and it’s not clear exactly what will happen next—but here’s what we know. The announcement may not be entirely validRFK, Jr made the announcement in a video where he stood alongside the NIH director Jay Bhattacharya and FDA commissioner Marty Makary. Notably, nobody from the CDC was present. The FDA approves vaccines, but it’s the CDC that is in charge of recommendations. (It is not clear who the CDC’s acting director actually is, or whether there is one.) Normally, the CDC has an advisory panel called ACIP (the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices) that reviews scientific evidence to make recommendations for vaccines. They’ll vote on whether a given vaccine should be recommended for everybody in a group of people. Their decisions are then passed to CDC leadership, who make the final call as to whether the vaccine gets officially recommended for that group. Vaccines are not usually added or removed to the recommended list by the CDC without consulting with ACIP, and they definitely aren’t usually added or removed by tweeting a video. Dorit Reiss, a law professor who specializes in vaccine policy, posted on LinkedIn that the announcement may not be legally valid if it’s not immediately followed by supporting documentation. She says: “Under administrative law, to avoid being found arbitrary and capricious, an agency's decision has to meet certain criteria, including explaining the agency's fact finding, a connection between the facts and the decisions, etc. A one minute video on Twitter doesn't quite get you there.” So far, the CDC’s web page on vaccines recommended in pregnancy still says that “A pregnant woman should get vaccinated against whooping cough, flu, COVID-19, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).” The adult and child vaccine schedules still include COVID vaccines.Strangely, this move on behalf of the CDC contradicts the one we reported about recently from the FDA. The FDA plans to require extra steps (possibly unethical and/or impractical ones) to approve new COVID vaccines for healthy children and adults. But these steps don’t apply to people who are at high risk for complications of COVID. The FDA’s policy announcement included a list of those high risk health conditions—which includes pregnancy.Why it matters which vaccines are “recommended”Recommending a vaccine doesn’t just mean expressing an opinion; the Affordable Care Act requires that vaccines recommended by ACIP must be covered by most private insurance and Medicaid expansion plans without any cost sharing. That means no deductible and no copay—so these vaccines must be free to you out of pocket if you fall into a group of people for whom they are recommended. The recommended vaccines include all the standard childhood vaccines, plus your seasonal flu shot, and other vaccines that are recommended for adults, for people who are pregnant, and so on. The full schedules are here. If you’ve gotten a COVID shot, a flu shot, a tetanus shot, a shingles shot—the shot’s inclusion on this list is why you were able to (probably) get it for free.So taking a vaccine off the recommended list means that it could be prohibitively expensive. GoodRX, which keeps tabs on pharmacy prices, reports that COVID shots may cost $200 or more out of pocket, plus any applicable administration fee that the provider might charge.Taking a vaccine off the recommended list may also mean it won’t be covered by the Vaccines for Children program, which provides free vaccines to children who don’t have coverage for them through health insurance.Whether or not the vaccine actually gets taken off the list, the recent HHS announcement has another impact: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement that “Following this announcement, we are worried about our patients in the future, who may be less likely to choose vaccination during pregnancy despite the clear and definitive evidence demonstrating its benefit.” The ACOG statement also pointed out a few ways in which removing the vaccines from the recommended list is not “common sense and good science,” as the HHS announcement claimed. ACOG writes: “As ob-gyns who treat patients every day, we have seen firsthand how dangerous COVID infection can be during pregnancy and for newborns who depend on maternal antibodies from the vaccine for protection. We also understand that despite the change in recommendations from HHS, the science has not changed. It is very clear that COVID infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families.”

Version 1.0.0 By Robert Jan van Pelt (Park Books, 2025) The largest artifact in the touring exhibition Auschwitz. Not Long Ago. Not Far Away., currently on display at the ROM in Toronto, is a wooden barracks building. It’s from the Auschwitz-Monowitz camp, a satellite to Auschwitz created to provide slave labour to the IG Farben corporation for the construction of a synthetic rubber factory.  The discovery of a sister building, back in 2012, led exhibition chief curator and architectural historian Robert Jan van Pelt, University Professor at the Waterloo School of Architecture, on a research journey to write a comprehensive history of the barracks—temporary buildings that have not only housed prisoners, but also provided shelter for military servicemen and women, refugees, and natural disaster survivors. “Many people have experienced, for shorter or longer time periods, life in a barrack, and for all of them it represented life on the edge, for better or worse,” writes Van Pelt. Worm’s eye axonometric of Renkioi Hospital Barrack, a prefabricated hospital designed by Ismabard Kingdom Brunel for a site in Turkey, 1857. Van Pelt’s book criss-crosses with ease through architectural history, military history, and the history of medicine—all of which played crucial roles in the evolving development of this seemingly simple building type. The book is arranged in a dozen episodes, with the barrack at the centre of each, serving as an anchor point for unfolding the rich intellectual and historical context shaping the way these structures were developed and deployed. The book is richly illustrated with archival materials—a feat in itself, given that the documentation for temporary buildings, particularly before 1900, is scarce. These drawings, photos, and paintings are supplemented with 20 worm’s eye views of key buildings, carefully composed by a team of Waterloo architecture school students and alumni.  Thomas Thomaszoon, View of the headquarters of the Spanish in the Huis tea Kleef during the siege of Haarlem, 1572-73. Collection of Noord-Hollands Archief, Haarlem; courtesy Robert Jan van Pelt Like many vernacular buildings, temporary structures larger than a tent, designed to house soldiers in the field, have existed at least since Ancient Rome. One of the first visual accounts of barracks came centuries later, in the winter of 1572, when the Spanish laid siege to the Dutch city of Haarlem, and cartographer Thomas Thomaszoon sketched the position of dozens of Spain’s wood-and-straw structures outside the city. The siege was successful, but only a few years later, the Dutch Republic gained the upper hand. As part of the creation of a standing army, they began to develop more precise instructions for the layout of camps, including the construction of temporary barracks. Antoine-François Omet des Foucaux, Barrack constructed in Hendaye, France, 1793. From Jean-Charles Krafft, Plans, coupes et élévations de diverses productions de l’art de la charpente, 1805. Collection of Bilbliothèque Nationale de France, Paris. Courtesy Robert Jan van Pelt The Napoleonic army made use of barracks in both military camps and training camps; by the mid-1800s, the construction of various barrack types was detailed in field construction manuals issued to officers in many European armies. During the Crimean War (1853-56), over 3,500 prefabricated barracks were manufactured in a Gloucester factory, as a solution to the appalling conditions at the front. But when the structures arrived at port, British forces were not able to unload and erect them—the materials for a single building weighed more than two tons, and each would require 60 horses (or 150 men) to transport to camp on the muddy roads.  The US (Union) Army’s Lincoln Hospital, Washington, DC, 1865. Collection of Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Courtesy Robert Jan van Pelt Prefabrication was also used, with somewhat more success, towards the end of the conflict to erect field hospitals designed by British engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel with a priority on cross-ventilation to limit the spread of disease. Low mortality rates from similar structures led to a continued preference for “barrack hospitals” based on groupings of low-slung, well-ventilated pavilions, rather than conceived as single grand structures. The model was further refined with the addition of primitive underfloor heating and ridge ventilation by former surgeon William A. Hammond for the Union Army during the American Civil War (1861-65).  Barrack hospitals were constructed for civilian use, as well. Following the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71), such designs were built to house patients with infectious diseases in Berlin and proposed as a means to bring professional medical care to Germany’s rural areas. A barracks-inspired hospital was built in Saint Petersburg, Russia, in 1889, and continues to be operational.  If the barrack as an accommodation for the sick is a progressive tale, the 19th-century history of the barrack is equally checkered by the building type’s use for prisoner accommodation, including in the penal colonies of Australia and French Guiana. In North America, barracks were used in an internment camp for Native American Dakotas, and Civil War-era Union barracks at Camp Douglas were used to house Confederate prisoners. The oldest preserved barrack in the world may be in Canada, at Grosse Isle national park. Here, barrack-style quarantine sheds were used to detain thousands of Irish immigrant families during the typhoid fever epidemic of 1846-47, and their damp, fetid conditions contributed to many deaths—an episode Van Pelt describes as a “blot on the national consciousness of Canada.” A single Doecker Hut contains an operation room, pharmacy and hospital management office. The prefabricated, portable hospitals were developed in 1885, and used around the world, including in the First World War. In America, they were marketed for managing epidemics in the wake of the 1892 typhus fever outbreak in New York. Courtesy Berlin State Library and Robert Jan van Pelt   At the turn of the 19th century, the prefabricated portable barrack came to the fore with the manufacturing of the Doecker barracks, by Christoph & Unmack, a firm based in Copenhagen and Germany. Developed by a former military officer-turned-tentmaker, the technically sophisticated model used large rectangular frames that could be clipped together, and covered with “felt-cardboard”—dense felt pressed onto canvas and impregnated with linseed oil. The self-supporting structures proved easy to set up, dismount, and transport, making them suitable for both military applications—and, with little modification, for humanitarian aid. The Red Cross deployed Doecker barracks for use as field hospitals in Manchuria and Yokohama during the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05).  The Barrack, 1572-1914 wraps up in in the early 20th century, but with the note that in the ensuing decades until 1945, millions of barracks were produced by many of the world’s major nations—and that most of these were erected in barbed-wire-ringed compounds. “This is the period in which tens if not hundreds of millions of people, many of whom were civilians, were forced to live in barracks, as refugees, as expellees, as civilian internees, as forced laborers, as prisoners or war, as concentration camp prisoners, and as people made homeless by the destruction wrought by war,” writes Van Pelt. Up until 1914, he notes, this building type largely carried a sense of achievement—an image that would change sharply with the Age of the Camps. But although a WWII barrack was responsible for instigating Van Pelt’s initial investigation, that time period will need to await a second volume on this simple building type with a rich, complex, and complicated history.   As appeared in the June 2025 issue of Canadian Architect magazine  The post Book Review: The Barrack, 1572-1914—Chapters in the History of Emergency Architecture appeared first on Canadian Architect.

Meta has published the first of its quarterly integrity reports since Mark Zuckerberg walked back the company's hate speech policies and changed its approach to content moderation earlier this year. According to the reports, Facebook saw an uptick in violent content, bullying and harassment despite an overall decrease in the amount of content taken down by Meta. The reports are the first time Meta has shared data about how Zuckerberg's decision to upend Meta's policies have played out on the platform used by billions of people. Notably, the company is spinning the changes as a victory, saying that it reduced its mistakes by half while the overall prevalence of content breaking its rules "largely remained unchanged for most problem areas." There are two notable exceptions, however. Violent and graphic content increased from 0.06%-0.07% at the end of 2024 to .09% in the first quarter of 2025. Meta attributed the uptick to "an increase in sharing of violating content" as well as its own attempts to "reduce enforcement mistakes." Meta also saw a noted increase in the prevalence of bullying and harassment on Facebook, which increased from 0.06-0.07% at the end of 2024 to 0.07-0.08% at the start of 2025. Meta says this was due to an unspecified "spike" in violations in March. (Notably, this is a separate category from the company's hate speech policies, which were re-written to allow posts targeting immigrants and LGBTQ people.) Those may sound like relatively tiny percentages, but even small increases can be noticeable for a platform like Facebook that sees billions of posts every day. (Meta describes its prevalence metric as an estimate of how often rule-breaking content appears on its platform.) The report also underscores just how much less content Meta is taking down overall since it moved away from proactive enforcement of all but its most serious policies like child exploitation and terrorist content. Meta's report shows a significant decrease in the amount of Facebook posts removed for hateful content, for example, with just 3.4 million pieces of content "actioned" under the policy, the company's lowest figure since 2018. Spam removals also dropped precipitously from 730 million at the end of 2024 to just 366 million at the start of 2025. The number of fake accounts removed also declined notably on Facebook from 1.4 billion to 1 billion (Meta doesn't provide stats around fake account removals on Instagram.) At the same time, Meta claims it's making far fewer content moderation mistakes, which was one of Zuckerberg's main justifications for his decision to end proactive moderation."We saw a roughly 50% reduction in enforcement mistakes on our platforms in the United States from Q4 2024 to Q1 2025," the company wrote in an update to its January post announcing its policy changes. Meta didn't explain how it calculated that figure, but said future reports would "include metrics on our mistakes so that people can track our progress." Meta is acknowledging, however, that there is at least one group where some proactive moderation is still necessary: teens. "At the same time, we remain committed to ensuring teens on our platforms are having the safest experience possible," the company wrote. "That’s why, for teens, we’ll also continue to proactively hide other types of harmful content, like bullying." Meta has been rolling out "teen accounts" for the last several months, which should make it easier to filter content specifically for younger users. The company also offered an update on how it's using large language models to aid in its content moderation efforts. "Upon further testing, we are beginning to see LLMs operating beyond that of human performance for select policy areas," Meta writes. "We’re also using LLMs to remove content from review queues in certain circumstances when we’re highly confident it does not violate our policies." The other major component to Zuckerberg's policy changes was an end of Meta's fact-checking partnerships in the United States. The company began rolling out its own version of Community Notes to Facebook, Instagram and Threads earlier this year, and has since expanded the effort to Reels and Threads replies. Meta didn't offer any insight into how effective its new crowd-sourced approach to fact-checking might be or how often notes are appearing on its platform, though it promised updates in the coming months.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/facebook-sees-rise-in-violent-content-and-harassment-after-policy-changes-182651544.html?src=rss

Intrauterine devices, or IUDs, are an extremely effective and convenient form of birth control for many people—but it can also very painful to get one inserted. Current medical guidelines say that your doctor should be discussing pain management with you, and they also give advice to doctors on what methods tend to work best for most people. The newest set of guidelines is from ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. These guidelines actually cover a variety of procedures, including endometrial and cervical biopsies, but today I'll be talking about the IUD insertion portions. And in 2024, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's released new contraceptive recommendations that include a section on how and why providers should help you with pain relief. Before we get into the new recommendations and what they say, it’s important to keep in mind that that not everybody feels severe pain with insertion—the estimate is that insertion is severely painful for 50% of people who haven't given birth, and only 10% of people who have, according to Rachel Flink, the OB-GYN I spoke with for my article on what to expect when you get an IUD. (She also gave me a great rundown of pain management options and their pros and cons, which I included in the article.)  I’m making sure to point this out because I’ve met people who are terrified at the thought of getting an IUD, because they think that severe pain is guaranteed and that doctors are lying if they say otherwise. In reality, there’s a whole spectrum of possible experiences, and both you and your provider should be informed and prepared for anything along that spectrum.Your provider should discuss pain management with youThe biggest thing in both sets of guidelines is not just the pain management options they discuss, but the guideline that says there is a place for this discussion and that it is important! You’ve always been able to ask about pain management, but providers are now expected to know that they need to discuss this with their patients. The ACOG guidelines say: "Options to manage pain should be discussed with and offered to all patients seeking in-office gynecologic procedures." And the CDC says: Before IUD placement, all patients should be counseled on potential pain during placement as well as the risks, benefits, and alternatives of different options for pain management. A person-centered plan for IUD placement and pain management should be made based on patient preference.“Person-centered” means that the plan should take into account what you want and need, not just what the provider is used to doing or thinks will be easiest. (This has sometimes been called “patient-centered” care, but “person-centered” is meant to convey that you and your provider understand that they are treating a whole person, with concerns outside of just their health, and you’re not only a patient who exists in a medical context.) The CDC guidelines also say: “When considering patient pain, it is important to recognize that the experience of pain is individualized and might be influenced by previous experiences including trauma and mental health conditions, such as depression or anxiety.” The ACOG guidelines, similarly, say that talking over the procedure and what to expect can help make the procedure more tolerable, regardless of how physically painful it ends up being. (Dr. Flink told me that anti-anxiety medications during insertion are helpful for some of her patients, and that she’ll discuss them alongside options for physical pain relief.)Lidocaine paracervical blocks may relieve painThere’s good news and bad news about the recommended pain medications. The good news is that there are recommendations. The bad news is that none of them are guaranteed to work for everyone, and it’s not clear if they work very well at all. The CDC says that a paracervical block (done by injection, similar to the numbing injections used for dental work) “might” reduce pain with insertion. Three studies showed that the injections worked to reduce pain, while three others found they did not. The CDC rates the certainty of evidence as “low” for pain and for satisfaction with the procedure. The ACOG guidelines also mention local anesthetics, including lidocaine paracervical blocks, as one of the best options for pain management. Dr. Flink told me that while some of her patients appreciate this option, it’s often impossible to numb all of the nerves in the cervix, and the injection itself can be painful—so in many cases, patients decide it’s not worth it. Still, it’s worth discussing with your provider if this sounds like something you would like to try.Topical lidocaine may also helpLidocaine, the same numbing medication, can also be applied to the cervix as a cream, spray, or gel. Again, evidence is mixed, with six trials finding that it helped, and seven finding that it did not. The ACOG guidelines note that sometimes topical lidocaine has worked better than the injected kind. Unfortunately, they also say that it can be hard for doctors to find an appropriate spray-on product that can be used on the cervix.The CDC judged the certainty of to be a bit better here compared to the injection—moderate for reducing pain, and high for improving placement success (meaning that the provider was able to get the IUD inserted properly). Other methods aren’t well supported by the evidence (yet?)For the other pain management methods that the CDC group studied, there wasn’t enough evidence to say whether they work. These included analgesics like ibuprofen, and smooth-muscle-relaxing medications. The ACOG guidelines say that taking NSAIDS (like ibuprofen) before insertion doesn't seem to help with insertion pain, even though that's commonly recommended. That approach does seem to work for some other procedures, though, and may help with pain that occurs after an IUD insertion. So it may not be a bad idea to take those four Advil if that's what your doc recommends, but it shouldn't be your only option. Or as the ACOG paper puts it: "Although recommending preprocedural NSAIDs is a benign, low-risk intervention unlikely to cause harm, relying on NSAIDs alone for pain management during IUD insertion is ineffective and does not provide the immediate pain control patients need at the time of the procedure." Both sets of guidelines also don't recommend misoprostol, which is sometimes used to soften and open the cervix before inserting an IUD. The ACOG guidelines describe the evidence as mixed, and the CDC guidelines specifically recommend against it. Moderate certainty evidence says that misoprostol doesn’t help with pain, and low certainty evidence says that it may increase the risk of adverse events like cramping and vomiting. What this means for youThe publication of these guidelines won’t change anything overnight at your local OB-GYN office, but it’s a good sign that discussions about pain management with IUD placement are happening more openly. The new guidelines also don’t necessarily take any options off the table. Even misoprostol, which the CDC now says not to use for routine insertions, “might be useful in selected circumstances (e.g., in patients with a recent failed placement),” it writes.Don’t be afraid to ask about pain management before your appointment; as we discussed before, some medications and procedures require that you and your provider plan ahead. And definitely don’t accept a dismissive reply about how taking a few Advil should be enough; it may help for some people, but that shouldn't be the end of the discussion. You deserve to have your provider take your concerns seriously.

Key Takeaways AMD’s RX 9060 XT is set to launch on June 5th, 2025 in both 8GB and 16GB versions under the same name, creating confusion and backlash. Reviewers and gamers say 8GB of VRAM isn’t enough for modern gaming, especially at 1440p. AMD’s decision to showcase only the 16GB model in benchmarks raised concerns about transparency. This move mirrors Nvidia’s controversial RTX 4060 Ti rollout, suggesting an industry trend of misleading GPU marketing. It all started with a new GPU announcement. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT is set to launch, and on paper, it looks like a solid move. A $349 graphics card with 16GB of VRAM? Not bad. That’s more memory than some RTX 4070 cards. Sounds like AMD might finally be delivering some value again, right?  Well, yes and no.  Because right alongside that 16GB version, AMD is also releasing an 8GB version for $299. Same name, same chip, half the memory. And that’s where the internet lost it.  Déjà Vu: We’ve Seen This Trick Before If this sounds familiar, it’s because Nvidia pulled the same move with the RTX 4060 Ti.  They sold both 8GB and 16GB versions with the same branding, but a $100 price difference. The RTX 4060 Ti 8GB launched in May 2023, and the 16GB variant followed in July.  Source: Nvidia Gamers hated the confusion. Reviewers criticized the 8GB version’s lack of performance, especially in memory-heavy games, and the way Nvidia tried to sweep the difference under the rug.  Performance dipped significantly at 1440p, and stuttering was a problem even in some 1080p titles. The backlash was swift. Tech media slammed Nvidia for deceptive marketing, and buyers were left second-guessing which version they were getting.  We’ve seen this pattern before in Nvidia’s review restrictions around the RTX 5060, where early coverage was shaped by what reviewers were allowed to test – and what they weren’t.  It led to a mess of misinformation, bad value perceptions, and a very clear message: don’t confuse your customers. So naturally, AMD did it too.  It’s like watching two billion-dollar companies playing a game of ‘Who Can Confuse the Customer More.’ It’s not just about the money. It’s about trust, and AMD just dumped a bunch of it off a cliff.  Frank Azor Lights the Fuse on X The backlash started when AMD’s Director of Gaming Marketing, Frank Azor, took to X to defend the 8GB card.  He said that most gamers don’t need more than 8GB of VRAM and that the cheaper card still serves the mainstream crowd just fine.  It’s the same reasoning Nvidia used last year with the RTX 4060 Ti. That didn’t work then, and it isn’t working now.  Because when Steve from Hardware Unboxed sees a bad take like that, you know a flamethrower video is coming. And oh boy, did it come.  Hardware Unboxed Fires Back The backlash against AMD’s 8GB RX 9060 XT took off after a post from Hardware Unboxed on X called out the company’s defense of limited VRAM.  In response to AMD’s claim that most gamers don’t need more than 8GB of memory, Hardware Unboxed accused them of misleading buyers and building weaker products just to hit certain price points. The criticism gained traction fast. Tech YouTuber Vex picked up the story and added fuel to the fire by showing side-by-side gameplay comparisons.  In multiple games, the 8GB RX 9060 XT showed serious performance issues – stuttering, frame drops, and VRAM bottlenecks – while the 16GB version handled the same titles smoothly.  And yet, during the GPU’s official reveal, AMD only showed performance data for the 16GB card. There were no benchmarks for the 8GB version – not a single chart. That omission wasn’t lost on anyone. If AMD truly believed the 8GB model held up under modern gaming loads, they would have shown it. The silence speaks volumes.  Why This Actually Matters You might be thinking: ‘So what? Some games still run fine on 8GB. I only play Valorant.’ Sure. But the problem is bigger than that. Source: AMD Games are getting heavier. Even titles like Cyberpunk 2077, released in 2020, can eat up more than 8GB of VRAM. And with GTA 6 (still) on the horizon, do you really think game developers are going to keep optimizing for 8GB cards in 2025? That’s not how game development works. Developers target the most common setups, yes. But hardware also shapes software.  If everyone’s stuck with 8GB, games will be designed around that limit. That holds back progress for everyone.  It’s like trying to make a movie with a flip phone because some people still own one. Same Name, Different Game Another big issue is how these cards are named and sold.  The RX 9060 XT 16GB and RX 9060 XT 8GB are not clearly labeled as different products. They’re just two versions of the same GPU.  But that extra memory makes a huge difference.  In some games, the 8GB card performs dramatically worse. And yet, unless you know what to look for, you might walk into a store and buy the 8GB version thinking you’re getting the same performance.  You’re not. You’re getting a watered-down version with the same name and a silent asterisk. This isn’t just AMD’s Problem Nvidia started this mess with the 4060 Ti naming confusion. AMD just saw the outrage and decided to walk straight into the same buzzsaw.  It’s hard not to feel like both companies are treating consumers like they’re too dumb to notice. Spoiler: they noticed. And this whole ‘VRAM doesn’t matter’ argument? It’s already been debunked by dozens of reviewers.  If you’re spending over $300 on a graphics card in 2025, it needs to last more than a year or two. 8GB cards are already struggling. Buying one now is like buying a smartphone in 2025 with 64GB of storage. Sure, it works. Until it doesn’t. Steam Data Doesn’t Help AMD’s Case AMD and Nvidia both love to point at the Steam Hardware Survey. They say, ‘See? Most people still play at 1080p.’ And that’s true – for now. Source: Nvidia But what they leave out is that 1440p gaming is growing fast. More gamers are upgrading their setups because 1440p monitors are getting a lot more affordable.  Take the Pixio PXC277 Advanced, for instance – a 27-inch curved 1440p monitor with a 165Hz refresh rate and 1ms response time, all for $219.99. A few years ago, a screen like that would’ve cost you double. Now it’s entry-level. Gamers are ready to step up their experience. The only thing holding them back is GPU hardware that’s still stuck in 2020.  Planned Obsolescence in Disguise Here’s the worst part. Companies know full well that 8GB won’t cut it in 2026.  But they still sell it, knowing many gamers will only find out when it’s too late – when the stutters kick in, the textures disappear, or the next big title becomes unplayable. It’s planned obsolescence disguised as ‘choice.’ And while it’s great to have options at different price points, it should be clear which option is built to last – and which one is built to frustrate.  So, Is AMD Actually Screwed?  Not right now. In fact, they’re playing the game better than they used to.  They’ve learned from past pricing disasters and figured out how to get better launch-day headlines – even if it means faking the MSRP and letting street prices run wild.  But this kind of marketing comes at a cost. If AMD keeps making decisions that prioritize short-term wins over long-term trust, they’ll lose the very crowd that once rooted for them.  We don’t need two Nvidias. We need AMD to be different – to be better.  One Name, Two Very Different Cards The RX 9060 XT 16GB might be a good deal. But it’s being overshadowed by the 8GB version’s drama. And the longer AMD keeps playing games with memory and naming, the more it chips away at its hard-earned goodwill.  This whole mess could’ve been avoided with one simple move: name the 8GB card something else. Call it the RX 9055. Call it Lite or whatever. Just don’t make it look like the same card when it isn’t.  Until then, buyers beware. There’s more going on behind the box art than meets the eye.  Anya Zhukova is an in-house tech and crypto writer at Techreport with 10 years of hands-on experience covering cybersecurity, consumer tech, digital privacy, and blockchain. She’s known for turning complex topics into clear, useful advice that regular people can actually understand and use.  Her work has been featured in top-tier digital publications including MakeUseOf, Online Tech Tips, Help Desk Geek, Switching to Mac, and Make Tech Easier. Whether she’s writing about the latest privacy tools or reviewing a new laptop, her goal is always the same: help readers feel confident and in control of the tech they use every day.  Anya holds a BA in English Philology and Translation from Tula State Pedagogical University and also studied Mass Media and Journalism at Minnesota State University, Mankato. That mix of language, media, and tech has given her a unique lens to look at how technology shapes our daily lives.  Over the years, she’s also taken courses and done research in data privacy, digital security, and ethical writing – skills she uses when tackling sensitive topics like PC hardware, system vulnerabilities, and crypto security.  Anya worked directly with brands like Framework, Insta360, Redmagic, Inmotion, Secretlab, Kodak, and Anker, reviewing their products in real-life scenarios. Her testing process involves real-world use cases – whether it's stress-testing laptops for creative workloads, reviewing the battery performance of mobile gaming phones, or evaluating the long-term ergonomics of furniture designed for hybrid workspaces.  In the world of crypto, Anya covers everything from beginner guides to deep dives into hardware wallets, DeFi protocols, and Web3 tools. She helps readers understand how to use multisig wallets, keep their assets safe, and choose the right platforms for their needs.  Her writing often touches on financial freedom and privacy – two things she strongly believes should be in everyone’s hands. Outside of writing, Anya contributes to editorial style guides focused on privacy and inclusivity, and she mentors newer tech writers on how to build subject matter expertise and write responsibly.  She sticks to high editorial standards, only recommends products she’s personally tested, and always aims to give readers the full picture.  You can find her on LinkedIn, where she shares more about her work and projects.  Key Areas of Expertise: Consumer Tech (laptops, phones, wearables, etc.) Cybersecurity and Digital Privacy PC/PC Hardware Blockchain, Crypto Wallets, and DeFi In-Depth Product Reviews and Buying Guides Whether she’s reviewing a new wallet or benchmarking a PC build, Anya brings curiosity, care, and a strong sense of responsibility to everything she writes. Her mission? To make the digital world a little easier – and safer – for everyone.  View all articles by Anya Zhukova Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors.

In April, Paul Graham, the founder of the tech startup accelerator Y Combinator, sent a tweet in response to former YC president and current OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Altman had just bid a public goodbye to GPT-4 on X, and Graham had a follow-up question.  “If you had [GPT-4’s model weights] etched on a piece of metal in the most compressed form,” Graham wrote, referring to the values that determine the model’s behavior, “how big would the piece of metal have to be? This is a mostly serious question. These models are history, and by default digital data evaporates.”  There is no question that OpenAI pulled off something historic with its release of ChatGPT 3.5 in 2022. It set in motion an AI arms race that has already changed the world in a number of ways and seems poised to have an even greater long-term effect than the short-term disruptions to things like education and employment that we are already beginning to see. How that turns out for humanity is something we are still reckoning with and may be for quite some time. But a pair of recent books both attempt to get their arms around it with accounts of what two leading technology journalists saw at the OpenAI revolution.  In Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI, Karen Hao tells the story of the company’s rise to power and its far-reaching impact all over the world. Meanwhile, The Optimist: Sam Altman, OpenAI, and the Race to Invent the Future, by the Wall Street Journal’s Keach Hagey, homes in more on Altman’s personal life, from his childhood through the present day, in order to tell the story of OpenAI. Both paint complex pictures and show Altman in particular as a brilliantly effective yet deeply flawed creature of Silicon Valley—someone capable of always getting what he wants, but often by manipulating others.  Hao, who was formerly a reporter with MIT Technology Review, began reporting on OpenAI while at this publication and remains an occasional contributor. One chapter of her book grew directly out of that reporting. And in fact, as Hao says in the acknowledgments of Empire of AI, some of her reporting for MIT Technology Review, a series on AI colonialism, “laid the groundwork for the thesis and, ultimately, the title of this book.” So you can take this as a kind of disclaimer that we are predisposed to look favorably on Hao’s work.  With that said, Empire of AI is a powerful work, bristling not only with great reporting but also with big ideas. This comes across in service to two main themes.  The first is simple: It is the story of ambition overriding ethics. The history of OpenAI as Hao tells it (and as Hagey does too) is very much a tale of a company that was founded on the idealistic desire to create a safety-focused artificial general intelligence but instead became more interested in winning. This is a story we’ve seen many times before in Big Tech. See Theranos, which was going to make diagnostics easier, or Uber, which was founded to break the cartel of “Big Taxi.” But the closest analogue might be Google, which went from “Don’t be evil” to (at least in the eyes of the courts) illegal monopolist. For that matter, consider how Google went from holding off on releasing its language model as a consumer product out of an abundance of caution to rushing a chatbot out the door to catch up with and beat OpenAI. In Silicon Valley, no matter what one’s original intent, it always comes back to winning.   The second theme is more complex and forms the book’s thesis about what Hao calls AI colonialism. The idea is that the large AI companies act like traditional empires, siphoning wealth from the bottom rungs of society in the forms of labor, creative works, raw materials, and the like to fuel their ambition and enrich those at the top of the ladder. “I’ve found only one metaphor that encapsulates the nature of what these AI power players are: empires,” she writes. “During the long era of European colonialism, empires seized and extracted resources that were not their own and exploited the labor of the people they subjugated to mine, cultivate, and refine those resources for the empires’ enrichment.” She goes on to chronicle her own growing disillusionment with the industry. “With increasing clarity,” she writes, “I realized that the very revolution promising to bring a better future was instead, for people on the margins of society, reviving the darkest remnants of the past.”  To document this, Hao steps away from her desk and goes out into the world to see the effects of this empire as it sprawls across the planet. She travels to Colombia to meet with data labelers tasked with teaching AI what various images show, one of whom she describes sprinting back to her apartment for the chance to make a few dollars. She documents how workers in Kenya who performed data-labeling content moderation for OpenAI came away traumatized by seeing so much disturbing material. In Chile she documents how the industry extracts precious resources—water, power, copper, lithium—to build out data centers.  She lands on the ways people are pushing back against the empire of AI across the world. Hao draws lessons from New Zealand, where Maori people are attempting to save their language using a small language model of their own making. Trained on volunteers’ voice recordings and running on just two graphics processing units, or GPUs, rather than the thousands employed by the likes of OpenAI, it’s meant to benefit the community, not exploit it.  Hao writes that she is not against AI. Rather: “What I reject is the dangerous notion that broad benefit from AI can only be derived from—indeed will ever emerge from—a vision of the technology that requires the complete capitulation of our privacy, our agency, and our worth, including the value of our labor and art, toward an ultimately imperial centralization project … [The New Zealand model] shows us another way. It imagines how AI could be exactly the opposite. Models can be small and task-specific, their training data contained and knowable, ridding the incentives for widespread exploitative and psychologically harmful labor practices and the all-consuming extractivism of producing and running massive supercomputers.”  Hagey’s book is more squarely focused on Altman’s ambition, which she traces back to his childhood. Yet interestingly, she also  zeroes in on the OpenAI CEO’s attempt to create an empire. Indeed, “Altman’s departure from YC had not slowed his civilization-building ambitions,” Hagey writes. She goes on to chronicle how Altman, who had previously mulled a run for governor of California, set up experiments with income distribution via Tools for Humanity, the parent company of Worldcoin. She quotes Altman saying of it, “I thought it would be interesting to see … just how far technology could accomplish some of the goals that used to be done by nation-states.”  Overall, The Optimist is the more straightforward business biography of the two. Hagey has packed it full with scoops and insights and behind-the-scenes intrigue. It is immensely readable as a result, especially in the second half, when OpenAI really takes over the story. Hagey also seems to have been given far more access to Altman and his inner circles, personal and professional, than Hao did, and that allows for a fuller telling of the CEO’s story in places. For example, both writers cover the tragic story of Altman’s sister Annie, her estrangement from the family, and her accusations in particular about suffering sexual abuse at the hands of Sam (something he and the rest of the Altman family vehemently deny). Hagey’s telling provides a more nuanced picture of the situation, with more insight into family dynamics.  Hagey concludes by describing Altman’s reckoning with his role in the long arc of human history and what it will mean to create a “superintelligence.” His place in that sweep is something that clearly has consumed the CEO’s thoughts. When Paul Graham asked about preserving GPT-4, for example, Altman had a response at the ready. He replied that the company had already considered this, and that the sheet of metal would need to be 100 meters square.