It’s a provocative idea: that empathy — that is, putting yourself in another person’s proverbial shoes, and feeling what they feel — is a sin. The Bible contains repeated invocations from Jesus to show deep empathy and compassion for others, including complete strangers. He’s very clear on this point. Moreover, Christianity is built around a fundamental act of empathy so radical — Jesus dying for our sins — that it’s difficult to spin as harmful. Yet as stunning as it may sound, “empathy is a sin” is a claim that’s been growing in recent years across the Christian right. It was first articulated six years ago by controversial pastor and theologian Joe Rigney, now author of the recently published book, The Sin of Empathy, which has drawn plenty of debate among religious commentators. In this construction, empathy is a cudgel that progressives and liberals use to berate and/or guilt-trip Christians into showing empathy to the “wrong” people. Had it stayed within the realm of far-right evangelicals, we likely wouldn’t be discussing this strange view of empathy at all. Yet we are living in an age when the Christian right has gained unprecedented power, both sociocultural and political. The increasing overlap between conservative culture and right-leaning tech spaces means that many disparate public figures are all drinking from the same well of ideas — and so a broader, secular version of the belief that empathy is a tool of manipulation has bubbled into the mainstream through influential figures like Elon Musk.What “empathy is a sin” actually meansThe proposition that too much empathy is a bad thing is far from an idea that belongs to the right. On Reddit, which tends to be relatively left-wing, one popular mantra is that you can’t set yourself on fire to keep someone else warm. That is, too much empathy for someone else can erode your own sense of self, leaving you codependent or open to emotional abuse and manipulation. That’s a pretty standard part of most relationship and self-help advice — even from some Christian advice authors. But in recent months, the idea that empathy is inherently destructive has not only become a major source of debate among Christians, it’s escaped containment and barreled into the mainstream by way of major media outlets, political figures, and influencers.The conversation began with an incendiary 2019 essay by Rigney, then a longtime teacher and pastor at a Baptist seminary, in which he introduced “the enticing sin of empathy” and argued that Satan manipulates people through the intense cultural pressure to feel others’ pain and suffering. Rigney’s ideas were met with ideological pushback, with one Christian blogger saying it “may be the most unwise piece of pastoral theology I’ve seen in my lifetime.” As his essay incited national debate, Rigney himself grew more controversial, facing allegations of dismissing women and telling one now-former Black congregant at his Minneapolis church that “it wouldn’t be sinful for him to own me & my family today.” (In an email to Vox, Rigney denied the congregant’s version of events.) Rigney also has a longtime affiliation with Doug Wilson, the leader of the Reformed Christian Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. In practice, what Rigney is typically decrying is any empathy for a liberal perspective or for someone who’s part of a marginalized community.Now well-known for spreading Christian nationalism, and for allegedly fostering a culture of abuse (allegations he has denied), Wilson’s infamy also comes from his co-authored 1996 essay “Southern Slavery: As It Was,” in which he claimed that “Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since.” (“My defense of the South does not make me a racist,” Wilson said in 2003.) Rigney appeared on Wilson’s 2019 podcast series Man Rampant to discuss empathy; their conversation quickly devolved into decrying fake rape allegations and musing that victims of police violence might have “deserved to be shot.” In an email, Rigney told me that both he and Wilson developed their similar views on empathy from the therapist and Rabbi Edwin Friedman, whose posthumously published 1999 book, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, has influenced not only family therapy but conservative church leadership and thought. In the book, Friedman argues that American society has devalued the self, leading to an emotional regression and a “low pain threshold.” Alongside this he compares “political correctness” to the Inquisition, and frames a “chronically anxious America” as one that is “organize[d] around its most dysfunctional elements,” in which leaders have difficulty making tough decisions. This correlation of emotional weakness with societal excess paved the way for Rigney to frame empathy itself as a dangerous weapon. Despite using the incendiary generalization, “empathy is sin,” Rigney told me that it is not all empathy that is sinful, but specifically “untethered empathy.” He describes this as “empathy that is detached or unmoored from reality, from what is good and right.” (An explanation that begs definitions for “reality,” “good,” and “right.”)“Just as ‘the sin of anger’ refers to unrighteous or ungoverned anger, so the sin of empathy refers to ungoverned, excessive, and untethered empathy,” Rigney told me. This kind of unrestrained empathy, he writes, is a recipe for cultural mayhem. In theory, Rigney argues that one should be “tethered” to God’s will and not to Satan. In practice, what Rigney is typically decrying is any empathy for a liberal perspective or for someone who’s part of a marginalized community. When I asked him for a general reconciliation of his views with the Golden Rule, he sent me a response in which he brought up trans identity in order to label it a “fantasy” that contradicts “God-given biological reality,” while misgendering a hypothetical trans person. The demonization of empathy moves into the mainstreamDespite receiving firm pushback from most religious leaders (and indeed most people) who hear about it, Rigney’s argument has been spreading through the Christian right at large. Last year, conservative personality and author Allie Stuckey published Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion, in which she argues that “toxic empathy is a dangerous guide for our decisions, behavior, and public policy” while condemning queer people and feminists. “Empathy almost needs to be struck from the Christian vocabulary,” Josh McPherson, host of the Christian-centered Stronger Man Nation podcast and an adherent of Wilson and Rigney’s ideas, said in January, in a clip that garnered an outsize amount of attention relative to the podcast episode itself. That same month, Vice President JD Vance struck a nerve with a controversial appearance on Fox News in which he seemed to reference both the empathy conversation and the archaic Catholic concept of “ordo amoris,” meaning “the order of love.” As Vance put it, it’s the idea that one’s family should come before anyone else: “You love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country,” he said. “And then after that, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.” In a follow-up on X, he posted, “the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense.” Vance’s statements received backlash from many people, including both the late Pope Francis and then-future Pope Leo XIV — but the controversy just drove the idea further into the mainstream. As part of the odd crossover between far-right religion and online reactionaries, it picked up surprising alliances along the way, including evolutionary biologist turned far-right gadfly Gad Saad. In January, Saad, applying a survival-of-the-fittest approach to our emotions, argued against “suicidal empathy,” which he described as “the inability to implement optimal decisions when our emotional system is tricked into an orgiastic hyperactive form of empathy, deployed on the wrong targets.” (Who are the wrong targets according to Saad? Trans women and immigrants.)In a February appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Elon Musk explicitly referenced Saad but went even further, stating, “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy — the empathy exploit. They’re exploiting a bug in Western civilization” — the “they” here being the left wing. “I think empathy is good,” Musk added, “but you need to think it through, and not just be programmed like a robot.” By March, mainstream media had noticed the conversation. David French had observed the “strange spectacle” of the Christian turn against empathy in a column for the New York Times. In April, a deep-dive in the Guardian followed. That same month, a broad-ranging conversation in the New Yorker with Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, led to interviewer Isaac Chotiner pressing him about why empathy is bad. The discussion, of deported Venezuelan immigrants wrongfully suspected of having gang tattoos, led to Mohler saying that “there’s no reason anyone other than a gang member should have that tattoo.” (Among the tattoos wrongly flagged as gang symbols were the words “Mom” and “Dad” on the wrists of one detainee.)The pro-empathy backlash is fierce The connective tissue across all these disparate anti-empathy voices is two-fold, according to Christian scholar Karen Swallow Prior. Prior, an anti-abortion ethicist and former longtime Liberty University professor, singled out the argument’s outsize emphasis on attacking very small, very vulnerable groups — as well as the moment in which it’s all happening.“The entire discourse around empathy is backlash against those who are questioning the authority of those in power,” she told me, “not coincidentally emerging in a period where we have a rise in recognition of overly controlling and narcissistic leaders, both in and outside the church.” Those people “understand and appreciate empathy the least.”“Trump made it okay to not be okay with culture,” Peter Bell, co-creator and producer of the Sons of Patriarchy podcast, which explores longstanding allegations of emotional and sexual abuse against Doug Wilson’s Christ Church, told me. (Wilson has denied that the church has a culture of abuse or coercion.) “He made it kind of cool for Christians to be jerks,” Bell said. “He made the unspoken things spoken, the whispered things shouted out loud.”Prior believes that the argument won’t have a long shelf life because Rigney’s idea is so convoluted. Yet she added that it’s born out of toxic masculinity, in an age where stoicism, traditionally male-coded, is increasingly part of the regular cultural diet of men via figures like Jordan Peterson. That hypermasculinity goes hand in hand with evangelical culture, and with the ideas Rigney borrowed from Friedman about too many emotions being a weakness. In this framing, emotion becomes non-masculine by default — i.e., feminine.“Everybody’s supposed to have sympathy for the white male, but when you show empathy to anyone else, suddenly empathy is a sin.”— Karen Swallow Prior, Christian scholarThat leads us to the grimmest part of Rigney’s “untethered empathy” claims: the way he explicitly genders it — and demonizes it — as feminine. Throughout his book, he argues that women are more empathetic than men, and that as a result, they are more prone to giving into it as a sin. It’s an inherently misogynistic view that undermines women’s decision-making and leadership abilities. Though Rigney pushed back against this characterization in an email to me, arguing that critics have distorted what he views as merely “gendered tendencies and susceptibility to particular temptations,” he also couldn’t help reinforcing it. “[F]emale tendencies, like male tendencies, have particular dangers, temptations, and weaknesses,” he wrote. Women thus should recognize this and “take deliberate, Spirit-wrought action to resist the impulse to become a devouring HR department that wants to run the world.”As Prior explains, though, Rigney’s just fine with a mythic national human resources department, as long as it supports the status quo. “Everybody’s supposed to have sympathy for the white male,” she said, “but when you show empathy to anyone else, suddenly empathy is a sin.”What’s heartening is that, whether they realize what kind of dangerous extremism undergirds it, most people aren’t buying Rigney’s “empathy is sin” claim. Across the nation, in response to Rigney’s assertion, the catchphrase, “If empathy is a sin, then sin boldly” has arisen, as heard in pulpits, seen on church marquees, and worn on T-shirts — a reminder that it takes much more than the semantic whims of a few extremists to shake something most people hold in their hearts.See More:

April 2025 was an exciting month for tech enthusiasts, with designers and creators blending nostalgia, minimalism, and modern features to produce outstanding gadgets. April’s best gadgets were not just about raw performance—they were about thoughtful design, tactile pleasure, and bringing a sense of joy and simplicity back to technology. Whether you’re a music lover, a fan of classic mobile experiences, or someone who appreciates both form and function on your wrist, this collection of five exciting gadgets will capture your imagination. Let’s explore what makes each of them special and pick out which one is your favorite! 1. iPod Video The iPod was once a symbol of the digital music revolution, instantly recognizable by its click wheel and iconic design.  Canadian YouTuber Zac Builds breathed new life into this classic device by creating a thoroughly modern iPod Video from scratch. This isn’t just a restoration—it’s a complete reimagining, blending the timeless appeal of the fifth-generation iPod with today’s tech standards. The most impressive exterior update is the use of transparent faceplates and click wheels, allowing users to admire the device’s inner workings like a piece of mechanical art. But the real magic happens inside. Gone is the original hard drive, replaced by a lightning-fast 256GB SD card for improved speed, reliability, and storage. The old screen has been swapped for a vibrant, high-contrast IPS display, making album art and menus pop like never before. Modern conveniences abound: USB-C charging, Bluetooth audio, and support for high-fidelity FLAC files bring the iPod into the present. What we like Includes USB-C charging, Bluetooth connectivity, and FLAC support, making it compatible with current tech and high-quality audio. Upgraded battery allows for extended use, giving users up to a month on a single charge. What we dislike This upgraded iPod is a one-off creation, not a mass-market product—replicating it requires technical skill and custom parts. As a custom project, it’s not widely available for purchase, making it a dream for enthusiasts rather than a mainstream option. 2. a_77 Laptop Amidst a sea of similar laptops, the a_77 stands out as a truly original approach to mobile computing. Designed by Braz de Pina, this laptop centers its entire layout around the keyboard, resulting in an ultra-compact and visually striking device that eliminates anything superfluous. The 65% keyboard size shapes the compact form factor, prioritizing comfort and functionality with every key press. The nearly square, compact screen keeps the design minimal, while the keyboard offers clever details such as a bold power button and a dedicated CoPilot key to boost productivity. Bright colors and a playful style enhance its appeal, making the a_77 an excellent companion for students, digital nomads, or anyone who wants tech that’s as fun as it is functional. What we like Extremely portable with a lively, engaging design. Efficient, thoughtfully designed keyboard layout. What we dislike The small display may feel restrictive for some tasks. Its unconventional style might not suit fans of classic laptops. 3. Sidephone While most modern phones chase ever-larger screens and all-in-one functionality, the Sidephone takes a radically different path by embracing physical buttons and modularity. This device is a love letter to the tactile joy of pressing real keys, offering an experience that feels refreshingly direct in a world full of glass slabs. The Sidephone is all about efficiency—no more endless scrolling or tapping, just the instant satisfaction of a button press. But its most groundbreaking feature is its patented swappable keypad system. Users can easily change the keypad layout to suit their needs, thanks to a clever design that employs magnets and clips for quick, secure swaps. Want a classic T9 for texting, a gaming-specific layout, or a minimalist design for distraction-free use? Simply pop off the current keypad and snap on a new one. What we like Swappable layouts allow users to tailor the phone for texting, gaming, or minimalism, making the device uniquely versatile. Real, physical buttons provide a delightful and efficient alternative to touchscreen typing. What we dislike As a feature phone, it lacks the advanced apps and capabilities of modern smartphones, which could be a downside for some users. Those accustomed to touchscreen devices might find the Sidephone’s approach restrictive or old-fashioned. 4. Vetra Orbit One The Vetra Orbit One concept smartwatch is a refreshing antidote to the sensory overload of most wearable tech. Instead of bombarding you with notifications and flashy graphics, it brings a sense of calm and tactile pleasure to your wrist, inspired by the craftsmanship of traditional watchmaking. The design is minimalist, with clean lines and a focus on essential information, making it a sophisticated accessory that complements your style rather than competing for attention. The Orbit One’s key feature is its emphasis on tangible interaction—think rotating bezels and textured surfaces that invite you to touch and engage, rather than just tap. What we like Combines the satisfying feel of classic watches with a streamlined, user-friendly interface. Delivers only the most important information, reducing distractions and making it a pleasure to wear daily. What we dislike As a concept device, it may not yet be available for purchase, and final features could change before release. The minimalist approach may mean fewer apps and integrations compared to mainstream smartwatches. 5. Nintendo Wii U Revival Handheld Nintendo’s spirit of creativity is reimagined in this sleek handheld, which serves as a modern tribute to the often-overlooked Wii U gamepad. Rather than mimicking the hybrid nature of the Switch, this device is dedicated solely to handheld gaming, delivering a streamlined experience focused on fun and nostalgia. Its design is clean and intuitive, featuring a sharp central display, symmetrical analog sticks, and a well-organized button arrangement that feels instantly familiar to Nintendo enthusiasts. Shedding the bulkiness of the original Wii U controller, this new version is lightweight and highly portable, perfect for gaming on the go. Practical updates like USB-C charging, a classic D-pad, and a variety of eye-catching color options (including a dazzling gold Zelda edition) highlight its modern appeal. What we like Huge library of retro Nintendo games spanning multiple generations, playable offline without extra fees Slim, ergonomic build with up-to-date features like USB-C and a responsive D-pad What we dislike Heavy focus on older titles may not attract gamers seeking the latest big-budget releases Lacks hybrid or TV docking capabilities, which may limit its versatility compared to the Switch The post 5 Best Tech Gadgets Of April 2025 first appeared on Yanko Design.

Queerness and nightlife go hand in hand. Out of the mainstream. Underground and counter-cultural. Whether it’s the location, venue, organisers or crowd, they are always outside the norm.  Some, like new lesbian bar La Camionera in Hackney, east London, have been designed, built and crafted by queer hands – the same ones which will soon be shaking, stirring and drinking negronis on a brushed aluminium countertop, or raising a glass in the purpose-built seating areas. Source: Rachel FerrimanLa Camionera The reopening of the quietly elegant La Camionera (Spanish for ‘female trucker’ and slang for butch lesbian) follows a months-long conversion of a temporary space led by its trans owner and a team of queer architects, contractors and trades. It is unique and stylish.  Advertisement But that’s not the only reason this tailored LGBTQ+ space stands out. Its mere existence sits against a background of queer venue closures because of an unholy trinity of rising costs, licensing issues and safety concerns. London, to take one city, has lost half of these safe spaces since 2006. Waves of redevelopment and gentrification have had their impact, too. One of the most famous victims was the wildly beloved Joiners Arms pub in Hackney Road in 2015. Never forgotten, attempts continue to resurrect this institution somewhere else in London’s East End a decade on. But can La Camionera pave the way for a design-led renaissance of after-hours ‘queerness’? One thing is for sure, there is a growing queer movement – architects included – to create safe, accessible LGBTQ+ spaces and define what that might look like. We’re going out (OUT), to find out. The state of play The Night Time Industries Association (NTIA) recently reported that 37 per cent of all night clubs across the UK have permanently shut since March 2020. That’s an average of three clubs a week, or 150 a year.Advertisement LGBTQ+ venues make up a considerable chunk of this. In the capital, between 2006 and 2022, Greater London Authority numbers show that 75 bars, clubs and LGBTQ+ pubs shut down – sometimes forever.  The list keeps growing. In the past 18 months, G-A-Y Late in Soho and The Glory in Haggerston have closed. Meanwhile, a third LGBTQ+ safe space, Bethnal Green Working Men’s Club, has been fighting closure on and off for years – though it seems the east London venue may finally have had a late reprieve.  Venue closures are happening elsewhere in the UK, too, with Birmingham losing the Village Inn, Glasgow losing Bonjour and Sheffield losing the Queer Junction nightclub.  Based on the current rate of club closures, the NTIA warns the UK could have no nightclubs of any kind by 2030. The pro-nighttime body blames the collapse partly on the long-term impact of the Covid pandemic. Once closed down and locked up, these unique spaces rarely re-emerge, eyed up by developers for larger gain.  And, while the NTIA data does not explain how many of these closures are LGBTQ+, the community is among the hardest-hit because queerness and nightlife are so intertwined. Or, as Olimpia Burchiellaro, a shareholder of the Friends of The Joiners Arms campaign, puts it: ‘Nighttime is queer time’.  A call to (Joiners) Arms While The Joiners Arms, where reportedlyAlexander McQueen used to hang out, became one of the first LGBTQ+ venues to get protection in the planning system because of the sexual orientation of its users back in 2017, no on-site replacement has yet popped up on Hackney Road. Tower Hamlets Council had imposed a planning condition requiring any new development on The Joiners Arms site to include an LGBTQ+ venue. Developer Regal Homes had agreed to it. However, the proposed scheme that forced the closure has been delayed. No development, no new venue.  Burchiellaro tells the AJ that The Joiners Arms shows that LGBTQ+ spaces often act as ‘canaries in the coalmine’; a bellwether of the redevelopment cycle and of the state of the nighttime economy more generally. With little planning protection, they can be easily lost because they are often perceived as ‘unproductive’ uses in buildings ripe for replacement. Source: Friends of The Joiners ArmsFriends of The Joiners Arms protest outside the former pub ‘Gentrification and redevelopment are making it more and more difficult for communities who are not solely focused on profit, like queer spaces, to exist,’ argues Burchiellaro. ‘And, although queer clubs and bars have always been businesses, they’ve always been so much more than that.’ In the meantime, the Friends of  The Joiners Arms campaign has put on ‘an itinerant, moving club night’ at other east London venues as an act of resistance against anti-LGBTQ+ gentrification and the demise of LGBTQ+ nightlife in the capital, according to Aska Welford, an architectural worker formerly with Karakusevic Carson Architects. Welford, who is leading on co-design for a future permanent home for The Joiners Arms campaign, adds: ‘Even without the physical space, without a permanent, fixed space, queer people continue to exist and have a good time and be together.’ Safe and sound In Edinburgh, GRAS architect Kirsty Watt has also resorted to moving club nights, dubbed ‘Femmergy’, that turn the city’s historic urban fabric – including most recently a former biscuit factory – into a playground for femme-presenting members of the LGBTQ+ community, including trans people and afab women. Watt says: ‘In Edinburgh the queer nightlife scene particularly focused around cis gay men and so women, non-binary and trans people weren’t necessarily welcome in those spaces and that was the point of it, because there wasn’t really a space at all.’ Source: Kirsty WattFemmergy club night While Femmergy has difficulties finding Edinburgh venues with level access and accessible toilets, the club nights have provided a safe space for people ‘to be inherently themselves and represent themselves in a way that they want to while still feeling safe’, says Watt.  Both accessibility and safety are central to Femmergy, and are what makes it queer, she tells the AJ, ‘because people need to feel like they have a representation within their urban space’. However, she admits that having level access and accessible toilets have ‘limited us in terms of what venues we can work with, particularly in Edinburgh, because so many of the buildings are historic’. Putting the pop in pop-up So, if permanent dedicated spaces don’t always exist, what about bringing the nuts-and-bolts of a party to the people instead? This is the concept behind the Mobile Dyke Bar, a travelling lesbian disco started by former Royal Academy Interior design student Lucy Nurnberg and her right-hand woman, Ali Wagner, as part of a wider project dubbed Uhaul Dyke Rescue, a series of design-led club nights. The Mobile Dyke Bar is made of prefabricated parts which ‘slot’ into rental vans, which Nurnberg suggests is a tongue-in-cheek response to hyper-masculine removal van culture as much as it is a declaration of space for lesbians when there is barely any.  Its next stop is Mighty Hoopla, a pop festival in south London, later this month – the Mobile Dyke Bar’s second outing at the LGBTQ+ friendly event.  Source: Courteney FrisbyThe Mobile Dyke Bar at Mighty Hoopla in 2024 ‘The idea was that this would be a friendly space, but also about taking space for ourselves and being like, “Look, we need a bit of a dedicated corner here”,’ explains Nurnberg, whose Uhaul Dyke Rescue service was a reaction to ‘queer spaces in London generally declining, especially lesbian spaces’. Nurnberg adds that her interior design course informed Uhaul’s philosophy, ‘which is a bit secret and underground’ and had to be done on the cheap. It also looks at temporary structures as queer structures.  ‘We had a scaffold structure on the dance floor for our first night because I know that dykes love to flex muscle,’ Nurnberg explains, ‘But I also wanted to make it for anybody more femme presenting, and for anybody wanting to look a bit sexy, so we put a swing on the structure and people loved it.’ Why architects should design the night CAKE, a Dalston, east London-based practice, which was behind the Agnes stage at Rally festival in south London last year, has experience on an even bigger scale of delivering for a queer crowd.  The Layher scaffolding and translucent fibreglass-clad structure was designed to flip to become ‘The Strap’ at Body Movements – a queer festival the following day. That’s when the versatility of the modular structure’s raised platforms, floating walls, and one central dance floor all came into action – bringing the audience, artist and stage together. ‘For both days, depending on the music, it was a completely different environment,’ says CAKE architect Emiliano Zavala. ‘At  Body Movements people were dancing up on terraces and the whole thing was inhabited, and for Rally, the crowd was low and spread out, with the stage a kind of undercroft. The difference was really interesting.’ Source: Rory GaylorAgnes by CAKE Architecture Why did CAKE take on the challenge? Hugh Scott Moncrieff, creative director, says it ‘wasn’t the idea of making money’ but the opportunity to make creative architecture that reflects music, rhythm and sound, as well as context. Agnes, or The Strap, was possible because CAKE had proven to festival organisers with an earlier Rally stage that you could ‘spend a tiny bit of money on design work’ and win against standard fabrication teams ‘who weren’t coming at it from an architectural lens’, Scott Moncrieff adds. Agnes could be getting an upgrade for this year’s August bank holiday festivals. The structure also won the people’s choice award at last month’s AJ Small Projects. A sign of better-designed nights out to come? The future is niche – and lesbian If the Mobile Dyke Bar and Agnes could be the future of festivals and club nights, is La Camionera the future of LGBTQ+ nighttime spaces more broadly? A well-polished, honed product for a community crying out for something decent designed especially for them?  Daniel Pope, of newly established design studio and architects Popelo, which worked on La Camionera, says the bar is special because the result is super-niche. Certainly, there is no underfoot nastiness, peeling paint or unwanted design features common to many of the old underground venues. Yet this is queer through and through.  ’There’s not really many queer spaces where you can get a really beautiful drink in a nice glass, where the floor isn’t sticky,’ says Pope. ‘And with funding being so difficult, often queer spaces can feel quite DIY and quite shabby, perhaps not thought-through. With La Camionera, we really tried to make it feel high-end. So we focused the budget on specific areas, like the bespoke bench seat and polished aluminium bar; it feels quite luxe.’ Source: Rachel FerrimanLa Camionera interior by Popelo and WET Studio Those additions, Pope admits, had to be costed in and compensated for elsewhere. Making decisions like these is part of the ‘burden’ on queer architects delivering queer spaces – often pro bono or for a reduced fee. But designing with care and enthusiasm, and, crucially, with first-hand experience of being part of the community. As Pope says: ‘While I can’t talk for lesbians and there’s loads of spaces for gay men in London, I know that having a lesbian space that felt really sexy was key for La Camionera. The architect, who worked alongside LGBTQ+ set design firm Wet Studio on the job, argues that La Camionera’s queer energy was brought by that very queer team of ‘builders and makers who know how you want to feel in a space as a queer person’. On that basis, bespoke queer design for clubs, bars and music experiences in general could be the way forward – and a challenge to the troubles of the wider nighttime economy and a lack of LGBTQ+ representation in permanent spaces. He adds: ‘Talking from experience, when I was not out, I would go to events and never felt like I enjoyed it. It wasn’t until I started making queer friends and we would go to queer venues that you could be yourself and connect with other people in a really magnetic way.’ queer architecture 2025-05-22 Gino Spocchia comment and share Tagsqueer architecture

Huawei just shattered our expectations of what a laptop can be. The new MateBook Fold Ultimate Design doesn’t just push boundaries. It obliterates them. Designer: Huawei Unveiled on May 19, this groundbreaking device introduces the world’s first 18-inch foldable display in a laptop form factor. But calling it merely a laptop feels almost reductive. When unfolded, you’re looking at a stunning 18-inch canvas that somehow weighs less than many 13-inch ultrabooks. When folded, it transforms into a compact 13-inch device that slides effortlessly into a bag. What makes this design achievement particularly impressive isn’t just the folding display itself. It’s how Huawei solved the countless engineering challenges that have prevented others from creating something this ambitious. The innovation extends beyond mere technical specifications. Huawei has reimagined the fundamental relationship between users and their computing devices, creating something that adapts to various workflows rather than forcing users to adapt to rigid form factors. Engineering Marvel: The Hinge The hinge deserves special attention. Stretching 285mm across the device, Huawei calls it the “world’s largest basalt water drop hinge.” This isn’t marketing hyperbole. The three-stage shaft with mortise and tenon structure delivers a 400% increase in hovering torque compared to standard designs. What does this mean for users? Exceptional stability at viewing angles between 30° and 150°, while maintaining smooth operation at shallow angles between 0-20 degrees. When unfolded, the MateBook measures a mere 7.3mm thick. For perspective, that’s thinner than many smartphones. Even when folded, it maintains a relatively svelte 14.9mm profile while weighing just 1.16kg. The exterior combines premium leather and metal elements, available in Black, Blue, and White colorways. The integrated kickstand on the rear panel adds another dimension of versatility. Position the device in landscape or portrait orientation at various angles for different use cases. Present to clients, watch content, sketch ideas, or type documents. The physical form adapts to your needs rather than forcing you to adapt to it. This level of engineering precision didn’t happen overnight. Huawei claims thousands of prototypes were tested before arriving at this final design, with particular attention paid to the durability of the folding mechanism. The company promises the hinge will maintain structural integrity through thousands of folding cycles. Display Technology But the true star is undoubtedly the display itself. The dual-layer LTPO OLED panel delivers an immersive visual experience with a 92% screen-to-body ratio. When fully expanded, you’re looking at an 18-inch canvas with 4:3 aspect ratio and 3.3K resolution (3296 × 2472 pixels). Fold it, and you have a more conventional 13-inch display with 3:2 aspect ratio (2472 × 1648 pixels). This isn’t just any OLED panel. Huawei implemented the first commercial laptop application of LTPO (Low-Temperature Polycrystalline Oxide) technology, reducing power consumption by 30% while enabling adaptive refresh rates. The 2,000,000:1 contrast ratio ensures deep blacks and vibrant colors across the P3 wide color gamut, while peak brightness reaches an impressive 1600 nits. For those concerned about eye strain during extended use, the screen incorporates 1440Hz high-frequency PWM dimming and carries TÜV Rheinland Eye Comfort 3.0 certification. Color accuracy hasn’t been overlooked either. Huawei claims each display is factory calibrated to achieve a Delta E of less than 1, making it suitable for professional creative work. The anti-reflective coating helps maintain visibility even in challenging lighting conditions. Thermal Innovation The revolutionary design extends beyond the visible elements. Cooling such powerful components in an ultra-thin chassis required innovative solutions. Huawei engineered diamond aluminum dual fans and an ultra-thin antigravity vapor chamber heat sink. The copper-steel composite 3D vapor chamber and distributed component layout optimize thermal performance without excessive fan noise. Traditional cooling systems simply wouldn’t work in a device this thin. Huawei’s approach involves separating heat-generating components across the chassis to prevent hotspots. The vapor chamber technology efficiently transfers heat away from critical components to maintain performance during intensive tasks. Fan noise has been carefully tuned to remain below 28dB during typical usage scenarios. This makes the MateBook Fold Ultimate suitable for quiet environments like libraries and meeting rooms where traditional laptop fans might prove distracting. Performance and Connectivity Despite its slim profile, performance hasn’t been compromised. The MateBook Fold Ultimate comes equipped with 32GB of RAM and storage options of either 1TB or 2TB SSD. While Huawei hasn’t explicitly confirmed the processor in all materials, some sources indicate it uses their own Kirin X90 chipset, a fully Chinese-manufactured ARM processor. A 74.69Wh battery powers the device, with support for fast charging through the included 140W USB-C charger. Connectivity includes strategically placed USB-C ports, one on top and one on the side, along with dual-band Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.2. The decision to position USB-C ports on different edges of the device shows thoughtful design consideration. This arrangement allows for convenient charging regardless of how the device is positioned or folded. The absence of legacy ports might disappoint some users, but reflects the forward-looking design philosophy behind the entire product. Audio-Visual Experience The audio experience matches the visual excellence with six speakers in total. Three 2W speakers work alongside three 1W speakers, enhanced by Huawei Sound technology. For video conferencing, an 8MP front-facing camera works alongside four microphones to ensure clear communication. Speaker placement has been carefully considered to maintain audio quality regardless of the device’s orientation. Whether used as a tablet, laptop, or in presentation mode, the sound remains clear and directional. The multi-microphone array uses AI-powered noise cancellation to isolate voices from background noise during calls. The camera quality represents a significant upgrade from typical laptop webcams. The 8MP sensor captures more detail than the standard 720p cameras found in most laptops, while the wide-angle lens ensures you stay in frame even when moving during calls. HarmonyOS 5: A New Computing Paradigm Perhaps the most intriguing aspect beyond the hardware is the software. The MateBook Fold Ultimate runs HarmonyOS 5, marking the first time this operating system appears on a Huawei laptop. This represents a significant departure from Windows, offering users a third major OS option alongside Windows and macOS. HarmonyOS 5 is designed specifically for this unique form factor. Intuitive gestures include three-finger swipes to move windows across screens and five-finger spreads to maximize applications. When positioned at a 90-degree angle like a traditional laptop, the bottom half can function as a virtual keyboard with customizable skins, adjustable key spacing, and haptic feedback through a linear motor. The operating system adapts intelligently to different usage scenarios. When folded, it automatically adjusts the interface for a more traditional laptop experience. When fully opened, it transforms into a tablet-like environment optimized for touch interaction. This contextual awareness extends to connected peripherals as well, with the interface changing based on whether the physical keyboard is attached. Input Options For those who prefer physical keys, Huawei includes an ultra-thin 5mm wireless keyboard weighing just 290g. This keyboard features 1.5mm key travel, lasts up to 24 days on a single charge, and magnetically attaches to the back of the device when not in use. The keyboard design deserves special mention. Despite its ultra-thin profile, Huawei has managed to deliver a surprisingly satisfying typing experience. The keys offer tactile feedback that rivals much thicker keyboards, while the full-size layout prevents the cramped feeling often associated with portable keyboards. Touch input has been optimized as well. The display supports 10-point multi-touch with pressure sensitivity, making it suitable for digital art and note-taking. Palm rejection technology works remarkably well, allowing users to rest their hand on the screen while writing or drawing without causing unwanted input. Versatility and Use Cases The versatility of the MateBook Fold Ultimate is perhaps its greatest strength. It transitions seamlessly between tablet mode, laptop configuration, and presentation setup. The built-in kickstand allows positioning at various angles in both portrait and landscape orientations. Creative professionals will appreciate the large canvas for digital art and design work. The 18-inch display provides ample space for complex projects, while the foldable nature means you can still take this capability on the road. Business users can leverage the presentation mode for client meetings, with the large screen eliminating the need for external displays in many scenarios. Students might find the combination of note-taking capabilities and full-size keyboard particularly appealing. The ability to fold the device partially creates a natural reading angle for digital textbooks, while the performance specifications handle research and productivity applications with ease. Market Position Priced at CNY 23,999 (approximately $3,300) for the 1TB model and CNY 26,999 (roughly $3,700) for the 2TB variant, the MateBook Fold Ultimate Design positions itself firmly in the premium market. It will initially launch in China on June 6, with international availability planned for later dates. While foldable laptops aren’t entirely new, Lenovo pioneered the concept years ago, Huawei’s implementation represents a significant leap forward. The larger screen, thinner profile, innovative hinge mechanism, and comprehensive ecosystem integration through HarmonyOS demonstrate what’s possible when design and engineering excellence converge. The pricing strategy places this device in competition with high-end laptops and creative workstations rather than mainstream consumer devices. Huawei is clearly targeting professionals and enthusiasts who value cutting-edge technology and are willing to invest in unique capabilities not found elsewhere. Future Implications The MateBook Fold Ultimate Design doesn’t just represent another iterative step in laptop evolution. It reimagines what portable computing can be. Whether this specific implementation becomes the new standard remains to be seen, but Huawei has undoubtedly expanded our understanding of what’s possible in mobile computing design. As with most breakthrough technologies, we can expect the concepts pioneered here to eventually trickle down to more affordable devices. The engineering solutions developed for this premium device will likely inform future products across various price points, potentially making foldable displays a common feature in laptops within the next few years. The introduction of HarmonyOS to the laptop form factor also signals Huawei’s ambitions beyond smartphones and tablets. Creating a cohesive ecosystem across all computing devices could position the company as a more comprehensive alternative to established players in the personal computing space.The post Huawei’s MateBook Fold Ultimate Design Redefines Mobile Computing with World’s First 18-inch Foldable Display first appeared on Yanko Design.

Concerned about how your kids are spending their time online, but unsure on how to approach them ... More about it? Here’s a comprehensive beginner’s guide, from a psychologist.getty I’ve heard that some parents are hesitant to watch Netflix’s Adolescence. I realize that it can be difficult to confront what the show depicts: kids getting pulled into the deepest, darkest corners of the internet, and the horrific repercussions that could follow. As both a father and a psychologist, I completely understand why some parents might not want to see this played out in HD. (That said, I nevertheless think it’s necessary. See here to learn why.) The show is striking a nerve, and very rightly so. Adolescence captures a very unfortunate and palpable reality: that our children are growing up in a digital world that we can’t quite reach, let alone even control. In this sense, the importance of staying in the know about your child’s digital environment cannot be overstated — not for the sake of being a perfect parent, but being a present one. Here are four ways you can protect your child online without overstepping. 1. Get A Lay Of The Digital Land Today’s teens live largely online. Their phones and computers are their greatest lifeline in terms of their interests and social life, just like the radio, home phone and mall food court were for us. Whether you like it or not, you can’t undo this technological reality. What you can do, however, is stay informed. This starts with understanding that online algorithms can — and will — actively shape what your kids see, who they talk to and how they think. It’s important to recognize that technology isn’t necessarily a direct gateway to radicalization or harmful ideologies. As the Pew Research Center notes, social media is a great credit to teens’ friendships, creativity, education and perceived support. However, it can still be a very emotionally charged environment. So, parents need to grasp the wholesome ways that social media platforms can be used in conjunction with harmful ways. These are some of the most popular ones among teens: TikTok. This largely short-form video app feeds kids just about everything. Some corners are helpful, educational or just humorous. Others are home to grifters that preach misinformed, harmful or even extreme rhetoric. YouTube. A great long-form video platform for entertainment and knowledge-building. However, in just a few clicks, the algorithm can take you from educational content to conspiracy theories. Reddit and Discord. These are forum and chat-based social media apps, respectively. They offer kids access to niche communities related to their interests, which, in turn, allows them to engage with their peers. Some of these communities are empowering and encouraging, while others can be deeply toxic. Instagram, Snapchat, X, etc. These mainstream social media apps serve as tools for users to post and share their lives with others — either publicly on their own social media pages, or privately through direct messaging. They’re great for expression and communication, but can also serve as a gateway to bullying and perfectionism. 2. Look Out For Warning Signs As 2020 research from Technology and Adolescent Health notes, digital media poses a fair share of both risks and benefits to teenagers. Streaming, video games, social media, videos — they each offer affordances to emotion, cognition, identity, functioning and socialization. At the same time, the study notes that their overuse is also associated with harmful targeted advertising, sexual predation and cyberbullying. Even more recent research from PLOS One in The bottom line is that, if you’ve been uninformed until now, there’s no way to truly know whether or not your child has been consuming harmful content. That said, if they’ve been overconsuming it to the extent that it’s affecting their well-being, both above-mentioned studies suggest that there would be warning signs: Behavioral. Look out for sudden mood swings or newfound isolating tendencies. Moreover, be wary of any sudden or drastic changes in their friend groups (whether in real life or online), or increased secrecy regarding their devices. Linguistic. Look into the slang and jargon your kids are using — a few of them can be linked to specific online spaces, or even to certain ideologies. Of course, be especially wary of language regarding others’ race, gender or identity that comes across as parroted or extreme in any way. Emotional. Be mindful of whether or not your child is showing any increases in anxious, depressive or nihilistic symptoms. It’s also important to take note of any fixations or hyperfixations they have on new topics (such as politics, government, sexuality, masculinity and so on) whether hateful or not. Academic or lifestyle. Any stark changes in their academic life — such as increased troublemaking, decreased participation or a drop in grades — should be looked into as soon as they’re noticed. The same applies to physical well-being and hygiene, such as changes in their sleeping, bathing, grooming or exercise habits. More overt signs. It goes without saying that deeper warning signs or issues should be taken seriously as soon as you spot them. If they’re overtly expressing hopelessness or grandiosity, clearly displaying a lack or loss of empathy or sharing violent or harmful jokes, take action immediately as outlined in the next section. 3. Stay Informed Without Micromanaging Many parents are inclined to spiral after reading words like “warning signs” or “radicalization,” but this isn’t necessary. You don’t need to become a helicopter parent to keep your kid safe, nor do you need to become the “cool parent” who’s fluent in TikTok trends or up to date on the latest “skibidi” brain-rot. What you do need, however, is a basic understanding of the online world your kids are living in. That means starting with the basics. You need to have your own social media accounts, and you need to know how these apps work on your own terms. Most importantly, you need to get a sense of the kinds of content that gets pushed to end-users — especially the content you don’t actively search for. If this doesn’t feel empowering enough for you, I’d also suggest starting an open phone policy: having unconditional random (or scheduled) access to your child’s smartphone and social media accounts. Should you choose this route, it’s absolutely crucial that you never go behind your child’s back. Instead, agree ahead of time that you’ll check in occasionally, and be very clear about why you’re doing it. You must be transparent about this policy, and you should never abuse it at the cost of trust. The goal shouldn’t be to try and catch them doing something wrong, but simply to ensure others aren’t influencing them to do so. Just as important, however, is being the change you want to see. According to 2021 research from Computers in Human Behavior, parents’ own smartphone use can shape how effective they are in guiding their children’s use. The study demonstrated that when parents were heavy smartphone users themselves, they felt less capable of overseeing their child’s phone habits — no matter their genuine concerns regarding the risks of technology. In turn, that lack of control resulted in greater parent–child conflict. In other words, if you’re glued to your own phone, it will be considerably harder to set healthy boundaries without at least some resistance. Your kids are watching you; they will follow your lead. 4. Intervene Without Alienating If you do happen to spot something troubling — an out-of-character comment they left, a concerning motif in their search history or a pattern of content that seems a little off — don’t jump to any conclusions. One weird post isn’t going to radicalize your child. It’s more likely that they were just trying to understand what others are talking about, or feeding into a bit of morbid curiosity. That’s only natural for teenagers. Instead, treat them as what they are: competent and capable of critical thinking. From there, start a conversation: Ask what they thought about the content in question. What do they think the content creator was trying to convey? What stood out? Did it make them uncomfortable? Are they seeing a lot of that kind of content? These questions show them that you trust their judgment, while also giving you the necessary insight into how Should you find they’re not thinking very critically about what they’ve seen, then it’s your time to start talking about values. Avoid any full-blown lectures if it isn’t absolutely necessary, and try to opt instead for a fully two-sided conversation: What do you both believe in? What kind of person do you want them to be, and who do they Who benefits when harmful ideas get spread online, and who suffers? Conversations like these can be surprisingly eye-opening. You might come to realize that your kid is far more thoughtful, media-savvy or grounded than you gave them credit for. Or, you might find that they’re just a little-off track — in which case, a gentle nudge in the right direction should do the trick. Either way, it’s a parenting win-win. Parenting requires constant adaptation and vigilance. Take this science-backed test to find out if it could be leading to burnout: Parental Burnout Assessment

MarcosBrXD Member Aug 28, 2024 1,692 I wonder if this pursuit of this in the Halo franchise has enough demand, did fans really want Halo to become a Destiny like? Did the story (or lore) make Halo Halo or was it the Multiplayer that propelled the Series to its peak in Reach...   JigglesBunny Prophet of Truth Avenger Oct 27, 2017 36,107 Chicago 343's mismanagement and sloppy direction is what caused its downfall, and that extends far beyond their tepid live service.   Forerunner Resetufologist The Fallen Oct 30, 2017 18,793 H4 was a complete package, it just wasn't a good Halo game. Both H5 and Infinite had bare bones MP and it takes them too long to get rolling, so everyone moves on. They need a complete package at launch. It's crazy that they don't have modes from previous Halos at launch and takes them months if not years to add them.  NDA-Man Member Mar 23, 2020 3,983 Tastes changed. COD was stealing Halo's lunch even during the later Bungie days. COD 4 impacted gaming so hard everyone tried to catch up, and Activision having the staff to turn it into an annual franchise after sacrificing most of it's other projects kept it always in the covnersation. Then Hero Shooters rose, then Battle Royales. Yes, poor management and dumb decisions at 343 definitely played a role--but just as big a part is that 4v4 equal starts arena shooters are quite passe. I don't think a "Halo 3 Part 2" that ignores the fact that gaming has evolved in the near two-decades since the franchise peaked in terms of cultural cachet would do any better (Reach was not it's peak. 3 was. Hell, 5, one of the "bad" ones did better at keeping players than Reach).  Pancracio17 ▲ Legend ▲ Avenger Oct 29, 2017 21,730 JigglesBunny said: 343's mismanagement and sloppy direction is what caused its downfall, and that extends far beyond their tepid live service. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Pretty much. You could go on and on about specific problems like Infinites first year of support, the dropping of plotlines after every game, Halo 5s story, etc. But it all comes down to that.   colorboy Member Apr 5, 2025 174 The definitive death for me was Halo Infinite: - not having coop campaign - nonsense open world - no game on disc These 3 combined absolutely destroyed this series and I am so sad since I loved all 4 first entries  HockeyBird Member Oct 27, 2017 13,794 Halo 2 and 3 were already dipping their toes into the live service model with paid for map packs and post launch updates. I think it was pretty natural for Halo to keep going in that direction. I don't think Halo fans exactly dislike the live service model in theory because it means a game they like can continue to get new content for years and years. Putting aside people's opinions about the campaigns, in terms of multiplayer, the 343 games were lacking a lot of the content fans had come to expect at launch. This hurt each game's momentum out of the gate. I think many fans would say that Halo Infinite currently has a ton of content but think a lot of that should have been available at launch and not take this long to get expected features back into the game.  zoodoo Member Oct 26, 2017 14,540 Montreal MS has problems evolving their franchises. Sony on the other either retire them or completely change them (God of War). Gears has the same problem. The games are great but more of the same. They timidly try to incorporate new stuff like larger areas but the changes are not drastic enough. Halo could have had a game like Destiny or Mass Effect. Gears could have had a more horror entry. The attempts they did with boths franchises were low budget or in niche genres  wwm0nkey Member Oct 25, 2017 16,795 Forerunner said: H4 was a complete package, it just wasn't a good Halo game. Both H5 and Infinite had bare bones MP and it takes them too long to get rolling, so everyone moves on. They need a complete package at launch. It's crazy that they don't have modes from previous Halos at launch and takes them months if not years to add them. Click to expand... Click to shrink... The fact Infinite launched without Forge was possibly the dumbest thing. Like they had it, they had a Halo with great gunplay with Infinite finally but didn't have the content to support it, had they had Forge the community could have at least done some heavy lifting for awhile.   Transistor The Walnut King Administrator Oct 25, 2017 41,639 Washington, D.C. 343 caused it's downfall.   PucePikmin Member Apr 26, 2018 5,346 I don't think there's any great mystery about Halo's decline. Bungie left and the games stopped coming as often or being as good.   SoftTaur Member Oct 25, 2017 671 Halo Infinite putting armor colors on a battlepass and expecting people to just accept that was wild. Map packs have fallen out of favor for obvious reasons, and they've never found monetization that worked since.   BloodHound Member Oct 27, 2017 11,247 This forums playbook is blame everything on live service and AI. Zero critical thinking skills required.  Derbel McDillet ▲ Legend ▲ Member Nov 23, 2022 24,332 Forerunner said: H4 was a complete package, it just wasn't a good Halo game. Both H5 and Infinite had bare bones MP and it takes them too long to get rolling, so everyone moves on. They need a complete package at launch. It's crazy that they don't have modes from previous Halos at launch and takes them months if not years to add them. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I mean, it's a lot of freaking modes at this point. Halo 3 has more modes than we'll ask of any shooter except Halo.   Detective Member Oct 27, 2017 3,886 343 is the reason for the downfall from the get go.   Ascenion Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 13,105 Mecklenburg-Strelitz 343 was a poorly led and managed studio. It remains to be seen if Halo Studios is just more of the same but 343 just sucked at management. And Halo Infinite is a fundamental failure at understanding what a live service requires.   Stat Member Oct 25, 2017 6,360 I think the other thing is that arena shooters have really dried up. The idea of a standalone arena shooter just isn't a genre that a lot of people like too and people just expect these games with live service battle passes and seasons. Which is a shame.   chickenandrofls Member Oct 27, 2017 667 People will blame 343 but COD4 changed multiplayer tastes and Halo never recovered. Reach fell off quick compared to H3 and by the time H4 came around and tried to ape COD it just came off half ass. I love halo MP to this day but it was wild seeing my entire crew and casual gaming friends all move over to COD.  MasterYoshi Member Oct 27, 2017 12,224 I couldn't believe how quickly the plug was pulled on substantial updates to Infinite's multiplayer. There was a narrative going with cutscenes that just stopped before it had even hardly began. Halo should have moved to become something like Battlefront where you could play as virtually any infantry from the game's history. All of the Covenant races, the Flood, all sorts of UNSC ranks. That's what I believe would have been a major success at reinventing Halo's wheel.  Gavalanche Prophet of Regret Member Oct 21, 2021 25,900 I think CoD contributed more to it than anything else. Halo used to be the big multiplayer shooter on console. It revolutionised that area. And then Modern Warfare came along and ate its lunch, and bit by bit the goal shifted. Exclusivity probably didn't help either; it is not a coincidence that Halos woes and console selling woes are hand in hand; now that could be simply because Halo has that big an influence that a bad Halo means that many people buy less xboes. But it also means the potential playerbase isn't as big, especially since most Halo weren't on PC at that time. Meanwhile CoD wasn't exclusive and just grew and grew and grew.   Akira86 Member Oct 25, 2017 21,203 I was content being an all Halo and No-Call of Duty ever player, and lots of people were. They fucked up. Plain and simple. Plenty of people loved Reach(the hate was vocal and online as fuck) and just wanted a similar MP experience out of H4, but it wasn't similar. at all. People accused them of kowtowing to the COD type of game play. All they had to do was fix it in Halo 5 and release it on PC with plenty of maps and great MP. that didn't happen, Shake.  VariantX Member Oct 25, 2017 18,026 Columbia, SC SoftTaur said: Halo Infinite putting armor colors on a battlepass and expecting people to just accept that was wild. Map packs have fallen out of favor for obvious reasons, and they've never found monetization that worked since. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Spartan customization was also part of progression, whether its just getting to a certain rank, playing on certain difficulties, skulls, or doing specific tasks, you did the stuff to get the customization you wanted and it kept a part of the audience playing. If you take stuff away or put it behind a monetization scheme, then you have to replace it with something else in the hopes that would keep people coming back and they frankly didn't have any thing to replace what was lost.  Kill3r7 Member Oct 25, 2017 29,044 NDA-Man said: Tastes changed. COD was stealing Halo's lunch even during the later Bungie days. COD 4 impacted gaming so hard everyone tried to catch up, and Activision having the staff to turn it into an annual franchise after sacrificing most of it's other projects kept it always in the covnersation. Then Hero Shooters rose, then Battle Royales. Yes, poor management and dumb decisions at 343 definitely played a role--but just as big a part is that 4v4 equal starts arena shooters are quite passe. I don't think a "Halo 3 Part 2" that ignores the fact that gaming has evolved in the near two-decades since the franchise peaked in terms of cultural cachet would do any better (Reach was not it's peak. 3 was. Hell, 5, one of the "bad" ones did better at keeping players than Reach). Click to expand... Click to shrink... .  inkblot Member Mar 27, 2024 1,090 JigglesBunny said: 343's mismanagement and sloppy direction is what caused its downfall, and that extends far beyond their tepid live service. Click to expand... Click to shrink... first comment  bionic77 Member Oct 25, 2017 33,370 NDA-Man said: Tastes changed. COD was stealing Halo's lunch even during the later Bungie days. COD 4 impacted gaming so hard everyone tried to catch up, and Activision having the staff to turn it into an annual franchise after sacrificing most of it's other projects kept it always in the covnersation. Then Hero Shooters rose, then Battle Royales. Yes, poor management and dumb decisions at 343 definitely played a role--but just as big a part is that 4v4 equal starts arena shooters are quite passe. I don't think a "Halo 3 Part 2" that ignores the fact that gaming has evolved in the near two-decades since the franchise peaked in terms of cultural cachet would do any better (Reach was not it's peak. 3 was. Hell, 5, one of the "bad" ones did better at keeping players than Reach). Click to expand... Click to shrink... Thats how I remember it. COD changed the game. Even on 360 that was THE multiplayer shooter for that generation.   kowhite Member May 14, 2019 7,473 I couldn't tell you what caused the downfall of Halo. Granted I barely played 5 but I liked Infinite.   Multievolution Member Jun 5, 2018 4,179 I still maintain reach was a good game, I put a fair bit of time into it, and enjoyed its lifespan. I think what finished the series off was one part a lack of direction story wise, and one part not knowing how to keep halo both relevant and unique. To the former, I enjoyed 4's story well enough, but learning where they went next put me off ever seeing it. And to the latter, halo needs to just do what it does best, avoid trying to make it into a battle royal as an example. FPS's in general haven't been interesting to me in at least a decade.  MYeager Member Oct 30, 2017 960 I don't get the op. Four wasn't a live service title and 5 wasn't either thought it had some elements. Infinite I wouldn't consider a downfall as it's the most time I've played a Halo title ever, and 3 was my second highest. Live service or not the issue is it exists at a time where arena shooters aren't the mainstream.  NDA-Man Member Mar 23, 2020 3,983 zoodoo said: Halo could have had a game like Destiny or Mass Effect. Gears could have had a more horror entry. The attempts they did with boths franchises were low budget or in niche genres Click to expand... Click to shrink... To be blunt, I don't really buy into the idea of Halo as a universe that really supports much more than an FPS (which I guessed they could've cribbed from Destiny, but I dunno. It'd tick off the old heads who just want arena, and I don't think it'd pull folks away from destiny or their live service of choice). We as fans can get uber excited about a Halo RPG or a Flood horror game, but the vast majority of the playerbase didn't read the Nylund Books or whatever. They hear Halo and don't think of a vast and rich tapestry of a sci-fi universe, they think a shooter where you kill helium space munchkins. MasterYoshi said: I couldn't believe how quickly the plug was pulled on substantial updates to Infinite's multiplayer. There was a narrative going with cutscenes that just stopped before it had even hardly began. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Playerbase dropped off a cliff well over a year before they dropped those cutscenes (game launched late 2021, cutscenes were dropped June 2023). and nobody gave a fuck about the MP story until they axed it.  Sordid Plebeian Member Oct 26, 2017 19,835 It all comes down to 343i never knowing what to do with Halo. The only reason Infinite played it so safe is because they burned all their time chasing ideas no one wanted. Don't have much faith in Halo Studios.   T0kenAussie Member Jan 15, 2020 6,019 Halos lore was never strong in game. If you just watch the cutscenes they are clearly vehicles to get to the next level and that's about it. Halos EU especially the books did a lot of the heavy lifting that people are nostalgically remembering as Bungie lore imo I think halo has done an OK job of doing halo things. H1->3 were always reinventing the wheel and adding new things to each game. But overall I'd argue that everyone remembers the sweaty LAN weekends with your mates in the garage doing a system link on blood gulch and sidewinder over the single player story. At least that's the core halo memory I have  Caiusto Member Oct 25, 2017 6,879 No, the strategy was good, the sheer incompetence of 343i is what caused its downfall.   LilScooby77 Member Dec 11, 2019 12,280 Campaign/co op mode/multiplayer/theater/forge/custom games. Halo Reach will die as the last to launch complete.  Josh5890 I'm Your Favorite Poster's Favorite Poster The Fallen Oct 25, 2017 26,480 I've always been on the outside looking in, but it always felt like things went downhill after Bungie handed off the franchise to 343.   Bishop89 What Are Ya' Selling? Member Oct 25, 2017 42,741 Melbourne, Australia JigglesBunny said: 343's mismanagement and sloppy direction is what caused its downfall, and that extends far beyond their tepid live service. Click to expand... Click to shrink... This.   Richietto One Winged Slayer Member Oct 25, 2017 26,029 North Carolina 343 were just not ready to step into Bungies shoes. They were not at all as skilled as Bungie was. And in the case of Infinite? They released it too soon. It took a year to get 2 maps. That's insane. The game was not going to recover. They are not good at decision making.   Letters Prophet of Truth Avenger Oct 27, 2017 5,199 Portugal To me it was the chasing of all kinds of trends instead of leaning into all the things in the gameplay what made it special and unique. Counter-Strike or Street Fighter would also be irrelevant today if they had done the same.   Razgriz-Specter Member Oct 25, 2017 34,486 Detective said: 343 is the reason for the downfall from the get go. Click to expand... Click to shrink... I'd put some on Bungie even, Halo 3 was like the big climactic game... and then Reach(despite being good) comes out within 3 years Big main Halos needed a break after 3 imo Literally Halo 3... then Reach happened in 3 years then Halo 4 just 2 years after Reach then Halo 5 in 3..  Gunman Member Aug 19, 2020 2,220 Agree with the COD factor. Halo already felt old with 3.   Green Marine Member Oct 25, 2017 450 El Paso Transistor said: 343 caused it's downfall. Click to expand... Click to shrink... This. For multiplayer, they had already lost the team death match crowd to Call of Duty back in 2007. That leaves you with objective modes, where nobody communicates or plays the objectives. I think they missed an enormous opportunity not being "first to market" with a Helldivers II style persistent PvE mode (could have literally called it "Helljumpers"). Instead they've spent fifteen years getting their ass kicked by Call of Duty and Counter-Strike. As for the campaigns and story telling, this is an even bigger mess. Halo Reach through Halo 3 (including ODST) was five campaigns that told a very cohesive, if vaguely unoriginal story. It often came off as a mixture of Starhammer, Ringworld, and The Flood being a dumb ripoff of the The Many in System Shock 2, but it mostly worked. There 343i games were a mess. They had a great opportunity to break away from the events of the Bungie era, but they decided only four years could pass, because Cortana's story was super important, and couldn't be an aspect of what went on between games. Hilarious, considering this is precisely what they did with Halo Infinite. Then you have a really bad story with Halo 5 (The Covenant knew where to scan and dig for the Portal for the Ark, but had no idea a Forerunner super weapon was buried beneath the Elite home world the whole time? That could have won them the way). The Banished were supposedly welcoming of humans, until they're retreating the the same threat of using the Halo Array to kill everyone. Eight years passed since the Prophet of Regret was murdered, but none of the the other alien factions know it's insta kill for anyone not on a shield world or outside of the Milky Way on The Ark? Zero explanation as to why Atriox's own high ranking soldiers think he died. The Endless are worse than The Flood… for absolutely no reason whatsoever. And this is before getting in to AI a level design issues. They couldn't mimic what GTA IV did in 2008 with an AI driving you around? You could have chosen between a scenic route where you noticed high value targets, or skip to the destination to get back the story after. Outside of "The Road", the last four levels were horrible (more gondola rides… a level that so thoroughly seemed like firefight maps and two boss fights stitched together that you eventually got those levels in Firefight events). They should have focused on human factions resurfacing pre-Covenant conflicts. UNSC were essentially the bad guys before Harvest. The Banished could have been an actual "mercenary" force that worked for humans that paid them, rather than just being a drop in replacement for the Covenant. Just one missed opportunity after another. I still like firefight, but that's the only mode I play in Infinite multiplayer. I hope they turn things around, but I'm not optimistic.  Justin Iacobellis Member Oct 27, 2017 2,446 United States I think Call of Duty 4 and onwards were definitely a factor in Halo's demise. On console (360 and PS3), CoD was one of the only multiplayer-focused shooters that offered a virtually consistent 60 FPS experience without overtly compromising elsewhere. On top of that, the range of ways to earn XP and relatively brisk rate at which you would join a new match created a flow that was difficult to remove yourself from, similarly to the "just one more run" mentality of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. While technical reasons prevented Halo from going beyond a 30 FPS limit for the remainder of that console generation, 343 and Bungie attempted to replicate some of the Call of Duty experience with the introductions of armor abilities, loadouts, and the like. These changes are where I personally felt the series was beginning to lose its identity. If you are going to gradually incorporate the key elements of your competitors, why would I not just continue playing those instead?  TechnoSyndro Member May 15, 2019 3,310 Their inability to actually support a live service game is why their live service game died. Halo Infinite had a ton of players at launch but they fumbled the ball immediately.   hydruxo ▲ Legend ▲ Member Oct 25, 2017 22,716 I don't think that was the problem. I think it's more so that 343 didn't have the juice to keep people interested in Halo. Bungie was just better in every way.   callamp Member Oct 27, 2017 1,641 Trends change over time and the Halo franchise was slow to adapt to that. Industry trends were already changing when Halo 3 was at its apex, with Modern Warfare changing the game. More recently we've had the shift towards battle royale (Fortnite, PUGB, Apex) and Destiny-likes. Halo is still largely operating in the same space it did 20 years ago (although Infinite's single player tried to branch out unsuccessfully). The reality is that Microsoft and 343 were too cautious with the franchise. They delivered games that were typically fine - despite some of the hyperbole that gets thrown about - and you could legitimately argue that mechanically Infinite is the best multiplayer in the franchise. But if trends have changed and gamers aren't as enamoured with arena shooters, then that's ultimately not good enough. From Halo 1 to 3, the series was the trend setter and then after that it became a follower. In an ideal world, Bungie would have kept the franchise and it would have evolved to be similar to what they created with Destiny. Perhaps they would have noted PUGB success and pivoted into the battle royale genre. But none of that happened and so year-after-year the franchise just became a little less prominent.  daegan #REFANTAZIO SWEEP Member Oct 27, 2017 3,304 For SP: Too long between games and they got way way WAY overwritten, simultaneously pulling from deep lore but not giving you reasons to care in the games themselves. 4, 5, Infinite all basically being reboots and supposed to keep going forever and then just not having a great hook to keep people playing. 5 also just being an absolute dogshit campaign that has no business being with the rest of the series, even when the plot points could be interesting. For Multi: The larger audience they chase for multiplayer has splintered and spread out across games that more focus on what each kind of player likes and I don't know how you get that back. What itch does a future Halo scratch that nothing else does and is it an itch millions of people still have who also have the free time to plunge into it?  dotpatrick Member Oct 28, 2017 400 Definitely agree with the people referencing Call of Duty. That was the big turning point and I'm not sure anything there is anything 343 could've done short of figuring out the next big turn for the competitive multiplayer shooter. By the time even Reach came out, CoD had already supplanted it as THE console shooter. I still remember when Xbox used to post how many folks were playing a particular title on Xbox Live for a given week and Call of Duty 4 would beat or be just behind Halo 3.  HockeyBird Member Oct 27, 2017 13,794 Razgriz-Specter said: I'd put some on Bungie even, Halo 3 was like the big climactic game... and then Reach(despite being good) comes out within 3 years Big main Halos needed a break after 3 imo Literally Halo 3... then Reach happened in 3 years then Halo 4 just 2 years after Reach then Halo 5 in 3.. Click to expand... Click to shrink... 3 years as the gap between Halo 1 and 2 and from 2 to 3. So Reach coming 3 years after Halo 3 isn't all that surprising. Also, as part of their agreement to split from Microsoft, they were obligated to produce two more Halo games after 3. One was Halo 3: ODST and the other was Reach. So they were fulfilling their contractual obligation to become independent and go off to create Destiny.  De Amigo Member Dec 19, 2017 550 Halo Reach was a fine enough game but it did feel like the beginning of the franchise releases going from major events to "expect another installment every couple of years no matter what". I wonder if them doing Halo 3 then taking a break until Halo 4 as like an Xbox One launch game could've kept the franchise's event status intact.   saruboss Member Jan 26, 2025 93 If i am not wrong, didn't you make the same thread with "is halo infinite now considered a failure?" a couple of months ago.   Gestault Member Oct 26, 2017 14,690 This is admittedly myopic, but from my perspective, their big public assertion about having learned the lesson from Halo 5 that they need split-screen, effectively (literally?) promising it for future games, then totally omitting it from Infinite made clear the game wasn't being planned by serious people. I say this as someone who had a blast with Infinite overall. 

In May 2015, prominent right-wing intellectual Charles Murray published a book calling on the superrich to fund an American rebellion against their government.Titled By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, the book argued that the growth of the regulatory state was worse than dangerous: It was an existential threat to the American way of life. For this reason, federal authority had become fundamentally illegitimate. The normal political process — most notably elections — was hopelessly compromised, to the point where no candidate promising to roll back the size of the state could hope to win.The best solution, in Murray’s eyes, was for wealthy donors to fund a legal defense designed to facilitate a mass campaign of civil disobedience against the regulatory state. This so-called Madison Fund would defend people accused of noncompliance in court and pay any assessed fines if they lose. With enough donations, the Madison Fund could ensure that nearly anyone could disobey regulations with impunity.By the People has largely been forgotten today. It was published one month before Donald Trump descended the golden escalator at Trump Tower, announcing a presidential bid that would alter the course of history. Trump’s rejection of old GOP orthodoxies, including its libertarian hostility to programs like Social Security, suggested that Murray’s anti-government radicalism might belong to an era of the past.But the events of the second Trump term, most notably DOGE’s lawless gutting of the federal government, suggest that the book deserves a second look. Its extreme hostility to the very idea of liberal governance, its skepticism of democracy, and its faith in the primacy of the wealthy over the law all prefigured the way that Trump and Elon Musk would assail key functions of government in 2025.Moreover, it helps us understand why mainstream conservatives — the sort who pledge unending fealty to the Constitution and the founders — have been so okay with all of this. It’s not only that people on the right fear crossing Trump; it’s also, in part, that they share his belief that the American government is no longer worthy of respect.For if the state has become too big to command legitimacy, to the point where ordinary citizens are justified in disobeying it, then why should anyone care if the duly elected government breaks laws in pursuit of shrinking itself?By the People, explainedCharles Murray has been a leading intellectual figure on the right for a very long time. Generally speaking, his work has focused on class and race inequality in the United States — and, more specifically, with the idea that welfare programs either do little to fix these problems or actually make them worse.His most (in)famous book, 1994’s The Bell Curve, argues that much of America’s class and racial stratification can be explained by gaps in IQ — suggesting, in one of its most provocative chapters, that white people have higher IQs than Black people due to their superior genes. The book made theorizing about genetic differences between the races acceptable among certain corners of the mainstream right, paving the way for scientific racism’s resurgence in the Trump era.By the People is, in some ways, a more ambitious book than The Bell Curve. Moving away from social policy, Murray strays into the realm of political theory — arguing not just that liberal policies have bad consequences, but that that they are fundamentally illegitimate uses of state power. The concept of “legitimacy,” generally speaking, refers to the principle used to assess whether a particular government is morally justified in exercising political power. In Murray’s view, the key principle is government non-interference in personal affairs. The modern regulatory state, and its involvement in life ranging from setting education policy to licensing barber shops, has become so corrosive of American liberty that it cannot be seen as legitimate.“It is part of our national catechism that government is instituted to protect our unalienable rights, and that when it becomes destructive of those rights, the reason for our allegiance is gone,” he writes. “At that point, revolution is not treason, but the people’s right.”Charles Murray speaking at the 2013 FreedomFest in Las Vegas. Gage Skidmore/Flickr Creative CommonsTo support this claim, he quotes a list of luminaries — ranging from Alexis de Tocqueville to Grover Cleveland — to argue that Americans have almost always believed in a state whose legitimacy is grounded in self-limitation.“The federal government lost its legitimacy in theory during the constitutional revolution of 1937-1942, lost its legitimacy in practice during the 1960s, and it has been downhill ever since,” he writes. “It is by that historical understanding that many of us who are devoted to limited government have thought of ourselves as living in a post-American country, governed by people who mouth the clichés about America as the land of the free without understanding what freedom means.”It may occur to you, at this point, that Murray has a democracy problem. Very few Americans actually agree with this libertarian vision of the American state, and they express that disagreement by electing non-libertarian politicians. In a democracy, the key principle of legitimacy is not libertarian theories of rights but rather popular sovereignty. It is the people, collectively, who decide on the limits of power — under conditions of free debate and exercised within constitutional constraints. If the people think the regulatory state is legitimate, why should Charles Murray and his libertarian friends get to ignore the laws that everyone else voted for?By the People offers two contradictory answers to this question. The first is that the people really have turned on the government, a big claim Murray supports with data showing a consistent decline in trust in government over the years. But this is measuring something different than basic legitimacy. Moreover, Murray once again has a democracy problem. If voters really were so furious about big government that they believed the entire state was illegitimate, then why aren’t radical anti-government politicians winning in landslides? To this, we have Murray’s second answer: that the people are bought off. They have become so dependent on government goodies that there is no hope for a return to pre-New Deal America.“The proportion of Americans who depend on the federal government to put food on the table, whether through welfare, Social Security, a government paycheck, or a paycheck financed by a federal contract, will continue to increase, and it will push the Republican Party to the center in all presidential elections,” he writes.Here Murray betrays himself: admitting, implicitly, that he does not really care about popular sovereignty. He admits that people routinely choose, in democratic elections, to authorize and reauthorize an expansive state — but dismisses their right to make a choice he personally finds antithetical to liberty. He is certain his libertarian view of legitimacy is true, regardless of what the people think, and thus is convinced that people like him are justified in ignoring the law.But how could anyone ever hope to win a fight against the federal leviathan when the people have been bought off by Social Security? This is where his “Madison Fund” financing civil disobedience comes in: Murray believes that successfully defending people who ignore regulations will help others realize that a better future without government interference could actually be possible.And it all starts, in his mind, with one good billionaire.“The Madison Fund could get started,” he writes, “if just one wealthy American cared enough to contribute, say, a few hundred million dollars.”By the People as Trumpist urtextMurray’s specific vision for a “Madison Fund” was certainly idiosyncratic. But his broader argument about legitimacy was widely shared on the 2010s right, heard often among the Tea Party types who dominated conservative politics for most of the Obama presidency.Indeed, By the People was received warmly among traditional conservatives, some of whom described its wild arguments as helpfully restrained. “If you want a book that will crisply outline what has happened to Madisonian America since the Great Depression, without scaring the neighbors, it’s your lucky day,” Charles C.W. Cooke writes in National Review. Some even suggested it didn’t go far enough. Writing in Law and Liberty, Lenore Ealy argued that Murray gave short shrift to the concerns of social conservatives. And that liberal America “created for itself a soft despotism” where people from various “identity groups” wield power to silence “men and women unwilling to subsume their identity in the will of the State.” Rolling back the state is not far enough, Ealy says — there needs to be a revolution in “cultural mores” that beats back identity liberalism.By the People remains useful as an unusually clear explanation of how widely shared premises on the establishment right led the country to Trumpist perdition.It is striking that, even before Trump, the idea that the modern American state was fundamentally illegitimate was such a prevalent view among conservative activists and intellectuals. The question was not whether the right must always defer to the democratic process, but how far it might have to go to get around it.In Trump’s second term, we are seeing the fruits of this vision. In many ways, you can draw a straight line between the basic premises of By the People and Trump’s assault on the federal government. The mechanisms are very different, but the ends are strikingly similar.During the 2024 election, Elon Musk became the billionaire anti-government donor Murray dreamed of, contributing “a few hundred million dollars” to the Trump campaign. His alignment with Trump got him appointed the head of a government-slashing committee that we now know as DOGE; once in power, he and his allies attempted to gut the functioning of various different federal agencies (to various degrees of success).Elon Musk at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February 2025 in Maryland. Andrew Harnik/Getty ImagesDOGE was not an effective cost-cutting mechanism. Nor has it turned up significant evidence of fraud. What it has accomplished, rather, is make federal agencies less capable of implementing duly authorized regulations. Effectively, it’s done what Murray wanted from the opposite end: decreasing the scope of the regulatory state not by resistance from the bottom, but a top-down effort to strip its capabilities. (Nor is Musk alone in this; look at Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s firing of large chunks of America’s public health officials).The legal authority for all of this is dubious at best. Trump and DOGE have simply asserted the power to mass-fire employees and redirect congressionally appropriated funds, even though there are good reasons to believe that they do not have the legal authority to do either. Like Murray, they do not see the law as morally binding. These aren’t just simple parallels. The influence of ideas like By the People’s helps us understand why a conservative movement that once claimed to stand for the constitutional order has become comfortable with Trump wrecking it.The essential idea of Murray’s book, and much of pre-Trump conservatism, was that the federal government had become hostile to founding American ideals: that the administrative state represents an unconstitutional cancerous growth on a brilliant governing framework.“We have overseen and sanctioned the growth of an administrative system that concentrates the power to make laws and the power to enforce them in the hands of a vast and unaccountable administrative apparatus that finds no comfortable home in our constitutional structure,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a 2015 concurrence. “The end result may be trains that run on time (although I doubt it), but the cost is to our Constitution and the individual liberty it protects.”If you take this position, thinly veiled comparisons to fascism and all, then the fact that Trump and Musk have frequently exceeded legal boundaries starts to look a lot less problematic. Through this lens, the administration is trying to rescue the Constitution’s original design from a liberalism that has corrupted it. Any legal violations along the way are offenses against a political order that at present does not deserve citizens’ allegiance. In February, the news outlet NOTUS asked Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) about the lawfulness of the Trump/Musk agenda. Tillis conceded that it “runs afoul of the Constitution in the strictest sense.” However, he added, “nobody should bellyache about that” — because “it’s not uncommon for presidents to flex a little bit on where they can spend and where they can stop spending.”Thom Tillis is not a firebreather: He’s a purple state senator widely seen as a moderate. That he would take such a permissive position on what even he admits is lawbreaking shows the corrosive influence of Murray-style thinking on the right today.By the People, on its own, may be a mostly forgotten book. But it remains useful as an unusually clear explanation of how widely shared premises on the establishment right led the country to Trumpist perdition.This story was adapted for the On the Right newsletter. New editions drop every Wednesday. Sign up here.Correction, May 21, 9:20 am ET: A previous version of this story misdescribed Trump’s 2015 descent down the golden escalator at Trump Tower.See More:

On a week like this, it’s hard not to feel like you’re living in dueling realities. On one side, you’ve got the futuristic vision Google is telling you about at its annual developer event, Google I/O. The company waxed on for nearly two hours about how its Gemini generative AI assistant will help provide even more complex answers from the web, make purchases and complete bookings on your behalf, and generally just do all the Gemini stuff it does now faster and better. (And it isn’t alone: Just a day earlier, Microsoft told us at its Build event how Copilot will soon act as an “enterprise brain” and “suggest ideas” as you type — even, conceivably, offering to create entire legal agreements on your behalf.) If you believe what these companies are saying (along with the same sorts of surreal-seeming realities being laid out by OpenAI and — well, practically every other tech player out there these days), we’re living in an era where artificial intelligence is always on the brink of a life-changing breakthrough. What’s especially wild is that none of this is even that big of a leap from what these same sorts of systems have already been promising and the way they’ve been framed for months — for casual individual use, sure, and also for serious company business. And that, my friend, is an ever-increasing liability for anyone who still cares about getting things right. [Get level-headed knowledge in your inbox with my free Android Intelligence newsletter — three things to know and try every Friday, straight from me to you.] Behind the generative AI curtains Let’s back up for a second and talk about what all of these generative AI tools actually are — and aren’t. The real issue here isn’t that this type of technology isn’t in any way valid or useful — far from it. It’s just that it isn’t designed to do or currently even capable of doing what nearly every tech company out there is breathlessly telling us it can handle in our personal and professional lives. At their core, Gemini, ChatGPT, and other such systems are powered by a type of technology known as a large language model — or LLM, for short. In the simplest possible terms, an LLM looks at massive amounts of real-world language data and then uses that to learn patterns and predict the most likely next word over and over, in response to any prompt it’s given. In other words, these engines don’t truly understand context or “think” about the answers they’re giving you in any human-like sense. They merely predict words, based on patterns observed in sprawling sets of human-created data, and then string those words together to form sentences and, eventually, entire paragraphs and documents whenever they’re summoned and given a task. Somehow, that’s translated into tech companies plastering them into every possible place and presenting them as the end-all answers for every possible purpose — everything from replacements for search to replacements for writing in Gmail, Google Docs, and other such places. (The situation is even more extreme in other non-Google arenas, too — like with Microsoft’s legal-document-creating disaster-waiting-to-happen.) And we don’t need to rely on theoretical examples to see just how dangerous of a situation this can create. Artificial intelligence, genuine jeopardy The reality of these systems’ limitations has been showing itself time and time again for quite a while now, in scenarios that are all too real and should serve as a serious wake-up call for any company — or even individual — buying into the hype. Plain and simple, these things don’t know what they’re saying. They string together characters that sometimes make sense but are also extremely likely to include errors and often even flat-out fabricated nonsense. When they do get something right, it’s mostly just by chance. And you, as the user, have no way of immediately detecting the difference. For instance, across the broader genAI landscape — with the exact same foundational limitations affecting Gemini and all these other similar systems: Just last week, Anthropic — the company behind the business-popular genAI chatbot Claude — had to apologize in court after learning its system completely made up a legal citation the company’s lawyer used as part of an ongoing copyright case. (I’ll take irony for $500, Alex!) Days earlier, a California judge discovered “numerous false, inaccurate, and misleading legal citations and quotations” in a submitted brief apparently created with the aid of AI. Last month, a company relying on an AI “support agent” was forced to apologize when it learned said agent was making up nonexistent policies while interacting with customers. In an experiment, Carnegie Mellon University created a simulation in which AI agents were tasked with handling low-level chores at a realistically structured software company — performing the same sorts of feats at which these systems are promised to be proficient. They failed miserably. In the oft-cited area of genAI coding expertise, researchers are finding case after case where the systems invent package names that don’t exist and lead to all sorts of time- and money-wasting errors — not to mention troubling security vulnerabilities. The Columbia Journalism Review tested eight different genAI search engines and found they got all sorts of information wildly wrong — offering incorrect and fabricated info and even nonexistent citations — and, worse yet, they served up those inaccuracies with an astonishing amount of confidence. Lest you think this is an artifact of long-dated early versions of these engines, the instances above are all from the past few months. (They’re also just a surface-level sampling of the many, many examples of generative AI failure that pop up practically every day at this point.) Worse, as reported in The New York Times earlier this month, the act of “AI hallucination” — a fancy euphemism for “their tendency to serve up lies and inaccuracies” — only seems to be getting worse as the systems get more powerful. Yet somehow, hardly anyone seems to be taking notice — or letting that reality get in the way of the much more enticing vision the tech industry is desperate to sell us. Just this week, a new report revealed that a whopping half of tech execs expect these very same sorts of error-prone AI agents to function autonomously in their companies within the next two years — which, translated out of corporate geek-speak, essentially means they’ll be replacing human workers and operating with little to no supervision. Crikey. How long will it take for everyone to wake up? Time for a generative AI reset Google and all the other companies behind these tools — along with the corporate number-crunchers, clout-chasing LinkedIn bros, and mainstream media outlets blindly buying into the hype — like to pretend that all the stuff we just went over somehow isn’t a serious and immediately disqualifying issue for these systems. But no matter what sorts of impressive demos and over-the-top marketing materials they sling at us, the reality here in the real world is that these large-language model chatbots simply aren’t reliable when it comes to providing accurate answers and information. So, sure:  They’re incredibly handy as “legal advisors” — until you realize how the technology actually works and how likely it is to (a) get information wildly wrong and (b) flat-out make up facts along the way. They’re fantastic as “search engines” — until it dawns on you that 20% of what they tell you is likely to be inaccurate. And they’re wonderfully useful as “coding assistants” and “customer service agents” — if you conveniently look past the constant instances of them screwing stuff up and costing you business. What’s especially troubling is the justification that these generative AI helpers are at least getting better and growing less likely to get stuff wrong. Even if you set aside the aforementioned data challenging that notion, a system getting something wrong 5%, 10%, or even 20% of the time is arguably worse than one that gets stuff wrong half the time (or more). Think about it: If something’s wrong constantly, people are at least likely to notice and realize that it’s useless as an info-providing tool. But when it’s wrong only once or twice out of every 10 or 20 uses, it’s especially dangerous — as users will be lulled into a false sense of security and less likely to be watching for those errors. Now, again, all of this isn’t to say these genAI systems aren’t at all useful or worth using. They can be quite helpful — if you think of them in the right way. The problem is mostly that that reality doesn’t align with the much broader vision that tech companies are trying to peddle. But if you think of these systems as narrowly limited starting points for certain types of specific tasks, they can actually save you time and make your life easier. With that in mind: No, Gemini and other such generative AI services aren’t instant answer engines, nor are they digital lawyers or even coders. But they can be useful note-takers and info-organizers. They can be quite helpful as image analyzers and manipulators. They can work wonders when it comes to creating polished presentations without all the usual effort, too — or creating calendar events without the typical clunkiness. They can even be valuable brainstorming partners, in a sense, or deep-dive research assistants. But, critically, it’s up to you to think about how you’re using ’em and to treat their offerings as simple starting points — ways to save you the early steps of seeking out sources and stumbling onto ideas as opposed to a single-step replacement for critical human thinking. At the end of the day, one lucky instance doesn’t discount the very real and completely unpredictable risk of random fabrications and inaccuracies. And, clearly, it’s entirely on us to use these tools wisely and take ’em for what they are: word prediction engines that can be helpful in certain limited, specific scenarios — not the all-purpose magic answer machines some companies desperately want them to be. Ready for more no-nonsense Googley insights? Join my free Android Intelligence newsletter to cut through the hype and get plain-English perspective on the news that matters.