This is a follow-up to a previous investigation into the origins of cloud seeding. Read the first article here.

Does the government control the weather? As more people realize that cloud seeding is a long-established technology that many governments have pursued, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the answer isn’t simply “no.” However, it’s important to understand in what ways and to what extent it does. That said, and with the recent cloud seeding exploration in mind, it’s time to explore the fuller history of weather technology and weather manipulation in the United States.

Many countries across the globe have weather modification departments in their governments. From Thailand’s Department of Royal Rainmaking and Agricultural Aviation to larger countries’ “cloud-busting” operations like China’s, almost every country has some capacity for weather modification. Cloud seeding was such a widespread concern after the Vietnam War that a treaty was created and signed to regulate weather modification. This was largely an attempt to delimit the use of weather modification in war, like the United States' Operation Popeye in the Vietnam War. The text of this 1978 agreement, known as the Environmental Modification Convention, and the list of signatories can be found here.

The government has been playing the same game for almost 80 years, pleading innocence when its interference with the weather wreaks havoc on a population.

One of the first hurricane manipulation projects was called Project Cirrus. This was conducted in 1947, a year after Bernard Vonnegut and Vincent Schaefer discovered the possibility of cloud seeding and partnered with General Electric to develop this technology. It seems the military wasted no time. A report on Project Cirrus from that year reads: “The energy expended by a hurricane is enough to drive machinery in the world for three or four years. Yet the Army, the Navy, and General Electric are collaborating in a daring meteorological experiment to determine whether or not the colossal vortex that we call a hurricane can be broken by precipitating the thousands of tons of water it contains.”

Harnessing the power of a hurricane

In this project, three planes intercepted Hurricane King and dropped several pounds of dry ice into the system “just to see what would happen.” They returned to base after the drop and checked on the storm the next day: “To their astonishment, the hurricane had made a 135-degree left turn and was now moving due west. On top of that, it was strengthening! By the afternoon of the 15th, Hurricane King struck Savannah, GA. One person died in the storm surge and US$2 million in damage was done to Georgia and South Carolina.”

The public was outraged, especially when General Electric’s Dr. Irving Langmuir said he was “99% sure” the swerve was caused by cloud seeding. However, the lawsuits slowly dissipated when U.S. Weather Bureau scientists published a similar case that showed that an unseeded hurricane could “swerve like that.”

Another project that the United States carried out was Project Stormfury (1962-1983), which sought to manipulate hurricanes with cloud seeding. The hypothesis of this project “involved artificial stimulation of convection outside the eyewall through seeding with silver iodide.” Essentially, the introduction of silver iodide via cloud seeding would “invigorate” the convection of the eyewall, which would consequently “lead to reformation of the eyewall at a larger radius, and thus, through partial conservation of angular momentum, produce a decrease in the strongest winds.” In simpler terms, the force would be lessened if the hurricane's structure were enlarged. The researchers sought to decrease the hurricane's strongest winds by 10% or more to reduce the strongest winds' potential destruction.

This project involved the modification of four hurricanes on eight different days, and the experiments did in fact produce positive results on four of the days. However, the results were deemed unsatisfactory because the experiment did not sufficiently “discriminate between the expected results of human intervention and the natural behavior of hurricanes.” They also concluded that cloud seeding would not successfully manipulate hurricanes because hurricanes have “too much natural ice and too little supercooled water.”

Try, try again

One of the longest-running projects was Project Skywater, which ran from 1961 to 1988. This project, which coincided with others like Operation Popeye in Vietnam, was “part of a national attempt to collect systematically atmospheric data by testing cloud seeding technology on a local scale and evaluating it against broader patterns in weather behavior.” Essentially, Skywater was a national data-collection project that gave wide leverage to local operations, especially in the Western United States. It “directed most of its attention to augmenting the nation’s water supply,” but it never fully got off the ground nationally due to insufficient funding.

However, this project was also operationalized locally for some experiments and became especially interested in winter snowfall levels in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming mountain ranges, to name a few. “Skywater featured a series of pilot projects across the western states to study seeding in different environments at different times of the year.” Some locals in these areas worried about “impacts on snow levels and avalanches, damages from heavy snowfall, [and] costs of snow removal.” One Colorado miner even said, “If those weathermen screw up life around here, they may suddenly discover their equipment blown to bits.”

All of these projects showed that weather modification is possible. However, they also demonstrated that the weather is ultimately unpredictable and that weather modification may have potentially deadly consequences. When severe weather events occur in populated areas, and people or property are affected, scientists usually say they cannot attribute the damage to their experiments because weather is ultimately unpredictable. One scenario of this disaster cycle, weather modification in the area, and a plea of plausible deniability by the scientists was the “torrential flood that ripped through South Dakota’s Rapid City in the summer of 1972,” which claimed 250 lives and caused $100 million in damages.

An outside observer of weather modification at the University of Washington summed up this tension well: “When it gets to the point where there is a possibility of really catastrophic side effects, and when these catastrophic side effects are occurring close enough to the weather modification as to raise the possibility of a cause-and-effect relationship, there [are] serious questions in my mind as to whether we ought to be fooling around with it at all.”

Other weather modification programs?

Antonio Masiello/Getty Images

Now for some controversy. Colonel Douglas Macgregor recently sat down with Dane Wigington of Geoengineering Watch to discuss weather modification in the wake of the most recent hurricanes on the Eastern Seaboard. There are two types of weather modification that are at issue here, and they need to be distinguished in order to get an accurate picture of the debate.

First, cloud seeding is understood as a process that can augment or suppress already-occurring weather systems. Historically, government projects like Project Cirrus or Project Stormfury have tried to either augment or disperse the strength of hurricane winds. In both cases, the results were skewed because no one could adequately distinguish the natural process from human intervention. However, the fact that there was human intervention itself is undeniable, and these projects seemed to yield strange results, such as Hurricane King’s 135-degree swerve in 1947.

However, Dane Wigington claims that there is a different type of weather modification at issue here. In the interview, he said: “The cyclones are being kept weakened over with manipulation of atmospheric pressure zones. And once they’re near enough to the land-based network of frequency transmitters, the NEXRAD network, they are steered, and that steering is incredibly inarguable.” He continued: “Climate engineering is the crown jewel weapon of the military-industrial complex because they can and are bringing populations to their knees without those populations ever knowing they’re under assault, and they blame it on nature.” He also mentioned HAARP’s Ionospheric Heater, which can allegedly manipulate the pressure zones in the atmosphere, causing them to bulge and then compress. He likened this to a “chain reaction” that does not immediately affect the weather but changes the atmospheric conditions.

For context, the High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program is a program based at the University of Alaska Fairbanks since 2015. Before the university assumed control in 2015, the United States Air Force had operational control of this program. Wigington refers to HAARP’s “Ionospheric Heater,” which is also known as the Ionospheric Research Instrument: ”a high power transmitter facility operating in the High Frequency range.” “The IRI can be used to temporarily excite a limited area of the ionosphere for scientific study.” This program and Dane Wigington, then, essentially agree on HAARP’s function while they disagree on the scope or degree of its impact. If you think about it, though, it seems highly unlikely that affecting one part of a system will not affect other parts of the system.

During the interview, this video overlay shows the frequency transmissions during Hurricane Helene. There is a noticeable lack of transmissions on the Eastern Seaboard. Wigington explains in the video that these transmissions have a “repelling effect” on weather systems, “especially if and when the air masses have been seeded with electrically conductive nanoparticles.” Silver iodide is very electrically conductive. While this is not enough evidence to conclude that people are “controlling” the weather, it could at least be said that there is a possibility of human influence based on what we know about the fragile balance of weather systems.

It isn’t necessary to just take Dane Wigington’s word for it, however. William S. Cohen, Bill Clinton’s secretary of defense, said at a 1997 conference, “Others are engaging even in an eco type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes, remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.” Two questions immediately arise: Who are these "others," and does the U.S. do the same? Though this is somewhat vague, it is very interesting that he would state this at a public conference.

A common critique of these types of views — that the government controls the weather and can steer hurricanes and the like — is that the human influence could not possibly be strong enough to have a substantial impact on the weather system. This is certainly a fair argument, especially considering the overwhelming power of a hurricane. However, we know for a fact that cloud seeding has been around for close to 80 years and that there is a large amount of evidence that it does in fact influence the amount of precipitation.

A double-edged sword

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The well-known projects described earlier provide ample evidence of the unpredictability of human intervention on the weather. For example, Project Cirrus sought to dissipate a hurricane’s strength once it was far enough away from land. The effect, however, resulted in a stronger hurricane changing direction, making landfall, and ultimately killing someone and causing a large amount of property damage. One can, of course, accept the outcome of the lawsuits that granted the project plausible deniability due to a precedential instance. But at the same time, the government has been playing the same game for almost 80 years, pleading innocence when its interference with the weather wreaks havoc on a population.

Therefore, this accepted pattern should no longer put our doubts and scrutiny to rest. The scientists themselves were “astonished” by the behavior of this hurricane, meaning they could not possibly have expected what happened next. In short, if these operations say they are going to accomplish a certain task, there is absolutely no guarantee that this task will be accomplished. What’s more, the actual effects may be as disastrous as they are unpredictable. Therefore, the people involved in geoengineering can’t have it both ways: The fact that the weather is unpredictable cannot continue to be both a shield from scrutiny and a justification to continue modifying the weather.

So does the government control the weather? It depends on what you mean by "control." The government has a vast array of weather modification technologies, it has been experimenting with these technologies for nearly 80 years (at least), and the infrastructure is continuously being refined and developed. The government does not deny that HAARP is blasting radio waves into the atmosphere to heat up the ionosphere. It doesn’t deny Project Cirrus, Project Stormfury, Operation Popeye, or Project Skywater. No one who has done even a tiny bit of research denies that cloud seeding is real. Why are so many governments and private companies interested in this technology if it doesn’t work? However, the people wreaking havoc on populations with weather modification have always hidden behind a plea of plausible deniability that has shielded them from accountability. This cyclical trick has gone on for far too long. The cost of weather modification has always been far too high because of its unpredictable outcomes compared to its negligible benefits. No, the government doesn’t control the weather. And that is exactly why these operations are so dangerous.

Meet the HSPs: 'Snowflakes' with an official diagnosis

Not so long ago, mocking “snowflakes” felt like a national pastime.

Safe spaces, trigger warnings, emotional support peacocks — they seemed like punch lines, symbols of a fragile generation allergic to discomfort. But as amusing as those days were, the joke was on us. These particular snowflakes didn’t melt away; they adapted, mutated, and expanded.

We’ve allowed emotional depth to overshadow the necessity of grit, and the consequences are becoming painfully clear.

According to recent research, they now form a substantial chunk of the workforce — roughly one-third, to be precise. That’s right: One in three employees are emotional ticking time bombs, ready to explode without warning.

You’ve heard the myth that in any given city, you’re never more than six feet away from a rat?

With snowflakes, it seems this one rings undeniably true.

Rise of the HSPs

These snowflakes go by another name: highly sensitive persons. Yes, there’s a term — scientifically endorsed, no less — to describe individuals who feel everything on a level most of us can’t even fathom.

The flicker of fluorescent office lights might as well be a strobe light. A mildly curt email is seen as a declaration of war. And criticism? Well, that’s the emotional equivalent of waterboarding.

To be clear, HSPs aren’t just fragile; they’re attuned — painfully so — to every nuance in their environment. This hyper-awareness can be a double-edged sword.

On one hand, HSPs might make exceptional artists or empaths, capable of detecting emotions and subtleties others miss. Freddie Mercury, the legendary frontman of Queen, is a perfect example. Beneath his flamboyant stage persona and electrifying performances was a deeply introspective and empathetic man.

Those who knew him well often remarked on his sensitivity, which is evident in songs like "Love of My Life" and "Bohemian Rhapsody." His ability to tap into profound emotional truths helped him connect with millions, creating timeless anthems that still resonate today.

Kurt Cobain, the voice of a disillusioned generation, also fits the bill. As the lead singer of Nirvana, Cobain poured his sensitivity and pain into raw, haunting lyrics that explored alienation and societal injustices.

On the other hand, HSPs are often one snarky comment away from a full-blown existential crisis. If the modern workplace is a battlefield, HSPs are the deadly land mines just beneath the surface.

One wrong word, one misinterpreted tone, and you’re not just the office jerk; you’re a full-fledged bully. This sensitivity extends far beyond the cubicle. In a society addicted to hot takes and razor-sharp critiques, the rise of HSPs signals a cultural reckoning over how we handle feedback, discourse, and conflict.

Resistant to change

The DSM, for those unfamiliar, is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — the ultimate guide for therapists playing “name that affliction.” It does not, however, classify being a highly sensitive person as a disorder.

Instead, it’s a personality trait. Like fingerprints, personality traits are uniquely ours; they are notoriously resistant to change. Traits such as introversion, extraversion, or high sensitivity often shape our responses to the world, forming a consistent behavioral blueprint.

Studies in psychology suggest that personality is relatively stable over time. For example, a highly conscientious child is likely to retain this trait into adulthood, consistently exhibiting organization and diligence.

Similarly, an HSP might always feel overwhelmed by loud environments, no matter how much exposure they endure. Such traits are embedded in our neurobiology, influencing how we process information and interact with the world.

Studies consistently show that 40% to 60% of what makes you, well, you, is heritable. And if you’re holding on to the romantic notion that opposites attract, prepare to be disappointed. Research shows the opposite: like attracts like.

In other words, "birds of a feather flock together" isn’t just a quaint saying; it’s science. Enter the similarity attraction theory, which means snowflakes don’t just gravitate toward other snowflakes — they pair up and multiply. This genetic predisposition, combined with the tendency to seek out similar souls, ensures the production of yet more snowflakes. And so the cycle continues. Indefinitely. A self-replicating blizzard of hypersensitivity.

A fine line between mindfulness and meltdowns

If we’re honest, there’s something admirable about heightened sensitivity — to a point. Empathy is a scarce resource in a world that often values profits over people and cancellations over consideration.

But the HSP’s radar, constantly tuned to detect even the faintest whiff of negativity, can create a feedback loop of doom. The result is a tsunami of anxiety and depression and an overwhelming urge to retreat from life’s harsher realities.

And herein lies the problem: Sensitivity without resilience is a recipe for disaster. Life’s harsh truths won’t disappear because someone’s feelings might get hurt. We’ve allowed emotional depth to overshadow the necessity of grit, and the consequences are becoming painfully clear.

Resilience isn’t forged through constant coddling or endless validation. It emerges through adversity. Childhood should be a testing ground where emotional depth is acknowledged but shaped by challenges that demand planning and perseverance. After all, failure is life’s toughest, and perhaps most valuable, teacher.

And failure is merciless.

But we’ve built a culture that shields children from failure at all costs. Participation trophies, helicopter parenting, and zero-tolerance policies for even the mildest discomfort have created a generation ill equipped to handle life’s inevitable harshness. The world doesn’t bend to anyone’s emotional needs.

But try telling this to the HSP standing next to you.

'Privatized sanctions regime': Andreessen's take on America's corruption

Has America been morphing into an economically fascist country? Marc Andreessen suggested as much in a recent interview on “The Joe Rogan Experience.” Andreessen, billionaire, software engineer, and co-creator of the first widely used Internet browser, Mosaic, offered a unique inside look into navigating the inner workings of Silicon Valley.

Andreessen and Rogan discussed a wide variety of topics, ranging from the Democratic response to Trump’s re-election to Chinese drones, but the conversation always centered around one theme: The public and private spheres are in bed with each other. This “cooperation,” Marc Andreessen argues, is the source of many of our corruption problems, which are far from over despite some hope for “positive change” with Trump returning to office in January.

The combination of these levers of power amounts to a 'privatized sanctions regime that lets bureaucrats do to American citizens the same thing we do to Iran.'

Rogan and Andreessen talked about the state of the Democratic Party. Andreessen, a lifelong Democrat turned Trump voter, said that a “civil war” has begun within the ranks of the Democrats: “This time, it’s undeniable that the path they are on is not working. ... The smart Democrats know this is not a viable path. ... [They] have to reorient back to common sense, back to the sensible, the moderate.” He also acknowledged the possibility that they may simply “go off the cliff” if they don’t manage to turn things around as he hopes they will.

In a viral moment, Rogan said, “They’re scrambling to create their own version of this show. This keeps coming up, like, we need our own Joe Rogan — but they had me!” Harris failed to appear on "The Joe Rogan Experience" despite Rogan’s willingness to speak to her. Rogan endorsed Donald Trump very late in the election cycle during Trump’s appearance on the podcast days before the election, but he had been supportive of the Democrats prior to that. In a sense, the extremity of the Democrats in recent months and years finally pushed him away — into Trump’s camp.

Speaking of extremity, Andreessen added this insight into the nature of the woke, which he compares to traditional religions: “The big difference between woke and traditional religions is that woke has no concept of redemption, no concept of forgiveness. You do not want that to be the cornerstone of your religion,” he laughed. He went on to say that woke is “inherently totalitarian because it can permanently destroy people.”

America is at a crossroads, which will require a major fiat from our leaders if we want to see any positive change in the structure of our government and society. Andreessen brought up an idea from the Roman orator Cicero, who famously complained that the best and richest men in society were secluding themselves from the public, withdrawing into their private villas in the countryside, and “working on their fish ponds.” He drew a parallel between these Roman leaders and the status quo in America with our leaders: “When times get tough, do the people who are in a position to actually make positive change step up or not?” He and Rogan, however, expressed hope that the “coalition” around Trump, including billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, are prepared to “go all in” to fix our system.

Fascism in America?

What, exactly, is wrong with our system? Andreessen shined a light on the government corruption that has effectively saddled corporations to “legally” do government's bidding. He explained that this is the basic mechanism, or “sleight of hand,” as he calls it, that makes censorship and de-banking possible: “The First Amendment only applies to the government. ... The government cannot censor American citizens. So if you’re in the government and want to censor American citizens, you fund an outside organization and then you have them [censor Americans]. And that’s what’s been happening.”

The censorship campaigns of the last several years, which have only gotten worse, were conducted by private companies, yet Andreessen suggested that the government was involved in instigating them: “The companies bear a lot of responsibility, and the people in the companies made a lot of bad judgment calls, but the Biden White House was directly exerting censorship pressure on American companies to censor American citizens, which I think is just flatly illegal.” He went on to explain that the companies would likely say that this all happened under “coercion” from the government, which ties into the notion of “soft totalitarianism” that he discussed elsewhere in the interview.

Just as the government censors Americans by proxy, it is also involved in the de-banking of Americans with whom it disagrees. The wording for this regulation is astonishingly blatant: “Under current banking regulations, there’s now a category called a ‘Politically Exposed Person.’ If you’re a PEP, you are required by financial regulators to kick them out of your bank. ... I have not heard of a single instance of a person on the left getting de-banked.”

The logic for de-banking is the same for censorship: “There’s a constitutional amendment that says the government can’t restrict your speech, but there’s no constitutional amendment that says the government can’t de-bank you. They don’t have to de-bank you. They just have to put pressure on the private company banks to do it. Then the government can say they didn’t do it.” This plays well into the distinction that Andreessen drew between hard totalitarianism and soft totalitarianism. Hard totalitarianism would entail a flat violation of the First Amendment by the government itself, while soft totalitarianism involves this “sleight of hand” with private companies that Andreessen described.

Provocatively, Andreessen stated that the combination of these levers of power amounts to a “privatized sanctions regime that lets bureaucrats do to American citizens the same thing we do to Iran.”

Why would a private company allow this type of external control on its operations? “You can either invent the future before it happens to you, but that’s hard to do. You can also go to the government and propose a trade.” The trade involves “voluntarily plac[ing] yourself under the government’s thumb” while the government creates a vast array of regulations that makes it virtually impossible for a startup to function. Andreessen explained that the regulations require a company to hire thousands of lawyers and compliance specialists, which big companies can afford but small competitors and startups cannot. This makes it impossible for new companies to compete with the established large corporations. Thus, he complained that this “intertwining of government and private companies” in multiple sectors of the economy effectively creates a “privatized social credit score” in America.

This trade has two simultaneous consequences: First, the government quickly gains some amount of control over the private sector; second, the number of startups shrinks, and the large companies will ultimately merge together. Big government, big business.

Therefore, Andreessen continued, large private companies have been subjected to or assented to “regulatory capture.” He gave a few examples of this phenomenon, including the adverse effects on the food industry and the drone industry. In the case of the food industry, “One of the reasons why everybody became unhealthy is because the government directly put itself into the food system.” The government has been subsidizing unhealthy food products for decades, with no sign of changing its practices: “We’re living with these horrible downstream consequences, and unless somebody steps in with a hammer, none of this is going to change.”

Drone troubles

Likewise, the government has regulated the U.S. drone industry to the ground: “The FAA killed the U.S. drone industry.” Andreessen explains the details of these regulations in more detail in the interview, but essentially, compliance with current regulations either makes it impossible for drone manufacturers to sell to a broad enough customer base or it makes the drones practically useless. Consequently, the market has largely shifted to China, yet this poses another problem: “Every Chinese drone is both a potential surveillance platform and a potential weapon.”

This brought the conversation more broadly to China and invited a consideration of our relationship to China. Should we become more like China or more like ourselves in order to beat our rival of the 21st century? “You’d rather be a CEO in the U.S. rather than in China, for sure, as long as the U.S. system actually stays open. ... That’s why [the Biden] administration freaked us out so much since it seemed like they were trying to become much more like China.”

After hearing about this tangled, corrupt, potentially fascist mess, who could disagree with Andreessen when he says, “It’s time to carve the government back in size and scope”?

The only way out is through. Andreessen recounted some alarming meetings he had in the spring, presumably of 2024, with government officials. They were about the future plans for the regulatory capture of the budding AI industry, which the government doesn’t want to crush but control: “The AI thing was very alarming. We had meetings in the spring that were the most alarming meetings I’ve ever been in, where they were taking us through their plans ... full government control. ... There will be a small number of large companies that will be regulated and controlled by the government. ... They told us, don't even start startups. ... There’s no way we’re going to permit that to happen.”

Joe Rogan asked, “When you leave a meeting like that, what do you do?” Andreessen immediately replied, laughing, “You go endorse Donald Trump.”

Teens on a high-tech crime spree: Microsoft, Vegas casinos — who’s next?

These days, it has become almost mandatory to mock “the kids” — their TikTok obsessions, relentless “doom-scrolling” on Instagram, and “know-nothing” attitudes. They grunt, moan, and communicate via emojis, GIFs, and hashtags, emerging from their digital layers just long enough to make it to class or snatch food from the Uber Eats guy.

Imagine if these extremely talented kids, armed with nothing more than a smartphone and a few low-tech tricks, turn their attention to banks, hospitals, or even the power grids of entire nations.

Yet some of these zombies-in-the-making are up to something far more disruptive than scrolling or snapping selfies. They are infiltrating and embarrassing the world’s most powerful corporations. They've brought industry giants to their knees with a few low-tech tricks, social engineering hacks, and youthful persistence. “Can’t make it to dinner, Mom,” they scream, “too busy making Microsoft sweat.”

Advanced adolescence

Dubbed “advanced persistent teenagers,” these young hackers are not only one of the biggest threats to global corporations but also expose the shaky foundations of our digital world. Groups like LAPSUS$ and Scattered Spider may chase fame and fortune, but critically, their primary motivation seems to be the sheer thrill of it.

In recent months, they’ve pulled off some of the boldest hacks in modern history, targeting hotel chains, casinos, and tech giants using methods that would embarrass any cybersecurity expert. No sophisticated espionage here — just brash smash-and-grab tactics executed with clinical effectiveness.

It’s important to note that nations do not back these teens. They’re a ragtag band of virtual vigilantes who flaunt their hacks on social media with snapshots of breached systems and leaked data. They have taken the art of trolling to a whole new level.

These strategies recall the 2020 Twitter (now X) hack, where young hackers posed as internal IT support to gain access, exploiting employees’ trust rather than high-tech systems.

With a fake call here or a well-timed email there, LAPSUS$ and Scattered Spider trick employees into handing over the keys to the kingdom. Targets include tech titans like Microsoft, Samsung, Nvidia, and, more recently, several hotel chains and casinos, including MGM Resorts. Offering bribes or targeting individuals’ emails, the groups often start with minor accounts, which they use to worm their way into corporate systems. In a world where hackers are meant to lurk in the shadows, these teens are setting off flares.

Conflicted and confused

Should we shed a single tear for these corporate giants?

Many readers will scream “absolutely not” for entirely valid reasons.

Microsoft, for one, has long been associated with a number several sites. From wielding monopolistic power that crushed competitors to pushing software that seems more focused on control than innovation, the company has played the tech game with the heaviest of hands, and its relentless drive for data often crosses privacy lines that leave users feeling more surveilled than served. Also, as I write this, Microsoft is still pushing the DEI agenda with relentless enthusiasm despite most sane Americans wanting nothing to do with it.

Similarly, Nvidia, one of the most powerful tech companies in the world, is no stranger to scandal. The American company has faced a series of controversies that reveal a pattern of miscommunication and questionable practices. First, the GTX 970 fiasco left customers with a misleadingly marketed graphics card, where its supposed 4 GB memory turned out to be 3.5 GB of high-speed and 0.5 GB of slow memory, leading to performance issues. Nvidia's promised driver fix never materialized, leading to performance issues, forcing it to settle a class-action lawsuit. The GeForce Partner Program stirred antitrust concerns, since it incentivized exclusivity only to be canceled amid backlash. To be clear, it was canceled only because Nvidia was exposed.

The California-based corporation also attempted to restrict the reviewer Hardware Unboxed, prompting accusations of extreme overreach. Additionally, Nvidia was hit with an SEC fine for failing to disclose how much crypto mining bolstered its revenue, misleading investors.

Samsung, another target of the terrible teens, made headlines not too long ago when its Galaxy Note phones started blowing up — literally. It’s difficult to feel any sympathy for these companies, now getting a well-deserved taste of their own medicine.

At the same time, it’s worth asking what we should think about these teenagers. Are they digital Robin Hoods exposing corporate arrogance, or are they future terrorists refining techniques that could one day bring nations to their knees? Is Microsoft just a warm-up for thier own Manhattan Project?

Imagine if these extremely talented kids, armed with nothing more than a smartphone and a few low-tech tricks, turn their attention to banks, hospitals, or even the power grids of entire nations. Then it’s not just Big Tech elites taking the hit — it’s all of us. Suddenly, their antics are no longer a corporate headache; they’re a real-world threat. People could die. Lots and lots of people.

As we move further into the digital age, these “advanced persistent teenagers” serve as a sobering reminder of just how fragile our world truly is. For now, their exploits might seem entertaining, almost harmless, but the thrill could easily turn into a horror show — one where the power to stop it lies solely in their hands.

'Wallace and Gromit' return, 'Paddington' heads south, and the 'Wolf Man' goes on the prowl

Happy New Year and welcome back to the Align Movie Guide, our no-nonsense guide to what's worth a look on the big screen.

One of the better films of 2024 was "The Apprentice," a depiction of the early years of young Donald Trump (an excellent Sebastian Stan). Marketed as "the movie Trump doesn't want you to watch," the flick failed to do much business.

Those who did spring for a ticket enjoyed a warts-and-all — yet surprisingly nuanced — portrait of an insecure but ambitious young man struggling to escape his overbearing father's shadow.

The lesson? Anti-Trump hysteria no longer sells like it used to. In fact, the dawning of the Trump 2 era seems to have loosened the stranglehold wokeness has had on the culture in general for the last decade or so.

Will we see that reflected at the multiplex? Let's see what glimmers of hope we can find in the cinematic doldrums of January.

‘Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl’ | Jan. 3 | Aardman

"Wallace & Gromit" creator Nick Park takes his time. It's been more than 35 years since the iconic English duo made their debut in the acclaimed stop-motion short "A Grand Day Out."

Since then, the cheese-loving inventor and his skeptical yet faithful beagle Gromit have appeared in one feature film and three more shorts — the most recent being 2008's "A Matter of Loaf and Death."

Earlier this month the pair returned for their second full-length adventure, "Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl." When Wallace's latest invention — a "smart gnome" named Norbot — goes rogue, Gromit discovers a dastardly plot by their greatest adversary, out for revenge.

That would be villainous, beady-eyed penguin Feathers McGraw, last seen getting sent off to jail at the end of 1993's "The Wrong Trousers."

The showdown is worth the wait. Park and co-director Merlin Crossingham once again prove themselves to be consummate craftsmen, bringing a distinctly handmade touch to a genre crowded with slick computer-aided creations.

Fans will mourn the absence of longtime Wallace actor Peter Sallis, who died in 2017, but understudy Ben Whitehead fills the role admirably.

'Paddington in Peru’ | Feb. 14 | StudioCanal

Wallace and Gromit aren't the only English icons making their way to the big screen this month. Author Michael Bond's Paddington Bear returns for his much-anticipated third big-screen outing with "Paddington in Peru."

Paddington and his adopted family, the Browns, head to the South American country to visit his Aunt Lucy. When she disappears while on a mysterious quest in the jungle, it's up to the intrepid ursine adventurer to find her.

The delightful "Paddington" films have become a cultural sensation, gaining a dedicated following due to wholesome, heartwarming stories that emphasize kindness and family.

The unqualified success of 2018's "Paddington 2" — heralded by many as one of the best children's films of all time — means that this installment has big Wellington boots to fill. Fortunately new director Dougal Wilson (taking over for Paul King) seems more than up to the task.

'Wolf Man’ | Jan. 17 | Universal Pictures

Looking for something a little less cuddly? Horror maestro Leigh Whannell ("Saw," "Insidious") has you covered with "Wolf Man," Universal's latest attempt to revive its classic Monsterverse.

This modern version of the legendary lycanthrope is a workaholic family man who has just relocated with his wife and daughter to his childhood home in rural Oregon. There, a poorly timed wolf bite gives him a case of full-moon fever; things get hairy for everyone not long after.

Whannell has already shown he can breathe new life into iconic characters with his 2020 reboot of "The Invisible Man"; it's the success of that movie that got him this job.

Purists will be glad to hear that Whannell relied heavily on practical effects when creating his toothy terror. If the final design is any indication, those who dare venture into the theater might find that a truly transformative experience awaits them.

'Better Man’ | Jan. 17 | Paramount Pictures

British singer Robbie Williams shows off his savage side in the biopic "Better Man." The film charts the classic pop star trajectory of rise, fall, and resurgence with a unique twist: Williams is portrayed as a monkey. Think "Planet of the Apes" with less postapocalyptic fallout and more showbiz excess.

Williams himself provides cheeky narration while Jonno Davies embodies the ape-Williams hybrid via motion capture. The resulting film, helmed by Michael Gracey ("The Greatest Showman"), is bizarrely entertaining and even poignant, the metaphor serving to highlight Williams' insecurity and his misguided attempts to escape it with the usual bad behavior.

While a huge star in the U.K., Williams is relatively unknown here in America. Nonetheless, "Better Man" got rave reviews when it debuted at the Telluride Film Festival last year.

After a limited release on Christmas Eve, the film goes wide on January 17. Whether you're an old-school "Take That" fan or a newbie looking for a widely unique and original cinematic experience, "Better Man" might be the better choice for you!

'Flight Risk’ | Jan. 24 | Lionsgate

To tide us over as we await the rumored second coming of Mel Gibson's "Passion" project ("The Resurrection of the Christ"), the actor/director delivers the tightly crafted actioner "Flight Risk."

U.S. Marshal Madolyn Harris (Michelle Dockery, "Downton Abbey") charters a plane to escort a witness (Topher Grace) to testify against a crime family. The trip goes haywire when it turns out the pilot she's contracted (Mark Wahlberg, essaying a rare Norwood 7 role) is also a licensed hit man.

Gibson's first movie behind the camera since 2016's WW2 drama "Hacksaw Ridge," "Flight Risk" looks set to deliver solid, old-school thrills, making it a worthy throwback to the kind of crowd-pleasers that first made Mel a star.

'Back in Action' | Jan. 17 | Netflix

"Back in Action" is an oddly appropriate title for Cameron Diaz's new movie, given that she's been out of the spotlight for a little over a decade. Her last big-screen appearance was 2014's "Annie" remake, co-starring Jamie Foxx.

Foxx, whose 2023 stroke led him to take a hiatus of his own, re-teams with Diaz to play a married couple of former CIA operatives who are forced out of retirement when their cover is blown; this time around, they have their hands full with two kids to protect while saving the world.

After her long retirement from acting — in which she focused on investing in health and biotech startups — Diaz seems raring to get back out there. She's set to reprise her role as Princess Fiona in "Shrek 5" and star in the comedy "Outcome" with Keanu Reeves. "Back in Action" should be a nice little warm-up.

Here are some other movies coming your way this month.

'Den of Thieves 2: Pantera' | Jan. 10 | Lionsgate

In this sequel to the 2018 thriller "Den of Thieves," Big Nick (Gerard Butler) is back on the trail of criminal mastermind Donnie (O'Shea Jackson Jr.). This time around, the setting moves to Europe, where the infamous Panther mafia plots a massive heist of the world's largest diamond exchange. The film also stars Evin Ahmad, Salvatore Esposito, and Orli Shuka. Written and directed by Christian Gudegast.

'Presence' | Jan. 24 | Neon

Prolific genre-swapper Steven Soderbergh dabbles in the supernatural with "Presence," a haunted house story told entirely from the POV of the haunter. Written by David Koepp ("Jurassic Park"), the film stars Lucy Liu, Julia Fox, Chris Sullivan, and Callina Liang.

'One of Them Days' | Jan. 17 | Sony

When best friends and roommates Dreux (Keke Palmer) and Alyssa (SZA) discover that Alyssa's boyfriend has blown their rent money, the duo find themselves going to extremes in a race against the clock to avoid eviction and keep their friendship intact. Also starring Vanessa Bell Calloway, Lil Rel Howery, Katt Williams, Maude Apatow, and Ray Santiago. Directed by Lawrence Lamont.

'Companion' | Jan. 31 | Warner Bros.

Screenwriter Drew Hancock's directorial debut, "Companion," stars Jack Quaid and Sophie Thatcher ("Yellowjackets," "Heretic"). The film's ominous, mysterious trailer makes it look like just the thing to get hibernating moviegoers out of the house and into the cinema.

'Dog Man’ | Jan. 31 | DreamWorks

First there was "Captain Underpants." Now another one of beloved author Dav Pilkey's unlikely heroes comes to the big screen in "Dog Man." When a police officer and his faithful police dog get injured in the line of duty, a harebrained but lifesaving surgery fuses the two of them together, and Dog Man is born. As Dog Man learns to embrace his new identity, he must stop feline supervillain Petey the Cat from cloning himself and going on a crime spree. Starring Isla Fisher, Lil Rel Howery, Poppy Liu, Stephen Root, Pete Davidson, Billy Boyd, and Ricky Gervais. Written by Dav Pilkey and directed by Peter Hastings.

Complete list by date:

"Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl" | Jan. 3
"Den of Thieves 2: Pantera" | Jan. 10
"Better Man" | Jan. 17
"Wolf Man" | Jan. 17
"Back in Action" | Jan. 17
"One of Them Days" | Jan. 17
"Presence" | Jan. 24
"Flight Risk" | Jan. 24
"Companion" | Jan. 31
"Dog Man" | Jan. 31
"Paddington in Peru" | Feb. 14

‘Enough is enough’: Family escapes Empire State over vaccine vendetta

Everyone has their own unique COVID story and, in the beginning, the Cutlers of Staten Island were accompanied by a dream come true.

After years of saving and sacrificing, the timing of the onset of the scamdemic went hand in hand with Curtis and Liz Cutler closing on their very first home. With New York’s lockdown orders, they and their two children had to hunker down and isolate like the rest of us. But it would be in a place that truly excited them, where Curtis would complete much of the renovation projects on his own.

The Cutlers questioned whether a Christian could shoulder the spiritual risk of staying in a place that seemed bent on its own destruction.

And since Curtis was viewed as an essential worker, his bottom line never took a hit while he carried on his duties as a city sanitation worker. There was more garbage than ever to collect as people isolated in their Netflix and chill fortresses, and Curtis rightly felt confident that fit men in their 30s or 40s like him were in nearly zero danger from COVID.

The schools shutting down was no picnic for his kids, but he was confident his family would get through the crisis with the help of their strong faith. Curtis was a deacon at the same evangelical church he grew up in, which his grandfather once helped lead as an elder.

And indeed, his faith has helped see him through — but not without cost. Because when the vaccine mandates came down in late 2021, everything changed for the worse. It was a time for choosing. Would he be counted among the sheep or the bleating goats sacrificed to the god of Big Pharma?

Curtis applied for a religious exemption with little concern that he might not receive one as a deacon. But despite multiple members of the sanitation department who also attended the same church as Curtis receiving theirs, Curtis was denied and shortly thereafter terminated.

"We were viewed as essential workers until we weren’t,” said Curtis during an interview with the "New York Mandate Podcast," which features stories like his.

Joined by 15 of his fellow sanitation workers, Curtis did not take his firing lying down. They sued and won in the Staten Island Supreme Court in October 2022. But the pharma fascists appealed the decision, and that remains the state of things to this very day — more than two years since Curtis should have been reinstated in his job.

The process was the punishment, and the Cutlers ultimately decided they were no longer willing to be its victims. It was time to move.

They remain involved in legal appeals and continue to pressure the New York City Council — albeit from a distance — to approve Resolution 5. That measure would reinstate city workers fired because of the vaccine mandate, which no longer applies in New York since Mayor Eric Adams suspended it nearly two years ago. With no relief in sight, Curtis reflected on their situation and concluded that staying put would leave his family “slowly bleeding out.”

They could not afford to remain in New York. The Cutlers also questioned whether a Christian could shoulder the spiritual risk of staying in a place that seemed bent on its own destruction.

Yes, that meant selling the new dream home. Yes, that meant leaving the church where Curtis grew up, served as a deacon, and where his family had worshipped for three generations. But when your child must go to the hospital without insurance — like the Cutlers did, due to what they see as the state’s petty tyranny — hard decisions become necessary.

Curtis and Liz now call red-state South Carolina home, refugees from New York’s chaos. Like many in their situation, this is a burden they never expected to bear. Yet it has reaffirmed for them that the most important things are worth fighting for and that their Lord will never abandon them. So onward they go.

“We are told not to fear man,” Curtis said, referring to his choice to reject the COVID jab and the path that decision set for his family. “While my driver’s license may have Caesar’s inscription on it, my body doesn’t. It is the Lord’s.”

Conservatives: Stop making excuses for Andrew Tate

The influence of Andrew Tate has spread rapidly through conservative youth, particularly among young disillusioned men. While some conservatives believe it’s a good thing, Allie Beth Stuckey believes it’s dangerous.

“You will see conservatives, unabashedly, without caveat, uncritically platform Andrew Tate and say, ‘Well, he’s got interesting things to say about society, so I’m just going to forget the rest of everything that he is and I’m going to platform him without pushing back at all,’” Stuckey says.

While Stuckey doesn’t believe someone has to be perfect in order to be heard, she explains that Tate’s message is a “net negative.”

Tate, who recently converted to Islam, is a British-American social media influencer with 10.5 million followers on X and 2 million on Rumble, and he once ran a cam girl business where he hired women to essentially do “virtual porn sessions” with male customers.

“They would take the women, would take a tiny cut of the money, and then Tate and his brother, I believe, would take most of the money. And so, he also sold courses on how men can become pimps and how men can get women to do whatever they want them to do,” Stuckey explains.

Tate is extraordinarily popular in the United Kingdom, where a 2023 survey found that eight in 10 British boys ages 16-17 had consumed Tate’s content. He also currently faces charges in Romania for “human trafficking for trafficking of minors, for forming an organized criminal group, sexual intercourse with a minor, and money laundering.”

Tate denies these allegations, claiming that it’s simply the matrix out to get him because he’s disrupting the feminist system.

However, his own words make that hard to believe.

“I have to f*** her so she obeys me. I don’t give a **** about having sex with beautiful women. I f*** them so they listen to me, so I can get what I actually want, which is not them; it’s a means to an end. Every single Bond girl was exploited; that’s exactly what I do,” Tate said in a video he took of himself.

“When I watch a Bond film and I see him basically pimp a *****, to me that speaks to my heart. I’ve been there, I’ve done that. Anyone who’s followed me long enough knows that I first made my million dollars with a webcam business. I have met beautiful women with a good personality and thought, ‘She will make me money,’” Tate continued.

Tate, who has claimed that this all happened 10 years ago, has also allegedly forced women who worked for him to get his name tattooed on them, like a brand.

“That wasn’t all 10 years ago,” Stuckey says. “Some of what he was saying was just a few years ago. He openly admitted during COVID that he hired more girls to pimp out for this so-called sex work, this prostitution over cameras.”

Now, Tate is teasing a potential run for prime minister.

“Why do people listen to Andrew Tate? Is it something that we should consider, is it because there is a dearth of masculinity on the right? Is it because Christians have become so feminized and have not given good masculine examples to men?” Stuckey asks.

“I don’t think that it is not worth debating,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

App Store Accountability Act aims to put parents back in the driver’s seat

Families with young children face a daunting challenge: navigating app stores controlled by large companies that place profit over safety. The lack of age verification, privacy protections, and simplified parental tools puts children at serious risk. Fortunately, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. John James (R-Mich.) are working to keep kids safe online.

Although the Senate and House versions differ slightly, the App Store Accountability Act includes vital reforms. The measure would require app stores to securely verify users’ ages, mandate parental approval for new downloads, and increase parents’ access to accurate app-specific information. These features would help families understand and control access to apps that jeopardize children’s digital health.

The bill does not prohibit any form of speech. It merely establishes guardrails such as requiring age verification.

Ensuring that this system works requires accountability from the companies that own major app stores. Currently, Google and Apple operate their platforms with minimal oversight, making and arbitrarily enforcing rules for maximum profit. In the absence of accountability, these digital giants leave families and children vulnerable to toxic and disturbing content.

Crucially, the bills include provisions for holding violators responsible through private rights of action (Senate) or by enforcing Federal Trade Commission laws on unfair and deceptive practices (House), each with corresponding penalties. Companies could no longer hide behind opaque app store systems that distribute malicious or poorly vetted apps, exposing children to explicit, violent, or otherwise harmful material. This legislation would protect children and hold violators liable.

Opponents of the measure misleadingly claim these common-sense protections violate the First Amendment. As the executive director of the ACLJ and a strong supporter of free speech rights, I take the First Amendment seriously and advocate for its proper interpretation. Generally, the Constitution protects free speech, but it recognizes long-standing exceptions.

The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity lacks constitutional protection, and certain sexually explicit content can be deemed obscene for minors. In Ginsberg v. New York, the court upheld a state law restricting the distribution of offensive material to young people. Supreme Court jurisprudence is clear: Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, and minors warrant special protection from sexually inappropriate content.

Yet, to be clear, the App Store Accountability Act does not prohibit any form of speech. It merely establishes guardrails such as requiring age verification for app stores to protect young people from inappropriate and harmful content. Far from censoring specific content, this proposal empowers parents to have better tools to make their own decisions about what apps are appropriate for their children.

Further, the burden on companies that oversee app stores would be minimal; the data needed to verify user ages is already in their possession. Apple and Google both offer parental approval controls if parents decide to turn this feature on. Lee and James’ bill would simply make this optional feature required, taking the burden off parents to navigate a vast web of optional parental consent tools.

In the modern online age, children spend significant time online. Parents deserve to be given streamlined tools to ensure that the content their children access is safe, transparent, and protective of their well-being.

Congress should pass the App Store Accountability Act to provide families with the key tools and information necessary to protect their children’s access to online enrichment while keeping them safe from unseen dangers. Our children’s online welfare and safety depend on it.

Biden’s fiscal failures loom over treasury nominee’s path

Thursday’s confirmation hearing for treasury secretary nominee Scott Bessent carries immense importance, given the fragile state of America’s fiscal foundation. You would expect senators to focus on treasury-related questions. However, instead of addressing the consequences of Janet Yellen financing U.S. debt at the short end of the yield curve or the challenge of refinancing nearly $7 trillion in the coming months, senators chose to grandstand and indulge in self-serving rhetoric.

Bessent opened his statement by highlighting his “only in America” story of achieving the American dream and his determination to preserve it for future generations. He also emphasized the need to secure supply chains, shift from wasteful government spending to productive investments that grow the economy, and maintain tax cuts to prevent massive tax hikes on Americans.

Responding to one senator’s question, Bessent said he often relies on the principle 'no data, no opinion.'

One of the most encouraging aspects of the hearing was Bessent’s repeated focus on Main Street and small businesses. He acknowledged Wall Street’s strong performance in recent years and emphasized the need for a Main Street and small business-led recovery to drive growth and economic strength.

Bessent also recognized the excessive concentration in the U.S. banking system. He noted that regulations implemented after the Great Recession have burdened smaller community banks, hindering their formation and operations. These policies have also increased systemic risk by consolidating assets among larger financial institutions. His acknowledgment of the need for policies that prioritize Main Street over Wall Street is both refreshing and essential.

In response to a question from Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) about central bank digital currencies — a digital version of the U.S. dollar that could be controlled and programmed by the Federal Reserve and the government — Bessent expressed opposition. He sees no need for the United States to adopt a CBDC, a stance that likely reassures many Americans concerned about potential threats to individual freedoms.

Oddly, much of the discussion, particularly from the Democratic senators, was centered around tax policy versus spending, with the senators refusing to acknowledge their starring role in the overspending, that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased government revenue, or that collections are not a deficit driver — spending is.

We have a tough road ahead. The Biden administration has left the United States with a debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 120% and a deficit at 6%-7% of GDP — levels typically seen during wartime, not in a period of “economic expansion.” Combined with a strong dollar, substantial foreign asset holdings, and other factors, returning to a sustainable and prosperous economic path will require careful execution.

Bessent brings extensive experience across Wall Street, central bank advisory roles, and other economic arenas, equipping him with the qualifications and temperament needed to navigate this uncertain terrain. Responding to one senator’s question, Bessent said he often relies on the principle “no data, no opinion.”

Bessent’s confirmation should proceed smoothly, but the real test lies ahead as he takes on the daunting task of stabilizing America’s financial foundation.

The eight coolest gadgets from the Consumer Electronics Show

Another year's Consumer Electronics Show has come and gone, and CES 2025 did not disappoint. From futuristic electric vehicles to smart lawnmowers and vacuums, from the latest specs on earbuds to bendable gaming monitors, this show had something for everyone.

Honda O Series

While CES isn’t primarily a car show, Honda certainly still surprised everyone with its debut of its EV prototypes, 0 Series. Honda presented two prototypes at the event: the Honda 0 Saloon and the Honda 0 SUV. Honda unveiled these new vehicles, developed with the intention of making the future of cars “thin, light, and wise,” along with its new operating system, ASIMO OS. This OS allows for the further development of an “eyes-off function.” Models are expected to come to market in 2026.

Asus Zenbook A14

Image Courtesy of ASUS

The Asus Zenbook A14 made waves at the event for multiple reasons. The specs speak for themselves: a Snapdragon X series processor, a 14” FHD 60Hz OLED display, and an extra-long battery life. Perhaps even more impressive is the AI integration in this laptop as a Copilot+PC machine, boasting of up to 45 TOPS NPU. Many reviewers speculated that this offering from ASUS may be edging the Macbook Air out of its prime position as a lightweight laptop option, weighing less than one kilogram owing to its light and durable material, ceraluminum.

LG UltraGear OLED bendable gaming monitor

Image ccourtesy of LG

LG likewise set some precedents at this year's convention. It showcased the world’s first “bendable” monitor, the LG UltraGear OLED bendable gaming monitor. This 5K2K resolution monitor boasts a 21:9 aspect ratio and customizable display settings on its 45-inch screen. It can bend from a flat screen to a 900R curvature. The GX9 Series is already available on the market.

Panasonic Technics EAH-AZ100 earbuds

Image Courtesy of Panasonic

The Panasonic Technics EAH-AZ100 earbuds won some accolades for their features and premium design. These features include “Voice Focus AI,” adaptive noise canceling, and one-touch conversation mode. These provide an immersive experience with seamless transitions between phone calls and speaking to people in person. Further, Panasonic introduced its proprietary “Magnetic Fluid Driver,” which it claims provides the “most authentic, balanced audio.” Launched on January 7 and available in silver and black, these true wireless earbuds come with the premium price tag of $299.99.

Razer’s Project Arielle

Image courtesy of Razer

Razer introduced its prototype gaming chair, Project Arielle, combining the breathable mesh design of earlier models with a heating and cooling system. The bladeless heating system can heat the chair to 30 degrees Celsius, and the cooling system can lower the temperature up to five degrees. Both are easily accessible on the side of the chair. With three distinct designs, this prototype promises to revolutionize any gamer’s experience.

Roborock Saros Z70

Image Courtesy of Roborock

Roborock unveiled the world’s first smart vacuum with a robotic arm. This arm can pick up small objects rather than remove them. Powered by AI, this vacuum cleaner recognizes dozens of objects, and the app allows for additional customization. At roughly three inches tall, this design is one of the sleekest on the market.

Manmotion robot lawnmowers

Image Courtesy of Manmotion

Manmotion introduced its latest product line of electric lawnmowers with AI capabilities. The company unveiled its new Ultra Sense AI Vision system along with two new AI lawn mowers series, the LUBA mini AWD series and YUKA mini series. These lawnmowers have mapping technologies that keep the lawnmower in a certain range, all while avoiding obstacles like pools and flower beds. They can return to their charging stations independently and have a removable battery, so this is a hassle-free upgrade. These new product lines are available for preorder, with sales starting in March.

Kirin Electric Salt Spoon

Image Courtesy of Kirin Holdings

No CES list would be complete without an honorable mention of the Kirin Electric Salt Spoon. The idea behind it is to make low-sodium food taste saltier by adding an electric current from the spoon when it hits your mouth. The Japanese company’s product is only available in Japan at the moment, but Kirin brought some samples for CES attendees to test. A reporter from Mashable tested the large spoon at the event. While he understandably struggled to use the awkward spoon, he ultimately concluded that the spoon did in fact work in making his soup taste saltier.

These are just some of the best products from this year’s Consumer Electronics Show. There were many other innovative products at the event. This all goes to show that this will be an especially exciting year for the future of tech.