Kalakshar US

In an email sent to users, Meta said it will continue supporting Quest 1 with a few — but pretty big — changes. While owners can still use the device and the apps available for it, the Quest 1 will no longer be receiving new features. In addition, Meta will only be rolling out critical bug fixes and security patches to the headset until 2024. As The Verge notes, the device has mainly been getting the same updates as its successor over the past few years, but now Quest 1 owners will have to make do with the features the device already has. 

It’s possible that Meta is having difficulties making sure new features are also working on the Quest 1’s aging hardware. The company released the first headset back in 2019, when it was still known as Facebook and the device was still under the Oculus branding. It’s powered by a Snapdragon 835 chip that was released in 2017 and was already two years old at that point. The Quest 2 was a huge upgrade when it came out in 2020, and its Snapdragon XR2 processor provided a significant power boost that enables it to play more complex games and experiences. 

That said, the first Quest is also losing access to some abilities it already has: Users will no longer be able to create or join parties going forward. Further, users who have access to Meta Horizon Home’s social features will no longer be able to access them starting on March 5th, 2023. That means they’ll only have a couple of months left to invite other users into their Home or visit someone else’s Home.

I’ve been captivated by The Last of Us since I first played it shortly after it was released for the PS3 way back in 2013. Its ruined, dangerous but somehow beautiful post-pandemic world was compellingly rendered by developer Naughty Dog, and the tense combat driven by stealth and a need to conserve your resources felt more brutal and realistic than the Uncharted series the developer was known for.

But the relationship between protagonists Joel and Ellie is the true heart of the game. The story of a broken father reluctantly taking responsibility for a child who ends up becoming a surrogate daughter isn’t wildly original, nor is the game’s post-apocalyptic setting. But the development of Joel and Ellie’s relationship is filled with humor, hope, sadness and conflict, and it was brilliantly written by creators Neil Druckmann and Bruce Straley. Performers Troy Baker and Ashley Johnson, along with the entire Naughty Dog team brought it to life, and the game has stuck with me ever since.

It’s the kind of video game that’s been begging for some sort of on-screen adaptation. Now, almost a decade after the game was released, HBO’s The Last of Us series will premiere on January 15th. The first season is led by a deep and talented cast (headlined by Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey as Joel and Ellie) and an equally strong creative team, including Druckmann and Craig Mazin (best known for his outstanding Chernobyl mini-series, also on HBO).

Anna Torv (Tess) and Pedro Pascal (Joel)

I’m happy to report that The Last of Us should satisfy fans of the game, and might even bring in a fresh audience. It deftly walks the line between paying loving tribute to the source material while not feeling overly devoted to it. The structure of the show is essentially identical to the game: Joel and Ellie meet in a Boston quarantine zone some 20 years after a fungal infection destroys the world as we know it. Circumstance shoves the pair together on a cross-country journey that spans the better part of a year, as Joel tries to safely get Ellie to the Fireflies, a revolutionary militia that’s been trying to find a cure for the infection.

If you’ve played the game, you’ll be familiar with the season’s nine-episode arc. But in each act of the story, Mazin has smartly identified where to expand the narrative and what to leave out. The biggest thing missing are many of the huge action set-pieces that come up throughout the game. It’s an unsurprising change, as it wouldn’t feel realistic for Joel and Ellie to survive the number of battles they face in the game; it also wouldn’t make for compelling TV. There’s still plenty of action in the show, but it’s meted out more carefully and generally only when it moves the story forward.

Unsurprisingly, everything about The Last of Us reflects the high-budget, flagship status the show seems to have at HBO. Sets and environments are epic in scale and detail, and the combination of prosthetics and digital enhancements bring the Infected to life in terrifying fashion. Although there seems to be less of an emphasis on encounters with these creatures than in the game, seeing them on screen is distressingly memorable. Details like cinematography and music (composed by Oscar-winner Gustavo Santaolalla, who scored the games), are also masterfully executed; this is a show that oozes quality and attention to detail — much like the game itself.

Nico Parker as Sarah Miller in HBO’s The Last of Us

More interesting is how The Last of Us expands on the world and its inhabitants. We immediately get a more extensive look at the pre-pandemic life that Joel and his daughter Sarah inhabit. The showrunners give us more backstory and a better understanding of the different ways people survive: cooped up in a dreary Boston quarantine zone, fighting the government in a Kansas City lost to a violent militia group, or a peaceful settlement out west. The world feels a lot more nuanced than the one in the game, where almost everyone is an enemy to be overcome. Don’t get me wrong — most of the inhabitants of HBO’s The Last of Us will shoot first and ask questions later – but most encounters are about tension rather than brutal violence.

A lot has been written about the show’s two stars, Bella Ramsey and Pedro Pascal, both of whom have some big shoes to fill. Finding two performers with on-screen chemistry who could successfully embody their respective characters was surely not an easy task. But Pascal and Ramsey’s performances both immediately connected me with the original characters while also feeling vital and essential on their own. Fans of the game should immediately find things to draw them in, while those new to the series should be quickly won over by the pair.

Pascal’s Joel has a lot more emotional depth than Joel the video game character. Part of that is due to scripts that put more focus on his vulnerabilities and insecurities, but Pascal skillfully portrays a broad range of emotions. He’s able to show the cold, violent and skilled survivor side of Joel who’ll do anything to get what he needs while also embodying the broken spirit of a man who’s spent 20 years doing whatever it takes to stay alive. Watching Ellie bring out Joel’s more vulnerable side, and seeing how that conflicts with the hardened survivor, is at the heart of Joel’s character journey, and Pascal simply nails it. Joel is both more vulnerable than ever — and also more terrifying.

Meanwhile, Ramsey charms from their first moment onscreen as Ellie. We’re afforded a little more of Ellie’s backstory in the first episode, and it’s a great introduction to the character that immediately shows her brazen attitude toward anything that gets in her way. Much of the humor and levity comes from Ellie, and Ramsey’s performance captures the innocent resilience that only a 14-year-old could have in the face of abject horror and seemingly inescapable doom. The weight on Ellie’s shoulders grows throughout the series, and Ramsey is always up to the task of taking Ellie to the brink of breakdown before she comes back to the sense of duty she feels to care for the people she’s chosen to let into her life. Ellie’s naivety and sense of wonder gets bruised time and time again throughout the series, but both Ramsey and the scripts never let her lose it entirely.

Bella Ramsey (Ellie) and Anna Torv (Tess) in The Last of Us.

While both Pascal and Ramsey deliver excellent performances in their own right, the magic really happens when the two are playing off each other. Naturally, the characters start out skeptical of one another, with Joel straight-up calling Ellie “cargo” to her face. But Ellie’s fascination with seeing the world beyond the quarantine zone she’s been stuck in slowly breaks Joel down. Pascal does a great job flipping between those two sides of the character, offering up hints of compassion and concern for Ellie as a person, only to retreat into an emotionally distant protector role.

Meanwhile, Ramsey embodies the spirit of Ellie as she opens up to Joel, and seeing this side of Ellie’s character is a delight. Ramsey’s ability to convincingly show Ellie’s goofy and rebellious exterior is masterfully done; it’s the tool Ellie uses most to try and win over Joel, as if she knows he’s going to give in with a smile or laugh sooner or later. Watching Pascal slowly warm to her brings out a host of different ways for the two actors to play off each other. But Ramsey is also just as convincing when demonstrating Ellie’s drive for survival is just as strong as Joel’s. That leads her to some dark places, and Ramsey shows their range as the series progresses and the challenges facing Ellie and Joel mount.

The rest of the cast doesn’t get as much screen time, but they all contribute to some compelling plot lines. The stories of Bill and Frank (played by Nick Offerman and Murray Bartlett) as well as Keivonn Woodard’s interpretation of Sam are two of the finest examples in the series where Mazin and Druckmann deviate a bit from the original text to do something that might not work in a game but is extremely successful in a show. Their episodes are undeniable standouts, and probably the best examples of why The Last of Us is such a successful adaptation.

The show whiffs a little bit on the pacing, as the back half of the season feels rushed. The pace naturally accelerates throughout the season toward the story’s climax, and the last two episodes are among the shortest in the season. I wish that some of the many dramatic moments near the end had more time to breathe. I don’t think a whole additional episode is necessary, but an extra ten minutes in each of the final episodes might have made things feel less constricted.

Also, it’s worth remembering that The Last of Us was an extremely violent video game, and the show does not shy away from brutality and occasional gore. It’s less overt than I expected, but each episode generally has at least one moment that’s not for the squeamish. That said, much of the human-on-human violence is pared back. With a few exceptions, it’s not too gratuitous or graphic, and a lot is implied. Regardless, I respect that large swaths of people might not be in the mood for a violent and often grim post-pandemic drama after three-plus years dealing with a real-life pandemic.

Despite those concerns, the end result is the best kind of adaptation, one that’s faithful to the spirit of the origin that also makes smart changes to fit the medium. In that way, it reminds me a bit of Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, another personal favorite. While those movies made numerous deviations and changes, Jackson always framed them as a way to make the story work as well as possible in the film medium.

I feel the same way about The Last of Us. It’s not a one-to-one retelling, and I’m thankful for that – it wouldn’t have made for good TV. Instead, Craig Mazin took his love for Druckmann’s story and converted it to a show that many will enjoy, regardless of whether they’ve played the game. And for those of us who already love The Last of Us, this adaptation stands toe-to-toe with the original. There are tons of stunning moments that bring me directly back to what I love, but each episode also has a number of moments that surprised and delighted me, even though I know the overarching plot inside and out. It’s more than I could have hoped for, and I’m very excited that people who don’t play video games will get a chance to experience Joel and Ellie’s story through this excellent series.

Virgin Orbit’s historic “Start Me Up” mission launched from Spaceport Cornwell on January 9th as planned, but it has failed to reach orbit and has ultimately ended in failure. If you follow the the company’s tweets during the event, everything went well at first. Virgin Orbit confirmed LauncherOne’s clean separation from its carrier aircraft, Cosmic Girl, as well as the ignition of its NewtonThree first stage rocket engine. The mission also seemed to have gone through a successful stage separation, with the company tweeting about NewtonFour’s, the second stage engine’s, ignition. “LauncherOne is now officially in space!” the tweet after that reads. 

LauncherOne’s upper stage shut down and was supposed to coast halfway around our planet before deploying its payload. As Ars Technica reports, the next tweet after that said the rocket and its payload satellites had successfully reached orbit. But the company deleted that tweet and replaced it with an announcement that said an anomaly prevented the mission from reaching orbit as planned. According to Reuters, a graphic display it saw over the launch’s video feed showed that the mission reached second-stage cutoff but stopped three steps ahead of payload deployment a couple of hours after take off. 

Matt Archer, Commercial Space Director at the UK Space Agency, said the government and various entities that include the company will conduct an investigation about the failure over the coming days. Archer also said that the second stage suffered a “technical anomaly and didn’t reach the required orbit.” It’s unclear what the investigation entails, but Virgin Orbit promised to share more details when it can. Meanwhile, Cosmic Girl and its crew was safely able to return to Spaceport Cornwall.

The mission was carrying payload satellites from seven commercial and government customers. They include a UK-US joint project called CIRCE (Coordinated Ionospheric Reconstruction CubeSat Experiment) and two CubeSats for the UK Ministry of Defense’s Prometheus-2 initiative. Ars says this failure could have a huge impact on the company, which is struggling to launch enough missions to break even. “Start Me Up” wasn’t only the first orbital launch from UK soil, it was also the first international launch for Virgin Orbit and the first commercial launch from Western Europe. It could’ve been a high-profile success for the company and would’ve shown potential customers what it’s capable of. 

Meta is acting on its vow to reduce ad discrimination through technology. The company is rolling out a Variance Reduction System (VRS) in the US that ensures the real audience for an ad more closely matches the eligible target audience — that is, it shouldn’t skew unfairly toward certain cultural groups. Once enough people have seen an ad, a machine learning system compares the aggregate demographics of viewers with those the marketers intended to reach. It then tweaks the ad’s auction value (that is, the likelihood you’ll see the ad) to display it more or less often to certain groups.

VRS keeps working throughout an ad run. And yes, Meta is aware of the potential privacy issues. It stresses that the system can’t see an individual’s age, gender or estimated ethnicity. Differential privacy tech also introduces “noise” that prevents the AI from learning individual demographic info over time.

The anti-discrimination method will initially apply to the housing ads that prompted the settlement. VRS will reach credit and employment ads in the country over the following year, Meta says.

The feature comes after more than a year of work alongside both the Justice Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Meta (then Facebook) was charged in 2019 with enabling discrimination in housing ads by letting advertisers exclude certain demographics, including those protected by the Fair Housing Act. In a June 2022 settlement, the social media giant said it would both deploy VRS and scrap the “Special Ad Audience” tool whose algorithm allegedly led to discrimination. Meta had already limited ad targeting in 2019 in response to another lawsuit.

Meta isn’t alone in trying to limit discriminatory ads. Google barred advertisers from targeting credit, housing and job ads starting in 2020. However, the tech used to fight that discrimination is relatively novel. It won’t be surprising if other internet services implement VRS-like systems of their own so long as Meta’s AI proves effective.

Were you irked that Instagram’s shopping obsession relegated the “new post” button to a corner? You’re not alone. Instagram has revealed a home screen refresh, due in February, that axes the Shop tab and moves the Create button back to the center of the bottom navigation bar. That, in turn, shunts the Reels tab to the side.

The social network’s Adam Mosseri added in a video that shopping will still exist in your feed, Reels, Stories and ads. There just won’t be a dedicated tab for it. The section usually offers targeted recommendations to encourage shopping beyond the usual mid-feed offerings.

Instagram started testing the new design in September. In a video announcing the rollout, Mosseri characterized the refresh as a bid to “simplify” the service and focus on connecting people to the “things they love.” Insta is remembering that it’s a social network, to put it bluntly.

However, the change may also be part of a larger strategy shakeup. As The Vergenotes, The Informationclaimed to have seen an internal memo in September indicating that Instagram would cut many of its shopping features. Instead, the site would concentrate on commerce efforts that are “more directly tied” to ad revenue. Simply put, the shopping push doesn’t appear to have helped — this would boost Meta’s bottom line as it pivots to the metaverse.

There’s also the matter of competition. TikTok, the inspiration for numerous Instagram features, still features a prominent “new post” button. That placement isn’t a guarantee of success, of course, but that platform has continued to thrive in spite of Instagram. It had about 1.64 billion monthly active users as of October, according to Data.ai figures. The Instagram rethink might encourage more posts, not to mention give would-be converts a more familiar experience.

YouTube’s long-awaited revenue-sharing program for Shorts creators is nearly ready. Starting today, the company is rolling out a new Partner Program agreement ahead of February 1st, when creators can begin earning ad share revenue on their Shorts views. Creators have until July 10th to accept YouTube’s new Partner Program terms. As part of the change, the company is introducing new “Monetization Modules” to give creators more flexibility over how they earn money on YouTube — though the company recommends accepting all of them to unlock your full earning potential on the platform. As previously announced, creators with at least 1,000 subscribers and more than 10 million views on Shorts over a 90-day period can apply for the Partner Program. They then need to accept the new “Shorts Monetization Module.”

With Shorts revenue sharing rolling out, YouTube notes its $100 million creator fund is going away. However, the company expects most fund recipients to earn more through revenue sharing than they did through the fund. The formula YouTube has devised for determining how much each creator will make for their Shorts is complicated due to the involvement of music licensing. As YouTube users watch Shorts, the company will display ads between clips in the Shorts Feed. YouTube says the money generated by those ads will go towards paying music licensing companies and creators through a shared pool the company will divvy out at the end of each month. How much money ends up going to the creator pool will depend on the number of musical tracks creators feature in their Shorts. If you upload a clip with no music, then all the revenue associated with that video will go toward the creator pool. Conversely, when it comes to a Short with a single song, one-third of the related revenue will go toward paying for licensing. In a Short with two songs, two-thirds will go toward licensing. 

Once that’s all sorted out, YouTube will determine how to distribute the creator fund. The company will dole out the fund based on a creator’s share of total Shorts views. So say your videos accounted for 5 percent of all eligible Shorts views in your country for the month of February, you would then get 5 percent of the money in the fund, whether you used licensed music in your Shorts or not. YouTube then takes its 55 percent revenue cut, leaving you with 45 percent of what’s left. If your contribution to the Creator Pool was $1,000 one month, you would get $450 once everything is said and done.

NASA’s 38-year-old dead satellite has returned to Earth without incident. The Defense Department has confirmed that the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) reentered the atmosphere off the Alaskan coast at 11:04PM Eastern on January 8th. There are no reports of damage or injuries, according to the Associated Press. That isn’t surprising when NASA said there was a 1-in-9,400 chance of someone getting hurt, but it’s notable when officials said there was a possibility of some parts surviving the plunge.

ERBS had a storied life. It travelled to aboard Space Shuttle Challenger in 1984, and pioneering woman astronaut Sally Ride placed it in orbit using the robotic Canadarm. Crewmate Kathryn Sullivan performed the first spacewalk by an American woman during that mission. The satellite was only expected to collect ozone data for two years, but was only retired in 2005 — over two decades later. The vehicle helped scientists understand how Earth absorbs and radiates solar energy.

You might not see much ancient equipment fall to Earth in coming decades. The FCC recently proposed a five-year cap on the operation of domestically owned satellites that aren’t in geostationary orbits. The current guidelines suggest deorbiting within 25 years. While there could be waivers for exceptional cases, future satellites like ERBS (which was in a non-Sun synchronous orbit) might bow out long before they’re reduced to space junk.

Nearly four months after Amazon released the third-generation Fire TV Cube, the company has dropped the price of the device for the first time. It’s on sale for $125, or $15 off the regular price. While that isn’t a massive drop, you could use the savings to stock up on batteries for the Alexa Voice Remote or pay for a month of your favorite streaming service.

The third-gen Fire TV Cube is more powerful than its predecessors, as it has a 2GHz octa-core processor. WiFi 6E support should help it to better handle 4K video streams (though you may need a WiFi 6E router for optimal results). If you connect your cable box to the Fire TV Cube, you’ll be able to change the channels using Alexa voice commands. There’s support for Dolby Vision, HDR and Dolby Atmos as well.

Elsewhere, Amazon has dropped the prices of its Fire TV Sticks. While the deals aren’t quite as generous as the ones we saw during the Black Friday period, they’re still solid. The entry-level Fire TV Stick Lite, which supports 1080p streaming, is $5 off at $25. For an extra $5 ($10 off the regular price), you can snag the Fire TV Stick, which has Dolby Atmos support.

Above that is the Fire TV Stick 4K, which usually costs $50, but is currently on sale for $35. Along with 4K video quality, this model supports Dolby Vision and picture-in-picture live view of Ring cameras. It also has 50 percent more memory than the previous two models with 1.5 GB. The Fire TV Stick 4K Max, meanwhile, has 2 GB of memory, along with WiFi 6 support and a slightly faster processor. That’ll currently run you $40, or $15 off the usual price.

Shop Fire TV Sticks at Amazon

Here’s a quick PSA for anyone who has been looking to pick up Apple’s iPad mini: The 64GB version of the diminutive tablet is back on sale for $400 at Amazon and Best Buy, matching the lowest price we’ve tracked. Though we’ve seen the 8.3-inch slate hit this price severaltimes in the past year — including for most of the recent holiday season — this discount is still about $30 off the device’s average street price in recent months and $100 less than what you’d pay from Apple directly. Just note that, as of this writing, only the Starlight and Purple models are available for this price at Amazon.

We gave the iPad mini a review score of 89 when the device launched in late 2021, and we currently recommend it in our iPad buying guide. It’s still the only truly compact iPad Apple sells, and for those who have smaller hands or just want a slate they can comfortably use with one hand, it’s arguably the best tablet in its size range, period. It follows the same design language as most other iPads, with squared edges, a USB-C port, no Home button, a Touch ID sensor and a bright display. (Plus, no headphone jack, sadly.) Its A15 Bionic chip isn’t as powerful as the laptop-grade M1 and M2 chips found in the iPad Air and iPad Pro, and it doesn’t have a Smart Connector port for Apple-made keyboards, but it’s more than fast enough for reading and streaming, and it does support the latest Apple Pencil.

Broadly speaking, most people are still better served by the Air or more affordable 10.2-inch iPad. We wish there was more storage for the price, too, and it’s worth noting that some users have found issues with the display while scrolling. But if you aren’t looking to use your iPad for work and you specifically want a small tablet, the mini remains a good buy. And while the device has been on sale for nearly a year and a half, recent reportssuggest that any refreshed model won’t arrive until late 2023 at the earliest and isn’t likely to bring major hardware changes.

If you only need an iPad for the basics and don’t want to spend quite as money, though, note that the 10.2-inch iPad is also on sale for $250 at Best Buy. That also represents an all-time low. This model is a bit longer in the tooth in terms of design, with thicker bezels, a Lightning port and a lesser display than pricier iPads like the mini. For those who only use their tablet casually, though, it is by far the most wallet-friendly way into iPadOS.

Follow @EngadgetDeals on Twitter and subscribe to the Engadget Deals newsletter for the latest tech deals and buying advice.

Don’t worry if you missed some of the holiday deals for Google phones — you’re getting a second chance. Amazon is selling the 128GB Pixel 7 Pro for $749, or $150 off, while the standard Pixel 7 is available for $499 ($100 off). You’ll find similar discounts for larger capacities and different colors, too. These are near the best prices we’ve seen, and make the Pixels particularly good value for money.

The Pixel 7 family is ultimately a refinement of last year’s lineup, but that’s not a bad thing. You’re getting a reasonably speedy device with some of the best cameras in any phone, let alone in its price class. You can likewise expect modern creature comforts like fast displays, wireless charging and strong water resistance. As Google phones, they also represent the definitive Android experience — you’ll get a ‘pure’ interface with Pixel-first or exclusive features like Clear Calling and a free VPN.

The Pixel 7 line won’t be as fast as the highest-end Android phones and iPhones. And while Google has improve both its fingerprint reader and overall software quality, you might prefer the quicker readers on some rivals as well as Samsung’s longer OS update policy. You can also find some competitors, like the Galaxy A53, that pack 120Hz screens versus the base Pixel 7’s 90Hz panel. At prices like these, though, it’s difficult to complain.

Follow @EngadgetDeals on Twitter and subscribe to the Engadget Deals newsletter for the latest tech deals and buying advice.