Amazon confirmed today in an email to Prime members that it will begin showing ads alongside its streaming Prime Video content starting January 29, 2024. The price will remain the same, but subscribers who don’t wish to see any ads will have to pay an additional $2.99 per month on top of their monthly or yearly Amazon Prime subscription. The change was first reported back in September.
“Starting January 29, Prime Video movies and TV shows will include limited advertisements,” Amazon wrote in an email sent to Amazon Prime subscribers. “This will allow us to continue investing in compelling content and keep increasing that investment over a long period of time. We aim to have meaningfully fewer ads than linear TV and other streaming TV providers. No action is required from you, and there is no change to the current price of your Prime membership.”
Subscribers who want to avoid ads can sign up for the extra monthly fee at the Prime Video website.
Prime Video isn’t the only streaming platform looking to increase revenues via ad-supported tiers and price hikes in a challenging economic environment: both Disney+ and Netflix, among others, have hiked their prices in recent months. HBO Max, Peacock, and Paramount+ all introduced lower-priced ad-supported options, and Netflix launched an ad-supported tier last year for $6.99 per month.
Netflix did recently grant subscribers an ad-free episode for every three episodes watched, as well as downloadable content. However, this was apparently designed to help advertisers “[tap] into the viewing behavior of watching multiple episodes in a row,” per the November Netflix announcement.
Disney+ and the Disney-controlled Hulu increased prices starting in October. The ad-free tier of Disney+ rose from $11 to $14 a month, while ad-free Hulu increased from $14 to $18 a month. Both services are also offered together for $20 a month, and the ad-supported tiers maintained their current pricing; both strategies seem intended to drive viewers to either sign up for multiple services or drop down to an ad-supported tier. This is the second price hike for both services in the last calendar year.
Apple TV+ announced monthly price hikes for several online services in October, including its catchall Apple One subscription service in October. Apple TV+ jumped from $6.99 to $9.99 per month, while Apple Arcade went from $4.99 to $6.99 monthly. Apple News+ used to cost $9.99 per month, but now it’s $12.99. “Raising these prices helps Apple stay attractive to shareholders even amidst the tricky economic context—or at least it will if consumers agree to keep paying,” Ars Senior Editor Sam Axon wrote at the time. “Raising prices too much could drive customers away; Apple seems to be betting that that will not be the case this time.”
Enlarge/ A string of deals by Microsoft, Google and Amazon amounted to two-thirds of the $27 billion raised by fledgling AI companies in 2023,
FT montage/Dreamstime
Big tech companies have vastly outspent venture capital groups with investments in generative AI startups this year, as established giants use their financial muscle to dominate the much-hyped sector.
Microsoft, Google and Amazon last year struck a series of blockbuster deals, amounting to two-thirds of the $27 billion raised by fledgling AI companies in 2023, according to new data from private market researchers PitchBook.
The huge outlay, which exploded after the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in November 2022, highlights how the biggest Silicon Valley groups are crowding out traditional tech investors for the biggest deals in the industry.
The rise of generative AI—systems capable of producing humanlike video, text, image and audio in seconds—have also attracted top Silicon Valley investors. But VCs have been outmatched, having been forced to slow down their spending as they adjust to higher interest rates and falling valuations for their portfolio companies.
“Over the past year, we’ve seen the market quickly consolidate around a handful of foundation models, with large tech players coming in and pouring billions of dollars into companies like OpenAI, Cohere, Anthropic and Mistral,” said Nina Achadjian, a partner at US venture firm Index Ventures referring to some of the top AI startups.
“For traditional VCs, you had to be in early and you had to have conviction—which meant being in the know on the latest AI research and knowing which teams were spinning out of Google DeepMind, Meta and others,” she added.
Financial Times
A string of deals, such as Microsoft’s $10 billion investment in OpenAI as well as billions of dollars raised by San Francisco-based Anthropic from both Google and Amazon, helped push overall spending on AI groups to nearly three times as much as the previous record of $11 billion set two years ago.
Venture investing in tech hit record levels in 2021, as investors took advantage of ultra-low interest rates to raise and deploy vast sums across a range of industries, particularly those most disrupted by Covid-19.
Microsoft has also committed $1.3 billion to Inflection, another generative AI start-up, as it looks to steal a march on rivals such as Google and Amazon.
Building and training generative AI tools is an intensive process, requiring immense computing power and cash. As a result, start-ups have preferred to partner with Big Tech companies which can provide cloud infrastructure and access to the most powerful chips as well as dollars.
That has rapidly pushed up the valuations of private start-ups in the space, making it harder for VCs to bet on the companies at the forefront of the technology. An employee stock sale at OpenAI is seeking to value the company at $86 billion, almost treble the valuation it received earlier this year.
“Even the world’s top venture investors, with tens of billions under management, can’t compete to keep these AI companies independent and create new challengers that unseat the Big Tech incumbents,” said Patrick Murphy, founding partner at Tapestry VC, an early-stage venture capital firm.
“In this AI platform shift, most of the potentially one-in-a-million companies to appear so far have been captured by the Big Tech incumbents already.”
VCs are not absent from the market, however. Thrive Capital, Josh Kushner’s New York-based firm, is the lead investor in OpenAI’s employee stock sale, having already backed the company earlier this year. Thrive has continued to invest throughout a downturn in venture spending in 2023.
Paris-based Mistral raised around $500 million from investors including venture firms Andreessen Horowitz and General Catalyst, and chipmaker Nvidia since it was founded in May this year.
Some VCs are seeking to invest in companies building applications that are being built over so-called “foundation models” developed by OpenAI and Anthropic, in much the same way apps began being developed on mobile devices in the years after smartphones were introduced.
“There is this myth that only the foundation model companies matter,” said Sarah Guo, founder of AI-focused venture firm Conviction. “There is a huge space of still-unexplored application domains for AI, and a lot of the most valuable AI companies will be fundamentally new.”
Enlarge/ Smart insulin has the potential to make injections far less frequent.
People with type I diabetes have to inject themselves multiple times a day with manufactured insulin to maintain healthy levels of the hormone, as their bodies do not naturally produce enough. The injections also have to be timed in response to eating and exercise, as any consumption or use of glucose has to be managed.
Research into glucose-responsive insulin, or “smart” insulin, hopes to improve the quality of life for people with type I diabetes by developing a form of insulin that needs to be injected less frequently, while providing control of blood-glucose levels over a longer period of time.
A team at Zhejiang University, China, has recently released a study documenting an improved smart insulin system in animal models—the current work doesn’t involve any human testing. Their insulin was able to regulate blood-glucose levels for a week in diabetic mice and minipigs after a single subcutaneous injection.
“Theoretically, [smart insulin is] incredibly important going forward,” said Steve Bain, clinical director of the Diabetes Research Unit in Swansea University, who was not involved in the study. “It would be a game changer.”
Polymer cage
The new smart insulin is based on a form of insulin modified with gluconic acid, which forms a complex with a polymer through chemical bonds and strong electrostatic attraction. When insulin is trapped in the polymer, its signaling function is blocked, allowing a week’s worth of insulin to be given via a single injection without a risk of overdose.
Crucial to the “glucose responsive” nature of this system is the fact that the chemical structures of glucose and gluconic acid are extremely similar, meaning the two molecules bind in very similar ways. When glucose meets the insulin-polymer complex, it can displace some of the bound insulin and form its own chemical bonds to the polymer. Glucose binding also disrupts the electrostatic attraction and further promotes insulin release.
By preferentially binding to the polymer, the glucose is able to trigger the release of insulin. And the extent of this insulin release depends on how much glucose is present: between meals, when the blood-glucose level is fairly low, only a small amount of insulin is released. This is known as basal insulin and is needed for baseline regulation of blood sugar.
But after a meal, when blood-glucose spikes, much more insulin is released. The body can now regulate the extra sugar properly, preventing abnormally high levels of glucose—known as hyperglycemia. Long-term effects of hyperglycemia in humans include nerve damage to the hands and feet and permanent damage to eyesight.
This system mimics the body’s natural process, in which insulin is also released in response to glucose.
Better regulation than standard insulin
The new smart insulin was tested in five mice and three minipigs—minipigs are often used as an animal model that’s more physiologically similar to humans. One of the three minipigs received a slightly lower dose of smart insulin, and the other two received a higher dose. The lower-dose pig showed the best response: its blood-glucose levels were tightly controlled and returned to a healthy value after meals.
During treatment, the other two pigs had glucose levels that were still above the range seen in healthy animals, although they were greatly reduced compared to pre-injection levels. The regulation of blood-glucose was also tighter compared to daily insulin injections.
It should be noted, though, that the minipig with the best response also had the lowest blood-glucose levels before treatment, which may explain why it seemed to work so well in this animal.
Crucially, these effects were all long lasting—better regulation could be seen a week after treatment. And injecting the animals with the smart insulin didn’t result in a significant immune response, which can be a common pitfall when introducing biomaterials to animals or humans.
Don’t sugarcoat it
The study is not without its limitations. Although long-term glucose regulation was seen in the mice and minipigs examined, only a few animals were involved in the study—five mice and three minipigs. And of course, there’s always the risk that the results of animal studies don’t completely track over to clinical trials in humans. “We have to accept that these are animal studies, and so going across to humans is always a bit of an issue,” said Bain.
Although more research is required before this smart insulin system can be tested in humans, this work is a promising step forward in the field.
Enlarge / Who doesn’t thrill to the sight of a microscopic cross-section of a beetle’s rectum? You’re welcome.
Kenneth Veland Halberg
There’s rarely time to write about every cool science-y story that comes our way. So this year, we’re once again running a special Twelve Days of Christmas series of posts, highlighting one science story that fell through the cracks in 2023, each day from December 25 through January 5. Today: red flour beetles can use their butts to suck water from the air, helping them survive in extremely dry environments. Scientists are honing in on the molecular mechanisms behind this unique ability.
The humble red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) is a common pantry pest feeding on stored grains, flour, cereals, pasta, biscuits, beans, and nuts. It’s a remarkably hardy creature, capable of surviving in harsh arid environments due to its unique ability to extract fluid not just from grains and other food sources, but also from the air. It does this by opening its rectum when the humidity of the atmosphere is relatively high, absorbing moisture through that opening and converting it into fluid that is then used to hydrate the rest of the body.
Scientists have known about this ability for more than a century, but biologists are finally starting to get to the bottom (ahem) of the underlying molecular mechanisms, according to a March paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. This will inform future research on how to interrupt this hydration process to better keep red flour beetle populations in check, since they are highly resistant to pesticides. They can also withstand even higher levels of radiation than the cockroach.
There are about 400,000 known species of beetle roaming the planet although scientists believe there could be well over a million. Each year, as much as 20 percent of the world’s grain stores are contaminated by red flour beetles, grain weevils, Colorado potato beetles, and confused flour beetles, particularly in developing countries. Red flour beetles in particular are a popular model organism for scientific research on development and functional genomics. The entire genome was sequenced in 2008, and the beetle shares between 10,000 and 15,000 genes with the fruit fly (Drosophila), another workhorse of genetics research. But the beetle’s development cycle more closely resembles that of other insects by comparison.
Enlarge/ Food security in developing nations is particularly affected by animal species like the red flour beetle which has specialized in surviving in extremely dry environments, granaries included, for thousands of years.
Kenneth Halberg
The rectums of most mammals and insects absorb any remaining nutrients and water from the body’s waste products prior to defecation. But the red flour beetle’s rectum is a model of ultra-efficiency in that regard. The beetle can generate extremely high salt concentrations in its kidneys, enabling it to extract all the water from its own feces and recycle that moisture back into its body.
“A beetle can go through an entire life cycle without drinking liquid water,” said co-author Kenneth Veland Halberg, a biologist at the University of Copenhagen. “This is because of their modified rectum and closely applied kidneys, which together make a multi-organ system that is highly specialized in extracting water from the food that they eat and from the air around them. In fact, it happens so effectively that the stool samples we have examined were completely dry and without any trace of water.” The entire rectal structure is encased in a perinephric membrane.
Halberg et al. took took scanning electron microscopy images of the beetle’s rectal structure. They also took tissue samples and extracted RNA from lab-grown red flour beetles, then used a new resource called BeetleAtlas for their gene expression analysis, hunting for any relevant genes.
One particular gene was expressed sixty times more in the rectum than any other. Halberg and his team eventually honed in a group of secondary cells between the beetle’s kidneys and circulatory system called leptophragmata. This finding supports prior studies that suggested these cells might be relevant since they are the only cells that interrupt the perinephric membrane, thereby enabling critical transport of potassium chloride. Translation: the cells pump salts into the kidneys to better harvest moisture from its feces or from the air.
Enlarge/ Model of the beetle’s inside and how it extracts water from the air.
Kenneth Halberg
The next step is to build on these new insights to figure out how to interrupt the beetle’s unique hydration process at the molecular level, perhaps by designing molecules that can do so. Those molecules could then be incorporated into more eco-friendly pesticides that target the red flour beetle and similar pests while not harming more beneficial insects like bees.
“Now we understand exactly which genes, cells and molecules are at play in the beetle when it absorbs water in its rectum. This means that we suddenly have a grip on how to disrupt these very efficient processes by, for example, developing insecticides that target this function and in doing so, kill the beetle,” said Halberg. “There is twenty times as much insect biomass on Earth than that of humans. They play key roles in most food webs and have a huge impact on virtually all ecosystems and on human health. So, we need to understand them better.”
2022’s relative drought leads to an absolutely packed year of major epics.
It’s been a real period of feast or famine in the video game industry of late. Last year in this space, we lamented how COVID-related development delays meant a dearth of big-budget blockbusters that would usually fill a year-end list. In 2023, many of those delays finally expired, leading to a flood of long-anticipated titles over just a few months.
But the year in games didn’t stop there. Beyond the usual big-budget suspects, there were countless delightful surprises from smaller indie studios, many of which came out of nowhere to provide some of the most memorable interactive experiences of the year.
These two trends make it difficult to narrow this year’s best games down to just 20 titles. The “shortlist” we assembled during the winnowing process easily approached 50 titles, most of which could have easily made the list in a less packed year—or been swapped with a game that did make this year’s list.
Looking back years from now, 2023 may be mentioned in the same breath as 1998 and 2007 as years that were packed to the gills with classics. Here are 20 titles released this year that we think will stand the test of time, sorted in alphabetical order, with a single “Game of the Year” pick at the end.
Against the Storm
Eremite games; Windows
With most games I played and wrote about this year, even the titles I really liked, I would tell myself, “I could see playing this more.” With Against the Storm, I’m not just imagining it, I’m actively plotting ways to make it happen.
Enlarge / A (rather well-organized) village in Against the Storm, with the Hearth at center, constantly burning the resources you acquire.
This game is stuck in my mental queue because of how surprisingly well the core gameplay loop works. You create the kinds of little villages you’d make in a typical real-time strategy game, except there’s no real-time battle, just a gradual push against time to gather enough resources, deliver the right goods, and keep everyone moderately happy. You can save any time, but each session can also be played in about an hour. It’s deep, but it’s also calm. Even the “roguelite” map-wiping aspect of the game isn’t a punishment but, rather, a reminder not to worry too much about any one level.
Against the Storm is also now Steam Deck Verified, having made lots of changes to how controllers, gamepads, and on-screen text are displayed for that tinier screen. It’s a smart move to make this session-friendly game more couch-capable.
You can pick out a few distinct genre influences in Against the Storm, a handful of specific art homages, and probably quite a few mechanics plucked from other games. But it is very much its own game, one that has been tuned well over its early access period. I keep finding myself hoping for little stretches of time where I can break away from daily life so I can have a bunch of villagers, a queen, and unknowable forest spirits demand more and more of me. It’s quite weird, but it works.
-Kevin Purdy
Alan Wake 2
Remedy Entertainment; Windows, PS5, Xbox Series X|S
I am not really in the target audience for Alan Wake 2. I only played a few brief moments of its predecessor, and I’ve never really gone deep on survival horror shooters, having bounced off the Resident Evil titles in my youth. And while I was initially thrilled with developer Remedy’s last title, Control, the combat felt too repetitive and grinding for me to keep pushing through it for one more head-melting story reveal or another cleverly worded office memo.
And yet I think Alan Wake 2 is an inspired, fascinating, entertaining game, one that I’d recommend to nearly anybody. Anybody, in particular, who digs The X-Files, Twin Peaks, Stephen King, Resident Evil, meta-fiction, Control, True Detective, or pondering dark myths amid the beauty of the Pacific Northwest’s majestic, damp forests or a lucid-dream version of New York City.
AW2 gives Remedy the breadth and budget to tell the kinds of stories it’s best at telling. Even if I found the gun-focused but bullet-constrained combat a bit of a slog at times, I wanted to push through. I wanted to watch Saga Anderson discover and react to the reality-altering mystery she was investigating. I wanted to have more moments like when Wake was thrust onto a talk show couch, unaware of the book he was there to promote.
There’s also a musical number. This isn’t a game where you can see the beats coming.
Like 2022’s game of the year, Elden Ring,AW2 feels like a distillation but also an expansion of all the games that came before it. It’s not going to be for everyone, but it provides a wonderful service for those who commit to sitting down with it.
Brotato
Thomas Gevraud; Windows, Switch, iOS, Android
Last year, the cheap, pixel-graphics indie roguelite Vampire Survivors was my personal game of the year. I wasn’t alone in my obsession. Although it wasn’t technically the first of its kind, Vampire Survivors kick-started a new genre in which an auto-attacking hero faces down ever-increasing hordes of enemies. I’ve played a ton of these “Survivor-likes” over the past year, and many of them are quite good. My favorite by far, though, is Brotato, which saw its 1.0 release this year.
In Brotato, you maneuver the titular potato-bodied hero around a small arena. Enemies rush toward your position, and when they’re in range, your character attacks them automatically. But instead of the 20- to 30-minute rounds common in the genre, a Brotato run is split into 20 bite-sized fights that last anywhere from 20 to 90 seconds.
Defeated enemies drop “materials,” which double as experience points and money. You visit a shop between rounds and can spend as much money as you want to buy items and weapons to buff up your character. This is where the game gets its addictive pull. There are 16 main stats, and the key to success is leaning into the ones that help your character the most. Items often have a positive and a negative, so balancing is key.
In short, the game is a min-maxer’s dream.
Forty-four unique characters, six difficulty levels, dozens of weapons, and hundreds of items—unlocked as you play the game—ensure you have a ton of content to chew through. The best thing about the game is coming up with wacky build ideas and seeing if you can make them happen. Adjusting your stats from round to round makes a huge difference, and choosing the right items becomes surprisingly intuitive.
The game is a scandalously cheap $5 (or free to try on mobile). If you are at all interested in stat-building in games, you need to try this.
Enlarge/ Shake, shake, shake: this adorable young child would love to guess what he’s getting for Christmas this year.
Johns Hopkins University
There’s rarely time to write about every cool science-y story that comes our way. So this year, we’re once again running a special Twelve Days of Christmas series of posts, highlighting one science story that fell through the cracks in 2023, each day from December 25 through January 5. Today: New research shows it’s incredibly easy for people watching others shake boxes to tell what they’re up to.
Christmas Day is a time for opening presents and finally ending the suspense of what one is receiving this year, but chances are some of us may have already guessed what’s under the wrapping—perhaps by strategically shaking the boxes for clues about its contents. According to a November paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, if someone happened to see you shaking a wrapped gift, they would be able to tell from those motions what you were trying to learn by doing so.
“There are few things more delightful than seeing a child’s eyes light up as they pick up a present and wonder what might be inside,” said co-author Chaz Firestone of Johns Hopkins University, who studies how vision and thought interact. “What our work shows is that your mind is able to track the information they are seeking. Just as they might be able to tell what’s inside the box by shaking it around, you can tell what they are trying to figure out when they shake it.” Christmas presents are “the perfect real-life example of our experiment.”
According to Firestone et al., there is a large scientific literature devoted to studying how people represent and interpret basic actions like walking, reaching, lifting, eating, chasing, or following. It’s a vital ability that helps us anticipate the behavior of others. These are all examples of pragmatic actions with a specific aim, whether it be retrieving an object or moving from one place to the next. Other kinds of actions might be communication-oriented, such as waving, pointing, or assuming an aggressive (or friendly) posture.
The JHU study focused on so-called “epistemic” actions, in which one is seeking information: dipping a toe into the bathtub to see how hot is, for example, testing a door to see if it is locked, or shaking a wrapped box to glean information about what might be inside—like a child trying to guess whether a wrapped Christmas present contains Lego blocks or a teddy bear. “Epistemic actions pervade our lives, and recognizing them does, too,” the authors wrote, citing the ability to tell that a “meandering” campus visitor needs directions, or that someone rifling through shallow drawers is probably looking for keys or similar small objects.
People watched other people shake wrapped boxes for science.
For the first experiment, 16 players were asked to shake opaque boxes. In the first round, they tried to guess the number of objects inside the box (in this case, whether there were five or 15 US nickels). In the second, they tried to guess the shape of a geometric solid inside the box (either a sphere or a cube). All the players scored perfectly in both rounds—an expected outcome, given the simplicity of the task. The videos of those rounds were then placed online and 100 different study participants (“observers”) were asked to watch two videos of the same player and determine which video was from the first “guess the number” round and which was from the second “guess the shape” round. Almost all the observers guessed correctly.
This was intriguing evidence that the observers could indeed infer the goal of the shaking (what the game players were trying to learn) simply by interpreting their motions. But the researchers wondered to what extent the success of the observers relied on the game players’ success at guessing either the number or shape of objects. So they tweaked the box-shaking game to produce more player error. This time, the videotaped players were asked to determine first whether the box held 9, 12, or 16 nickels, and second, whether the box contained a sphere, cylinder, or cube. Only four out of 18 players guessed correctly. But the success rate of 100 new observers who watched the videos remained the same.
Firestone et al. ran three more variations on the basic experiment to refine their results. With each iteration, most of the players performed shaking motions that were different depending on whether the round involved numbers or shapes, and most of the observers (500 in total) successfully inferred what the players were trying to learn by watching those shaking motions. “When you think about all the mental calculations someone must make to understand what someone else is trying to learn, it’s a remarkably complicated process,” said Firestone. “But our findings show it’s something people do easily.”
Every so often, you live through a year that you know you’re going to remember. Sometimes it’s because of a personal milestone. Other times it’s because of noteworthy events that affected all of us in one way or another. And in some years, it’s because we were all surprised by unanticipated and rapid technological advances.
2023 definitely will be a year that will be remembered. On the tech side, the biggest story was AI, due in no small part to rapid advances in large language models. We had news about space flight, hackers, operating systems, and even music players.
Read on to find out which stories resonated the most with our readers throughout the year.
Depending on the screenwriting, time travel can be one of the best plot devices in a movie… or one of the most confusing, if done poorly. As we have come to better understand the nature of time, Hollywood has begun producing more flicks that use it as part of the story.
Our ace science reporter Jennifer Ouellette happens to be married to a physicist with his own subreddit, so we decided to turn them loose on the topic of time travel and the movies to see which films had the best combination of entertainment and scientific rigor. Read on to find out where Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, 12 Monkeys, and Hot Tub Time Machine ended up.
Largely considered relics of a bygone computing era, over 10,000 mainframe computers are still used today. Used primarily by Fortune 500 companies, most of these mainframes are sold by IBM. With a lineage dating back to technological advancements of the 1950s, these computers still excel with some high-volume use cases, especially those involving banking.
There used to be a bunch of companies in the mainframe game, but Rand, GE, NEC, Honeywell, and just about everyone else either no longer exists or is no longer building mainframes. IBM is now the only mainframe manufacturer that matters, so check out the story to learn why some companies still do some of their computing on mainframes instead of in the cloud.
I cannot remember a top-20 list that didn’t include a macOS review. But this may be the furthest down the list it has ever appeared, and this is actually the only OS review to appear on this year’s list.
This is due in no small part to how major OS updates come out like clockwork once a year, even when there are no major new features to excite users. These days, OS updates can be met with grumbling due to unnecessary UI changes and hardware obsolescence. Sonoma is another “low key” update, as Andrew Cunningham described it in his usual, comprehensive review. Call it “Ventura plus” or whatever you like—Sonoma is business as usual.
Ah, it’s our first 0-day of the 2023 countdown. This one primarily affected users of third-party app stores and involved the Pinduoduo app, downloaded millions of times. As Dan Goodin described it:
“[T]he malicious Pinduoduo app includes functionality allowing for the app to be installed covertly with no ability to be uninstalled, falsely inflating the number of Pinduoduo daily active users and monthly active users, uninstalling competitor apps, stealing user privacy data, and evading various privacy compliance regulations.”
Yikes.
The versions of the app in Google Play and Apple’s App Store did not contain the backdoor.
Warning: Although we’ve done our best to avoid spoiling anything too major, please note this list does include a few specific references to several of the listed films that some might consider spoiler-y.
It’s been an odd couple of years for film as the industry struggles to regain its footing in the wake of a devastating global pandemic, but there are reasons to be optimistic about its future, both from a box office and variety standpoint. This was the year that the blockbuster superhero franchises that have dominated for more than a decade finally showed signs of faltering; the Marvel and DC Universe releases this year were mostly fine, but only one (Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse) made our 2023 year-end list. There were just so many of them, one after the other, adding up to serious superhero fatigue.
We still love our blockbusters, of course. This was also the summer of “Barbenheimer,” as audiences flocked to theaters for the unlikely pairing of Barbie and Oppenheimer, breaking a few box office records in the process. It was also a good year for smaller niche fare—including two re-imaginings of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein—as well as a new film from the legendary Martin Scorsese (Killers of the Flower Moon).
As always, we’re opting for an unranked list, with the exception of our “year’s best” vote at the very end, so you might look over the variety of genres and options and possibly add surprises to your eventual watchlist. We invite you to head to the comments and add your favorite films released in 2023.
Enlarge/ Chris Pine and Michelle Rodriguez star as Elgin (a bard) and Holga (a barbarian) in D&D: Honor Among Thieves.
Paramount Pictures
Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves
Over two decades later, I am still a bit bitter about paying good money to see the 2000 Dungeons and Dragons movie with a group of friends on opening night. To this day, we’ll still parody Empress Savina dramatically proclaiming something along the lines of “I declare all people equal!” at the end of the movie (spoilers for a decades-old bad movie, I guess). Honor Among Thieves didn’t have a high bar to clear to wash the taste of that horrible adaptation out of my mouth. So it was nice to find that this new take on the D&D world leapt miles over that bar with a madcap, character-driven adventure that would be the envy of many a dungeon master.
While Honor Among Thieves drops in a few references to familiar D&D items and creatures (hi, owlbears!), the movie wisely realizes that it can’t lean on those references to make an interesting movie. Instead, it uses D&D’s class system as the basis for some broad, trope-y characters to get thrown into an unlikely partnership. Chris Pine’s winning take on a bard is the driving force here, but Michelle Rodriguez’s barbarian and (an underutilized) Regé-Jean Page’s paladin steal plenty of scenes by really hewing true to their characters’ alignment chart.
The plot won’t win any awards for originality or surprise, but that character work and some well-paced action set pieces make this a thrilling family adventure, even for those who’ve never touched a D&D character sheet.
Enlarge/ The invitation might be nice, but you can feel free to say no.
The holidays can be a time of parties, events, dinners, outings, get-togethers, impromptu meetups—and stress. Is it really an obligation to say yes to every single invite? Is not showing up to Aunt Tillie’s annual ugly sweater party this once going to mean a permanent ban? Turning down some of those invitations waiting impatiently for an RSVP can feel like a risk.
But wait! Turning down an invite won’t necessarily have the harsh consequences that are often feared (especially this time of year). A group of researchers led by psychologist and assistant professor Julian Givi of West Virginia University put test subjects through a series of experiments to see if a host’s reaction to an invitation being declined would really be as awful as the invitee feared. In the experiments, those who declined invitations were not guilted or blacklisted by the inviters. Turns out that hosts were not so upset as invitees thought they would be when someone couldn’t make it.
“Invitees have exaggerated concerns about how much the decline will anger the inviter, signal that the invitee does not care about the inviter, make the inviter unlikely to offer another invitation in the future, and so forth,” the researchers said in a study published by the American Psychological Association.
You’re invited…now what?
Why are we so nervous that declining invitations will annihilate our social lives? Appearing as if we don’t care about the host is one obvious reason. The research team also thinks there is an additional explanation behind this: we mentally exaggerate how much the inviter focuses on the rejection, and underestimate how much they consider what might be going on in our heads and in our lives. This makes us believe that there is no way the inviter will be understanding about any excuse.
All this anxiety means we often end up reluctantly dragging ourselves to a holiday movie or dinner or that infamous ugly sweater party, and saying yes to every single invite, even if it eventually leads to holiday burnout.
To determine if our fears are justified, the psychologists who ran the study focused on three things. The first was declining invitations for fun social activities, such as ice skating in the park. The second focus was how much invitees exaggerated the expected consequences of declining. Finally, the third focus was on how invitees also exaggerated how much hosts were affected by the rejection itself, as opposed to the reasons the invitee gave for turning down the invite.
The show (or party, or whatever) must go on
There were five total experiments that assessed whether someone declining an invitation felt more anxious about it than they should have. In these experiments, invitees were the subjects who had to turn down an invitation, while hosts were the subjects who were tasked with reacting to a declined invitation.
The first experiment had subjects imagining that a hypothetical friend invented them to a museum exhibit, but they turned the invitation down. The invitee then had to describe the possible negative consequences of saying no. Other subjects in this experiment were told to imagine being the one who invited the friend who turned them down, and then report how they would feel.
Most of those imagining they were the invitees overestimated what the reaction of the host would be.
Invitees predicted that a rejected host would experience anger and disappointment, and assume the invitee didn’t care enough about the host. Long term, they also expected that their relationship with the host would be damaged. They weren’t especially concerned about not being invited to future events or that hosts would retaliate by turning them down if they issued invites.
The four remaining experiments slightly altered the circumstances and measured these same potential consequences, obtaining similar results. The second experiment used hosts and invitees who were couples in real life, and who gave each other actual invitations and rejections instead of just imagining them. Invitees again overestimated how negative the hosts’ reactions would be. In the third experiment, outside observers were asked to read a summary of the invitation and rejection, then predict hosts’ reactions. The observers again thought the inviters would react much more negatively than they actually did.
In the fourth experiment, stakes were higher because subjects were told to imagine the invitation and rejection scenario involving a real friend, albeit one who was not present for the experiment. Invitees had to predict how negative their friend’s reaction would be to their response and also their friend’s opinion on why they might have declined. Those doing the inviting had to describe their reactions to a rejection and predict their friend’s expectations about how they would react. Invitees tended to predict more negative reactions than hosts did.
Finally, the fifth experiment also had subjects working individually, this time putting themselves in the place of both the host and invitee. They had to read and respond to an invitation rejection scenario from the perspective of both roles, with the order they handled host and invitee randomized. Those who took the host role first realized that hosts usually empathize with the reasons someone is not able to attend, making them unlikely to predict highly negative reactions to a declined invitation when they were asked later.
Overestimation
Despite their differences, these experiments all point in a similar direction. “Consistent with our theorizing, invitees tended to overestimate the negative ramifications of the invitation decline,” the researchers said in the same study.
Evidently, Aunt Tilly will not be gravely disappointed if her favorite niece or nephew cannot make it to her ugly sweater party this year—some events just happen to be scheduled at especially inconvenient times. This study, however, didn’t test the ramifications of declining invites for more significant but less frequent events, such as weddings and baby showers. Based on the results for smaller events, it’s likely that the thought of turning such an invite down will result in even more anxiety. The key question is whether the hosts will be less understanding for big events.
Givi and his team still note that accepting invitations can have positive effects. Human beings benefit from being around other people, and isolation can be detrimental. Still, we need to remember that too much of a good thing can be too much—everyone needs time to recharge. Even with the heavy feeling of obligation that comes with being invited somewhere, turning down one or two invites will probably not start a holiday apocalypse—unless your aunt is an exception.
Looking back, 2023 will likely be remembered as the year of the fallen crypto bro.
While celebrities like Kim Kardashian and Matt Damon last year faced public backlash after shilling for cryptocurrency, this year’s top headlines traced the downfalls of two of the most successful and influential crypto bros of all time: FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried (often referred to as SBF) and Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (commonly known as CZ).
At 28 years old, Bankman-Fried made Forbes’ 30 Under 30 list in 2021, but within two short years, his recently updated Forbes profile notes that the man who was once “one of the richest people in crypto” in “a stunning fall from grace” now has a real-time net worth of $0.
Ultimately, Bankman-Fried’s former FTX/Alameda Research partners, including his ex-girlfriend Caroline Ellison, testified against him. Ellison’s testimony led to even weirder revelations about SBF, like Bankman-Fried’s aspirations to become US president and his professed rejection of moral ideals like “don’t steal.” By the end of the trial, it seemed like very few felt any sympathy for the once-FTX kingpin.
Bankman-Fried now faces a maximum sentence of 110 years. His exact sentence is scheduled to be determined by a US district judge in March 2024, Reuters reported.
While FTX had been considered a giant force in the cryptocurrency world, Binance is still the world’s biggest cryptocurrency exchange—and considered more “systemically important” to crypto enthusiasts, Bloomberg reported. That’s why it was a huge deal when Binance was rocked by its own scandal in 2023 that ended in its founder and CEO, Zhao, admitting to money laundering and resigning.
Arguably Zhao’s fall from grace may have been more shocking to cryptocurrency fans than Bankman-Fried’s. Just one month prior to Zhao’s resignation, after FTX collapsed, The Economist had dubbed CZ as “crypto’s last man standing.”
Zhao launched Binance in 2017 and the next year was featured on the cover of Forbes’ first list of the wealthiest people in crypto. Peering out from under a hoodie, Zhao was considered by Forbes to be a “crypto overlord,” going from “zero to billionaire in six months,” where other crypto bros had only managed to become millionaires.
But 2023 put an abrupt end to Zhao’s reign at Binance. In March, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Binance and Zhao over suspected money laundering and sanctions violations, triggering a Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit in June and a Department of Justice (DOJ) probe. In the end, Binance owed billions in fines to the DOJ and the CFTC, which Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen called “historic penalties.” For personally directing Binance employees to skirt US regulatory compliance—and hide more than 100,000 suspicious transactions linked to terrorism, child sexual abuse materials, and ransomware attacks—Zhao now personally owes the CFTC $150 million.
On the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), Zhao wrote that after stepping down as Binance’s CEO, he will be taking a break and likely never helming a startup ever again.
“I am content being [a] one-shot (lucky) entrepreneur,” Zhao wrote.
When you drop money in the bank, it looks like it’s just sitting there, ready for you to withdraw. In reality, your institution makes money on your money by lending it elsewhere, including to the fossil fuel companies driving climate change, as well as emissions-heavy industries like manufacturing.
So just by leaving money in a bank account, you’re unwittingly contributing to worsening catastrophes around the world. According to a new analysis, for every $1,000 dollars the average American keeps in savings, each year they indirectly create emissions equivalent to flying from New York to Seattle. “We don’t really take a look at how the banks are using the money we keep in our checking account on a daily basis, where that money is really circulating,” says Jonathan Foley, executive director of Project Drawdown, which published the analysis. “But when we look under the hood, we see that there’s a lot of fossil fuels.”
By switching to a climate-conscious bank, you could reduce those emissions by about 75 percent, the study found. In fact, if you moved $8,000 dollars—the median balance for US customers—the reduction in your indirect emissions would be twice that of the direct emissions you’d avoid if you switched to a vegetarian diet.
Put another way: You as an individual have a carbon footprint—by driving a car, eating meat, running a gas furnace instead of a heat pump—but your money also has a carbon footprint. Banking, then, is an underappreciated yet powerful avenue for climate action on a mass scale. “Not just voting every four years, or not just skipping the hamburger, but also where my money sits, that’s really important,” says Foley.
Just as you can borrow money from a bank, so too do fossil fuel companies and the companies that support that industry—think of building pipelines and other infrastructure. “Even if it’s not building new pipelines, for a fossil fuel company to be doing just its regular operations—whether that’s maintaining the network of gas stations that it owns, or maintaining existing pipelines, or paying its employees—it’s going to need funding for that,” says Paddy McCully, senior analyst at Reclaim Finance, an NGO focused on climate action.
A fossil fuel company’s need for those loans varies from year to year, given the fluctuating prices of those fuels. That’s where you, the consumer, comes in. “The money that an individual puts into their bank account makes it possible for the bank to then lend money to fossil fuel companies,” says Richard Brooks, climate finance director at Stand.earth, an environmental and climate justice advocacy group. “If you look at the top 10 banks in North America, each of them lends out between $20 billion and $40 billion to fossil fuel companies every year.”
The new report finds that on average, 11 of the largest US banks lend 19.4 percent of their portfolios to carbon-intensive industries. (The American Bankers Association did not immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.) To be very clear: Oil, gas, and coal companies wouldn’t be able to keep producing these fuels—when humanity needs to be reducing carbon emissions dramatically and rapidly—without these loans. New fossil fuel projects aren’t simply fleeting endeavors, but will operate for years, locking in a certain amount of emissions going forward.
At the same time, Brooks says, big banks are under-financing the green economy. As a civilization, we’re investing in the wrong kind of energy if we want to avoid the ever-worsening effects of climate change. Yes, 2022 was the first year that climate finance surpassed the trillion-dollar mark. “However, the alarming aspect is that climate finance must increase by at least fivefold annually, as swiftly as possible, to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change,” says Valerio Micale, senior manager of the Climate Policy Initiative. “An even more critical consideration is that this cost, which would accumulate to $266 trillion until 2050, pales in comparison to the costs of inaction, estimated at over $2,000 trillion over the same period.”
Smaller banks, at least, are less likely to be providing money for the fossil fuel industry. A credit union operates more locally, so it’s much less likely to be fronting money for, say, a new oil pipeline. “Big fossil fuel companies go to the big banks for their financing,” says Brooks. “They’re looking for loans in the realm of hundreds of millions of dollars, sometimes multibillion-dollar loans, and a credit union wouldn’t be able to provide that.”
This makes banking a uniquely powerful lever to pull when it comes to climate action, Foley says. Compared to switching to vegetarianism or veganism to avoid the extensive carbon emissions associated with animal agriculture, money is easy to move. “If large numbers of people start to tell their financial institutions that they don’t really want to participate in investing in fossil fuels, that slowly kind of drains capital away from what’s available for fossil fuels,” says Foley.
While the new report didn’t go so far as to exhaustively analyze the lending habits of the thousands of banks in the US, Foley says there’s a growing number that deliberately don’t invest in fossil fuels. If you’re not sure about what your bank is investing in, you can always ask. “I think when people hear we need to move capital out of fossil fuels into climate solutions, they probably think only Warren Buffett can do that,” says Foley. “That’s not entirely true. We can all do a little bit of that.”
Enlarge/ Electron returned to flight successfully this week.
Rocket Lab
Welcome to Edition 6.24 of the Rocket Report! This will be the final edition of this newsletter until January 4—hey, space enthusiasts need a holiday break too! And given all that’s expected to happen in 2024 in the world of launch, a bit of a recharge seems like a smart move. Stephen and I wish everyone happy holidays and a healthy and prosperous new year. Until then!
As always, we welcome reader submissions, and if you don’t want to miss an issue, please subscribe using the box below (the form will not appear on AMP-enabled versions of the site). Each report will include information on small-, medium-, and heavy-lift rockets as well as a quick look ahead at the next three launches on the calendar.
Ranking the top 10 US launch companies of 2023. Oops, we did it again and published a list of the most accomplished US commercial launch companies. It’s no surprise that SpaceX is atop the list, but what comes after is more intriguing, including a new company in second position. I hope the list sparks debate, discussion, and appreciation for the challenge of operating a successful rocket company.
This is a really hard business … The article closes with this message, which I think is a fitting way to end the calendar year and kick off the holiday season: “As ever, I remain in awe of all the talented engineers and business people out there trying to make a go of it in the launch industry. This is a difficult and demanding business, replete with problems. I salute your hard work and hope for your success.”
New Shepard finally flies again. With redesigned engine components, Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket took off from West Texas and flew to the edge of space on Tuesday with a package of scientific research and technology demonstration experiments, Ars reports. This was the first flight of Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket since September 12, 2022, when an engine failure destroyed the booster and triggered an in-flight abort for the vehicle’s pressurized capsule during an uncrewed flight.
Does “soon'” really mean soon? … It took 15 months for Blue Origin to return to flight with New Shepard, but Tuesday’s successful launch puts the company on a path to resuming human missions. So when will Blue Origin start flying people again? “Following a thorough review of today’s mission, we look forward to flying our next crewed flight soon,” said Erika Wagner, a longtime Blue Origin manager who co-hosted the company’s webcast of Tuesday’s flight. (submitted by EllPeaTea and Ken the Bin)
The easiest way to keep up with Eric Berger’s space reporting is to sign up for his newsletter, we’ll collect his stories in your inbox.
Electron successfully returns to flight. Rocket Lab successfully launched a Japanese radar imaging satellite on the first flight of its Electron rocket since a failure nearly three months ago, Space News reports. The Electron lifted off from the company’s Launch Complex 1 in New Zealand at 11: 05 pm ET on December 14. The vehicle deployed its payload, the QPS-SAR-5 or Tsukuyomi-1 satellite, for Japanese company iQPS, afterward.
A record number of launches this year … The launch was the first for Electron since a September 19 failure during a launch of another radar-imaging satellite for Capella Space. On that mission, the first stage performed as expected, but the second stage’s engine appeared to shut down immediately after ignition, preventing it from reaching orbit. The launch was the 10th flight of the Electron this year, including one launch of a suborbital version of Electron called HASTE. (submitted by Ken the Bin)
Shetland approved for UK launches. SaxaVord Spaceport on the small island of Unst has been given approval from the Civil Aviation Authority to begin orbital launches in 2024, the BBC reports. It will be the first fully licensed spaceport in Western Europe able to launch vertically into orbit. It permits up to 30 launches a year that will be used to take satellites and other payloads into space.
Launches this summer? … The site, which is the first spaceport in Scotland, has several launch operators around the world currently developing rockets. It is anticipated that German rocket firm HyImpulse will attempt sub-orbital launches as early as this August. Full orbital launches are expected to take place at SaxaVord from 2025. Cornwall Spaceport was the UK’s first licensed spaceport; however, its rockets are launched horizontally and carried by an aircraft. (submitted by gizmo23 and Ken the Bin)
