One of the most impactful inventions throughout all of human history, gunpowder changed the course of warfare. From fire arrows in China to propelling deadly munitions in the modern era, gunpowder shaped how conflicts were fought, guiding the evolution of warfare.What is gunpowder, and how did it change the way wars were fought?Gunpowder in Oriental WarfareKorean rocket arrows, photograph by Kai Hendry. Source: Wikimedia Commons/ FlickrToday, the term gunpowder refers to any number of powdered mixtures with a low-explosive yield that are used to propel projectiles from guns or used in the mining industry as a blasting agent. The traditional black powder, a saltpeter (potassium nitrate)-sulfur-charcoal mix, has largely been replaced in weaponry by smokeless powder, which is still referred to as gunpowder in common parlance.Gunpowder was likely the first explosive ever to be invented. It is said to have been invented in China during the Tang dynasty around the 9th century. However, there is evidence to suggest experiments with the gunpowder ingredients took place several centuries earlier. In the first millennium CE, alchemical experiments involving sulfur and saltpeter led to the creation of the explosive substance that would transform the world.As a work of art, Zo Sheehan Saldaa contextualizes the ingredients for black powder, sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate (saltpeter). Source: The Aldrich Contemporary Art MuseumThe first usage of gunpowder in war comes from a vague reference in the early 10th century, which is thought to refer to fire arrows. Early gunpowder did not contain enough saltpeter to be explosive, but it was highly flammable in the open air. It is suggested that gunpowder was applied to arrows, which would ignite due to the rush of air when loosed.According to traditional texts from the 14th century, a variant of these arrows was able to use gunpowder as a propellant, essentially creating the first rocket. There is also mention of a variety of bombs being used. It was, however, an invention called the fire lance that began the evolution of the gun.Although not an actual gun, the fire lance was an evolutionary predecessor for which the first use in warfare is dated to the 12th century. It consisted of a bamboo tube containing gunpowder that would ignite via a slow match. Once ignited, the flames would spew from the front of the tube, along with any other objects that were placed inside. Such a weapon had a very short effective range of only a few feet. The design was adopted in Europe, where wooden tubes were initially used.Found in the water well of the destroyed Tannenberg Castle, The Tannenberg handgonne from 1399 is Germanys oldest surviving firearm, photograph by Oliver H. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Germanisches Nationalmuseum, NurembergBy the late 13th century, actual guns had been invented. Construction involved cast iron or bronze, and these weapons and concepts quickly made their way westward.Ultimately, gunpowder had a significant effect on Chinese warfare. It gave the Song dynasty a powerful edge that allowed it to defeat its enemies, including resisting Mongol invasions. The explosive power also allowed for the breaching of stone walls, revolutionizing warfare and enabling the Chinese to effectively capture enemy fortifications.The technology, however, was not easy to keep secret. The technology spread, and the Song advantage disappeared. The Mongols were able to employ gunpowder weapons to equally devastating effect.One of the most significant factors of gunpowder being used on the battlefield was its psychological effect on troops. Faced with fiery explosions and whizzing, chemical-propelled arrows, soldiers had to have nerves of steel.The First Guns in EuropeAn English wrought-iron bombard, photograph by ian262, ca. 1450. Source: Wikimedia Commons/FlickrThe rise of guns in Europe was not immediate but rather a slow process of experimentation and integration. Bow technology in the continent was highly advanced, with longbows and crossbows proving to be highly effective on medieval battlefields. In the 14th century, guns were being made for use in the fields, but their effectiveness was limited. The Hundred Years War, fought in France, was a major instance where this development occurred.Ranged combat on the battlefields during this era was primarily done through bows. The slow reload time of guns could not compete with the quick and effective volleys of English longbowmen. Even the slower crossbows, used en masse, were highly effective (except when the strings got wet, like at the Battle of Crcy).There is debate over whether the bodkin arrows used by the English could actually penetrate the plate armor used by French knights. While some academics deny this ability, computer analysis at Warsaw University in 2017 showed that this weapon could indeed penetrate plate armor at the time. Whatever the case, the effect arrows had, even with blunt force, wore down knights subjected to the intense volleys. Arrows could, without a doubt, penetrate light armor and unarmored horses. As such, the longbow remained the star of the show for the English during the Hundred Years War.Leonardo da Vincis 15th-century study of ribauldequins. Source: Wikimedia CommonsGuns, however, did make an impression as artillery, although not in any quantity enough to change the course of the earlier battles. In 1333, the English likely used cannons to supplement their other siege equipment at Berwick against the Scots. Historian Ranald Nicholson states that Berwick was probably the first town in the British Isles to be subjected to bombardment by cannon.Against the French at Crcy in 1346, the English used an unknown number of artillery pieces. These included ribauldequins and bombards. Ribauldequin were multi-barrelled organ guns, and bombards were early forms of cannon. Florentine Giovanni Villani recounted how, after the Battle of Crcy, the whole plain was covered by men struck down by arrows and cannon balls. The artillery was likely more impressive due to its loudness and fury rather than by its kill count. The extremely slow reload times meant these weapons must have fired very few times during the battle.The French used artillery, too, and at the Battle of Formigny in 1450, they employed two small culverins (early iterations of a cannon) to devastating effect, inflicting many casualties among the English bowmen. The final battle of the Hundred Years War was the Battle of Castillon in 1453, which proved the effectiveness of handgonnes. The battle saw the English ripped to shreds by field artillery.An elaborate 16th-century cannon, photograph by Alf van Beem. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Royal Danish Arsenal Museum, CopenhagenOver the decades, cannons replaced other siege weapons, such as the trebuchet. The ability of heavy stone balls projected by gunpowder to destroy fortification walls was unmatched. Cannons would evolve into far more elaborate and effective systems over the decades and centuries that followed, eventually culminating in the advanced artillery systems used today.Early artillery pieces were hazardous, not just to anyone they were aimed at but also to those operating them. They could split or even explode upon firing, causing injury and death. As time went by, building guns became more sophisticated, and the weapons became safer for their operators and deadlier to their enemies.Gunpowder Weapons EvolveA recreation of a pike and shot formation in action, photograph by Kweniston, 2008. Source: Wikimedia CommonsEarly personal firearms lacked buttstocks and triggers and had to be held under the arm, making them highly inaccurate. In the second half of the 15th century, the harquebus was invented, which included both a trigger and a stock. It was a significant advancement, but the weapons were still heavy and took a long time to reload. As such, it was ineffective to have massed ranks made up solely of harquebusiers, as they would only be able to get off one shot before being overwhelmed by the enemy.As such, harquebusiers and other ranged-weapon-wielding soldiers were added to the fringes of pikeman formations. The gunmen would open fire and then retreat behind the pikemen. During this era, battles were often decided by the push of the pike rather than by firearms alone.In a bid to stay ahead of evolving tactics, horsemen were equipped with pistols, but these were difficult to reload on horseback. Ranks of horsemen would approach the footmen formations, fire at point-blank range, and then veer off. This tactic was employed in waves.The most effective way to break up these powerful pike formations was through the use of cannons, after which heavy cavalry could be used to scatter the fractured formations. Soon, armies throughout all of the major powers in Europe had similar structures, all emphasizing three branchesinfantry, cavalry, and artillery.Fort Bourtange in the Netherlands. Source: Wikimedia CommonsThe offensive power of gunpowder also meant that defensive technology and tactics had to evolve to keep pace. The most conspicuous developments were in how castles evolved, as many of these grand structures are still standing today in full view of the public. Walls were built thicker, and the rounded bastions of medieval castles evolved into pointed designs, giving rise to star-shaped forts. Angled structures were better able to deflect incoming cannon balls.Matchlock to FlintlockMuskets being fired, photograph by Edd Scorpio, 2008. Source: Wikimedia CommonsThe matchlock appeared in the Ottoman Empire and Europe in the second half of the 15th century. It was a huge improvement over the hand cannons in use in that the latter required somebody with a match to light the gunpowder in the guns breech. Matchlocks were fitted with a pivoting fuse that could be mechanically moved into place to ignite the pans gunpowder. They had a trigger mechanism and were safer because they didnt require the manual application of a lit match.Matchlock guns were used extensively from the 16th to the first half of the 18th century in Europe and until the mid-19th century in the Ottoman Empire and in parts of East Asia.A complex wheel-lock firing mechanism from the 17th century, photograph by Paul Harrison, 2019. Source: Wikimedia CommonsMatchlocks were eventually replaced with flintlocks. While matchlocks used a fuse, flintlocks lit the gunpowder with a spark made by striking flint against steel. Wheel-locks were also employed concurrently with matchlocks, and used a spinning mechanism to generate sparks. They could be used in wet weather conditions but were extremely complex and expensive to manufacture. Flintlocks, in comparison with wheel-locks, were simpler and cheaper to produce.Muskets such as the matchlock, wheel-lock, and flintlock were inaccurate but effective at close range in massed volleys. Adding to the inaccuracy was the large amount of smoke produced by these weapons, and battlefields became places of low visibility. Slow reload times meant that musketeer units were vulnerable to cavalry charges and had to have close support from anti-cavalry units such as pikemen.Musketeer tactics involved a highly coordinated maneuver of rotating ranks to keep up a permanent rate of fire. King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (r. 1611-1632) is credited with initiating a powerful tactic in which three ranks could fire at the same time. The front rank kneeled, the second rank crouched, and the third rank stood.The advent of muskets and their prevalence on the battlefield also influenced the armor soldiers wore. The apex of armor design in Europe was a fully enclosed and highly mobile suit of full plate exemplified by the German Gothic and Italian White designs. As impressive (and expensive) as these suits were, they were susceptible to musket fire. Armors were proofed by firing pistols and muskets at them. While good armor passed the test for a time, more powerful guns emerged as the decades passed, and armor simply had to get thicker to be able to absorb the velocity of a musket ball.A French cuirass from Waterloo. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Muse de lArme, ParisAs such, armor became heavier, and so those who could afford it opted for armor that only covered half the body. Breastplates and helmets were common until the late 17th century and eventually were done away with as they became an unnecessary encumbrance that could not effectively protect against gunfire. However, the breastplate (cuirass) continued to see widespread use in heavy cavalry units all the way through to World War I.By this time, the vast majority of soldiers went onto the battlefield unarmored. Mle combat did occur, but it was guns that decided the course of battles. And while some units sported sabers and lances, the need for close-combat options was satiated by adding bayonets attached to guns when needed. In doing so, soldiers turned their guns into spears, representing a full circle of combat technology over the millennia.Bayonets also protected infantry against cavalry charges. When under threat from cavalry, infantry units formed squares with bayonets pointing outwards, creating a bristling wall of pointed metal that horses, no matter how well they were trained, would not run into. Horses, however, were still essential parts of all militaries and were only completely replaced in the 1930s and 40s with the advent of tanks and motorized vehicles.In short, guns were the primary weapon, while blades, for the most part, were relegated to being accessoriesa situation that was the complete opposite of when guns were first introduced to the battlefields of Europe. Gunpowder was a vital component of virtually every soldiers kit.Gunpowder in the Age of MechanizationA German railway gun firing across the English Channel. Source: Wikimedia Commons/National Museum of the US Navy, Washington DCAs the world industrialized, gunpowder weapons became deadlier. Muzzle-loaders gave way to breech-loaders. In the late 19th century, automatic guns featured on the battlefield, and by World War I, artillery was king.Before an attack, artillery barrages lasted for hours, days, and sometimes even weeks, driving soldiers insane and turning the entire battlefield into mud. By this time, traditional gunpowder had been replaced by smokeless powder as a propellant. Although the recipe was different, the name remained the same in colloquial terminology, as did its purpose. Today, smokeless powder and other powdered propellants are often referred to as gunpowder, even though they are not the same.As gun technology became more sophisticated, so too did vehicles. Tanks appeared in World War I and became essential to combat operations in World War II, while in the skies, aircraft deployed bullets and bombs to destroy their enemies.Destruction in Ukraine. Source: Wikimedia Commons/State Emergency Service of Ukraine (Dsns.gov.ua)Today, the battlefield is a dynamic and dangerous place. Modern developments have seen shifts towards the effectiveness of drones and missiles, while the perception of the dominance of tanks has taken a knock. This terrifying and hellish world is one that owes its existence to gunpowder and the foundation it built for the evolution of modern warfare.

Exactly how and when the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in Britain were founded is something scholars continue to research. Nevertheless, the basic fact that they were founded by Angles, Saxons, and associated Germanic peoples from the continent over the course of the 5th and 6th centuries is well established. However, one modern theory argues that the kingdom of Mercia had a unique origin. Supposedly, it was founded by a late arrival of Vandals from North Africa. What is the basis for this idea, and does it really stand up to scrutiny?What Was the Kingdom of Mercia?Map of Brythonic and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the early 6th century. Source: Wikimedia CommonsThe Kingdom of Mercia was, for much of its history, one of the most significant and powerful Germanic kingdoms in Britain. It bordered the Brythonic territory of what is now Wales. The Welsh kingdom of Powys formed its western border, while the Anglian territory of Lindsey and the kingdom of East Anglia were to the east. To the north was probably the Brythonic kingdom of Elmet, before that was conquered by the Northumbrians, while to the south was the Kingdom of Wessex.Over time, Mercia grew much larger. The Mercians were powerful, and their kingdom conquered vast swaths of territory. At its height, it covered a very large portion of what is now England. In some respects, the Kingdom of Mercia differed from the other Germanic kingdoms in Britain. The very fact that they were so powerful has been highlighted as an unusual characteristic by some researchers. For this and other reasons, some researchers have argued that they must have had a unique origin.What Is the Connection Between the Kingdom of Mercia and the Vandals?Sculpture of the Twrch Trwyth and his piglets as described in Culhwch and Olwen, by Tony Woodhams, 2008. Source: Nigel Davies via GeographSpecifically, a theory emerged in the late-20th century that the Vandals were actually responsible for the founding of Mercia. According to this theory, the Vandals arrived in Britain in the mid-6th century and carved out some territory for themselves. This then became the kingdom of Mercia. Aside from the general unusualness of the Mercians in comparison to their Germanic neighbors, what specific arguments are used to support this theory?This theory is based on a story found in the Arthurian tale known as Culhwch and Olwen. This story is set in Arthurs reign, apparently shortly after the Battle of Badon. In this tale, there is a monstrous boar called Twrch Trwyth, which is ravaging Ireland together with its piglets. After Arthur and his men travel to Ireland to defeat it, the boar escapes their clutches and travels to southwest Wales. It then ravages the country across southern Wales before being driven into the Severn from its position just above Glamorgan.Culhwch and Olwen in Jesus College MS 111, folio 202r, showing Osla Gyllellfawr at the end of the fourth line and the beginning of the fifth, c. 1382-1425. Source: Bodleian Library, OxfordSignificantly, one of Arthurs allies in this story is a figure named Osla Gyllellfawr. He appears in other records as a Saxon leader, as his very name suggests. The fact that a Saxon leader is presented as helping Arthur repel the invasion of the Twrch Trwyth from Ireland supposedly indicates that the Trwch Trwyth represents a unique enemy. This suggests that it was an enemy more powerful than the Saxons.This story bears some similarities to an account found in Geoffrey of Monmouths Historia Regum Britanniae, written in c. 1137. He describes how a king from Africa named Gormund attacked the British Isles, first landing in Ireland and ravaging much of that land. He then moved on to Britain itself, devastating the island almost from sea to sea, according to Geoffrey. Given his Germanic name, along with his connection to Africa, it is evident that Gormund is supposed to be a Vandal king. Hence, Geoffrey describes a Vandal invasion of Britain in the 6th century.A Vandal cavalryman depicted on a mosaic found near Carthage, North Africa, c. 500 CE. Source: Wikimedia CommonsHowever, what is the specific connection between this event and the kingdom of Mercia? In the Historia Brittonum, we find a genealogical record of the kings of Mercia. One of them is named Guerdmund. Given the obvious similarity between the names Gormund and Guerdmund, this has been used as evidence for the conclusion that the Vandal invasion in Geoffreys account led to the foundation of Mercia.Since the Vandals were defeated in North Africa in 534, it seems superficially logical that they may have fled and looked for a new home elsewhere. Hence, the fact that there is a record of what appears to be a Vandal invasion of Britain in that very century, during King Arthurs reign, is significant. This is the basis for the idea that the kingdom of Mercia was actually founded by the Vandals. However, when we look at this evidence and these lines of reasoning in more detail, do they really stand up to scrutiny?Is Culhwch and Olwen Really a Description of Gormunds Invasion?Culhwch and Olwen in Jesus College MS 111, folio 209r, showing the death of Osla Gyllellfawr, c. 1382-1425. Source: Bodleian Library, OxfordLet us first consider the issue of the Arthurian tale Culhwch and Olwen. The idea that this refers to an alliance between Arthur and the Saxons to face an even greater threat falls apart upon closer examination. It is true that Osla, a Saxon leader, is presented as Arthurs ally in this story. However, he ends up dying in the pursuit of the monstrous boar. This is notable since Welsh tradition makes Osla the Saxon enemy who Arthur defeated at the Battle of Badon.If Osla died in Culhwch and Olwen, then this story must obviously be set after that battle. As scholar Peter Bartrum pointed out, this evidently means that Culhwch and Olwen is set after Arthur had defeated and subdued Osla at Badon. This means that his appearance in Culhwch and Olwen is not as a reigning allied king but as a defeated and deposed ruler. Hence, there is nothing about this that suggests that the monstrous boar represented some threat that scared the Saxons so much that they allied themselves to the Britons.Map showing Coedkernew in Newport, Wales, a remnant of the region of Cerniw in Gwent. Source: Street MapFurthermore, the idea that this story has anything to do with Geoffrey of Monmouths story of Gormunds Vandal invasion does not stand up to scrutiny. Geoffrey directly places that event in the reign of Ceredic, one of the high kings of Britain after Arthur had already died. This would appear to be the historical Ceredic of Elmet of the late 6th century. In any case, the Vandal invasion definitely occurred after Arthur had died. This does not fit the story in Culhwch and Olwen.Additionally, Geoffrey of Monmouths account makes it clear that Gormund was allied with the Anglo-Saxons of Britain. He even says that Gormund, after his devastating attacks on the country, handed Lloegr (England) over to the Saxons. In contrast, the story of the boar in Culhwch and Olwen states clearly that the boar was driven from Cerniw (either Cornwall or Gwent) and fled into the open sea, never to be seen again.Did Gormunds Supposed Vandal Invasion Really Lead to the Founding of Mercia?Peada of Mercia, son of Penda, depicted on John Speeds Saxon Heptarchy Map, 1611. Source: Cambridge University LibraryWhat about the supposed connection between Gormunds invasion and the founding of Mercia? Even if we dismiss the connection to the story in Culhwch and Olwen set in Arthurs reign, might Gormund nevertheless be identifiable as Guerdmund, the alleged ancestor of the Mercian kings? The reality is that Guerdmund of Mercia in the Historia Brittonum is definitely not identifiable as Geoffreys Gormund, king of the Vandals.According to the Historia Brittonum, Guerdmund was the ancestor of Penda, son of Pybba. This Penda of Mercia is a well-known king, and he was born in c. 606. Notably, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle provides a fuller version of his ancestry, showing that the version in the Historia Brittonum is significantly abbreviated. The Guerdmund from the Historia Brittonum corresponds to Waermund in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles version. Based on Pendas estimated date of birth, his ancestor was probably born in the 4th century, long before Geoffreys Gormund. Hence, Gormund, the legendary Vandal king, cannot be Guerdmund, the legendary ancestor of the Mercian kings.Why Mercia Probably Wasnt Founded by the VandalsA coin of Gelimer, the last king of the Vandals known to history, c. 530 CE. Source: Wikimedia CommonsBased on this evidence, what can we conclude? We can see the idea that Mercia was founded by the Vandals is based on a comparison between Culhwch and Olwen, Geoffreys account of Gormunds invasion, and the Historia Brittonum. However, when we examine this evidence more closely, we can see that it does not stand up to scrutiny. There is no evidence that the account of the boar in Culhwch and Olwen represented some greater threat that forced the Saxons to ally themselves with the Britons. Rather, the Saxon Osla was evidently serving Arthur after being defeated at Badon.Furthermore, the details in Geoffreys account about Gormund make it clear that it cannot be identified as the attack of Twrch Trwyth. Even more significantly, while Geoffrey does claim that Vandals invaded Britain in the 6th century, he does not say that they founded Mercia. The supposed connection between Gormund and the legendary ancestor of the Mercian kings, Guerdmund, is impossible for chronological reasons. Therefore, there is really no evidence that the kingdom of Mercia was founded by the Vandals.

Columbus landed on Hispaniola (present-day Dominican Republic and Haiti) in October 1492. He thought hed reached the East Indies, labelling the inhabitants indios or Indians in Spanish. He named the region Las Indias or The Indies. Columbus also informed the Spanish crown that he had reached Asian fringes. Later, the Caribbean region would be renamed, but only as the West Indies. This allowed for the differentiation from the East Indies, part of Asia. The Indians for all Native American tribes would persist down to modern times.Resistance to Change1474 Map with a Modern Map Imposed. Source: Florida Center for Instructional TechnologyThe Europeans realized their navigational error by the early 1500s. Realizing that a whole different continent existed, maps and other documents now reflected this change, except for the Indies or Indian terms. These misnomers still appeared to distinguish the area from Asia. Plus, as history has shown, bureaucrats can be resistant to name changes.The administrative opposition stemmed from the change in the status quo. The term Indian lay embedded in all kinds of literature, legal documents, maps, and trade routes. The merchant companies bore names such as The Dutch West Indies Company, for example. Changing the names of these colonial governments would be expensive, both politically and economically.1700s Map Showing West Indies Name. Source: Library of CongressThe later American governments continued the practice. Indian became a blanket term when dealing with Native American tribes. Action reports, census records, and legal classifications often referred to Indians rather than the tribes actual name. Perhaps unintentionally, but Columbuss mistake still lingered three centuries later. Some Native Americans refer to themselves as Indians. The American government branch tasked with assisting Native Americans is the Bureau of Indian Affairs.Also, naming all Natives as Indians led to an oversimplification. The American continent was home to a vast array of tribes, languages, and cultures.The Cultural ImplicationsEngraving of New World colonists trying to negotiate peaceful relations with Native Americans by Theodor de Bry and Matthus Merian, 1634. Source: Virginia Historical SocietyDespite just being an expression, being called Indian versus Native American could set a tone for a vast number of groups. The term Indian for non-Native Americans allowed them to be portrayed only in specific ways. This occurred in literature, movies, and other mediathe view: the hostile warrior or the noble savage.In America, the Civilization Fund Act of 1819 paid religious groups to educate Native children to civilize them. Next came the Board School System (1860-1978) with the same goal: to educate Native children for assimilation. This would help address the Indian problem. Students could not speak their native languages or cultural ways. By creating such trauma, tribal cohesion would break down.BIA Seal. Source: bia.govLater on, Columbuss mistake would be reinforced in popular media (pulp fiction, Wild West shows). These books and shows described Indians as whooping savages, riding into rob or kill.In diplomatic or legal terms, the term Indian was adopted in the jargon. Between 1778 and 1871, the U.S. and Native nations signed over 350 treaties. Indian referred to the tribes in most cases. Even discriminatory laws such as the 1830 Indian Removal Act made no difference. The U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs was created early in the 19th century, reinforcing the misnomer.In an ironic twist, the signed treaties could explain why Native Americans are still called Indians. The treaties often contain land agreements, and it may be difficult to withdraw from the words implications.A Mixed Response 1973 AIM Poster. Source: Wiki MediaEven today, there are differences in Native American communities. In official contexts, some tribes used the term Indian in legal matters. One major organization is the Great Sioux Nation of Indians. Native American became popular in the 1970s as a more accurate, respectful term. These tribes include the Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation, and the Navajo Nation.

Steam finally adds crucial accessibility options, but it might break completely As Steam client updates go, this is a biggie. Valve has reeled off a list of nearly 100 bugs or performance issues that have been fixed on desktop, as well as 50 fixes for Steam Deck users. Most of these are niche cases, fixing fonts for players with a DPI of over 100% or ensuring those who use an 8BitDo...

iPhone 17 vs. iPhone 15: Specs, screen size, and more Apple finally told us all about the iPhone 17, and right now, countless Apple users are asking the same question: Do I need to upgrade to the new model?We've already compared the iPhone 17 to the 16, but what about the iPhone 15? Apple's 2023 handset is by no means long in the tooth, but there...

Bose QuietComfort Ultra earbuds 2 are one of the best noise-cancelling earbuds available, but not a must-upgrade Table of Contents Where do you go once you've (almost) reached the peak?It's a problem frequently seen in the tech world, on everything from Sony headphones to Apple Watches and robot vacuums. Whether it be...

As Steam client updates go, this is a biggie. Valve has reeled off a list of nearly 100 bugs or performance issues that have been fixed on desktop, as well as 50 fixes for Steam Deck users. Most of these are niche cases, fixing fonts for players with a DPI of over 100% or ensuring those who use an 8BitDo controller see the right logo in big picture mode. However, it's also added some crucial accessibility options that are long overdue, but multiple users are also noticing that the update has caused the desktop app to start randomly mutating.Read the full story on PCGamesN: Steam finally adds crucial accessibility options, but it might break completely

At their best, fast food fries are a satisfying side, but not all places do them justice. One chain in particular really needs to up their fries game.

Spotify is finally launching lossless music streaming support after consumers demanded it for years.

The startup is using real-time AI agents that inspect, analyze, and neutralize email threats.