bot

From VA Marine Mammal Rescue Society via this RSS feed

From VA Marine Mammal Rescue Society via this RSS feed

Destiny 2’s newest expansion is on the horizon. Now that the previous Light and Darkness saga has concluded, this latest expansion marks the beginning of a new era in Destiny 2’s narrative. The Edge of Fate will include new navigation menus, new Vanguard and Crucible activities, and an overhaul to the gear system.

Below, we list the Destiny 2: The Edge of Fate release time in your time zone with an expanded look at what you can expect from the expansion.

Destiny 2: The Edge of Fate release time

Destiny 2: The Edge of Fate will be releasing for PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Windows, Xbox One, and Xbox Series X on July 15. Bungie has not announced the exact release time of the expansion; however, it’s a safe bet that the new content will go live at or around the weekly reset time, which occurs every Tuesday.

Here are the current weekly reset times for Destiny 2 in regions around the world:

10 a.m. PDT for the West Coast of North America1 p.m. EDT for the East Coast of North America2 p.m. BRT for Brazil6 p.m. BST for the U.K.7 p.m. CESTfor Western Europe2 a.m. JSTfor Japan3 a.m. AEST for the east coast of Australia

What to expect from Destiny 2: The Edge of Fate

The Edge of Fate is a new era for Destiny 2, and with its release will be the release of many new additions and features, such as:

A new location known as the Kepler Destination**,** with new puzzles to solve and new places to exploreA non-linear campaignA new power called Matterspark**,** which you will use for overworld navigationA complete overhaul to all armor known as the Armor 3.0 SystemNew gear tiers in the Gear Tiering SystemHeavy CrossbowsMelee damage has been changed to be additive, and glaives will now count as meleeAbility overhauls and reworksA new Firing Range in the Tower

From Polygon via this RSS feed

When I first heard about Missile Command Delta, turn-based gameplay was not what I expected. Changing the 1980 arcade classic’s concept from a never-ending real-time rocket strike to a more relaxing puzzle experience seemed quite the gamble, but a few minutes in the game’s tutorial room won me over.

But as I left that tutorial, I didn’t walk into the virtual arcade parlor I had hoped for. Although Missile Command Delta presented me with plenty more puzzles, they weren’t solely of the tactical missile-defending kind. Although the sheer brilliance of the reimagined arcade gameplay kept me going, dreams of an arcade-only mode have haunted me ever since.

It’s no surprise to see the iconic red, blue, and yellow color scheme return, nor did I ever doubt the inclusion of different missile types — these things are a given if you decide to reimagine Missile Command. But to keep the suspense, despite the slower pace, that’s impressive.

In part, this effect can be attributed to the flickering lights combined with the eerie background music. Appearing as a warning sign, the blinking missile tracks constantly remind me that my cities are about to get bombed, either by this missile wave or the next. Make one error, and the next group of missiles will hit you with unpleasant feelings of “Oh no, what have I done?”

The constant need to optimize my defenses had me calculating rocket speed, frantically scrolling through my arsenal, and making tough decisions, such as waiting for the next turn in an attempt to destroy more bombs using the same missile. Especially during the “choose your arsenal” phase, before the real action kicks off, the uncertainty hits hard. This tactical freedom and pressure to find the optimal solution make for a highly compelling puzzle game, and I just don’t want to stop playing.

It’s too bad, then, that Missile Command Delta doesn’t indulge my longing for the next rocket storm. As Oli Welsh observed, a first-person narrative about some teens stuck in a bunker (don’t enter abandoned bunkers – mess around and find out, guys!) constantly interferes with the cool stuff. Undoubtedly, the intention was to turn this game into a thriller, but it already has a thriller in the form of tactical dread.

A Missile Command Delta arcade mode, available from the start and accessible from the main menu, would be the dream. Just boot up the game, enter the arcade, and start an ongoing stream of Missile Command puzzles. I don’t expect an endless mode, but a large stack of handcrafted challenges would do.

Naturally, a bunch of different game modes would be magnificent. Imagine the Atari 50 arcade collection, but as a modern, missile-only edition. I can’t help but think of the possibilities: a 50-wave challenge, a short-range missiles-only mode, a randomized arsenal, perhaps even a bomb-’em-back variation (let’s see how they like it). That last one would have you firing back at the enemy — it breaks with the original Missile Command’s vow to never let the player become the aggressor, but you’ve got to admit, it would be fun.

I realize my Missile Command dreams are getting slightly out of hand at this point, imagine how lovely it’d be to see a few arcade machines in the middle of that dreary Missile Command Delta bunker. One filled with missile puzzles, and — I’m sure there’s room — a replica of the original machine from 1980. Retro artwork and cute buttons included.

Don’t get me wrong, I am willing to suffer angsty teens with terrible survival instincts for the sake of the brilliant tactical puzzle game that’s already core to this game, but Missile Command Delta has awakened a thirst for more Missile Command, which it doesn’t quite quench — yet. If Mighty Yell and 13AM Games ever decide to develop a Missile Command arcade collection with a variety of innovative spins on the existing concept, which they already proved to be capable of, I’ll be first in line to get bombed.

From Polygon via this RSS feed

From 9to5Linux via this RSS feed

From 9to5Linux via this RSS feed

The New York Timesrecently published the results of a poll determining the 100 best movies of the 21st century so far, and the #1 slot went to Bong Joon Ho’s Best Picture winner Parasite. (It topped the paper’s subsequent readers’ poll, too.) As it happens, Bong Joon Ho also voted in the poll, and the Times made his ballot (along with many others) available online. He lists the 2005 Steven Spielberg/Tom Cruise movie War of the Worlds among his 10 choices, which makes that movie his selection for the best Steven Spielberg movie of the past 25 years. It’s a bold choice. But he may be right. At very least, War of the Worlds deserves to be talked about alongside classics like Jaws and Jurassic Park.

The Spielberg movie that actually made the overall top 100 list was his other (also excellent) Tom Cruise-led sci-fi film, Minority Report, at number 94. War of the Worlds, which recently celebrated its 20th anniversary, was a bigger but more divisive hit back in 2005, though it was overshadowed by Cruise’s talk-show antics and Scientology-stumping. In fact, it wound up as Cruise’s last big money-maker until he revived interest in the Mission: Impossible franchise six years later.

The Cruise factor is part of why War of the Worlds might seem like a counterintuitive choice for Bong’s favorite Spielberg movie. The South Korean director obviously enjoys dark-hued genre films, and he made his own movie where a family encounters a fantastical creature: The Host, released just a year after War of the Worlds. But that movie’s tone is vastly different from Spielberg’s, veering into comedy and satire to complement its heartfelt drama.

Moreover, like Parasite, it uses a family ensemble to offer different point-of-view characters. Spielberg’s WotW, by contrast, is both vastly bigger and strikingly smaller. It’s one of the most intimate large-scale disaster movies ever mounted, chronicling no less than a massacre of the global human population by invading aliens, while sticking almost exclusively to the ground-level point-of-view of Ray (Tom Cruise), a super-divorced New Jersey dock worker, and his 10-year-old daughter Rachel (Dakota Fanning). Ray’s teenage son Robbie (Justin Chatwin) is there, too, if only to wriggle away from Ray whenever possible.

The trio of characters initially navigating this alien-ravaged landscape vaguely recalls the three men venturing into the ocean in Jaws, and the boy-girl siblings bring to mind the kids in Jurassic Park. War of the Worlds does indeed scan as the third film in a trilogy of creature features that most closely resemble Spielberg horror movies. Its way into that material, though, is arguably stranger than either of its companions. It uses the framework of a genre most popular in the respective decades of Jaws and Jurassic Park: the disaster movie.

Though the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America didn’t put a total kibosh on the neo-disaster wave of the 1990s, they did push those types of movies toward an increasingly fantastical approach to mass destruction on screen. Though a few filmmakers like Man of Steel’s Zack Snyder did lean into a more harrowing sense of realism, later-period Roland Emmerich movies like The Day After Tomorrow and 2012 didn’t seem designed to remind people of 9/11. Their disaster-scapes were so outsized (and neutrally produced by Earth itself, rather than invaders) that they almost looked like simulations, or apocalyptic screensavers.

Spielberg’s War of the Worlds has plenty of outlandish, retro sci-fi imagery: Certain elements of the original H.G. Wells novel from 1898, like the aliens’ tripod ships, are faithfully included, and when the ships start fertilizing their own vegetation with human viscera, the wide landscape shots look like a vivid, super-saturated set out of a 1950s melodrama.

But beyond the base-level awe these sequences inspire compared to Emmerich’s SimCity destruction, the then-contemporary 9/11 references are unmistakable (and darker than the superficial building-smashing of superhero movies): After witnessing an initial attack, Ray realizes he’s covered in the dust of incinerated people. Later, a terrified Rachel makes it explicit; as they speed away from the mass devastation in a stolen car, she asks in panic, “Is it the terrorists?”

In its way, this directness is as vivid as the kid dialogue in E.T., like the faux-teenage way Elliott calls his brother “penis breath” in anger. Before Spielberg made a more intimate movie about real-life terrorism with Munich (which also came out in 2005), he brought the chaos and fear of terrorism into summer movies that were supposed to provide escapism. His gift for moving the audience through the action with fluid, longer shots takes on a frightening immediacy.

Though his two Jurassic Park movies are full of suspenseful sequences (and The Lost World is especially violent), War of the Worlds might be Spielberg’s most traditionally scary genre movie. (His depictions of war atrocities in movies like Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan are in another category altogether.) It’s not just the scale of the destruction, but its pitilessness; these aliens aren’t going through a list of symbolically powerful landmarks to blow up in perfectly framed wide shots. They’re open-firing into crowds and buildings, then eventually sweeping the corners to harvest human blood.

From a business perspective, it made sense to release War of the Worlds in what was essentially the Independence Day spot. The movie itself, though, where most of the anti-alien heroics are accidental or off-screen, and all-American Tom Cruise is a semi-deadbeat dad who survives mostly by luck, feels like an ID4 takedown as accidentally pointed as Tim Burton’s Mars Attacks! (There’s even a more gruesome equivalent of Burton’s darkly funny image of a herd of cows on fire when an Amtrak train zips past refugees, engulfed in flames.)

The fantastical touches aren’t the only scary parts, either. Rewatching a mob of people senselessly attempt to steal Ray’s car and nearly destroy it, endangering Rachel in the process, I had two simultaneous thoughts: 1) This behavior makes no sense, and 2) this is also exactly what would happen in real life. War of the Worlds feels so emotionally realistic that it’s no wonder Spielberg can’t quite find the precise note to end on, beyond a thematically appropriate but vaguely unsatisfying reversion to the basic outline of the Wells novel. (At least in terms of the aliens’ fates.) It’s a beautifully made movie that can’t offer the same reassurances as other Spielberg sci-fi; Ray’s lessons about parenthood come with a crash course in its horrors, too.

So what does Bong see in this Spielberg movie in particular? Many of his movies invert War of the Worlds’ arc of harrowing horror to unsettled respite by providing a wilder, often more “fun” ride before arriving at a tragic end. (Though sometimes those tragedies are still laced with a hint of hope.) But Bong’s films also gleefully mix genres in ways that feel informed by what’s happening in the real world. In the same way, there is something genre-warped about the Spielberg film that depicts post-9/11 anxiety by peeling back layers of disaster-movie blockbusters, 1950s sci-fi, and outright horror, right down to how it handles its most Spielbergian-seeming human relationships. There’s nothing especially predictable about War of the Worlds. It unfolds with the terrifying clarity of a nightmare.

War of the Worlds is currently streaming on Paramount Plus.

From Polygon via this RSS feed

Despite the fact that you don’t see much of your character in Mecha Break, the PvP mech shooter has a god-tier character creator, which allows you to tweak everything from your pilot’s height and hair color to the length of their fingers. This character creator is supplemented by the Matrix Marketplace: an in-game store where players can sell or auction off their painstakingly customized pilot designs in exchange for Corite, the game’s premium in-game currency.

On the surface, this seems like a really neat idea, especially because the game’s standard seasonal cosmetic store has a very small selection of items that rotate out every three days. If you spot a pilot with cute pigtails, for example, you can’t just go into the cosmetic store and buy that exact hairdo, as it’s very unlikely that a specific hairstyle will be available for you to purchase at any given time. You might find another cool hairstyle for sale, but it probably won’t be the one you’re looking for. Thus, you have two options:

Option #1: Wait indefinitely for the store’s offerings to feature the hairstyle/lipstick/eyeliner/whatever that you’re looking for, checking back every three days when stock has been refreshed.Option #2: Buy it from another player.

You might think Option #2 is the best choice, but unfortunately, it comes with a catch. You see, once you’ve purchased another player’s custom pilot look, you’ll get to use it on your pilot. You will not, however, be able to edit it in any way, shape, or form. The hair color cannot be changed, and the hairstyle itself can only be used in conjunction with the rest of the purchased pilot’s features (collectively referred to as a “style” in-game). You can’t wear the hairstyle by itself — you can only wear the full style, essentially becoming a clone of another player’s pilot, right down to their face and body shape.

This is great if you just want a sort of cosplay skin for your pilot, as the Matrix Marketplace is full of interesting customizations that can make your pilot look like a specific character from an anime, movie, or video game, and will save you the work of spending endless hours trying to build them from the ground up by yourself. But if you’re just looking for a specific hairstyle, makeup type, or accessory, you’re pretty much screwed. You can only edit the player-created custom pilot designs you purchase in the Matrix Marketplace if you already own the cosmetic items being used in the design, which would require you to purchase those items from Mecha Break‘s standard in-game cosmetic store, which defeats the purpose of buying a player-made style to gain access to a cosmetic item that isn’t currently available in the seasonal cosmetic store.

Unless you somehow get lucky enough to unlock all the cosmetic items you need via direct purchase from the rotating styles listed under the Seasonal Cosmetics tab, you’ve got no choice but to wait around for the right cosmetics to pop up, or take the L and change your character’s entire look, just to use the hairstyle, iris/pupil design, or makeup style you want. I’ve been hoping to get my hands on a cosmetic that would give my pilot heart-shaped pupils, but it’s not available for direct purchase in my seasonal cosmetics store, and the only version of it that’s currently for sale in the Matrix Marketplace is locked to a pilot design that includes short brown hair and facial scarring. It’s a really cool look, but it’s not what I’m going for. I just want the eyes!

The ability to sell your creations to other players for in-game money is a really fun concept, and is a great way for Mecha Break to highlight its incredible character customization options — a feature that can be easily missed in a game that devotes most of its screen time to giant robots. I’ve listed a few designs for sale (no bites yet, unfortunately), and I am all for giving players the tools they need to create the character of their dreams.

The problem is that players also need the freedom to use those tools, and freedom isn’t something Mecha Break allows for when it comes to attaining cosmetics. The game lets you customize the heck out of your pilot, but if there’s a specific premium cosmetic you’re in search of, you’ll need either the patience of a saint or a great deal of luck to actually get your hands on all the items you need to create your ideal pilot.

As fun as the Matrix Marketplace is, the fact that the cosmetics are locked to one specific color and pilot design is unbelievably frustrating, and I’m struggling to understand the reasoning behind it. I’m sitting here practically begging the game to take my money, but I’m not going to spend it on a player-made creation when what I get in return is a completely un-customizable pilot who has the right hairdo in the wrong color. It feels like buying a Barbie who has all of her clothes fused to her body, unable to be worn by other Barbie dolls unless I get lucky and find additional versions of the same accessories for sale.

The most frustrating part of all of this is that all of the items I’m currently hunting for were fully available to players during *Mecha Break’*s multiple beta tests, and could be purchased using Mission Tokens, a free in-game currency earned just by playing the game. Amazing Seasun Games made it clear that items like outfits would need to be bought with Corite, but until the game’s launch, players were under the impression that they’d have access to a much wider array of customization options. I got used to customizing my pilot‘s hairstyle, iris/pupil shape, eye color, and makeup exactly how I wanted it using only Mission Tokens. Now I can’t even get what I want with real-life cash, and the options to customize certain cosmetics — like eyeshadow and lipstick color — has disappeared entirely.

Mecha Break‘s Matrix Marketplace has other issues, too — you can sell just about anything, including weapons and items that make life easier in the game’s signature Mashmak mode, leading to accusations of pay-to-win mechanics, and the auction house is a bit of a mess. But that’s a discussion for another day. For now, I just want a way to get my hands on specific cosmetics without having to cross my fingers and wait indefinitely, or completely change my pilot’s entire look.

Then again, things could always be worse. At least Mecha Break‘s hairstyles aren’t distributed via randomized loot boxes.

From Polygon via this RSS feed

If the internet loves one thing, it’s cats. Cat memes, cat rescue stories, cat vids. Cats have taken over people’s lives, real and virtual, and are quietly dominating the games space. Surely you’ve played a great cat game in recent years, like Stray, Little Kitty, Big City, or the Cat Quest trilogy. I’m not much of a cat person myself, yet even I fell in love with Stray and its orange, single-brain-celled feline. Still, I can’t help but lament the dearth of games starring cats’ mortal enemy: dogs.

Unfortunately, dogs are frequently featured in games as enemies destined to be killed by the player, whether we’re talking military dogs in first-person shooters or Bloodborne’s grotesque hounds. Let’s reverse that trend.

A dog game could be a very simple thing. Taking inspiration from Little Kitty, Big City, we could control a wayward hound searching for a way home. Naturally, hijinks would ensue — just think of all the trouble your homebound pup gets into, and imagine the damage he could do when loosed on the world. Digging random holes, rolling through mud, peeing on fire hydrants. Chaos!

What I’d really love is a dog game pulling narrative inspiration from Stray or the heartbreaking Copycat, which tackles themes like abandonment and loss. Having a dog is an emotional endeavor — they’re not called “man’s best friend” for nothin’ — and a game like Stray succeeds because of the emotion threaded through its six-hour playtime. No reason a “Stray but a dog” game couldn’t do the same.

Sure, there are games that have you play as a dog — Okami is a highlight here. And we’ve been able to pet dogs in many an open-world game, while others let you get a dog companion, like best boy Scratch in Baldur’s Gate 3. Wolves are common as well, like the titular Neva in Nomada’s emotionally devastating 2024 hit. But those aren’t strictly dog games in the way Stray or Little Kitty, Big City embody the idea of a cat game.

I need a game that lets me chase squirrels, get the zoomies after dropping a deuce, tear up a human’s socks before giving them an adorable “I’m sorry (but not really)” guilt face. I want a dedicated “snuggle” button in my dog games.

What I’m looking for is a rash of dog games, a wave of hound-starring adventures ranging from “Dog Quest The RPG” to a post-apocalyptic “Stray Pup” to a tear-jerking “From Shelter to Forever Home.” This shit writes itself!

Hopefully, that wave is on the horizon, and maybe even already begun. Farewell North launched last year and embodies the aspects of a dog game that I want out of this genre; it’s an emotional adventure where you, as a border collie, restore color to the world. Ikuma sits comfortably on my 2026 radar — blending the climbing and dog game genres, I can’t wait to check it out. And Haunted Paws is an upcoming cozy horror game where you and a friend each control a pup. Hell yeah. Give it to me now.

In the meantime, I suppose I’ll have to go back to the well and replay the excellent Stray a few more times. It’s not a dog game, but it provides a great cheat sheet for future dog games to steal from.

From Polygon via this RSS feed

Lois Lane in James Gunn’s Superman cracked me up and annoyed me at the same time. My initial take on the 2025 version of Lois (played by Rachel Brosnahan) was that she’s an absolutely terrible journalist. Even by the standards of a comic book movie featuring a woman who can turn her hands into buzzsaws (because something-something nanotech, don’t examine it too closely), Lois’ idea of reporting in this movie seems hilariously unrealistic.

That’s nothing new for movies, which pretty much never get journalism right — or any other profession, for that matter. Screen interpretations of real-world jobs are almost always simplified and superficial at best, outright ridiculous at worst. Scientists usually laugh at movie science, lawyers don’t recognize anything about real law in courtroom dramas, and so forth. Movies and TV even get highly specific jobs like forensic pathology radically wrong in an attempt to goose the drama levels and keep the action moving.

For most viewers, that’s fine — a story that accurately depicted the slow, incremental, years-long process behind scientific research or a significant court case would generally be pretty dull. Generally, audiences will prefer the amped-up, imaginary, dramatic version of a given job. It’s just harder to ignore a laughable break from reality when it’s your job being done incredibly badly on screen.

Still, there’s another read to Lois’ actions in Superman. It’s possible she’s the worst interviewer on the planet (or at the Daily Planet), wasting an incredible opportunity to dig into one of the most important, powerful, and enigmatic figures in the world. It’s also possible that she’s more devious — or self-destructive, or daring — than Gunn ever openly admits or explores. And I admit I like that option a whole lot better.

The crux of the question comes in a scene not terribly far into the movie, a sequence highlighted in Superman’s first full theatrical trailer. Lois has been dating Clark Kent/Superman for about three months. During that time, Clark has been writing news stories about Superman where he quotes himself, presenting those quotes as “exclusive interviews” Superman has given Clark. Lois rightly points out that this is unethical for a journalist, so Superman invites Lois to interview him, instead. As the trailer shows, the interview goes wrong quickly.

[Ed. note: Spoilers ahead for how this one specific scene turns out in Superman.]

Lois seems to be trying to offend and alarm her subject. She doesn’t try to establish any kind of rapport with him. She takes a confrontational tone from the start, with leading questions that imply there are “correct” answers, instead of neutral questions designed to bring out information. She doesn’t listen to the answers she’s getting, and she openly judges Superman for everything he’s trying to say. She twists his words in ways she knows he doesn’t intend, and throws them back at him while he’s still forming them. But her cardinal sin is that she doesn’t even let Superman answer her questions. Even when she’s getting information no one else knows, directly from the source, she interrupts him and speaks over him.

This is all unbelievably bad technique — or at least, it is if she’s actually trying to interview Superman. Given how it all goes, and assuming James Gunn wants us to see her as an actual professional journalist, it’s possible she’s trying to do one or more other things.

The simplest option here is that Lois is just confronting Superman with the fact that he isn’t media-savvy at all. He’s been tossing himself softball questions to answer, and that’s the extent of his interaction with the media. He’s clearly never faced another journalist before, and he’s too trusting and confident in his own intentions to realize how volatile an actual public interview could get. It’s possible Lois is just stress-testing him, preparing him for what it’s going to be like if he ever really faces the press. That would be an easy enough interpretation if she actually followed their confrontational conversation (I can’t really call it an investigative interview) with any warnings for him, or insight into her intentions.

The less savory option is that consciously or unconsciously, she’s trying to sabotage her relationship with Clark. She’s already made it clear at this point that she has her doubts about them dating, though we don’t know much about what her concerns are. She seems to think relationships are a bad idea in general, and that she’s failed at them in the past. It would be easy to infer that she has some reservations about dating a space alien with super strength. (Much less sleeping with one; see Larry Niven’s classic tongue-in-cheek essay on that subject, “Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex.”) She may just feel that it’s unethical to be dating someone she is inevitably going to be covering in the news. She doesn’t spell it out.

But given that Superman clearly doesn’t share her reservations — and clearly only sees the best in her, the way she gripes that he sees the best in everyone — it’s possible that she’s consciously or unconsciously trying to force any mismatch between them to a head, that she isn’t trying to interview him for an article so much as she’s trying to start a fight.

That’s just supposition. Lois is a bit undercooked in Gunn’s Superman script, as anyone but an ally who doesn’t turn on him or give up on him when so many other people do. Most of the motives viewers could ascribe to her are based on vibes and inference, not specifics. But the idea would mesh with her ambivalence and indecision about the two of them as a couple. Even if she isn’t expressly trying to force a breakup, she may be trying to test his boundaries, his limits, or his temper, to see what he does when someone he cares about — not the mob online that he’s trying to ignore, not strangers or enemies, but someone important to him — challenges his actions and withholds their approval. If that’s what she’s trying to do, she’s walking a dangerous line.

Given her lack of real follow-up with Superman, either about continuing the interview or continuing the relationship, one further interpretation is that even she doesn’t fully, consciously know what she’s doing by baiting and embarrassing him. It’s possible that she’s acting on instinct — putting her doubts about him into direct action without having any express, clear goal. Acting out emotionally without thinking through every possible reason or goal is a thing real-life people do all the time. It’s just rarer in blockbuster filmmaking, where every line, every scene, is meant to have a goal moving the audience closer to dramatic confrontations and big spectacles. (Though James Gunn demonstrably doesn’t always follow that model.)

All of which leaves the version of Lois we see in this Superman somewhere between intriguing and baffling. She’s clearly working through some issues. She’s clearly confident in her profession, if not in her relationships. (I have to admire her apparent ability to pilot Mr. Terrific’s ship and dictate editorial copy at the same time, though I’m pretty dubious about her getting the marquee Daily Planet exposé piece based on someone else’s source and someone else’s research.) But it isn’t always obvious who she is as a person, besides Superman’s romantic interest and narrative enabler.

I’ll tell you one thing, though: a great journalist would have prioritized making the most of an exclusive interview opp — really digging into what Superman believes, why he does what he does, and what that means for humanity — over any personal concerns, no matter how emotional or instinctive her agenda was. Granted, a great journalist also wouldn’t actually be sleeping with her subject. That’s another thing movies famously get wrong all the time. Maybe Lois was really just trying to dodge the cliché by breaking up with him before finishing that interview?

From Polygon via this RSS feed

From Today - Ninn Salaün via this RSS feed

Hi! Welcome to Installer No. 89, your guide to the best and Verge-iest stuff in the world. My name is Jay Peters, and I will be taking care of Installer while David is on parental leave. All of us here at The Verge are very excited for him and his family, and he'll be back later this year.

It's a huge honor to be writing this. I look forward to Installer every week to see what awesome things David is obsessed with and what you all are into. (Thanks to everyone who sent over their favorite non-famous apps to get me started. Keep reading for some of those!) I'm really excited to keep the party going. (If you're new here, welcome, and also you …

Read the full story at The Verge.

From The Verge via this RSS feed