Rejus Almole – Page 37

White House works to ground NASA science missions before Congress can act

budget, NASA, Space, White House / Rejus Almole / July 3, 2025

“We would be turning off some fabulous missions that are doing extremely well.”

NASA’s Juno spacecraft skimmed the upper wisps of Jupiter’s atmosphere when JunoCam snapped this image from an altitude of about 14,500 km above the planet’s swirling cloud tops. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Roman Tkachenko

In another sign that the Trump White House is aggressively moving to slash NASA’s science programs, dozens of mission leaders have been asked to prepare “closeout” plans by the end of next week.

The new directive came from NASA’s senior leadership on Monday, which is acting on behalf of the White House Office of Management and Budget. Copies of these memos, which appear to vary a little by department, were reviewed by Ars. The detailed closeout plans called for must be prepared by as soon as July 9 for some missions, which has left principal investigators scrambling due to the tight deadline and the July 4 holiday weekend.

Projects should prepare their plans assuming closeout direction is given on October 1, 2025, one of the NASA memos states. Missions in operations—that is to say, spacecraft whizzing around the Solar System conducting science right now—should “assume closeout is complete within 3 months.”

The memos are careful to state that the preparation of these closeout plans is for the purposes of a “planning exercise only.” However, multiple scientists familiar with the new directive from NASA’s leadership do not believe these closeout plans are merely for planning purposes.

Instead, based on the budget process to date and statements from the White House, they view the memos as an effort by the Trump administration to move forward with canceling as many NASA science missions as possible before Congress passes a budget for the upcoming fiscal year, 2026. This fiscal year begins on October 1, three months from today.

Science at risk

The Trump White House released its proposed budget for NASA a little more than a month ago, seeking to reduce NASA’s budget by about 24 percent, from $24.8 billion this year to $18.8 billion in fiscal year 2026. Some areas within the budget were hit harder than others, particularly the Science Mission Directorate, which sustained nearly 50 percent in proposed cuts.

The space agency has 124 science missions in development, prime operations, or extended operations. Effectively, the proposed cuts would cancel 41 of these missions, and another 17 would see their funding zeroed out in the near future. Nearly half of NASA’s science missions would therefore end, and dozens more would receive budget cuts of 20–40 percent.

This includes some high-profile casualties, including NASA’s only mission at Jupiter, an effort to explore an asteroid that will fly extremely close to Earth in 2029, two promising missions to Venus, and an effort to return samples from Mars.

“We would be turning off some fabulous missions that are doing extremely well,” said Jim Green, a physicist who led NASA’s Planetary Science Program for 12 years before his retirement in 2022.

Normally, after the White House proposes a budget for the upcoming fiscal year, it is considered by appropriators in Congress responsible for setting funding levels and publishing a budget. However, in recent years, Congress has been unable to agree upon a budget and pass it before the beginning of the next fiscal year. This has led to a “continuing resolution” in which, generally, NASA missions continue to receive funding consistent with budget levels set during the previous fiscal year.

However, multiple sources indicated to Ars that may not happen this year, and the new memos offer an important clue in this regard.

Making missions go dark

The memos were sent to the principal investigators of the missions that the White House budget seeks to cancel. On one hand, it is prudent to have a plan of action in place should these missions actually be canceled due to a new budget, assuming one is in place by October 1. It is NASA’s job to execute the budget it is given.

But there very likely is a more cynical plan at play here. The Office of Management and Budget, led by Russ Vought, has been seeking to cut the US government’s science portfolio across the board, and it fully expects a continuing resolution to be adopted as Congress almost certainly won’t have a budget signed.

The congressional committees have been paralyzed, to some degree, by the Trump administration’s full-court press to pass the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which exists outside of the traditional budget process. Congressional work to set the budget for fiscal year 2026 remains in its early stages, and with summer recesses looming, passage of any bill will almost certainly require many months.

Amid this uncertainty, Vought appears to be moving to shut down as many of these missions as possible.

The PBR is the plan

How will Vought and his office accomplish this? Effectively, they seek to turn the president’s budget request into the operating plan for NASA—instead of a continuing resolution—in the absence of a fiscal year 2026 budget.

This has already been communicated to NASA’s field center directors. Recently, according to multiple sources, NASA’s chief of staff, Brian Hughes, told these center leaders that the president’s budget request would soon become their operating plans. Hughes, who worked on Trump’s 2024 campaign, is one of the senior political leaders running NASA in the absence of a confirmed administrator.

(Update: After publication of this article, NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens denied Hughes had said this. “This is either a misinterpretation or mischaracterization of Brian’s words,” she said. “Brian has issued no guidance stating that the PBR will become the operating plan for NASA prior to Congressional authorization of a budget.”)

During a typical budget year, NASA officials submit an operating plan to Congress so authorizers and appropriators know what is happening at the agency as part of the budget-making process. During this give-and-take, appropriators provide feedback; i.e., “continue working on such and such” because it is the intent of Congress to continue funding that activity regardless of the White House’s proposed budget. For example, this process saved NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory from having its operations rapidly curtailed last year.

NASA typically complies with guidance from Congress since it receives its budget from Congress. (Really, you do not want to bite the hand that feeds.) However, this year’s process is not expected to be normal, and there is no legal requirement for NASA (or other federal agencies) to consider congressional feedback on their operating plans.

This year, in fact, the Office of Management and Budget has even stopped NASA from submitting operational plans to Congress.

“This is yet another bad faith move by the administration, which seems hell-bent on attacking science and the future of American innovation,” said Rep. George Whitesides (D-Calif.), who previously served as NASA’s chief of staff. “To go around Congress, and the committee of jurisdiction that I sit on, to enact their radical agenda that will make us less safe, less competitive, and less able to respond to threats is not only dangerous, it will cede all ground to our adversaries like China.”

Will the last planetary scientist please turn out the lights?

How will this play out?

There are multiple strategies, and some of them are likely to end up in court fights. Philosophically, Vought believes strongly that the president should have more authority to direct federal spending. And he appears likely to try to force the issue this year. Using tactics such as recission—essentially ordering federal agencies to freeze spending—and impoundment, Vought will seek to implement the priorities in the president’s budget request, which his office wrote.

Beginning October 1, without a fiscal year 2026 budget in place, NASA may be directed to start following the closeout plans submitted this month by principal investigators and turning missions off. That means the lights go out at Jupiter, telescopes stop gathering data across the Solar System, and so on for dozens of missions.

And once those missions are gone, they’re almost impossible to bring back—even if Congress were inclined to restore funding months later with a new budget.

“If there’s not much hope to restart a mission, the people who are managing Juno, New Horizons, and other missions are going to be looking for their next job,” Green said. “They’re going to be gone. Within a few months, you won’t be able to get the expertise back. And without the expertise, you don’t have the ability to run the mission safely.”

Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston.

White House works to ground NASA science missions before Congress can act Read More »

Tesla Q2 2025 sales dropped more than 13% year-over-year

Cars, Tesla deliveries / Rejus Almole / July 2, 2025

Tesla sold a total of 384,122 electric vehicles during the months of April, May, and June of this year. That’s a double-digit decline compared to the same three months of last year—itself no peach of a quarter for a car company with a stratospheric valuation based on the supposition of eternal sales growth.

The automaker faces a number of problems that are getting in the way of that perpetual growth. In some regions, CEO Elon Musk’s right-wing politics have driven away customers in droves. Another issue is the company’s small, infrequently updated model lineup, which is a problem even in parts of the world that care little about US politics.

Most Tesla sales are of the Model 3 midsize electric sedan and the Model Y, its electric crossover. For Q2 2025, Tesla sold 373,728 of the Models 3 and Y across North America, Europe, China, and its other markets. But that’s an 11.5 percent decrease compared to the 422,405 Models 3 and Y that Tesla sold in Q2 2024, a quarter that itself saw a year-on-year decline.

The rest of Tesla’s sales are a mix of the increasingly elderly Model S sedan and Model X SUV, as well as the US-only Cybertruck. Here, the decline is far more severe—with just 10,394 sold, that’s a 22.5 percent decrease on Q2 2024. Tesla does not break these numbers out with more granularity, so it’s unclear just how few Cybertrucks were among that, but it does bring to mind Musk’s claims that Tesla would sell between 250,000 and 500,000 Cybertrucks a year.

Tesla Q2 2025 sales dropped more than 13% year-over-year Read More »

What’s wrong with AAA games? The development of the next Battlefield has answers.

AAA, Battlefield, Battlefield 6, EA, Features, game development, gaming, glacier / Rejus Almole / July 2, 2025

EA insiders describe stress and setbacks in a project that’s too big to fail.

After the lukewarm reception of Battlefield 2042, EA is doubling down.

It’s been 23 years since the first Battlefield game, and the video game industry is nearly unrecognizable to anyone who was immersed in it then. Many people who loved the games of that era have since become frustrated with where AAA (big budget) games have ended up.

Today, publisher EA is in full production on the next Battlefield title—but sources close to the project say it has faced culture clashes, ballooning budgets, and major disruptions that have left many team members fearful that parts of the game will not be finished to players’ satisfaction in time for launch during EA’s fiscal year.

They also say the company has made major structural and cultural changes to how Battlefield games are created to ensure it can release titles of unprecedented scope and scale. This is all to compete with incumbents like the Call of Duty games and Fortnite, even though no prior Battlefield has achieved anywhere close to that level of popular and commercial success.

I spoke with current and former EA employees who work or have recently worked directly on the game—they span multiple studios, disciplines, and seniority levels and all agreed to talk about the project on the condition of anonymity. Asked to address the reporting in this article, EA declined to comment.

According to these first-hand accounts, the changes have led to extraordinary stress and long hours. Every employee I spoke to across several studios either took exhaustion leave themselves or directly knew staffers who did. Two people who had worked on other AAA projects within EA or elsewhere in the industry said this project had more people burning out and needing to take leave than they’d ever seen before.

Each of the sources I spoke with shared sincere hopes that the game will still be a hit with players, pointing to its strong conceptual start and the talent, passion, and pedigree of its development team. Whatever the end result, the inside story of the game’s development illuminates why the medium and the industry are in the state they’re in today.

Table of Contents

The road to Glacier

To understand exactly what’s going on with the next Battlefield title—codenamed Glacier—we need to rewind a bit.

In the early 2010s, Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4 expanded the franchise audience to more directly compete with Call of Duty, the heavy hitter at the time. Developed primarily by EA-owned, Sweden-based studio DICE, the Battlefield games mixed the franchise’s promise of combined arms warfare and high player counts with Call of Duty’s faster pace and greater platform accessibility.

This was a golden age for Battlefield. However, 2018’s Battlefield V launched to a mixed reception, and EA began losing players’ attention in an expanding industry.

*Battlefield 3*, pictured here, kicked off the franchise’s golden age. Credit: EA

Instead, the hot new online shooters were Overwatch (2016), Fortnite (2017), and a resurgent Call of Duty. Fortnite was driven by a popular new gameplay mode called Battle Royale, and while EA attempted a Battle Royale mode in Battlefield V, it didn’t achieve the desired level of popularity.

After V, DICE worked on a Battlefield title that was positioned as a throwback to the glory days of 3 and 4. That game would be called Battlefield 2042 (after the future year in which it was set), and it would launch in 2021.

The launch of Battlefield 2042 is where Glacier’s development story begins. Simply put, the game was not fun enough, and Battlefield 2042 launched as a dud.

Don’t repeat past mistakes

Players were disappointed—but so were those who worked on 2042. Sources tell me that prior to launch, Battlefield 2042 “massively missed” its alpha target—a milestone by which most or all of the foundational features of the game are meant to be in place. Because of this, the game’s final release would need to be delayed in order to deliver on the developers’ intent (and on players’ expectations).

“Realistically, they have to delay the game by at least six months to complete it. Now, they eventually only delayed it by, I think, four or five weeks, which from a development point of view means very little,” said one person who worked closely with the project at the time.

Developers at DICE had hoped for more time. Morale fell, but the team marched ahead to the game’s lukewarm launch.

Ultimately, EA made back some ground with what the company calls “live operations”—additional content and updates in the months following launch—but the game never fulfilled its ambitions.

Plans were already underway for the next Battlefield game, so a postmortem was performed on 2042. It concluded that the problems had been in execution, not vision. New processes were put into place so that issues could be identified earlier and milestones like the alpha wouldn’t be missed.

To help achieve this, EA hired three industry luminaries to lead Glacier, all of them based in the United States.

The franchise leadership dream team

2021 saw EA bring on Byron Beede as general manager for Battlefield; he had previously been general manager for both Call of Duty (including the Warzone Battle Royale) and the influential shooter Destiny. EA also hired Marcus Lehto—co-creator of Halo—as creative chief of a newly formed Seattle studio called Ridgeline Games, which would lead the development of Glacier’s single-player campaign.

Finally, there was Vince Zampella, one of the leaders of the team that initially created Call of Duty in 2003. He joined EA in 2010 to work on other franchises, but in 2021, EA announced that Zampella would oversee Battlefield moving forward.

In the wake of these changes, some prominent members of DICE departed, including General Manager Oskar Gabrielson and Creative Director Lars Gustavsson, who had been known by the nickname “Mr. Battlefield.” With this changing of the guard, EA was ready to place a bigger bet than ever on the next Battlefield title.

100 million players

While 2042 struggled, competitors Call of Duty and Fortnite were posting astonishing player and revenue numbers, thanks in large part to the popularity of their Battle Royale modes.

EA’s executive leadership believed Battlefield had the potential to stand toe to toe with them, if the right calls were made and enough was invested.

A lofty player target was set for Glacier: 100 million players over a set period of time that included post-launch.

Fortnite characters looking across the many islands and vast realm of the game. — *Fortnite*‘s huge success has publishers like EA chasing the same dollars. Credit: Epic Games

“Obviously, Battlefield has never achieved those numbers before,” one EA employee told me. “It’s important to understand that over about that same period, 2042 has only gotten 22 million,” another said. Even 2016’s Battlefield 1—the most successful game in the franchise by numbers—had achieved “maybe 30 million plus.”

Of course, most previous Battlefield titles had been premium releases, with an up-front purchase cost and no free-to-play mode, whereas successful competitors like Fortnite and Call of Duty made their Battle Royale modes freely available, monetizing users with in-game purchases and season passes that unlocked post-launch content.

It was thought that if Glacier did the same, it could achieve comparable numbers, so a free-to-play Battle Royale mode was made a core offering for the title, alongside a six-hour single-player campaign, traditional Battlefield multiplayer modes like Conquest and Rush, a new F2P mode called Gauntlet, and a community content mode called Portal.

The most expensive Battlefield ever

All this meant that Glacier would have a broader scope than its predecessors. Developers say it has the largest budget of any Battlefield title to date.

The project targeted a budget of more than $400 million back in early 2023, which was already more than was originally planned at the start.

However, major setbacks significantly disrupted production in 2023 (more on that in a moment) and hundreds of additional developers were brought onto Glacier from various EA-owned studios to get things back on track, significantly increasing the cost. Multiple team members with knowledge of the project’s finances told me that the current projections are now well north of that $400 million amount.

Skepticism in the ranks

Despite the big ambitions of the new leadership team and EA executives, “very few people” working in the studios believed the 100 million target was achievable, two sources told me. Many of those who had worked on Battlefield for a long time at DICE in Stockholm were particularly skeptical.

“Among the things that we are predicting is that we won’t have to cannibalize anyone else’s sales,” one developer said. “That there’s just such an appetite out there for shooters of this kind that we will just naturally be able to get the audience that we need.”

Regarding the lofty player and revenue targets, one source said that “nothing in the market research or our quality deliverables indicates that we would be anywhere near that.”

“I think people are surprised that they actually worked on a next Battlefield game and then increased the ambitions to what they are right now,” said another.

In 2023, a significant disruption to the project put one game mode in jeopardy, foreshadowing a more troubled development than anyone initially imagined.

Ridgeline implodes

Battlefield games have a reputation for middling single-player campaigns, and Battlefield 2042 didn’t include one at all. But part of this big bet on Glacier was the idea of offering the complete package, so Ridgeline Games scaled up while working on a campaign EA hoped would keep Battlefield competitive with Call of Duty, which usually has included a single-player campaign in its releases.

The studio worked on the campaign for about two years while it was also scaling and hiring talent to catch up to established studios within the Battlefield family.

It didn’t work out. In February of 2024, Ridgeline was shuttered, Halo luminary Marcus Lehto left the company, and the rest of the studios were left to pick up the pieces. When a certain review came up not long before the studio was shuttered, Glacier’s top leadership were dissatisfied with the progress they were seeing, and the call was made.

Sources in EA teams outside Ridgeline told me that there weren’t proper check-ins and internal reviews on the progress, obscuring the true state of the project until the fateful review.

On the other hand, those closer to Ridgeline described a situation in which the team couldn’t possibly complete its objectives, as it was expected to hire and scale up from zero while also meeting the same milestones as established studios with resources already in place. “They kept reallocating funds—essentially staff months—out of our budget,” one person told me. “And, you know, we’re sitting there trying to adapt to doing more with less.”

A Battlefield logo with a list of studios beneath it

A marketing image from EA showing now-defunct Ridgeline Games on the list of groups involved. Credit: EA

After the shuttering of Ridgeline, ownership of single-player shifted to three other EA studios: Criterion, DICE, and Motive. But those teams had a difficult road ahead, as “there was essentially nothing left that Ridgeline had spent two years working on that they could pick up on and build, so they had to redo essentially everything from scratch within the same constraints of when the game had to release.”

Single-player was two years behind. As of late spring, it was the only game mode that had failed to reach alpha, well over a year after the initial overall alpha target for the project.

Multiple sources said its implosion was symptomatic of some broader cultural and process problems that affected the rest of the project, too.

Culture shock

Speaking with people who have worked or currently work at DICE in Sweden, the tension between some at that studio and the new, US-based leadership team was obvious—and to a degree, that’s expected.

DICE had “the pride of having started Battlefield and owned that IP,” but now the studio was just “supporting it for American leadership,” said one person who worked there. Further, “there’s a lot of distrust and disbelief… when it comes to just operating toward numbers that very few people believe in apart from the leadership.”

But the tensions appear to go deeper than that. Two other major factors were at play: scaling pains as the scope of the project expanded and differences in cultural values between US leadership and the workers in Europe.

“DICE being originally a Swedish studio, they are a bit more humble. They want to build the best game, and they want to achieve the greatest in terms of the game experience,” one developer told me. “Of course, when you’re operated by EA, you have to set financial expectations in order to be as profitable as possible.”

That tension wasn’t new. But before 2042 failed to meet expectations, DICE Stockholm employees say they were given more leeway to set the vision for the game, as well as greater influence on timeline and targets.

Some EU-based team members were vocally dismayed at how top-down directives from far-flung offices, along with the US company’s emphasis on quarterly profits, have affected Glacier’s development far more than with previous Battlefield titles.

This came up less in talking to US-based staff, but everyone I spoke with on both continents agreed on one thing: Growing pains accompanied the transition from a production environment where one studio leads and others offer support to a new setup with four primary studios—plus outside support from all over EA—and all of it helmed by LA-based leadership.

EA is not alone in adopting this approach; it’s also used by competitor Activision-Blizzard on the Call of Duty franchise (though it’s worth noting that a big hit like Epic Games’ Fortnite has a very different structure).

Whereas publishers like EA and Activision-Blizzard used to house several studios, each of which worked on its own AAA game, they now increasingly make bigger bets on singular games-as-a-service offerings, with several of their studios working in tandem on a single project.

“Development of games has changed so much in the last 10 to 15 years,” said one developer. The new arrangement excites investors and shareholders, who can imagine returns from the next big unicorn release, but it can be a less creatively fulfilling way to work, as directives come from the top down, and much time is spent on dealing with inter-studio process. Further, it amplifies the effects of failures, with a higher human cost to people working on projects that don’t meet expectations.

It has also made the problems that affected Battlefield 2042‘s development more difficult to avoid.

Clearing the gates

EA studios use a system of “gates” to set the pace of development. Projects have to meet certain criteria to pass each gate.

For gate one, teams must have a clear sense of what they want to make and some proof of concept showing that this vision is achievable.

As they approach gate two, they’re building out and testing key technology, asking themselves if it can work at scale.

Gate three signifies full production. Glacier was expected to pass gate three in early 2023, but it was significantly delayed. When it did pass, some on the ground questioned whether it should have.

“I did not see robust budget, staff plan, feature list, risk planning, et cetera, as we left gate three,” said one person. In the way EA usually works, these things would all be expected at this stage.

As the project approached gate three and then alpha, several people within the organization tried to communicate that the game wasn’t on footing as firm as the top-level planning suggested. One person attributed this to the lack of a single source of truth within the organization. While developers tracked issues and progress in one tool, others (including project leadership) leaned on other sources of information that weren’t as tied to on-the-ground reality when making decisions.

A former employee with direct knowledge of production plans told me that as gate three approached, prototypes of some important game features were not ready, but since there wasn’t time to complete proofs of concept, the decision was handed down to move ahead to production even though the normal prerequisites were not met.

“If you don’t have those things fleshed out when you’re leaving pre-pro[duction], you’re just going to be playing catch-up the entire time you’re in production,” this source said.

In some cases, employees who flagged the problems believed they were being punished. Two EA employees each told me they found themselves cut out of meetings once they raised concerns like this.

Gate three was ultimately declared clear, and as of late May 2025, alpha was achieved for everything except the single-player campaign. But I’m told that this occurred with some tasks still un-estimated and many discrepancies remaining, leaving the door open to problems and compromises down the road.

The consequences for players

Because of these issues, the majority of the people I spoke with said they expect planned features or content to be cut before the game actually launches—which is normal, to a degree. But these common game development problems can contribute to other aspects of modern AAA gaming that many consumers find frustrating.

First off, making major decisions so late in the process can lead to huge day-one patches. Players of all types of AAA games often take to Reddit and social media to malign day-one patches as a frustrating annoyance for modern titles.

Battlefield 2042 had a sizable day-one patch. When multiplayer RPG Anthem (another big investment by EA) launched to negative reviews, that was partly because critics and others with pre-launch access were playing a build that was weeks old; a day-one patch significantly improved some aspects of the game, but that came after the negative press began to pour out.

A player character confronts a monster in Anthem — *Anthem*, another EA project with a difficult development, launched with a substantial day-one patch. Credit: EA

Glacier’s late arrival to Alpha and the teams’ problems with estimating the status of features could lead to a similarly significant day-one patch. That’s in part because EA has to deliver the work to external partners far in advance of the actual launch date.

“They have these external deadlines to do with the submissions into what EA calls ‘first-party’—that’s your PlayStation and Xbox submissions,” one person explained. “They have to at least have builds ready that they can submit.”

What ends up on the disc or what pre-loads from online marketplaces must be finalized long before the game’s actual release date. When a project is far behind or prone to surprises in the final stretch, those last few weeks are where a lot of vital work happens, so big launch patches become a necessity.

These struggles over content often lead to another pet peeve of players: planned launch content being held until later. “There’s a bit of project management within the Battlefield project that they can modify,” a former senior EA employee who worked on the project explained. “They might push it into Season 1 or Season 2.”

That way, players ultimately get the intended feature or content, but in some cases, they may end up paying more for it, as it ends up being part of a post-launch package like a battle pass.

These challenges are a natural extension of the fiscal-quarter-oriented planning that large publishers like EA adhere to. “The final timelines don’t change. The final numbers don’t change,” said one source. “So there is an enormous amount of pressure.”

A campaign conundrum

Single-player is also a problem. “Single-player in itself is massively late—it’s the latest part of the game,” I was told. “Without an enormous patch on day one or early access to the game, it’s unrealistic that they’re going to be able to release it to what they needed it to do.”

If the single-player mode is a linear, narrative campaign as originally planned, it may not be possible to delay missions or other content from the campaign to post-launch seasons.

“Single-player is secondary to multiplayer, so they will shift the priority to make sure that single-player meets some minimal expectations, however you want to measure that. But the multiplayer is the main focus,” an EA employee said.

“They might have to cut a part of the single-player out in order for the game to release with a single-player [campaign] on it,” they continued. “Or they would have to severely work through the summer and into the later part of this year and try to fix that.”

That—and the potential for a disappointing product—is a cost for players, but there are costs for the developers who work on the game, too.

Because timelines must be kept, and not everything can be cut or moved post-launch, it falls on employees to make up the gap. As we’ve seen in countless similar reports about AAA video game development before, that sometimes means longer hours and heavier stress.

AAA’s burnout problem

More than two decades ago, the spouse of an EA employee famously wrote an open letter to bring attention to the long hours and high stress developers there were facing.

Since then, some things have improved. People at all levels within EA are more conscious of the problems that were highlighted, and there have been efforts to mitigate some of them, like more comp time and mental health resources. However, many of those old problems linger in some form.

I heard several first-hand accounts of people working on Glacier who had to take stress or mental or exhaustion health leave, ranging from a couple of weeks to several months.

“There’s like—I would hesitate to count—but a large number compared to other projects I’ve been on who have taken mental exhaustion leave here. Some as short as two weeks to a month, some as long as eight months and nine,” one staffer told me after saying they had taken some time themselves.

This was partly because of long hours that were required when working directly with studios in both the US and Europe—a symptom of the new, multi-studio structure.

“My day could start as early as 5: 00 [am],” one person said. The first half of the day involved meetings with a studio in one part of the world while the second included meetings with a studio in another region. “Then my evenings would be spent doing my work because I’d be tied up juggling things all across the board and across time zones.”

This sort of workload was not limited to a brief, planned period of focused work, the employees said. Long hours were particularly an issue for those working in or closely with Ridgeline, the studio initially tasked with making the game’s single-player campaign.

From the beginning, members of the Ridgeline team felt they were expected to deliver work at a similar level to that of established studios like DICE or Ripple Effect before they were even fully staffed.

“They’ve done it before,” one person who was involved with Ridgeline said of DICE. “They’re a well-oiled machine.” But Ridgeline was “starting from zero” and was “expected to produce the same stuff.”

Within just six months of the starting line, some developers at Ridgeline said they were already feeling burnt out.

In the wake of the EA Spouses event, EA developed resources for employees. But in at least some cases, they weren’t much help.

“I sought some, I guess, mental help inside of EA. From HR or within that organization of some sort, just to be able to express it—the difficulties that I experienced personally or from coworkers on the development team that had experienced this, you know, that had lived through that,” said another employee. “And the nature of that is there’s nobody to listen. They pretend to listen, but nobody ultimately listens. Very few changes are made on the back of it.”

This person went on to say that “many people” had sought similar help and felt the same way, as far back as the post-launch period for 2042 and as recently as a few months ago.

Finding solutions

There have been a lot of stories like this about the games industry over the years, and it can feel relentlessly grim to keep reading them—especially when they’re coming alongside frequent news of layoffs, including at EA. Problems are exposed, but solutions don’t get as much attention.

In that spirit, let’s wrap up by listening to what some in the industry have said about what doing things better could look like—with the admitted caveat that these proposals are still not always common practice in AAA development.

“Build more slowly”

When Swen Vincke—studio head for Larian Studios and game director for the runaway success Baldur’s Gate 3—accepted an award at the Game Developers Conference, he took his moment on stage to express frustration at publishers like EA.

“I’ve been fighting publishers my entire life, and I keep on seeing the same, same, same mistakes over and over and over,” he said. “It’s always the quarterly profits. The only thing that matters are the numbers.”

After the awards show, he took to X to clarify his statements, saying, “This message was for those who try to double their revenue year after year. You don’t have to do that. Build more slowly and make your aim improving the state of the art, not squeezing out the last drop.”

A man stands on stage giving a speech — Swen Vincke giving a speech at the 2024 Game Developers Choice Awards. Credit: Game Developers Conference

In planning projects like Glacier, publicly traded companies often pursue huge wins—and there’s even more pressure to do so if a competing company has already achieved big success with similar titles.

But going bigger isn’t always the answer, and many in the industry believe the “one big game” strategy is increasingly nonviable.

In this attention economy?

There may not be enough player time or attention to go around, given the numerous games-as-a-service titles that are as large in scope as Call of Duty games or Fortnite. Despite the recent success of new entrant Marvel Rivals, there have been more big AAA live service shooter flops than wins in recent years.

Just last week, a data-based report by prominent games marketing newsletter GameDiscoverCo came to a prescient realization. “Genres like Arena Shooter, Battle Royale, and Hero Shooter look amazing from a revenue perspective. But there’s only 29 games in all of Steam’s history that have grossed >$1m in those subgenres,” wrote GameDiscoverCo’s Simon Carless.

It gets worse. “Only Naraka Bladepoint, Overwatch 2 & Marvel Rivals have grossed >$25m and launched since 2020 in those subgenres,” Carless added. (It’s important to clarify that he is just talking Steam numbers here, though.) That’s a stark counterpoint to reports that Call of Duty has earned more than $30 billion in lifetime revenue.

Employees of game publishers and studios are deeply concerned about this. In a 2025 survey of professional game developers, “one of the biggest issues mentioned was market oversaturation, with many developers noting how tough it is to break through and build a sustainable player base.”

Despite those headwinds, publishers like EA are making big bets in well-established spaces rather than placing a variety of smaller bets in newer areas ripe for development. Some of the biggest recent multiplayer hits on Steam have come from smaller studios that used creative ideas, fresh genres, strong execution, and the luck (or foresight) of reaching the market at exactly the right time.

That might suggest that throwing huge teams and large budgets up against well-fortified competitors is an especially risky strategy—hence some of the anxiety from the EA developers I spoke with.

Working smarter, not harder

That anxiety has led to steadily growing unionization efforts across the industry. From QA workers at Bethesda to more wide-ranging unions at Blizzard and CD Projekt Red, there’s been more movement on this front in the past two or three years than there had been in decades beforehand.

Unionization isn’t a cure-all, and it comes with its own set of new challenges—but it does have the potential to shift some of the conversations toward more sustainable practices, so that’s another potential part of the solution.

Insomniac Games CEO Ted Price spoke authoritatively on sustainability and better work practices for the industry way back at 2021’s Develop:Brighton conference:

I think the default is to brute force the problem—in other words, to throw money or people at it, but that can actually cause more chaos and affect well-being, which goes against that balance. The harder and, in my opinion, more effective solution is to be more creative within constraints… In the stress of hectic production, we often feel we can’t take our foot off the gas pedal—but that’s often what it takes.

That means publishers and studios should plan for problems and work from accurate data about where the team is at, but it also means having a willingness to give their people more time, provided the capital is available to do so.

Giving people what they need to do their jobs sounds like a simple solution to a complex problem, but it was at the heart of every conversation I had about Glacier.

Most EA developers—including leaders who are beholden to lofty targets—want to make a great game. “At the end of the day, they’re all really good people and they work really hard and they really want to deliver a good product for their customer,” one former EA developer assured me as we ended our call.

As for making the necessary shifts toward sustainability in the industry, “It’s kind of in the best interest of making the best possible game for gamers,” explained another. “I hope to God that they still achieve what they need to achieve within the timelines that they have, for the sake of Battlefield as a game to actually meet the expectations of the gamers and for people to maintain their jobs.”

Samuel Axon is the editorial lead for tech and gaming coverage at Ars Technica. He covers AI, software development, gaming, entertainment, and mixed reality. He has been writing about gaming and technology for nearly two decades at Engadget, PC World, Mashable, Vice, Polygon, Wired, and others. He previously ran a marketing and PR agency in the gaming industry, led editorial for the TV network CBS, and worked on social media marketing strategy for Samsung Mobile at the creative agency SPCSHP. He also is an independent software and game developer for iOS, Windows, and other platforms, and he is a graduate of DePaul University, where he studied interactive media and software development.

What’s wrong with AAA games? The development of the next Battlefield has answers. Read More »

Astronomers may have found a third interstellar object

A11pl3Z, interstellar object, Space / Rejus Almole / July 2, 2025

There is a growing buzz in the astronomy community about a new object with a hyperbolic trajectory that is moving toward the inner Solar System.

Early on Wednesday, the European Space Agency confirmed that the object, tentatively known as A11pl3Z, did indeed have interstellar origins.

“Astronomers may have just discovered the third interstellar object passing through the Solar System!” the agency’s Operations account shared on Blue Sky. “ESA’s Planetary Defenders are observing the object, provisionally known as #A11pl3Z, right now using telescopes around the world.”

Only recently identified, astronomers have been scrambling to make new observations of the object, which is presently just inside the orbit of Jupiter and will eventually pass inside the orbit of Mars when making its closest approach to the Sun this October. Astronomers are also looking at older data to see if the object showed up in earlier sky surveys.

An engineer at the University of Arizona’s Catalina Sky Survey, David Rankin, said recent estimates of the object’s eccentricity are about 6. A purely circular orbit has an eccentricity value of 0, and anything above 1 is hyperbolic. Essentially, this is a very, very strong indication that A11pl3Z originated outside of the Solar System.

Astronomers may have found a third interstellar object Read More »

Pentagon may put SpaceX at the center of a sensor-to-shooter targeting network

milnet, Science, Space, space development agency, space force, spacex, starlink, starshield / Rejus Almole / July 2, 2025

Under this plan, SpaceX’s satellites would play a big role in the Space Force’s kill chain.

The Trump administration plans to cancel a fleet of orbiting data relay satellites managed by the Space Development Agency and replace it with a secretive network that, so far, relies primarily on SpaceX’s Starlink Internet constellation, according to budget documents.

The move prompted questions from lawmakers during a Senate hearing on the Space Force’s budget last week. While details of the Pentagon’s plan remain secret, the White House proposal would commit $277 million in funding to kick off a new program called “pLEO SATCOM” or “MILNET.”

The funding line for a proliferated low-Earth orbit satellite communications network hasn’t appeared in a Pentagon budget before, but plans for MILNET already exist in a different form. Meanwhile, the budget proposal for fiscal year 2026 would eliminate funding for a new tranche of data relay satellites from the Space Development Agency. The pLEO SATCOM or MILNET program would replace them, providing crucial support for the Trump administration’s proposed Golden Dome missile defense shield.

“We have to look at what are the other avenues to deliver potentially a commercial proliferated low-Earth orbit constellation,” Gen. Chance Saltzman, chief of space operations, told senators last week. “So, we are simply looking at alternatives as we look to the future as to what’s the best way to scale this up to the larger requirements for data transport.”

What will these satellites do?

For six years, the Space Development Agency’s core mission has been to provide the military with a more resilient, more capable network of missile tracking and data relay platforms in low-Earth orbit. Those would augment the Pentagon’s legacy fleet of large, billion-dollar missile warning satellites that are parked more than 20,000 miles away in geostationary orbit.

These satellites detect the heat plumes from missile launches—and also large explosions and wildfires—to provide an early warning of an attack. The US Space Force’s early warning satellites were critical in allowing interceptors to take out Iranian ballistic missiles launched toward Israel last month.

Experts say there are good reasons for the SDA’s efforts. One motivation was the realization over the last decade or so that a handful of expensive spacecraft make attractive targets for an anti-satellite attack. It’s harder for a potential military adversary to go after a fleet of hundreds of smaller satellites. And if they do take out a few of these lower-cost satellites, it’s easier to replace them with little impact on US military operations.

Missile-tracking satellites in low-Earth orbit, flying at altitudes of just a few hundred miles, are also closer to the objects they are designed to track, meaning their infrared sensors can detect and locate dimmer heat signatures from smaller projectiles, such as hypersonic missiles.

The military’s Space Development Agency is in the process of buying, building, and launching a network of hundreds of missile-tracking and communications satellites. Credit: Northrop Grumman

But tracking the missiles isn’t enough. The data must reach the ground in order to be useful. The SDA’s architecture includes a separate fleet of small communications satellites to relay data from the missile tracking network, and potentially surveillance spacecraft tracking other kinds of moving targets, to military forces on land, at sea, or in the air through a series of inter-satellite laser crosslinks.

The military refers to this data relay component as the transport layer. When it was established in the first Trump administration, the SDA set out to deploy tranches of tracking and data transport satellites. Each new tranche would come online every couple of years, allowing the Pentagon to tap into new technologies as fast as industry develops them.

The SDA launched 27 so-called “Tranche 0” satellites in 2023 to demonstrate the concept’s overall viability. The first batch of more than 150 operational SDA satellites, called Tranche 1, is due to begin launching later this year. The SDA plans to begin deploying more than 250 Tranche 2 satellites in 2027. Another set of satellites, Tranche 3, would have followed a couple of years later. Now, the Pentagon seeks to cancel the Tranche 3 transport layer, while retaining the Tranche 3 tracking layer under the umbrella of the Space Development Agency.

Out of the shadows

While SpaceX’s role isn’t mentioned explicitly in the Pentagon’s budget documents, the MILNET program is already on the books, and SpaceX is the lead contractor. It has been made public in recent months, after years of secrecy, although many details remain unclear. Managed in a partnership between the Space Force and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), MILNET is designed to use military-grade versions of Starlink Internet satellites to create a “hybrid mesh network” the military can rely on for a wide range of applications.

The military version of the Starlink platform is called Starshield. SpaceX has already launched nearly 200 Starshield satellites for the NRO, which uses them for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions.

At an industry conference last month, the Space Force commander in charge of operating the military’s communications satellites revealed new information about MILNET, according to a report by Breaking Defense. The network uses SpaceX-made user terminals with additional encryption to connect with Starshield satellites in orbit.

Col. Jeff Weisler, commander of a Space Force unit called Delta 8, said MILNET will comprise some 480 satellites operated by SpaceX but overseen by a military mission director “who communicates to the contracted workforce to execute operations at the timing and tempo of warfighting.”

The Space Force has separate contracts with SpaceX to use the commercial Starlink service. MILNET’s dedicated constellation of more secure Starshield satellites is separate from Starlink, which now has more 7,000 satellites in space.

“We are completely relooking at how we’re going to operate that constellation of capabilities for the joint force, which is going to be significant because we’ve never had a DoD hybrid mesh network at LEO,” Weisler said last month.

So, the Pentagon already relies on SpaceX’s communication services, not to mention the company’s position as the leading launch provider for Space Force and NRO satellites. With MILNET’s new role as a potential replacement for the Space Development Agency’s data relay network, SpaceX’s satellites would become a cog in combat operations.

Gen. Chance Saltzman, chief of Space Operations in the US Space Force, looks on before testifying before a House Defense Subcommittee on May 6, 2025. Credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

The data transport layer, whether it’s SDA’s architecture or a commercial solution like Starshield, will “underpin” the Pentagon’s planned Golden Dome missile defense system, Saltzman said.

But it’s not just missiles. Data relay satellites in low-Earth orbit will also have a part in the Space Force’s initiatives to develop space-based platforms to track moving targets on the ground and in the air. Eventually, all Space Force satellites could have the ability to plug into MILNET to send their data to the ground.

A spokesperson for the Department of the Air Force, which includes the Space Force, told Air & Space Forces Magazine that the pLEO, or MILNET, constellation “will provide global, integrated, and resilient capabilities across the combat power, global mission data transport, and satellite communications mission areas.”

That all adds up to a lot of bits and bytes, and the Space Force’s need for data backhaul is only going to increase, according to Col. Robert Davis, head of the Space Sensing Directorate at Space Systems Command.

He said the SDA’s satellites will use onboard edge processing to create two-dimensional missile track solutions. Eventually, the SDA’s satellites will be capable of 3D data fusion with enough fidelity to generate a full targeting solution that could be transmitted directly to a weapons system for it to take action without needing any additional data processing on the ground.

“I think the compute [capability] is there,” Davis said Tuesday at an event hosted by the Mitchell Institute, an aerospace-focused think tank in Washington, DC. “Now, it’s a comm[unication] problem and some other technical integration challenges. But how do I do that 3D fusion on orbit? If I do 3D fusion on orbit, what does that allow me to do? How do I get low-latency comms to the shooter or to a weapon itself that’s in flight? So you can imagine the possibilities there.”

The possibilities include exploiting automation, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to sense, target, and strike an enemy vehicle—a truck, tank, airplane, ship, or missile—nearly instantaneously.

“If I’m on the edge doing 3D fusion, I’m less dependent on the ground and I can get around the globe with my mesh network,” Davis said. “There’s inherent resilience in the overall architecture—not just the space architecture, but the overall architecture—if the ground segment or link segment comes under attack.”

Questioning the plan

Military officials haven’t disclosed the cost of MILNET, either in its current form or in the future architecture envisioned by the Trump administration. For context, SDA has awarded fixed-price contracts worth more than $5.6 billion for approximately 340 data relay satellites in Tranches 1 and 2.

That comes out to roughly $16 million per spacecraft, at least an order of magnitude more expensive than a Starlink satellite coming off of SpaceX’s assembly line. Starshield satellites, with their secure communications capability, are presumably somewhat more expensive than an off-the-shelf Starlink.

Some former defense officials and lawmakers are uncomfortable with putting commercially operated satellites in the “kill chain,” the term military officials use for the process of identifying threats, making a targeting decision, and taking military action.

It isn’t clear yet whether SpaceX will operate the MILNET satellites in this new paradigm, but the company has a longstanding preference for doing so. SpaceX built a handful of tech demo satellites for the Space Development Agency a few years ago, but didn’t compete for subsequent SDA contracts. One reason for this, sources told Ars, is that the SDA operates its satellite constellation from government-run control centers.

Instead, the SDA chose L3Harris, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Rocket Lab, Sierra Space, Terran Orbital, and York Space Systems to provide the next batches of missile tracking and data transport satellites. RTX, formerly known as Raytheon, withdrew from a contract after the company determined it couldn’t make money on the program.

The tracking satellites will carry different types of infrared sensors, some with wide fields of view to detect missile launches as they happen, and others with narrow-angle sensors to maintain custody of projectiles in flight. The data relay satellites will employ different frequencies and anti-jam waveforms to supply encrypted data to military forces on the ground.

This frame from a SpaceX video shows a stack of Starlink Internet satellites attached to the upper stage of a Falcon 9 rocket, moments after the launcher’s payload fairing is jettisoned. Credit: SpaceX

The Space Development Agency’s path hasn’t been free of problems. The companies the agency selected to build its spacecraft have faced delays, largely due to supply chain issues, and some government officials have worried the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aren’t ready to fully capitalize on the information streaming down from the SDA’s satellites.

The SDA hired SAIC, a government services firm, earlier this year with a $55 million deal to act as a program integrator with responsibility to bring together satellites from multiple contractors, keep them on schedule, and ensure they provide useful information once they’re in space.

SpaceX, on the other hand, is a vertically integrated company. It designs, builds, and launches its own Starlink and Starshield satellites. The only major components of SpaceX’s spy constellation for the NRO that the company doesn’t build in-house are the surveillance sensors, which come from Northrop Grumman.

Buying a service from SpaceX might save money and reduce the chances of further delays. But lawmakers argued there’s a risk in relying on a single company for something that could make or break real-time battlefield operations.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, raised concerns that the Space Force is canceling a program with “robust competition and open standards” and replacing it with a network that is “sole-sourced to SpaceX.”

“This is a massive and important contract,” Coons said. “Doesn’t handing this to SpaceX make us dependent on their proprietary technology and avoid the very positive benefits of competition and open architecture?”

Later in the hearing, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) chimed in with his own warning about the Space Force’s dependence on contractors. Hoeven’s state is home to one of the SDA’s satellite control centers.

“We depend on the Air Force, the Space Force, the Department of Defense, and the other services, and we can’t be dependent on private enterprise when it comes to fighting a war, right? Would you agree with that?” Hoeven asked Saltzman.

“Absolutely, we can’t be dependent on it,” Saltzman replied.

Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said military officials haven’t settled on a procurement strategy. He didn’t mention SpaceX by name.

As we go forward, MILNET, the term, should not be taken as just a system,” Meink said. “How we field that going forward into the future is something that’s still under consideration, and we will look at the acquisition of that.”

An Air Force spokesperson confirmed the requirements and architecture for MILNET are still in development, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. The spokesperson added that the department is “investigating” how to scale MILNET into a “multi-vendor satellite communication architecture that avoids vendor lock.”

This doesn’t sound all that different than the SDA’s existing technical approach for data relay, but it shifts more responsibility to commercial companies. While there’s still a lot we don’t know, contractors with existing mega-constellations would appear to have an advantage in winning big bucks under the Pentagon’s new plan.

There are other commercial low-Earth orbit constellations coming online, such as Amazon’s Project Kuiper broadband network, that could play a part in MILNET. However, if the Space Force is looking for a turnkey commercial solution, Starlink and Starshield are the only options available today, putting SpaceX in a strong position for a massive windfall.

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

Pentagon may put SpaceX at the center of a sensor-to-shooter targeting network Read More »

US critical infrastructure exposed as feds warn of possible attacks from Iran

cyberattack, Iran, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, islamic state, Security / Rejus Almole / July 2, 2025

Hackers working on behalf of the Iranian government are likely to target industrial control systems used at water treatment plants and other critical infrastructure to retaliate against recent military strikes by Israel and the US, federal government agencies are warning. One cybersecurity company says many US-based targets aren’t adequately protected against the threat.

“Based on the current geopolitical environment, Iranian-affiliated cyber actors may target US devices and networks for near-term cyber operations,” an advisory jointly published by the The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, FBI, Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center, and the National Security Agency stated. “Defense Industrial Base (DIB) companies, particularly those possessing holdings or relationships with Israeli research and defense firms, are at increased risk.”

Easy targets

Of particular interest to the would-be hackers are control systems that automate industrial processes inside water treatment plants, dams, and other critical infrastructure, particularly when those systems are manufactured by Israel-based companies. Between November 2023 and January 2024, near the onset of the conflict between Israel and Hamas, federal agencies said hackers affiliated with the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps actively targeted and compromised Israeli-made programmable-logic controllers and human-machine interfaces used in multiple sectors, Including US Water and Wastewater Systems Facilities. At least 75 devices, including at least 34 in US-based water facilities, were compromised.

Hackers in those operations targeted Unitronics Vision Series devices that automate processes inside water facilities. After gaining control of the devices, the hackers interfered with their ability to function normally. The actors also introduced changes that prevented the devices from being remotely accessed by administrators. The hacked devices were either protected by default passwords or no password at all, making them easy targets.

US critical infrastructure exposed as feds warn of possible attacks from Iran Read More »

Tuesday Telescope: A howling wolf in the night sky

daily telescope, Space, tuesday telescope / Rejus Almole / July 1, 2025

Welcome to the Tuesday Telescope. There is a little too much darkness in this world and not enough light—a little too much pseudoscience and not enough science. We’ll let other publications offer you a daily horoscope. At Ars Technica, we’ll take a different route, finding inspiration from very real images of a universe that is filled with stars and wonder.

In the 1800s, astronomers were mystified by the discovery of stars that displayed highly unusual emission lines. It was only after 1868, when scientists discovered the element helium, that astronomers were able to explain the broad emission bands due to the presence of helium in these stars.

Over time, these stars became known as Wolf-Rayet stars (Charles Wolf was a French astronomer, and helium was first detected by the French scientist Georges Rayet and others), and astronomers came to understand that they were the central stars within planetary nebulae, and continually ejecting gas at high velocity.

This gives Wolf-Rayet stars a distinctive appearance in the night sky. And this week, Chris McGrew has shared a photo of WR 134—a variable Wolf-Rayet star about 6,000 light-years away from Earth in the constellation of Cygnus—which he captured from a dark sky location in southwestern New Mexico.

“The stellar winds are blowing out the blue shell of ionized oxygen gas visible in the middle of the image,” McGrew said. “This is a deep sky object that has been imaged countless times, and I get why. Ever since I saw it for the first time, it’s been high on my list. For years I didn’t have the skies or the time, but I finally got the chance to go after it.”

Source: Chris McGrew

Do you want to submit a photo for the Daily Telescope? Reach out and say hello.

Tuesday Telescope: A howling wolf in the night sky Read More »

Supreme Court upholds Texas porn law that caused Pornhub to leave the state

Policy, porn, Supreme Court, texas / Rejus Almole / June 28, 2025

Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan said that in similar cases, the court applied strict scrutiny, “a highly rigorous but not fatal form of constitutional review, to laws regulating protected speech based on its content.”

“Texas’s law defines speech by content and tells people entitled to view that speech that they must incur a cost to do so,” Kagan wrote. “That is, under our First Amendment law, a direct (not incidental) regulation of speech based on its content—which demands strict scrutiny.”

The Texas law applies to websites in which more than one-third of the content “is sexual material harmful to minors.” Kagan described the law’s ID requirement as a deterrent to exercising one’s First Amendment rights.

“It is turning over information about yourself and your viewing habits—respecting speech many find repulsive—to a website operator, and then to… who knows? The operator might sell the information; the operator might be hacked or subpoenaed,” Kagan’s dissent said. The law requires website users to verify their ages by submitting “a ‘government-issued identification’ like a driver’s license or ‘transactional data’ associated with things like a job or mortgage,” Kagan wrote.

Limiting no more speech than necessary

Under strict scrutiny, the court must ask whether the law is “the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest,” Kagan wrote. A state facing that standard must show it has limited no more adult speech than is necessary to achieve its goal.

“Texas can of course take measures to prevent minors from viewing obscene-for-children speech. But if a scheme other than H. B. 1181 can just as well accomplish that objective and better protect adults’ First Amendment freedoms, then Texas should have to adopt it (or at least demonstrate some good reason not to),” Kagan wrote.

The majority decision said that applying strict scrutiny “would call into question all age-verification requirements, even longstanding in-person requirements.” It also said the previous rulings cited in the dissent “all involved laws that banned both minors and adults from accessing speech that was at most obscene only to minors. The Court has never before considered whether the more modest burden of an age-verification requirement triggers strict scrutiny.”

Supreme Court upholds Texas porn law that caused Pornhub to leave the state Read More »

Childhood and Education #11: The Art of Learning

Childhood / Rejus Almole / June 28, 2025

In honor of the latest (always deeply, deeply unpopular) attempts to destroy tracking and gifted and talented programs, and other attempts to get children to actually learn things, I thought it a good time to compile a number of related items.

Gifted programs and educational tracking are also super duper popular, it is remarkably absurd that our political process cannot prevent these programs from being destroyed.

As in things like this keep happening:

NY Post: Seattle Public Schools shuts down gifted and talented program for being oversaturated with white and asian students.

Once again, now, we face that threat in my home of New York City. The Democratic nominee for New York City Mayor is opposed to gifted and talented programs, and wants to destroy them. Yet few people seem to have much noticed, or decided to much care. Once people realize the danger it may well be too late.

To state the obvious, if you group children by ability in each subject rather than age, they learn better. Yes, there are logistical concerns, but the benefits are immense. Gifted programs are great but mostly seem like a patch to the fact that we are so obsessed with everyone in the room being in the same ‘grade’ at all times.

I agree with Tracing Woods that ‘teaches each according to their ability’ is the bare minimum before I will believe that your institution is making a real attempt to educate children.

Tracing Woods: A good example of the absurdity of “grade-level” thinking, from Texas: “If they’re reading on a second-grade level, but they’re in the third grade, they’re always going to receive that third-grade instruction.”

This makes no sense. Learning does not simply follow age.

Imagine having a “grade level” in chess. 9-year-olds in the third grade advancing to play against 1100 elo players. 100 more elo per year.

“Grade-level performance” has always been nonsensical. Learning does not work that way. Just figure out what people actually know and need

Danielle Fong: sooner or later, and probably sooner, all this will be thrown out in favor of an adaptive learning environment, the human teachers and other students can give individual attention when you’re stuck, and you can maxx out learning like a game. already happening privately. +2sd

Eowyn Jackman: I know I’m supposed to move on but I don’t think I can ever forgive the US public primary education complex for testing me and saying he “has a college reading level” at 9 years old but not administering an exam for me to be in the “gifted/advanced” classes at my PWI until two years later when I wrote my first book. So much time wasted.

Would’ve loved to have an office, secretarial job before 15 tbch

Wow I need therapy 😅

James Miller: Imagine math classes grouped by ability, not age. You’d have classes with 7- and 17-year-olds together.

Tracing Woods: And that’s a good thing (No, but seriously, at that point put them in different schools)

I bite the bullet. I do think it’s fine and actively good to have 7-year-olds and 17-year-olds in the same math classroom.

Of course, if you think that learning is bad, you won’t like this plan to have kids learn.

Owen Cyclops: this conception of early childhood education poses a generally unasked question to our present educational paradigm, which is: what could be the potential downside of learning things too quickly? from my perspective, this is basically never asked. its a total 100% blind spot.

[this is part of a long thread complaining about how awful it is if kids were to learn things too quickly, before they are supposed to, because ‘stages of development’]

Thomas: The main downside brought up re: “learning too quickly” is being ahead of peers. There’s parents’ posts online sharing experiences of being told not to read to their kid at home, or not teach them new math concepts.

Divia: Fwiw I hear people talk about the downside of learning too fast constantly! And have since I was a kid. Mostly whenever anyone wanted academics to be faster than it was convenient for someone they would talk about the downsides IME.

The ‘learning too much too soon is bad’ paradigm seems categorically insane. Here’s the concrete example Owen gives:

Owen: i’m in the forest (this actually happened). a kid asks: why is this log making a sound when i hit it with a stick? and this adult says, “well, the molecules in the log vibrate when you hit it, because you hitting it transfers energy into the log. you’re hearing the vibrations.”

the kid is NOT at that developmental stage (in my opinion). even if they can understand this (may be impossible, they might just be repeating what you’re saying), that type of understanding comes later. that is not the developmental stage a five year old is at. not their world.

I mean, maybe they have enough physics that this is the right explanation. Maybe they don’t, and it would be modestly better to simplify it a bit. But then they can ask.

This seems fine, and opening the doors to ‘what’s a molecule?’ or other similar questions seems great. They ask, you tell them. The actual objection here is ‘you need to explain [A] then [B] then [C]’ and I think that is usually vastly overstated but okay, sure, that doesn’t tell you what age you should tell people [C].

At some point, if you’re far enough ahead or behind the class, the class is worthless to you. A remarkable number of students hit this threshold, or would hit it if they weren’t being sabotaged to not hit it.

There is a point of diminishing returns for sufficiently young students, where you start to outstrip your ability to efficiently process the information and learn the material at your current age, but many students are very far away from that limit. As of course they are, if they’re forced to proceed at the speed of the typical subpar ship, which shall we say is not close to even that ship’s maximum speed.

Tracing Woodgrains: The most refreshing and novel thing to me about the Alpha/GT School model is the four hours of extracurricular workshops.

In sixth grade, I did online school. Completed the entire seventh and eighth grade curriculum in two hours a day that year. And then with all my extra time, I played video games.

Much healthier to have an institution that recognizes what can really be done with all of that time.

Patrick McKenzie: While this makes me feel *extremelyold, my recollection of 4th-8th grade was a solid 1.5-2 years of instruction and 3 years of being physically present while classroom management was conducted.

If you object to being physically present for classroom management you will become one of the focuses of classroom management, so I spent a lot of time counting ceiling tiles, drawing cubes, and writing out the solutions for all possible games of 24.

Ryan Moulton: I think you can get 80% of the benefit of ~whatever gifted/tracking/etc. program in gradeschool by having any mechanism at all to let self directed kids be self directed.

“You already know this, so just go do Khan Academy for an hour during math time” is an essentially zero cost intervention.

“If you finish your grammar/spelling/vocab sheet early, you are allowed to read your library book” is too.

Teachers don’t reliably do this, because letting kids do different things sometimes creates conflict in class. If they did reliably do this then most of the debate about how to organize gradeschool among kids of different academic ability levels goes away.

When you stop holding kids back, you instead get things like in this thread: The 11 year old boy in Organic Chemistry that goes on to be a researcher, the girl graduating college at that same age. Which is proof by counterexample that all this ‘not ready’ nonsense is indeed nonsense.

An important aspect of denying the reality of different learning abilities is that it is absurdly cruel to those you are gaslighting – they are told that they are just as smart and good at learning as everyone else, so what are they to think about their failure to get those same results?

Anonymous: We have this myth of a ‘fast learner’ but research suggests people actually learn at similar rates. A ‘fast learner’ is really just someone who’s been exposed to this problem/material before, maybe multiple times. People seeing something for the first time will struggle.

Eigenrobot: there’s something cruel about asserting that people dont differ in ability like. its cruel to directly rub it in someones face, but its also cruel to proactively lie to people when, be real, they either know youre lying or will end up damaged by believing you.

Some may say “maybe but acknowledging difference in ability is bad because the moral value is a function of their ability and we don’t want a norm of believing that some people are worthless” and to them i say find god.

What happened with No Child Left Behind? One of its architects explains that they knew you can’t actually leave no child behind. That’s impossible. You obviously have to leave some children behind. They were declaring a goal of none with the plan to modifying it to some. Then they met Congress, which has become unable to do reasonable things, so instead of the usual ‘quietly change the rules and declare victory’ the insane requirements stayed on the books and everything went to hell trying to work around them. Whoops.

The good news is that now everyone knows that Congress is unable to fix broken things, so we can correctly plan that laws will stay on the books indefinitely exactly as written no matter how broken they get, and write them accordingly. I endorse both the fully serious and sarcastic versions of that sentence.

Reading is a godsend. The earlier your kids can read, the better, on so many levels. One that is vastly underestimated is this makes parenting vastly easier, you’ve unlocked unlimited cheap, healthy and non-disruptive education and entertainment. It unlocks all the things.

Erik Hoel here says that with a year of dedicated effort, he got his 3-year-old to read at 9-year-old levels, and offers a guide: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. The core is simple, phonics plus spaced repetition plus books as the center of entertainment. In my experience, you need to push to the critical point where they can largely teach themselves via more reading plus a little adult help (and AI voice help?) and then you are home free.

Eric seems to have focused entirely on reading first and ignored other subjects, including math, while he was doing that. This actually seems exactly right to me, if you can (as he did) get your child to buy in, because reading unlocks all the things and builds on itself. Get to that critical point first, worry about everything else (that isn’t a short term practical need) later.

A woman virtuously notices she is confused about why mirrors work the way they do and asks, essentially, ‘mirrors how do they even work,’ as opposed to most other people who have no idea how mirrors work the way they do. That’s great, thumbs up.

Then this gets quoted with ‘this is why we need the department of education,’ but no, actually we had a department of education and not only does no one know no one asks the question. This is why you don’t need the department of education. You need an LLM, and you need to teach people to be curious and give them actual education.

We all know it works. So why don’t schools use it?

Eric Hoel: “The power of spaced repetition has been known for 150 years. It replicates and has large effects. So why is spaced repetition (or even its more implementable form of spiral learning) not used all the time in classrooms? No one knows!”

Spaced repetition works so well that it ends up causing me to memorize a lot of spoilers that I actively don’t want to remember. As in, I’ll keep trying not to think of the pink elephant, to remind myself to forget, at increasingly long intervals, which cause me to remember, and whoops. Damn it. One could use this power for good.

Paper suggests new way to teach economics nonlinearly, supposedly so it will line up with how people learn. I think this is essentially ‘include spaced repetition in your lecture plan.’ Which is one of those obviously good ideas that no one implements.

bosco: 4yo is probably ready to memorize her address, and at least one phone number, in case of emergencies, but she is completely uninterested when I try to teach her the spiel any tips?

Niels Hoven: If you’re having trouble getting your kid to remember your phone number, make it the password to your iPad’s lock screen and watch how quickly they memorize it

Kelsey Piper: We’ve been encouraging the eight year old to pick up some history by saying to one another in front of her “oh, the switch passcode is the year of the Marco Polo bridge incident” or “yeah I changed it to the year Constantinople was sacked in the Fourth Crusade.”

It seems like something you could study and measure, but it seems no one has?

Pamela Hobart: why do so few people have any real insight into just how *verydisruptive interruptions are?

today’s painful reminder via @PepsMccrea

I’m not even sure ‘learning time lost’ is the right measure, as time is not created equal, and there are different types of learning, some of which are far more disruptable than others, so this can shift learning composition, likely in ways we do not want.

The problem, identified.

Ben Hsieh: Parents will likely say, “Drills and rote memorization? That pales in comparison to my strategy, instilling a lifelong love of learning,” and then not instill a lifelong love of learning.

Drills and rote memorization are not ideal, but they work. If you can do better, great, but way too many parents and schools think they can do better and are wrong.

Autumn: if as a society we value math-based disciplines so much, can i ask why we teach calculus in a way thats optimized to weed out students who wont comply with hazing. why do we design them to teach horrible habits for later studies in math?

Sarah Constantin: this is a pet peeve of mine.

there are people who want to make classes easier & less advanced (e.g. not teaching calculus in high school) and there are people who want to scout for exceptional talent but there’s very few people pushing for actually teaching the material well!

“let’s try to make sure everyone in this calculus class learns calculus” is a very lonely mission, even though IMO it’s common sense.

In general we have the problem of teaching math in ways that make many students hate math. I don’t think this is especially a problem in calculus, at least the way I learned it (in a high school class)? Autumn suggests the college method is somehow worse.

Obviously ‘won’t comply with hazing’ is a terrible reason to drive someone away, calculus is vital to understanding the world (for intuition and general understanding, not for actually Doing Calculus, I actively do a happy dance every time I get do Do Calculus which is very rare) and at minimum we want everyone who takes such a class to learn calculus.

However, in terms of the math-based disciplines, as long as we are gating on actual ability I think weeding people out here is in principle fine? In the sense that if you design a good filter, you’re doing a favor for those you filter out, except that now they don’t get to understand calculus.

I strongly agree with this. It is very obvious interacting with kids that they yearn for meaningful work in the ordinary sense of work

Ozy Brennan: my pet parenting theories:

Children yearn for meaningful work; child labor is bad but we’ve overcorrected.

Whenever possible, children should be brought along to adult activities instead of adults going to child activities.

tips for bringing kids along to adult activities: bring a Kindle or (in extreme situations) a laptop. explain behavioral norms ahead of time. allow independence. have friends who like kids. prioritize activities you and kids both like (museums, movies, parks, whatever).

Putting children to pointless industrial work is not a good idea. But if they can understand why what they are doing is useful, yeah, they really dig it, and it seems obviously great for them and also great for you.

For trips, you have to calibrate to your particular kids, but yes, absolutely, especially once the kids cross the ‘can be entertained by a book’ threshold.

Patrick Collison: In which domains are elite practitioners celebrating the kids being better than ever before? Would love to read about a few instances. (Not just where there’s one particular genius, such as Ashwin Sah’s recent success, but where “the kids” as some kind of aggregate appear to be improving.)

Michael Nielsen: It was perhaps in my third week of linear algebra (MP 174!) that the professor told me that incoming students were noticeably worse at math than they used to be There are a very large number of potential confounders here. The point, of course: that was ~30 years ago. “Back when I was a boy…” nostalgia seems to be time-invariant.

I’ll state my prejudice, backed by a wide smattering of anecdotes, and not much else: the top 0.1% today are vastly more competent across a much wider range of subjects than 20 years ago. And that same statement was also true 20 years ago. And 40 years ago. And 60 years ago…

(I don’t mean that a given individual is more competent in every domain. But the ceiling per-domain will be higher, and the range of domains much broader.)

For comparison, the 1939 Putnam, where (IIRC) Feynman was Putnam Fellow. And the 2023 Putnam. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather take the first.

Charles: I think the answer to this is “all of them” or close to it. The very best teenagers at almost every endeavor are better than they’ve ever been.

It’s below the 90th percentile (maybe even higher) where it’s a different story.

Is are children learning? In high school math, the answer seems to be no. The 50th percentile student gets a 230 in 8th grade on this test, and then a 234 in 12th (a second source said 232→237, but that’s the same thing), and we know from the higher percentiles that the test is not being saturated here. Note that reading scores only increased 5 points, from 224→229.

The obvious question is, if students are learning this little, why are we wasting their childhoods in school at all? It seems like there is no point. One would think that at least this much improvement would happen via osmosis and practical learning.

Paul Graham: 13 yo asked me to teach him how to write essays. I asked if he wanted to learn how to write real essays, or the kind you have to write in school. He said the school kind, because he’s writing one for school.

I don’t mind if my kids have to learn math that’s not real math or writing that’s not real writing or science that’s just words, but at the same time as I teach them these things I always try to give them an idea of how they’re fake, and what the real version is like.

At least 13 yo won’t spend years puzzling over how the “conclusion” is supposed to be different from the “introduction” even though they’re saying the same things. I told him upfront it’s just an artifact of this fake format.

RashLabs: How does one write a good essay for school?

Paul Graham: You just write a good essay. But your teachers may freak out if you do.

Patrick McKenzie: Good essays disrupt the production function of teachers w/r/t essay grading/correction. Some teachers give some students a bit of leeway to take more of their cycles than generally required, some of the time.

I once wrote an essay about how the hamburger essay format (buns on top and bottom, three layers in middle) was artificial, limiting, and unengaging, and got a talking to which was… at least minimally helpful.

There are some skills, especially more basic things like spelling and grammar, where the two types of good line up. Being able to write a good School Essay does give you a leg up on a Real Essay, if you don’t get trapped in the arbitrary parts of the format. But past a certain point, they are very different skills.

Paul is nailing the key point. Which is, if a child must write a School Essay, it is vital not to gaslight them about what they are writing, or pretend it has much to do with a Real Essay. Never pretend the fake thing is not fake.

Discussion about this post

Childhood and Education #11: The Art of Learning Read More »

RFK Jr.’s CDC panel ditches some flu shots based on anti-vaccine junk data

ACIP, anti-vaccine, CDC, health / Rejus Almole / June 27, 2025

Flu shots with thimerosal abandoned, despite decades of data showing they’re safe.

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, during the first meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee On Immunization Practices on June 25, 2025. Credit: Getty | Bloomberg

The vaccine panel hand-selected by health secretary and anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to drop federal recommendations for seasonal flu shots that contain the ethyl-mercury containing preservative thimerosal. The panel did so after hearing a misleading and cherry-picked presentation from an anti-vaccine activist.

There is extensive data from the last quarter century proving that the antiseptic preservative is safe, with no harms identified beyond slight soreness at the injection site, but none of that data was presented during today’s meeting.

The significance of the vote is unclear for now. The vast majority of seasonal influenza vaccines currently used in the US—about 96 percent of flu shots in 2024–2025—do not contain thimerosal. The preservative is only included in multi-dose vials of seasonal flu vaccines, where it prevents the growth of bacteria and fungi potentially introduced as doses are withdrawn.

However, thimerosal is more common elsewhere in the world for various multi-dose vaccine vials, which are cheaper than the single-dose vials more commonly used in the US. If other countries follow the US’s lead and abandon thimerosal, it could increase the cost of vaccines in other countries and, in turn, lead to fewer vaccinations.

Broken process

However, it remains unclear what impact today’s vote will have—both in the US and abroad. Normally, before voting on any significant changes to vaccine recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the committee that met today—the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)— would go through an exhaustive process. That includes thoroughly reviewing and discussing the extensive safety and efficacy data of the vaccines, the balance of their benefits and harms, equity considerations, and the feasibility and resource implications of their removal.

But, instead, the committee heard a single presentation given by anti-vaccine activist, Lyn Redwood, who was once the president of the anti-vaccine organization founded by Kennedy, Children’s Health Defense.

Thimerosal has long been a target of anti-vaccine activists like Redwood, who hold fast to the false and thoroughly debunked claim that vaccines—particularly thimerosal-containing vaccines—cause autism and neurological disorders. Her presentation today was a smorgasbord of anti-vaccine talking points against thimerosal, drawing on old and fringe studies she claimed prove that thimerosal is an ineffective preservative, kills cells in petri dishes, and can be found in the brains of baby monkeys after it has been injected into them. The presentation did not appear to have gone through any vetting by the CDC, and an earlier version contained a reference to a study that does not exist.

Yesterday, CBS News reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is hiring Redwood to oversee vaccine safety. In response, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) called Redwood an “extremist,” and urged the White House to immediately reverse the decision. “We cannot allow a few truly deranged individuals to distort the plain truth and facts around vaccines so badly,” Murray said in a statement.

CDC scientists censored

Prior to the meeting, CDC scientists posted a background briefing document on thimerosal. It contained summaries of around two dozen studies that all support the safety of thimerosal and/or find no association with autism or neurological disorders. It also explained how in 1999, health experts and agencies made plans to remove thimerosal from childhood vaccines out of an abundance of caution for concern that it was adding to cumulative exposures that could hypothetically become toxic—at high doses, thimerosal can be dangerous. By 2001, it was removed from every childhood vaccine in the US and remains so to this day. But, since then, studies have found thimerosal to be perfectly safe in vaccines. All the studies listed by the CDC in support of thimerosal were published after 2001.

The document also contained a list of nearly two dozen studies claiming to find a link to autism, but where described by the CDC as having “significant methodological limitations.” The Institute of Medicine also called them “uninterpretable, and therefore, noncontributory with respect to causality.” Every single one of the studies was authored by the anti-vaccine father and son duo Mark and David Geier.

In March, it came to light that Kennedy had hired David Geier to the US health department to continue trying to prove a link between autism and vaccines. He is now working on the issue.

The CDC’s thimerosal document was removed from the ACIP’s meeting documents prior to the meeting. Robert Malone, one of the new ACIP members who holds anti-vaccine views, said during the meeting that it was taken down because it “was not authorized by the Office of the Secretary [Kennedy].” You can read it here.

Lone voice

In the meeting today, Kennedy’s hand-selected ACIP members did not ask Redwood any questions about the data or arguments she made against thimerosal. Nearly all of them readily accepted that thimerosal should be removed entirely. The only person to push back was Cody Meissner, a pediatric professor at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine who has served on ACIP in the past—arguably the most qualified and reasonable member of the new lineup.

“I’m not quite sure how to respond to this presentation,” he said after Redwood finished her slides. “This is an old issue that has been addressed in the past. … I guess one of the most important [things] to remember is that thimerosal is metabolized into ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. It’s not metabolized into methylmercury, which is in fish and shellfish. Ethylmercury is excreted much more quickly from the body. It is not associated with the high neurotoxicity that methylmercury is,” he explained.

Meissner scoffed at the committee even spending time on it. “So, of all the issues that I think we, ACIP, needs to focus on, this is not a big issue. … no study has ever indicated any harm from thimerosal. It’s been used in vaccines … since before World War II.

But he did express concern that it could be removed from the vaccine used globally.

“The recommendations the ACIP makes are followed among many countries around the world,” he said. “And removing thimerosal from all vaccines that are used in other countries, for example, is going to reduce access to these vaccines.”

Anti-vaccine agenda

In the end, the seven-member panel voted in favor of recommending only those seasonal flu vaccines that did not contain thimerosal. There were three separate votes for this, making this recommendation for children, pregnant women, and all adults each, but all with the same outcome: five ‘yes’ votes, one ‘no’ vote (Meissner), and one abstention from anti-vaccine activist and nurse Vicky Pebsworth. After the vote, Pebsworth clarified that she did not support the use of thimerosal in vaccines, but had a quibble with how the voting questions were written.

Prior to the vote, ACIP Chair Martin Kulldorff gave a brief presentation on the MMRV vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella/chickenpox). He previewed a proposed recommendation to vote on in a future meeting that would remove the CDC’s recommendation for that vaccine as well.

Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes.

RFK Jr.’s CDC panel ditches some flu shots based on anti-vaccine junk data Read More »

VMware perpetual license holder receives audit letter from Broadcom

Biz & IT, Broadcom, vmware / Rejus Almole / June 27, 2025

The letter, signed by Aiden Fitzgerald, director of global sales operations at Broadcom, claims that Broadcom will use its time “as efficiently and productively as possible to minimize disruption.”

Still, the security worker that Ars spoke with is concerned about the implications of the audit and said they “expect a big financial impact” for their employer. They added:

Because we are focusing on saving costs and are on a pretty tight financial budget, this will likely have impact on the salary negotiations or even layoffs of employees. Currently, we have some very stressed IT managers [and] legal department [employees] …

The employee noted that they are unsure if their employer exceeded its license limits. If the firm did, it could face “big” financial repercussions, the worker noted.

Users deny wrongdoing

As Broadcom works to ensure that people aren’t using VMware outside its terms, some suggest that the semiconductor giant is wasting some time by investigating organizations that aren’t violating agreements.

After Broadcom started sending cease-and-desist letters, at least one firm claimed that it got a letter from Broadcom despite no longer using VMware at all.

Additionally, various companies claimed that they received a cease-and-desist from Broadcom despite not implementing any updates after their VMware support contract expired.

The employee at the Dutch firm that received an audit notice this month claimed that the only update that their employer has issued to the VMware offerings it uses since support ended was a “critical security patch.”

That employee also claimed to Ars that their company didn’t receive a cease-and-desist letter from Broadcom before being informed of an audit.

Broadcom didn’t respond to Ars’ request for comment ahead of publication, so we’re unable to confirm if the company is sending audit letters without sending cease-and-desist letters first. Ars also reached out to Connor Consulting but didn’t hear back.

“When we saw the news that they were going to send cease-and-desist letters and audits, our management thought it was a bluff and that they would never do that,” the anonymous security worker said.

Broadcom’s litigious techniques to ensure VMware agreements are followed have soured its image among some current and former customers. Broadcom’s $69 billion VMware acquisition has proven lucrative, but as Broadcom approaches two years of VMware ownership, there are still calls for regulation of its practices, which some customers and partners believe are “legally and ethically flawed.”

VMware perpetual license holder receives audit letter from Broadcom Read More »

During a town hall Wednesday, NASA officials on stage looked like hostages

Donald Trump, janet petro, NASA, nasa budget, Science, Space, space policy, space science / Rejus Almole / June 26, 2025

A Trump appointee suggests NASA may not have a new administrator until next year.

NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens, acting administrator Janet Petro, chief of staff Brian Hughes, associate administrator Vanessa Wyche, and deputy associate administrator Casey Swails held a town hall with NASA employees Wednesday. Credit: NASA

The four people at the helm of America’s space agency held a town hall meeting with employees Wednesday, fielding questions about downsizing, layoffs, and proposed budget cuts that threaten to undermine NASA’s mission and prestige.

Janet Petro, NASA’s acting administrator, addressed questions from an auditorium at NASA Headquarters in Washington. She was joined by Brian Hughes, the agency’s chief of staff, a political appointee who was formerly a Florida-based consultant active in city politics and in Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Two other senior career managers, Vanessa Wyche and Casey Swails, were also on the stage.

They tried to put a positive spin on the situation at NASA. Petro, Wyche, and Swails are civil servants, not Trump loyalists. None of them looked like they wanted to be there. The town hall was not publicized outside of NASA ahead of time, but live video of the event was available—unadvertised—on an obscure NASA streaming website. The video has since been removed.

8 percent down

NASA’s employees are feeling the pain after the White House proposed a budget cut of nearly 25 percent in fiscal year 2026, which begins October 1. The budget request would slash NASA’s topline budget by nearly 25 percent, from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion. Adjusted for inflation, this would be the smallest NASA budget since 1961, when the first American launched into space.

“The NASA brand is really strong still, and we have a lot of exciting missions ahead of us,” Petro said. “So, I know it’s a hard time that we’re going to be navigating, but again, you have my commitment that I’m here and I will share all of the information that I have when I get it.”

It’s true that NASA employees, along with industry officials and scientists who regularly work with the agency, are navigating through what would most generously be described as a period of great uncertainty. The perception among NASA’s workforce is far darker. “NASA is f—ed,” one current leader in the agency told Ars a few weeks ago, soon after President Trump rescinded his nomination of billionaire businessman and commercial astronaut Jared Isaacman to be the agency’s next administrator.

Janet Petro, NASA’s acting administrator, is seen in 2020 at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Credit: NASA/Kim Shiflett

Before the White House released its detailed budget proposal in May, NASA and other federal agencies were already scrambling to respond to the Trump administration’s directives to shrink the size of the government. While NASA escaped the mass layoffs of probationary employees that affected other departments, the space agency offered buyouts and incentives for civil servants to retire early or voluntarily leave their posts.

About 900 NASA employees signed up for the first round of the government’s “deferred resignation” program. Casey Swails, NASA’s deputy associate administrator, said Wednesday that number is now up to 1,500 after NASA announced another chance for employees to take the government’s deferred resignation offer. This represents about 8 percent of NASA’s workforce, and the window for employees to apply runs until July 25.

One takeaway from Wednesday’s town hall is that at least some NASA leaders want to motivate more employees to resign voluntarily. Hughes said a “major reason” for luring workers to leave the agency is to avoid “being in a spot where we have to do the involuntary options.”

Rumors of these more significant layoffs, or reductions in force, have hung over NASA for several months. If that happens, workers may not get the incentives the government is offering today to those who leave the agency on their own. Swails said NASA isn’t currently planning any such layoff, although she left the door open for the situation to change: “We’re doing everything we can to avoid going down that path.”

Ultimately, it will depend on how many employees NASA can get to resign on their own. If it’s not enough, layoffs may still be an option.

Many questions, few answers

Nearly all of the questions employees addressed to NASA leadership Wednesday were submitted anonymously, and in writing: When might Trump nominate someone for NASA administrator to take Isaacman’s place? Will any of NASA’s 10 field centers be closed? What is NASA going to do about Trump’s budget proposal, particularly its impact on science missions?

Their responses to these questions, in order: Probably not any time soon, maybe, and nothing.

The Trump administration selected Petro, an engineer and former Army helicopter pilot, to become acting head of NASA on Inauguration Day in January. Bill Nelson, who served as a Florida senator until 2019, resigned the NASA administrator job when former President Biden left the White House.

Petro was previously director of NASA’s Kennedy Space Center since 2021, and before that, she was deputy director of the Florida spaceport for 14 years. She leapfrogged NASA’s top civil servant, associate administrator Jim Free, to become acting administrator in January. Free retired from the agency in February. Before the presidential election last year, Free advocated for the next administration to stay the course with NASA’s Artemis program.

But that’s not what the Trump administration wants to do. The White House seeks to cancel the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft, both core elements of the Artemis program to return astronauts to the Moon after two more flights. Under the new plan, NASA would procure commercial transportation to ferry crews to the Moon and Mars in a similar way to how the agency buys rides for its astronauts to the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit.

NASA’s Curiosity rover captured images to create this selfie mosaic on the surface of Mars in 2015. If implemented as written, the Trump budget proposal would mark the first time in 30 years that NASA does not have a Mars lander in development. The agency would instead turn to commercial companies to demonstrate they can deliver payloads, and eventually humans, to the red planet.

The Trump administration’s statements on space policy have emphasized the longer-term goal of human missions to Mars. The White House’s plans for what NASA will do at the Moon after the Artemis program’s first landing are still undefined.

Petro has kept a low profile since becoming NASA’s temporary chief executive five months ago. If Trump moved forward with Isaacman’s nomination, he would likely be NASA administrator today. The Senate was a few days away from confirming Isaacman when Trump pulled his nomination, apparently for political reasons. The White House withdrew the nomination the day after Elon Musk, who backed Isaacman to take the top job at NASA, left the Trump administration.

Who’s running NASA?

Now, Petro could serve out the year as NASA’s acting administrator. Petro is well-regarded at Kennedy Space Center, where she was a fixture in the center’s headquarters building for nearly 20 years. But she lacks a political constituency in the Trump administration and isn’t empowered to make major policy decisions. The budget cuts proposed for NASA came from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, not from within the agency itself.

President Trump has the reins on the process to select the next NASA administrator. Trump named Isaacman for the office in December, more than a month before his inauguration, and the earliest any incoming president has nominated a NASA administrator. Musk had close ties to Trump then, and a human mission to Mars got a mention in Trump’s inauguration speech.

But space issues seem to have fallen far down Trump’s list of priorities. Hughes, who got his job at NASA in part due to his political connections, suggested it might be a while before Trump gets around to selecting another NASA administrator nominee.

“I think the best guess would tell you that it’s hard to imagine it happening before the next six months, and could perhaps go longer than that into the eight- or nine-month range, but that’s purely speculation,” Hughes said, foreseeing impediments such as the large number of other pending nominations for posts across the federal government and high-priority negotiations with Congress over the federal budget.

Congress is also expected to go on recess in August, so the earliest a NASA nominee might get a confirmation hearing is this fall. Then, the Senate must vote to confirm the nominee before they can take office.

The timeline of Isaacman’s nomination for NASA administrator is instructive. Trump nominated Isaacman in December, and his confirmation hearing was in April. He was on the cusp of a confirmation vote in early June when Trump withdrew his nomination May 31.

As NASA awaits a leader with political backing, Petro said the agency is undergoing an overhaul to make it “leaner and more agile.” This is likely to result in office closures, and Hughes indicated NASA might end up shuttering entire field centers.

“To the specific question, will they be closed or consolidated? I don’t think we’re there yet to answer that question, but it is actively a part of the conversation we’re having as we go step-by-step through this,” Hughes said.

What can $4 billion buy you?

While Trump’s budget proposal includes robust funding for human space exploration, it’s a different story for most of the rest of NASA. The agency’s science budget would be cut in half to approximately $3.9 billion. NASA’s technology development division would also be reduced by 50 percent.

If the White House gets its way, NASA would scale back research on the International Space Station and cancel numerous robotic missions in development or already in space. The agency would terminate missions currently exploring Jupiter, on the way to study an asteroid, and approaching interstellar space. It would shut down the largest X-ray space telescope ever built and the only one in its class likely to be operating for the next 10 years.

“There’s a lot of science that can still be done with $4 billion,” Petro said. “How we do science, and how we do partnerships, may change in the future to sort of multiply what we’re doing.”

These partnerships might include asking academic institutions or wealthy benefactors to pitch in money to fund science projects at NASA. The agency might also invite commercial companies to play bigger roles in NASA robotic missions, which are typically owned by the government.

This view of Jupiter’s turbulent atmosphere from NASA’s Juno spacecraft includes several of the planet’s southern jet streams. Juno is one of the missions currently in space that NASA would shut down under Trump’s budget request. Credit: NASA

One employee asked what NASA could do to secure more funding in the president’s budget request. But that ship has sailed. The options now available to NASA’s leadership are to support the budget proposal, stay silent, or leave. NASA is an executive agency and part of the Trump administration, and the White House’s budget request is NASA’s, too.

“It’s not our job to advocate, but let’s try to look at this in a positive way,” Petro said. “We’ve still got a lot of money. Let’s see how much mission we can do.”

Ultimately, it’s up to Congress to appropriate funding for NASA and other parts of the government. Lawmakers haven’t signaled where they might land on NASA’s budget, but Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who is influential on space-related matters, released the text of a proposed bill a few weeks ago that would restore funding for the International Space Station and forego cancellation of the Space Launch System rocket, among other things. But Cruz did not have much to say about adding more money for NASA’s science programs.

NASA’s senior leaders did acknowledge Wednesday that the pain of the agency’s downsizing will extend far outside of the agency’s walls.

“Eighty-five percent of our budget goes out the door to contractors,” Petro said. “So, with a reduced budget, absolutely, our contractors will also be impacted. In fact, they’re probably the bigger driver that will be impacted.”

It’s clearly a turbulent time for America’s space agency, and NASA employees have another month to decide if they want to be part of it.

“I know there’s a lot to consider,” Swails said. “There’s a lot that people are thinking about. I would encourage you to talk it out. Tap into your support systems. Talk to your spouse, your partner, your friend, your financial advisor, whomever you consider those trusted advisors for you.”

This sounds like hollow advice, but it seems like it’s all NASA’s workers can do. The Trump administration isn’t waiting for Congress to finalize the budget for 2026. The downsizing is here.

During a town hall Wednesday, NASA officials on stage looked like hostages Read More »

Author name: Rejus Almole