FlashFeed

Full text

LawBreakers was, by many accounts , a great game. But the 2017 shooter was a commercial failure, and developer Boss Key shut it down just a year after release. There's been much speculation about why it stumbled, including from Boss Key co-founder and Gears of War creator Cliff Bleszinski himself. In a new interview with 80.lv, he offered his latest theories.

For one, a desire for Boss Key to be 'his' studio cost him an opportunity to work with Rod Fergusson, who he worked with on Gears of War.

"I could have used Rod, but I wanted it to be my show, and that was the first step of my ego creeping in right there," Bleszinski said, "believing that ... if I built it as Cliff, people will come. I thought there was this brand loyalty from the people who knew who I was, but it turns out people are loyal to the game, but they're not necessarily loyal to the person."

Bleszinski went on to say that the publishing deal Boss Key secured with Nexon had the wrong priorities. That deal included Boss Key retaining the rights to its IP, but as Bleszinski recalled it, "When the deal is so good for one side, the other side isn't as incentivized … they're not going to make it the next big thing because they're really not going to see that much of the profit."

Bleszinski offered a few other causes too, calling Boss Key's demise "death by 1,000 paper cuts." LawBreakers' art could have stood out more, an earlier launch on Xbox would have brought over more Gears of War fans, his struggle with alcoholism played a role, and he felt he was less involved than a lead should be, going home when others stayed late.

Despite all the turmoil, Bleszinski told 80.lv he still has a craving to make games again . "At the end of the day, I want to create characters and worlds," he said. "I want to make stuff that people will cosplay as and get tattooed on their bodies."

2026 games : All the upcoming games

Best PC games : Our all-time favorites

Free PC games : Freebie fest

Best FPS games : Finest gunplay

Best RPGs : Grand adventures

Best co-op games : Better together

Full text

Five years after he entered the MCU with his last film, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings , life has been busy for Destin Daniel Cretton . In two weeks, he'll be back in the Marvel spotlight with the release of Spider-Man: Brand New Day , the long-awaited return of Tom Holland 's web-slinger that will follow up on the fateful ending of Spider-Man: No Way Home . Outside of superheroes, his live-action Naruto adaptation is also heating up at Netflix as it searches for its would-be ninjas. Meanwhile, on the small screen, his most anticipated project is easily the second season of Wonder Man , which received a renewal back in March after becoming one of the most acclaimed MCU series in a while.

Full text

The skeleton of a wolf or bat you admire at the natural history museum may look pristine, but it wasn't always that way ‪—‬ there's a good chance flesh-eating beetles helped prepare those bones for display. For decades, many museums have relied on colonies of dermestid beetles to strip soft tissue, like skin and muscles, from skeletons. Unlike the harsh chemicals that would otherwise be used for bone preparation, these beetles can be gentler and clean hard-to-reach areas. But these colonies are a hassle to keep up, and escaped beetles can even be dangerous for valuable museum specimens that don't need their skin removed.

Now, researchers may have found an even better biological cleanup crew.

In a new study published July 1 in the journal PLOS One , scientists found that superworms ( Zophobas morio ) — large beetle larvae commonly sold as pet food — can clean skeletons just as effectively while offering practical advantages. The larvae removed soft tissue from animals ranging from tiny bats to a 9-pound (4.2 kilograms) wolf without damaging even the most delicate bones.

Two of the paper's authors, Niloofar Alaei Kakhki , a postdoctoral researcher at the State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart in Germany, and Morteza Monfared , a researcher at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad in Iran, answered our questions via email about what makes superworms unique and how they could be used in laboratories and museums.

Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: Why are these critters called "superworms?" What makes them different from other beetle larvae?

Niloofar Alaei Kakhki and Morteza Monfared: Compared with the larvae of many other beetles, Zophobas morio larvae are much larger, which is one of the reasons they are so effective at removing soft tissue from bones.

What makes them truly unique, however, is their life cycle. Most beetle larvae pupate automatically once they reach the appropriate size. In contrast, superworms require an additional trigger: They must be isolated individually before they will pupate and develop into adult beetles. As long as they remain together in crowded conditions, they stay in the larval stage for several months.

This characteristic provides a major advantage for skeleton preparation. Because the larvae remain larvae for an extended period, they can be used repeatedly for cleaning specimens without rapidly developing into adult beetles. After each cleaning cycle, they can simply be fed a vegetable-based diet, allowed to recover, and then used again.

This also makes them safer than beetles commonly used for skeleton preparation, such as Dermestes . Adult dermestid beetles can reproduce, and females may lay eggs on ‪—‬ or even inside ‪—‬ skeletal specimens. If eggs or larvae are accidentally introduced into museum collections, they can become a serious pest and damage valuable specimens. Since superworms do not develop into adults unless they are intentionally isolated, this risk is greatly reduced, making the method safer for museum collections.

A group of superworms in their larval stage. (Image credit: Niloofar Alaei Kakhki and Morteza Monfared) KHC: How did you figure out that the worms could clean the skeletons? Was that surprising?

NAK and MM: Several years ago, we started keeping a colony of Zophobas morio larvae (superworm) as live food for birds. As bird-watchers, we were often asked to help care for injured wild birds, so maintaining our own colony was more practical than purchasing larvae repeatedly. We fed the larvae mainly with vegetable scraps, such as cucumber, potato and banana peels.

One day, we ran out of vegetable waste. After lunch, we placed a leftover chicken bone with a small amount of meat still attached into the colony. To our surprise, the larvae gathered around it almost immediately and removed the remaining tissue with remarkable speed. Watching hundreds of larvae work together so efficiently was fascinating, and it immediately made us wonder whether they could be useful for something beyond animal feed.

At the same time, we were volunteering at the Zoology Museum of Ferdowsi University (ZMFUM), where preparing skeletal specimens was one of our regular responsibilities. We had experience with conventional preparation methods, including manual cleaning, boiling and burial. Although effective, these methods were often time-consuming and carried the risk of damaging delicate bones or losing small skeletal elements.

After observing how efficiently the larvae cleaned the chicken bone, we decided to test whether they could also prepare skeletal specimens. The first trials were remarkably successful. Within only a few hours, the larvae removed the soft tissues while leaving even delicate bones intact. Seeing the quality of the cleaned specimens was genuinely surprising and convinced us that this approach had real potential.

From that point on, whenever suitable animal specimens became available, we continued testing the method under different conditions, gradually refining it and optimizing the protocol. Over the following years, these observations evolved into the standardized, efficient and safe skeleton preparation method presented in our study. Yes, we were genuinely surprised. We already knew that superworms could consume a wide variety of organic materials, but we did not expect them to clean skeletons so quickly, so thoroughly, and with so little damage to even the most delicate bones.

A delicate bird skull after being cleaned by superworms. (Image credit: Niloofar Alaei Kakhki and Morteza Monfared) KHC: How do these superworms compare to other skeleton-cleaning products, like chemical cleaners? Are the worms better or worse at this task?

NAK and MM: Based on our experience, superworms offer several important advantages over existing skeleton preparation methods.

Compared with dermestid beetles, one of the biggest advantages is colony management. Because superworms only pupate when they are isolated individually, their life cycle can be controlled much more easily. As long as they are kept together, they remain as larvae and continue cleaning specimens. This greatly reduces the risk of accidentally introducing adult beetles or their eggs into museum collections, which is a major concern when working with dermestid beetles.

Compared with traditional methods such as boiling, manual cleaning or burial, the larvae also save a great deal of time and effort. Manual cleaning, especially for delicate specimens, can take many hours and always carries the risk of breaking or losing small bones. In contrast, the larvae can remove soft tissues efficiently while preserving even fragile skeletal elements.

Every preparation method has its own strengths and limitations, and the best choice depends on the type of specimen and the goals of the researcher. However, based on our experience using a wide range of preparation techniques, we believe that superworms provide an efficient, safe and practical alternative for many museum and research applications.

Rather than replacing every existing method, we see this technique as a valuable new tool that museums, universities and research laboratories can adopt and adapt according to their own needs.

A wolf skull being "cleaned" by superworms. (Image credit: Niloofar Alaei Kakhki and Morteza Monfared) KHC: On average, how much does it cost to use the worms?

NAK and MM: It is difficult to estimate an average cost because prices vary considerably between countries and suppliers. Rather than the initial purchase price, the long-term maintenance cost is what makes this method attractive.

A colony can be established from a relatively small number of superworms. Once the larvae reach the appropriate stage, a portion of them can be isolated to pupate and develop into adult beetles. These adults reproduce and generate new larvae, allowing the colony to become self-sustaining over time.

The equipment required is also quite simple. The colony can be maintained in plastic or glass containers with wheat bran as the bedding, at approximately 25 degrees Celsius [77 degrees Fahrenheit]. Between skeleton preparation cycles, the larvae can be fed inexpensive vegetable scraps, allowing them to recover before being used again. Larvae can remain in the larval stage for several months, meaning the same colony can be used repeatedly.

Another advantage is that the colony size can easily be adjusted to meet the needs of different users. A museum or laboratory processing a large number of specimens can maintain a larger colony, while smaller collections can operate with far fewer larvae.

Overall, we find the method is relatively inexpensive to establish and maintain, especially when compared with the time, labor and specialized facilities often required for traditional skeleton preparation methods.

KHC: Do you envision museums and laboratories implementing these superworm cleaners in the future? Why or why not? Is the cost worth it?

NAK and MM: We believe this method has the potential to be adopted by many museums, universities and research laboratories, particularly those that regularly prepare skeletal specimens.

One of its greatest advantages is that it combines efficiency, safety and relatively low operating costs. Compared with some traditional approaches, it requires only basic equipment and does not rely on expensive chemicals or specialized enzymatic treatments. This makes it especially attractive for smaller museums and institutions with limited resources.

We also see advantages in terms of colony management. Because the life cycle of superworms can be controlled, the risk of introducing damaging museum pests is much lower than with some other biological cleaning methods. At the same time, the larvae can be reused repeatedly over several months, making the system practical for long-term use.

Ultimately, whether this method is worthwhile depends on the needs of each institution. However, based on our experience, we believe it offers an excellent balance between cost, efficiency, safety and specimen quality. Perhaps one of the most rewarding aspects of this approach is that it works with a natural biological process rather than against it. Instead of relying on harsh treatments, the soft tissues become a food source that supports the growth of another organism, creating a sustainable cycle while producing clean skeletal specimens. We believe this is one of the most appealing aspects of the method.

A diagram showing how the worms could be implemented in skeleton preparations. (Image credit: Rastekar et al., 2026, PLOS One, CC-BY 4.0 ) KHC: Are there any fun stories from your research you can share?

NAK and MM: We have collected quite a few memorable stories over the years!

One of the funniest happened while we were experimenting with burial as a skeleton preparation method. We buried the head of a Persian onager ( Equus hemionus ) on the university campus. Unfortunately, the specimen had already begun to decompose and had a very strong smell. Even after it was buried, we knew exactly where it was because that part of the campus still smelled terrible. We avoided walking past it whenever possible, but anyone who happened to pass by immediately noticed the odor. At one point, campus security even came over to ask what we were doing, probably wondering why we were digging a hole and burying something on university grounds!

Another memorable story involved our superworms colony itself. In the early days, we kept the larvae in our office at the Zoology Museum (ZMFUM). Almost everyone who entered the room was startled by the sight of thousands of large larvae constantly moving around in their containers. Many people kept their distance at first. But over time, as we explained their biology and demonstrated how useful they were for our research, people's reactions changed. Some visitors even became genuinely interested in the colony, and a few who were initially afraid eventually asked to hold the larvae themselves.

Those moments reminded us that science is not only about experiments and data; it can also change the way people think about animals that are often misunderstood.

KHC: If there's one thing you want our readers to take away from your work, what would it be?

Related stories

Meet the marine worm with 100 butts that can each grow eyes and a brain

Strange sea worms have butts that grow a brain before wriggling off to find a mate

Watch thousands of worms 'explosively' untangle themselves from a knotted ball in milliseconds

NAK and MM: If there is one message we hope readers take away from our work, it is that nature often has far more to offer than we initially realize.

Many organisms are known for a single, well-established application. Zophobas morio , for example, is widely recognized as animal feed and, more recently, for its ability to consume certain plastics. Our work shows that the same species can also provide an entirely different and unexpected solution to a practical problem in museum science.

This reminds us that the first known application of an organism is not necessarily its most valuable one. Sometimes, its second or even third application can have an even greater impact. Discovering those possibilities begins with curiosity, careful observation and a willingness to ask new questions.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Full text

It’s officially a trend. For the third time in nine months, a pharma company has announced that it is assembling the largest AI supercomputer in the life sciences industry. This time, it is Bristol Myers Squibb.

When the company began its partnership with NVIDIA three years ago with a smaller computing cluster , it was focusing on simpler problems with individual AI tools, like protein structure prediction. But “we actually consumed all the space we had,” said Greg Meyers, chief digital & technology officer at BMS.

Adding extra computing power is necessary for the company now that it’s “become more convinced” that computationally hungry foundation models can give the company valuable insight into how its drug candidates interact with both the body and with disease, Meyers said in an interview with STAT. He mentioned oncology and neurodegeneration as examples of areas where BMS has developed such models.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

Full text

This first appeared in Lit Hub’s Literary History newsletter— sign up here .

Famously, O. Henry (the pen name of William Sydney Porter), author of “The Gift of the Magi,” and one of the most celebrated short story writers of his generation, and whose legacy is celebrated every year by the O. Henry Prize for Fiction , got his start in prison, while serving time for embezzling funds from the First National Bank in Austin, Texas, where he had worked as a teller.

It’s possible that Porter shouldn’t have been convicted at all: a 1916 report characterized the bank in question as “carelessly managed,” and revealed that “the patrons used to enter, go behind the counter, take out one hundred or two hundred dollars and say a week later, ‘Porter, I took out $200, last week. See if I left a memorandum of it. I meant to.’” The Times report claims that Porter, who by the time he was charged had moved to Houston and taken a job as a columnist with The Daily Post , resigned before one of the “misappropriations with which he was charged,” and that if he had simply gone back to Austin when he was summoned to stand trial, he would have been acquitted.

But he didn’t. Instead, he took a train to New Orleans, and then hopped on a fruit steamer headed for Honduras, where the law could not reach him. But in February of 1897, he learned that his wife was very ill, and he returned to the states to care for her. His wife died in July, and Porter was convicted the following year, and in March 1898, sentenced to five years in prison for embezzlement.

The literary world should be grateful for his poor luck, because it was in prison that Porter “did his first serious literary work,” as the Times puts it. In order to be able to send money home to support his daughter Margaret, he wrote and published 14 short stories, under pen names, including the one with which he would become famous: O. Henry.

Porter was released early for good behavior, on July 24, 1901, and returned to Pittsburgh to live with his daughter and his in-laws, before moving on to New York City. Most importantly, he kept writing, and in 1904 published his first collection of short stories, Cabbages and Kings , followed two years later by The Four Million , which would include some of his most enduring tales, including “The Gift of the Magi.” He was incredibly prolific; he would keep publishing until his death in 1910, and well beyond.

Full text

House of the Dragon season 3 got off to an explosive start with the Battle of the Gullet and Rhaenyra finally taking King's Landing, but the Game of Thrones spin-off's pace dropped considerably in the aftermath – and episode 5 is concerning fans.

One person took to Reddit to lay out their concerns about how the show is playing out, saying, "I honestly enjoyed the new episode quite a bit, but I'm growing incredibly concerned about the show's pacing moving forward."

Are we 100% sure they know this is an eight-episode season? from r/HouseOfTheDragon

The problem, in their view, is compounded by the shorter season length. "What I just watched didn't feel like the fifth part of an eight part season, or even like the third part of a six part season if you just call the first two the finale of the last season. That felt, to me, like the third episode of a ten episode season. The pace is way too slow for where the story needs to be right now," they say, before noting concerns with how the pacing might affect telling the rest of the story in the confirmed season 4.

"I'm so tired of these short ass seasons," says one person in response, with another saying: "And they take two years between seasons even though they are much shorter. I hate it."

"I don't want the pacing to be faster I want more episodes," says someone else. "I just finished it and I was thinking the same thing. I paused the show to get a refill of my drink and saw I had ten minutes left in the episode and I was just like 'are you f***ing kidding me'. Then I did the math and I was like ok so the next three episodes must be JAM PACKED with action right up until the last second of the season finale otherwise what are we even doing. This is silly as hell. And it's gonna be two years til we get the next season- I'm just so incredibly disappointed. But yes, I agree these episodes are fantastic- just not for an eight episode run"

"I wouldn't be as upset as I have been over the past three nothing burger episodes if we were getting a 15 episode season," says another fan.

"For real. If season 4 has eight episodes that means there are only 11 episodes left. How are they possibly going to wrap it up in 11 episodes?" points out someone else.

The episode mainly seemed to be setting up future problems: the targeting of the gold cloaks, Daeron and Ormund Hightower in Tumbleton , and Criston Cole continuing to march. There was precious little payoff, however.

House of the Dragon continues weekly on HBO in the US and HBO Max, Sky, and NOW in the UK. Keep up to date with our House of the Dragon season 3 release schedule .

For even more, check out our guide to all the upcoming Game of Thrones movies and TV shows .

Full text

Credit: Aamir Siddiqui / Android Authority

TL;DR

Users are noticing a new “Android Developer Verifier” app (com.google.android.verifier) silently installed on their Android phones to prepare for upcoming sideloading restrictions.

The app checks if sideloaded apps belong to legally verified developer profiles. It is part of Google’s upcoming sideloading restrictions that include a 24-hour wait and a phone reboot to disrupt high-pressure social engineering scams.

The app is currently dormant for most users, as the rollout begins in select regions on September 30. Power users can still bypass the 24-hour wait period entirely by installing apps via ADB.

If you’ve checked the installed apps on your Android phone recently, you might have freaked out after spotting a new “ Android Developer Verifier ” app silently installed on your phone. You won’t be alone either, as we’ve seen numerous reports from users over the past week, many of whom have rushed to uninstall the app. While you can uninstall the app without throwing your phone into a bootloop, you should take a step back and assess what the app is, what it is trying to do with respect to sideloading on Android, and what your options are to deal with it.

What is “Android Developer Verifier,” and why is it on my phone?

As the name suggests, Android Developer Verifier (package name: com.google.android.verifier) is a Google system service that verifies whether an app being sideloaded/installed is associated with a “verified developer account.” This app forms one of the central pillars of Google’s upcoming sideloading restrictions on Android .