One of the main reasons it has been difficult to recommend the $500 Quest 3 VR headset over the $200 Quest 2 is a lack of exclusive titles, as most games have to support both models. This means we haven’t really seen the power of the Quest 3 yet, but the tides are turning. Meta just announced Batman: Arkham Shadow, which is fully exclusive to the company’s newest headset.

It looks like this title is actually set in the pre-existing Arkham universe, but it's not being developed by franchise steward Rocksteady Studios. It’s being created by Oculus Studios and a developer called Camouflaj, which made the surprisingly great Iron Man VR experience. The track record is pretty spotty when it comes to other developers playing in Rocksteady’s sandbox, but the inclusion of Camouflaj makes me cautiously optimistic.

There’s a trailer, seen above, but it's devoid of any actual gameplay. For that, we’ll have to wait until Summer Game Fest in June, according to Geoff Keighley. The trailer does indicate the presence of a little-known member of Batman’s rogues gallery called Ratcatcher. He controls rats to commit crimes. It’s a whole thing.

This isn’t the first time that Batman donned a VR headset. Back in 2016, Rocksteady released Batman: Arkham VR. The game was praised for being immersive, but dinged for being just an hour long. Hopefully, this one is a bit longer, though I’m actually into short VR experiences that are done really well. There’s only so much time to wander around the house like a doofus with a headset attached to my face.

While this is certainly the highest profile Quest 3 exclusive, it's not the first to be announced. Starship Home is a mixed-reality adventure that looks like it should have been a launch exclusive for the Vision Pro. The horror-tinged Alien: Rogue Incursion isn’t quite a Quest 3 exclusive, as it's also releasing on Steam and PSVR2, but it is a “next-gen” VR game that doesn’t have to run on the antiquated Quest 2. All three titles will be released by the end of the year.

It’s only been two weeks since Tesla began reducing its workforce by ten percent, a move that impacted at least 14,000 staffers. Now, even more pink slips are coming. The company let go of two senior executives today and plans to lay off hundreds more employees, as reported by The Information.

These layoffs impact the entire Supercharger team, including senior director Rebecca Tinucci and 500 staffers. Daniel Ho, head of the new vehicles program, was also laid off, along with his team. Tesla’s public policy team is also being dissolved, which was led by former executive Rohan Patel.

CEO Elon Musk sent out a company-wide email that seemed more like a threat than anything else. "Hopefully these actions are making it clear that we need to be absolutely hard core about headcount and cost reduction," Musk wrote. "While some on exec staff are taking this seriously, most are not yet doing so."

This could be just the beginning. Musk also said that any staffers working under executives who “don’t obviously pass the excellent, necessary and trustworthy test” would also get cut. When all of this is said and done, Tesla’s headcount could be reduced by as much as 20 percent, as recently suggested by Bloomberg. This adds up to more than 20,000 employees.

Just how “hard core” is Musk about reducing costs? Well, a judge recently rejected his proposal for a pay package that would grant him $55.8 billion of Tesla’s money, which was referred to in court as “an unfathomable sum” that was unfair to shareholders. Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick went on to call it “the largest potential compensation opportunity ever observed in public markets by multiple orders of magnitude.” Sounds kinda soft core to me.

This is shaping up to be a really crappy year for Tesla, even if its stock price seems to be living in a parallel universe. Profit margins have sunk to a six-year low. The company’s most recent earnings report was abysmal, with profits falling by 55 percent. The Cybertruck continues to be something of a dangerous joke. Tesla’s Autopilot software was recently linked to 14 deaths. It has also reportedly given up on its budget-friendly EV in favor of a robotaxi, because why make a car everyone would want to buy instead of something a few taxi companies will buy? On the plus side, Tesla doesn’t really pay taxes, which is pretty hard core.

New research conducted by the University of East Anglia (UEA) suggests that current carbon removal plans will not be enough to comply with Paris treaty goals to limit global warming to 1.5C, as reported in a study published by Nature. Scientists came to this conclusion by measuring the “emissions gap” between various national climate protection plans and what is actually needed to reach that goal.

This first-of-its-kind study found a gap of up to 3.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) between current global plans to remove carbon from the atmosphere and what’s needed by 2050 to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. These impacts include heatwaves, floods, droughts, melting ice and sea level rise.

Since 2010, the United Nations environmental organization UNEP has taken similar measurements of this emissions gap. UEA’s research, which focuses primarily on CO2 removal, indicates that climate policy requires a more ambitious scope if we are to, well, survive as a species.

This means a more nuanced and robust approach that still keeps current carbon removal practices in place, but with a renewed focus on cutting emissions, renewable energy and minimizing deforestation. There are also novel carbon removal options that many nations have been slow to discuss, let alone implement.

These include advanced air filters systems and enhanced rock weathering. The latter is a technique in which carbon is removed from the atmosphere and stored in rocks. These techniques account for the removal of just 0.002 billion tons of C02 per year, compared to 3 billion tons through conventional options. The research indicates that these novel options must become more prevalent in the coming years to help meet that 1.5C threshold.

“The calculation should certainly be refined,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. William Lamb, of the MCC Applied Sustainability Science working group. “This much is clear: without a rapid reduction in emissions towards zero, across all sectors, the 1.5C limit will not be met under any circumstances.”

Co-author Dr. Naomi Vaughan, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA, added that “countries need more awareness, ambition and action on scaling up carbon dioxide removal methods together with deep emissions reductions to achieve the aspirations of the Paris Agreement."

To that end, even if every country sticks to promises regarding carbon removal targets, the amount of carbon removed would likely increase by a maximum of 0.5 billion tons by 2030 and 1.9 billion tons by 2050. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that it would take a removal increase of 5.1 billion tons to avoid the worst effects of climate change. So, yeah, there’s that gap of 3.2 billion tons.

We aren’t doomed, at least not yet anyways. The IPCC suggests an alternative scenario in which the world’s governments work together to reduce global energy demand, hastened by “politically initiated behavior.” In this scenario, carbon removal would increase by 2.5 billion tons by 2050 and alternative methods would help tighten the emissions gap to just 400 million tons. So we basically have to shift our entire society from one of self interest to one of global cooperation. It never hurts to dream and, hey, maybe AI will swoop in and save us.

Chinese tech giant Huawei has been secretly funding research in America despite being blacklisted, as reported by Bloomberg. The cutting-edge research is happening at universities, including Harvard, and the money is being funneled through an independent Washington-based research foundation, along with a competition for scientists.

Bloomberg found that Huawei was the sole funder of a research competition that has awarded millions of dollars since 2022 and attracted hundreds of proposals from scientists. Some of these scientists are at top US universities that have banned researchers from working with the company.

What’s the big deal? The fear is that this research could lead to innovations that give China a leg up with regard to both defense contracting and commercial interests, according to Kevin Wolf, a partner at the business-focused law firm Akin who specializes in export controls. Optica, the foundation behind all of this, has posted online that it is interested in “high-sensitivity optical sensors and detectors," among other categories of research.

“It’s a bad look for a prestigious research foundation to be anonymously accepting money from a Chinese company that raises so many national security concerns for the US government,” said James Mulvenon, a defense contractor who has worked on research security issues and co-authored several books on industrial espionage.

It’s worth noting that this money funneling operation doesn’t look to be illegal, as research intended for publication doesn’t fall under the purview of the ban. Huawei operates similar competitions in other parts of the world, though openly. People who participated in the US-based research competition didn’t even know that Huawei was involved, believing the money to come from Optica. The competition awards $1 million per year and Optica didn’t give any indication that Huawei was supplying the cash.

A Huawei spokesperson told Bloomberg that the company and the Optica Foundation created the competition to support global research and promote academic communication, saying that it remained anonymous to keep from being seen as a promotion of some kind. Optica’s CEO, Liz Rogan, said in a statement that many foundation donors “prefer to remain anonymous” and that “there is nothing unusual about this practice.” She also said that the entire board knew about Huawei’s involvement and that everyone signed off on it. Bloomberg did note that the Huawei-backed competition was the only one on Optica’s website that didn’t list individual and corporate financial sponsors.

Huawei has been wrapped in a web of US restrictions these past several years. We can’t buy the vast majority of Huawei products in America, as the company’s been effectively banned. This all started in 2019 when President Trump signed an executive order that banned the sale and use of telecom equipment that posed “unacceptable" risks to national security. At the time, Trump said that “foreign adversaries” were exploiting security holes that would eventually lead to "potentially catastrophic effects.” Wait, Trump used the words “potentially catastrophic effects?” Wild.

To that end, the company has faced numerous claims that it installs backdoors in networks for the purpose of data theft, though there’s no proof of actual theft and the company denies the accusations. Huawei has also been accused of employing Chinese spies to influence an investigation and documents seem to indicate Huawei’s involvement in China’s surveillance efforts.

Some expected President Biden to reverse Trump’s executive order when it expired in 2021, but he headed in the opposite direction. Not only does the order stand, but Biden signed a law that blocked Huawei from obtaining an FCC license and he banned American investments in China’s high tech industries. We aren’t cozying up to China anytime soon, so Huawei will continue to be persona non grata on this side of the pond (the company still does booming business in Europe.)

Streamflation is real y'all. Peacock just announced its raising prices again, less than a year after it last upped subscription costs. The new price will be $8 per month for Peacock with ads and $14 per month for an ad-free experience, starting on July 18 for new subscribers and August 17 for pre-existing users. An ad-free subscription will be the same price as Disney+ and nearly as much as Netflix. Mrs. Davis was good, but was it that good?

To put this into perspective, just one year ago a subscription to Peacock set you back just $5 to $10 per month, depending on if you went with ads or not. Then there was a $1 increase last summer, and now a $2 increase this summer. If this rate of increase keeps up, Peacock will cost $260,000 per month by 2040, and that’s with ads. But can you really put a price tag on finding out if Jim and Pam ever kiss?

There is a method to Peacock’s price-gouging madness. The 2024 Summer Olympics is right around the corner and the streamer will be showing “every sport and event, including all 329 medal events.” The platform will also host full-event replays, curated video clips and original commentary. The Olympics kick off on July 26, just eight days after the price increase starts for new subscribers. Get that Olympics audience cheddar, Peacock, though good luck keeping subscriberers once the games end.

Peacock is just following the market here, as rival streaming services have been raising prices left and right. Just about every major streaming platform has become more expensive in the past year, including Disney+, Apple TV+ and Netflix. Other types of streaming services aren’t immune. Spotify is planning on raising subscription prices for US customers later this year, despite recently reporting record profits for the first quarter of 2024.

The Federal Communications Commission has slapped the largest mobile carriers in the US with a collective fine worth $200 million for selling access to their customers' location information without consent. AT&T was ordered to pay $57 million, while Verizon has to pay $47 million. Meanwhile, Sprint and T-Mobile are facing a penalty with a total amount of $92 million together, since the companies had merged two years ago. The FCC conducted an in-depth investigation into the carriers' unauthorized disclosure and sale of subscribers' real-time location data after their activities came to light in 2018.

To sum up the practice in the words of FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: The carriers sold "real-time location information to data aggregators, allowing this highly sensitive data to wind up in the hands of bail-bond companies, bounty hunters, and other shady actors." According to the agency, the scheme started to unravel following public reports that a sheriff in Missouri was tracking numerous individuals by using location information a company called Securus gets from wireless carriers. Securus provides communications services to correctional facilities in the country.

While the carriers eventually ceased their activities, the agency said they continued operating their programs for a year after the practice was revealed and after they promised the FCC that they would stop selling customer location data. Further, they carried on without reasonable safeguards in place to ensure that the legitimate services using their customers' information, such as roadside assistance and medical emergency services, truly are obtaining users' consent to track their locations.

The companies told Fast Company that they intend to challenge the fines. T-Mobile, which faces the biggest penalty worth $80 million — Sprint was fined $12 million — said it was excessive. AT&T said the decision lacked "both legal and factual merit" and that the decision "perversely punishes [the companies] for supporting life-saving location services."