Amazon will show AI product images when you search for some reason
Jack Quaid Is a Gelatinous Cube in New GOD OF WAR Game
What do you do after helping defeat a sociopathic Supe determined to rule mankind as a walking fascist god? If you’re Jack Quaid, you put on one of the funniest motion-capture suits ever for your strange new starring role in the next God of War game. PlayStation provided a behind-the-scenes look at how the cast for God of War Laufey brought their characters to life. And it includes The Boys‘ Hughie doing what he does best – fully committing to a role no matter what it takes. In this case, Jack Quaid is doing some serious acting as a… gelatinous cube?
PlayStation introduced the performers for its upcoming God of War Laufey in a short “Meet the Cast” video. (Which we first heard about at GameSpot.) In addition to Quaid, the God of War cast includes franchise alum Deborah Ann Woll. She’s back, in a much bigger role, as games will play as the legendary warrior Faye.
Perlina Lau will also make her video game debut as Rue, in what is an unusual character. Rue is the conscious “badass” ribbons attached to Faye’s sword who always points out danger to her wielder. That is until the fighting starts. Then Rue is ready to roll. Or….like….whip? Swing? Flutter in the breeze?
Then there’s Quaid’s God of War character…
PlayStationSo why does his motion-capture suit include a big bulky cube of plastic tubing? Because yes, as mentioned, he’s playing a cube. Well, technically, he’s playing Phranque, a cosmic cube from The Everywhen. Quaid shares of his God of War cube character, “Phranque is … a cosmic cube that you meet in this world called the Everywhen. When you start playing this game, you get the feeling that the Everywhen is in trouble and Phranque will stop at nothing to protect all the living creatures that inhabit this world.”
Absurd, yes, which is why Jack Quaid was perfect for this God of War role. No one does absurd better. But that’s not the only reason he was the man to play Phranque. That cosmic cube is also highly protective of every living thing in The Everywhen, the setting where the games takes place. And we all know the man who brought Hughie to life on The Boys knows how to convey genuine care and concern.
And that he’s also willing to look as silly as possible to make it happen… While walking around portraying a box.
The post Jack Quaid Is a Gelatinous Cube in New GOD OF WAR Game appeared first on Nerdist.
Still facing copyright lawsuits, AI music generator Suno raises another $400M
The tech that could make Marvell the next trillion dollar company
MAN OF TOMORROW Takes Place 2 Years After SUPERMAN
James Gunn’s Superman became the fan-favorite superhero movie of 2025, officially launching the new DCU on the big screen. And in 2027, we’ll get our first continuation, which DC Studios has called the next chapter in the “Super Family Saga.” James Gunn
Via Threads, James Gunn gave us our first look at Lex in his Power Armor in the Superman movie, Man of Tomorrow. And damn, it looks good. He also let us know that Man of Tomorrow would take place in “basically real time” on the DCU timeline. Meaning Man of Tomorrow will be set approximately two years after Superman.
NerdistHere is everything we know so far about the much-anticipated return of the Last Son of Krypton to the big screen in Man of Tomorrow.
TitleDC StudiosThe official title of the Superman follow-up is Man of Tomorrow, and not Superman: Man of Tomorrow, as many have speculated. According to James Gunn, Man of Tomorrow is “as much a Lex movie as it is a Superman movie.”
DC StudiosMan of Tomorrow’s PlotThe plot of this sequel will have Superman and his arch-nemesis, Lex Luthor, team up to take down a greater threat, which we know will be the despotic alien android, Brainiac. Based on the teaser art released by Jim Lee to go with the title announcement, Lex Luthor will wear his comic book-accurate warsuit in the film.
Behind-the-ScenesDC Studios co-head James Gunn is once again back as writer/director. John Murphy and David Fleming are expected to return to score the sequel as well.
Man of Tomorrow’s CastDC StudiosMuch of the cast of Superman will return for Man of Tomorrow. David Corenswet is back as Superman/Clark Kent, naturally, and Rachel Brosnahan also returns as Lois Lane. Nicholas Hoult will co-star as Lex Luthor, and Frank Grillo is also returning as Rick Flag Sr. Most of the Daily Planet staff are presumably also returning. This includes Skyler Gisondo as Jimmy Olsen, Wendell Pierce as Perry White, and Mikaela Hoover as Cat Grant. And as the evil Brainiac, Gunn has cast German actor Lars Eidinger.
Netflix/DC ComicsIsabel Merced has confirmed she is also flying back into Metropolis as Hawkgirl. There’s no official word on Edi Gathegi as Mister Terrific, Nathan Fillion as Guy Gardner, or Anthony Carrigan as Metamorpho. But we expect at least some of these Justice Gang members to return. Some storyboards seen in Superman special features suggest Supergirl (Milly Alcock) will also feature in this story in some capacity. Oh, and we think there will be riots if Krypto doesn’t come back as well.
According to Variety, Aaron Pierre will also join the cast of Man of Tomorrow. This news comes ahead of his debut as John Stewart in the Lanterns TV series. Adria Arjona has also been cast in the DCU for this movie. But we don’t yet know which role she is playing.
Finally, Matthew Lillard has come aboard the movie. He’s truly having a career Renaissance with Five Nights at Freddy’s, Scream 7, and Daredevil: Born Again. It is not clear who he will play.
Man of Tomorrow’s Release DateThe official release date for DC Studios’ Man of Tomorrow is July 9, 2027.
Originally published December 30, 2025.
The post MAN OF TOMORROW Takes Place 2 Years After SUPERMAN appeared first on Nerdist.
“The Waste Is Heartbreaking”: Fired Scott Pelley Accuses CBS of Courting Trump in Scathing Letter
“The principles I hold dear are gone,” 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley said after getting fired Tuesday night for criticizing Bari Weiss’ leadership at CBS News the day before as submitting to President Donald Trump’s whims. “And so I must leave.”
In his statement, he detailed how the program’s new management repeatedly instructed him to “inject falsehoods and bias” and “include assertions that are unverified.” Though Pelley refused to do so, he said network leadership allowed politicians to pick their own interviewers — “giving politicians control” and destroying the broadcast’s integrity.
You can read Pelley’s full statement below:
View this post on InstagramAs I wrote last December, CBS has previously pulled 60 Minutes segments, including one that was critical of the Trump administration deporting people from Venezuela to a maximum security prison in El Salvador.
At the 47th News and Documentary Emmy Awards last Wednesday, Scott Pelley handed Santiago Campos, a high school senior, a $10,000 scholarship from CBS News for a submission that reflected on the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns through the story of his own family. Campos condemned CBS News in his acceptance speech, stating that the network’s new editorial direction “stains the legacy of Mike Wallace, the namesake of this scholarship.”
CBS News’ downfall comes as David Ellison — son of Oracle co-founder and centi-billionaire Larry Ellison — took over Paramount, the company that owns the network.
“God, we need young people like you right behind us.” Pelley said to Campos after his acceptance speech. “I know that Mike Wallace is looking down at you with pride at this very moment.”
The administration that bans books announces reading challenge
We have some very exciting news: Second lady Usha Vance is back for her second annual summer reading challenge! If you didn’t remember her first summer reading challenge, don’t worry—we don’t either. But Usha is here to pretend that she’s relevant and is totally doing things, you guys. “This year, we’re having a big rollout all over the country,” she bragged to ABC News when she…
These two founders left Goldman and Meta to build voice AI for markets everyone else overlooked
AI agents can now manipulate your organization. Are you ready?
GitLab cuts 14% of staff as it scales its platform to serve AI workloads
Publishers will be able to opt out of AI Search, thanks to new regulation
These THE SIMPSONS’ Characters Are Named After Portland Streets
The Simpsons will surely outlive us all. The series made its debut back in 1989 and is still going strong with a four season renewal back in 2025. That means the adventures of Homer, Bart, Lisa, Marge, and all our other Springfield faves aren’t going to end any time soon. And you know what? There’s something really comforting about that in a world where many shows can barely get a second or third season. The Simpsons creator Matt Groening is an animation legend hailing from Portland, and it turns out many characters are named after his hometown streets. Name Explain/YouTube/Disney+
This is probably something that mega fans already knew about the show. But, it is still a cool fact that many are discovering for the first time, thanks to videos like this one from the Name Explain YouTube channel.
There are several streets in Portland that inspired the names of The Simpsons characters, like Flanders, Quimby, and Lovejoy. And Groening lived on Evergreen Terrace, which is also the street that the infamous Simpson family house is located on. We love it.
RELATED ARTICLE
CRITICAL ROLE Meets THE SIMPSONS to Form Bart the BardIn case you are wondering, the names of the Simpson family come from Matt Groening’s own large family. His mother was Margaret (Marge) and his father Homer. He has sisters named Maggie and Lisa. Bart’s name is actually an anagram of the word brat, which is very fitting considering his chaotic behavior. If all of this is making you want to watch The Simpsons, you can find all the episodes on Disney+.
The post These THE SIMPSONS’ Characters Are Named After Portland Streets appeared first on Nerdist.
Another bug hunter leaks Microsoft exploits in defiance of company’s handling of vulnerability disclosures
TikTok launches TikTok Pro Events, an app for cultural moments like the FIFA World Cup
The worst hacks and breaches of 2026 (so far)
Meet Wander, a StumbleUpon-inspired tool for discovering the ‘small web’
Meta’s AI agent for WhatsApp Business is now available globally
Microsoft Build: Surface RTX Spark Dev Box, Coreutils for Windows, air-gapped GitHub and more
In Alabama, the Roberts Court Hands Republicans Yet Another Shocking Gerrymandering Win
For the second time in three weeks, the Roberts Court on Tuesday night green-lit an Alabama congressional map that a lower court has repeatedly found intentionally discriminates against Black voters. The ruling is another stark example of how far the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority will go to give their party additional seats in Congress and erase Black representation in the South.
Black voters comprise 27 percent of Alabama’s population, but, under a map put in place by Alabama Republicans after the justices’ Louisiana v. Callais decision that destroyed the Voting Rights Act, can expect to elect their candidate of choice in just one of the state’s seven congressional districts. Last week, after the Supreme Court told it to reexamine the case in light of Callais, a three-judge federal court panel with two Trump appointees blocked that map for November finding that the legislature’s refusal to draw a second majority-Black district despite a previous court order showed evidence of intentional discrimination against Black voters. “Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination,” the judges wrote in a unanimous opinion.
The ruling is a stark example of how far the court’s Republican-appointed majority will go to give their party additional seats in Congress and erase Black representation.
But the Roberts Court overturned that ruling in a truly radical four-page unsigned opinion released late Tuesday night. The court’s conservative majority claimed that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith,” a standard it essentially made up two years ago to insulate GOP gerrymanders from racial gerrymandering claims. In fact, the lower court found that the Alabama legislature had clearly acted in bad faith by deliberating evading court orders to create a second majority-Black district.
The majority opinion also said the lower court had failed to follow the new standards it laid out in Callais for evaluating Voting Rights Act violations. “When Section 2 of the Act is properly interpreted, it imposes liability only when circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred,” the court wrote in Callais. But such a finding of intentional discrimination is exactly what the lower court based its latest opinion on, determining that unconstitutional vote dilution had occurred in violation of the VRA and the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Callais decision didn’t even address.
Finally, the Roberts Court claimed that “the District Court interposed itself into Alabama’s ongoing efforts to conduct its imminent 2026 congressional elections,” even though it was the Supreme Court that reinstated Alabama’s map one week before the primaries, leading to widespread confusion and votes cast during early voting being tossed. “While federal courts should not impose changes close to an election, States are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests,” the Supreme Court ruled. That rule will allow states to issue last-minute election changes that disenfranchise voters but leave federal courts powerless to stop them.
“In addition to being wrong on the merits, the Court’s decision inflicts two grave harms on the public,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. “It debases the democratic process by upending Alabama’s entire election in the name of permitting Alabama to discriminate against Black Alabamians. It also corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”
In the short term, the court’s conservative majority has gifted another seat to Republicans in the battle over control of the US House. But this case is bigger than just Alabama. Tuesday’s ruling provides even more evidence of how the Roberts Court has put their thumb on the scale of the midterms in unprecedented ways to benefit the GOP.
First, they issued the Callais opinion in late April—rather than June, as is customary for major rulings—to give Republican-controlled states just enough time to redraw their maps to take away Democratic seats. That allowed Southern states including Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana to pass new maps with alarming speed eliminating their Black representation in Congress.
Second, despite repeatedly claiming in the past that federal courts should not intervene in voting-related disputes in the middle of an election season, in Callais the court’s Republican appointees struck down the creation of a second-majority Black district in Louisiana just three weeks before the state’s primary, while mail voting was underway and 45,000 voters had already cast ballots. And instead of waiting the standard month to certify its decision, the court put Callais into effect immediately, allowing Republican Gov. Jeff Landry to suspend the state’s House primaries to give the legislature time to eliminate one of two majority-Black districts.
Third, just days after the court intervened on behalf of Louisiana Republicans, the conservative justices allowed Alabama to put in place a new Congressional map—the same map they again waved through Tuesday—eliminating one of the state’s majority-Black districts just one week before the primary, after mail voting had already begun.
On Tuesday, the court once again used its shadow docket to side with Alabama Republicans, overruling last week’s extensive lower court opinion with little explanation to hand the GOP another seat in November. With its repeated eleventh-hour interventions in favor of the Republican Party, the Roberts Court has weaponized its rulings to manufacture its preferred political outcomes, removing any doubt about how partisan it has become.
The latest Alabama ruling is stunning both in its timing, but also for its flagrant disregard of everything the court claimed it held in Callais. As my colleague Pema Levy and I have written, the court said in Callais that it was not overturning the 2023 Allen v. Milligan decision that led to the creation of a second majority-Black decision in Alabama. But it has effectively done just that on the shadow docket.
Similarly, the court ruled in Callais that districts can only be challenged under the Voting Rights Act if there is evidence of intentional discrimination by those passing the map—a nearly impossible standard. But the federal court panel in Alabama reexamined the case after Callais and found that evidence of intentional discrimination still dominated. “We do not lightly intrude in state affairs, but our previous review of the undisputed evidence left us in no doubt that Alabama’s legislatively enacted plan (the ‘2023 Plan’) intentionally discriminated based on race in violation of the Constitution,” the three-judge panel wrote. “Our re-examination in light of Callais yields the same conclusion.”
As we wrote last week, the three-judge panel took Callais at its word. But on Tuesday, the Supreme Court swept aside the lower court ruling without even grappling with those judges’ extensive findings, going even further than Callais to essentially suggest that that no amount of smoking gun evidence of racial discrimination will ever lead the court to strike down a map that benefits Republicans.
“The Supreme Court’s decision gives cover to Alabama and others to deliberately and openly discriminate against Black voters without fear of any consequence,” said Deuel Ross, Director of Litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
Chief Justice John Roberts may claim with a straight face that the justices are not “political actors,” but based on its actions over the past month alone, it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that the Roberts Court wants to do everything in its power to create a world in which there will be no Black House members from the South and where Democrats have no chance to retake control of Congress. Their end goal appears to be permanent white Republican minority rule.
As Sotomayor wrote, “After today, it is hard to call Alabama’s cynical gambit anything other than a success, and the Court’s rewarding of Alabama’s behavior anything other than a blow to the rule of law.”