Amazon MGM just released the final trailer for its upcoming film starring Ryan Gosling, Project Hail Mary, and it provides our first good look at his five-legged alien co-star, Rocky. The movie adapts a 2021 Andy Weir (The Martian) novel of the same name, and follows Dr. Ryland Grace, a scientist who wakes up on a spacecraft far from Earth with no recollection of how he got there or why, only to discover he’s on a seemingly impossible mission to stop an extinction event.

If you’ve read the book, you already know we’re in for an emotional rollercoaster with this one, and the latest trailer aptly tugs at our heartstrings with a glimpse of the friendship that grows between Grace and an alien he meets after waking up — and the incredibly high stakes they’re facing. The movie will be released nationwide on March 20, but Amazon announced alongside this trailer that it’ll be offering tickets for early screenings in premium formats including IMAX, Dolby Cinema, 4DX and 70MM to Prime members. Those screenings will begin on March 16, and tickets go on sale February 20 through Fandango.

On today’s episode of You Asked: Is it still worth buying an Apple TV 4K in 2026? Is the LG C5 the better choice over a Sony OLED? And in a bright room, are you going with the Bravia 9, or letting Samsung’s S95F OLED take on that glare instead?

Is it still worth buying an Apple TV 4K in 2026?

@lukehill1030 asks: Is it still worth getting the Apple TV 4K in 2026. Currently don’t have any sort of stream stick or box

Luke… I would say yes it’s definitely still worth it. I know we all love to torture ourselves with the thought of a newer version coming out right after we’ve bought the previous model, but we’ve been hearing reports and rumors about a new Apple TV 4K coming for so long that I refuse to believe anything until I see it.

So… there. Now I’ve almost guaranteed a new one will come soon.

Seriously though… I think the current model will still have plenty of life and quality of life features that you’ll enjoy for years to come. Plus, they did update the operating system just last year with the new Liquid Glass look and feature set, including the ability to save logins with your Apple account. So I don’t think Apple is ditching it anytime soon.

I’d also say that the Apple TV 4K is probably best thought of as a vehicle to get you where you wanna go. It’s a nice vehicle. It’s snappy and responsive. It looks good and has everything you need. But what matters is still gonna be the content you play on it. So if that’s what you’re yearning for, go for it. It’s one of the best, especially if you don’t want a bunch of ads thrown in your face within the operating system.

Bravia 8 vs. LG C5 for movies and TV shows

@fennec7906 asks: How’s the Bravia 8 vs the LG C5? Mostly watching movies and TV Shows?

As long as you’re referring to the original Bravia 8, to quote Dwayne Carter… I’d go with the LG C5 all day and tomorrow.

It’s the brighter of the two OLED TVs, which matters a lot for movies and TV shows where you may run into dark scenes. It’s also gonna help quite a bit if your room gets any daylight. And since both TVs also have Dolby Vision, there’s really not much of an advantage for Sony in the movies department with that TV.

Refresh rate and the number of HDMI 2.1 ports may not matter to you as much if you’re not gaming, but LG’s better in both of those departments as well with more options.

Now, if it’s the Bravia 8 II that you’re referring to, that’s a different story. That one would be a significant step up from the C5 in terms of color and processing, but it would also be a big step up in budget.

Either way, the LG C5 is one of the best all-round models when it comes to picture quality AND pricing. You really can’t go wrong with it.

Bright room TV choice: Sony Bravia 9 vs. Samsung S95F OLED

Vasilis asks: Hello! I would like your help with a purchase I’m about to make. We recently moved into a new apartment and my living room is larger than the previous one. In the previous place, I had a 55‑inch TV and it was fine because the distance between the couch and the TV was less than 3 meters. In the new apartment, the distance is almost 4 meters and the 55 inches now feels small. The living room gets quite bright during the daytime. I watch a lot of movies, series, and sports, and I also have a PS5. I’m thinking of going all the way up to 75 inches. I’m deciding between a Sony Bravia 9 or a good, high‑end OLED. I’ve seen many of your reviews and I would really appreciate your help to finally make a decision. Thank you, and I hope I didn’t take too much of your time!

Hey! Happy to help, and congrats on the upgrade! I think you’ve nailed it in terms of size. My own living room couch is about three meters away from the TV, and 65 inches feels right, but if I were any further like you are, I’d definitely go bigger as well.

So to that end, especially considering brightness, go with the Bravia 9. It’s such a great TV. So bright and capable while still maintaining excellent contrast. It was literally made to shine in bright rooms where it can overpower that ambient light and punch through it with peak brightness in HDR.

And as a sports viewer as well, yeah, you’ll appreciate its SDR brightness as well.

The only OLED TV I think I’d throw into the debate would be the Samsung S95F. And there are pros and cons that you’ll have to weigh against each other.

The pros… OLED picture quality means deeper blacks… kinda… we’ll come back to that.

In terms of connectivity, since you’ll have your PS5 plugged in as well, taking up an HDMI 2.1 port to get the fastest refresh rate, and the other 2.1 port being the eARC potentially being used for a soundbar, if you did need to connect something else that could take advantage of HDMI 2.1, you wouldn’t be able to on the Sony with just two of those available. Samsung, on the other hand, has four.

As for the cons… You won’t have Dolby Vision with Samsung… AND… let’s talk about those deeper OLED blacks. Samsung does have its anti-glare screen, which does great against reflections, but in a bright room, depending on how the light hits the TV, sometimes those inky OLED blacks appear a little lighter.

The Sony, on the other hand, MIGHT show direct reflections if it’s really bright light hitting the TV, but I think the Bravia 9 brightness can overpower quite a bit AND have the glossy screen that many desire.

It could be splitting hairs depending on the exact conditions, but to be safe, I’d still probably go Bravia 9. Sony’s processing and the brightness that can stand up to just about anything PLUS being able to have Dolby Vision is too good to pass up, especially at 75-inches. Also… it looks like it’s about a thousand dollars LESS than a 77-inch S95F right now. So there’s that.

When a startup announced plans last fall to recreate lost footage from Orson Welles’ classic film “The Magnificent Ambersons” using generative AI, I was skeptical. More than that, I was baffled why anyone would spend time and money on something that seemed guaranteed to outrage cinephiles while offering negligible commercial value.

This week, an in-depth profile by the New Yorker’s Michael Schulman provides more details about the project. If nothing else, it helps explain why the startup Fable and its founder Edward Saatchi are pursuing it: It seems to come from a genuine love of Welles and his work.

Saatchi (whose father was a founder of advertising firm Saatchi & Saatchi) recalled a childhood of watching films in a private screening room with his “movie mad” parents. He said he first saw “Ambersons” when he was twelve.

The profile also explains why “Ambersons,” while much less famous than Welles’ first film “Citizen Kane,” remains so tantalizing — Welles himself claimed it was a “much better picture” than “Kane,” but after a disastrous preview screening, the studio cut 43 minutes from the film, added an abrupt and unconvincing happy ending, and eventually destroyed the excised footage to make space in its vaults.

“To me, this is the holy grail of lost cinema,” Saatchi said. “It just seemed intuitively that there would be some way to undo what had happened.”

Saatchi is only the latest Welles devotee to dream of recreating the lost footage. In fact, Fable is working with filmmaker Brian Rose, who already spent years trying to achieve the same thing with animated scenes based on the movie’s script and photographs, and on Welles’ notes. (Rose said that after he screened the results for friends and family, “a lot of them were scratching their heads.”)

So while Fable is using more advanced technology — filming scenes in live action, then eventually overlaying them with digital recreations of the original actors and their voices — this project is best understood as a slicker, better-funded version of Rose’s work. It’s a fan’s attempt to glimpse Welles’ vision.

Notably, while the New Yorker article includes a few clips of Rose’s animations, as well as images of Fable’s AI actors, there’s no footage showing the results of Fable’s live action-AI hybrid.

By the company’s own admission, there are significant challenges, whether that’s fixing obvious blunders like a two-headed version of the actor Joseph Cotten, or the more subjective task of recreating the complex beauty of the film’s cinematography. (Saatchi even described a “happiness” problem, with the AI tending to make the film’s women look inappropriately happy.)

As for whether this footage will ever be released to the public, Saatchi admitted it was “a total mistake” not to speak to Welles’ estate before his announcement. Since then, he has reportedly been working to win over both the estate and Warner Bros., which owns the rights to the film. Welles’ daughter Beatrice told Schulman that while she remains “skeptical,” she now believes “they are going into this project with enormous respect toward my father and this beautiful movie.”

The actor and biographer Simon Callow — who’s currently writing the fourth book in his multi-volume Welles biography — has also agreed to advise the project, which he described as a “great idea.” (Callow is a family friend of the Saatchis.)

But not everyone has been convinced. Melissa Galt said her mother, the actress Anne Baxter, would “not have agreed with that at all.”

“It’s not the truth,” Galt said. “It’s a creation of someone else’s truth. But it’s not the original, and she was a purist.”

And while I’ve become more sympathetic to Saatchi’s aims, I still agree with Galt: At its best, this project will only result in a novelty, a dream of what the movie might have been.

In fact, Galt’s description of her mother’s position that “once the movie was done, it was done,” reminded me of a recent essay in which the writer Aaron Bady compared AI to the vampires in “Sinners.” Bady argued that when it comes to art, both vampires and AI will always come up short, because “what makes art possible” is a knowledge of mortality and limitations.

“There is no work of art without an ending, without the point at which the work ends (even if the world continues),” he wrote, adding, “Without death, without loss, and without the space between my body and yours, separating my memories from yours, we cannot make art or desire or feeling.”

In that light, Saatchi’s insistence that there must be “some way to undo what had happened” feels, if not outright vampiric, then at least a little childish in its unwillingness to accept that some losses are permanent. It may not, perhaps, be all that different from a startup founder claiming they can make grief obsolete — or a studio executive insisting that “The Magnificent Ambersons” needed a happy ending.

Comparing Our Favorite Vacuum Cleaners

Honorable Mentions

Bissell PowerClean FurFinder for $210: This was our previous top pick for cordless vacuums, and it’s still a great affordable stick vacuum. But if you’re looking for a cheap option, the regular Bissell PowerClean ($200) is a touch cheaper since it doesn’t come with the FurFinder upholstery attachment, while Dyson and Ryobi’s vacuums have more powerful suction for pet hair.

Black and Decker Dustbuster Flex for $95: This is another cool handheld vacuum that’s great for cars, or even indoor areas like staircases. It has a 4-foot hose, longer than most compact vacuums, and has a handy little charging mount that the accessories clip into. And thank goodness for the charging mount, since the battery only lasts 15 minutes.

Dyson Car+Boat Handheld Vacuum for $290: Dyson’s latest handheld vacuum was designed specifically for cars (and boats!) in mind, so if you have a vehicle to clean, this is made for it. It’s got a fantastic battery life compared to other handheld vacuums.

Dyson Gen5 Detect Cordless Vacuum for $800: This is Dyson’s current top-of-the-line stick vacuum, and it’s fantastic, especially for homes with a lot of pet hair. But it’s expensive and rarely on sale, making it a hard upgrade when you’ll still get a great experience with the Dyson V15 Detect. But this vacuum does have a HEPA filter, while the V15 Detect does not.

Ecovacs Deebot X11 Omnicyclone for $999: If you want a newer robot vacuum, the Ecovacs Deebot X11 Omnicyclone has a unique design with no dust bag. Instead, it has a rounded canister like a Dyson or stick vacuum, circling the debris to keep it from tangling. It’s a good design and this is overall a great robot vacuum, especially if you don’t want to buy dust bags over and over.

Roborock Qrevo S for $350 (used): This was our previous top robot vacuum pick, but Roborock updated the Qrevo line with new models that aren’t shipping to the United States, and the model we liked best is only available secondhand.

Tineco Pure One Station 5 for $459: If you want a cordless stick vacuum but don’t want to deal with emptying it all the time, this Tineco vacuum comes with a self-emptying docking station. You’ll eventually have to empty the station, but it’s a great bonus feature and keeps the vacuum from falling over around your home since it’s stored safely in the docking station.

Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.

Emily Musil reviews her 11- and 13-year-old children’s report cards, scanning through the typical categories: language arts, math, social studies.

But one day she is hopeful there will be a new metric for assessing all children: artificial intelligence literacy.

“Yes, I do think we’ll get there,” Musil says, pointing toward the recent rapid progression in what elementary schools offer, from typing class to computer literacy instruction to teaching coding. But currently “as a parent, I’m not seeing how my children are doing in understanding deep computing and AI tools — and that needs to shift.”

Musil is a managing director of social innovation at the nonprofit think tank Milken Institute. She served as the head researcher for a report released in November focused on building the nation’s talent engine in the age of AI.

“If you care about economic mobility, what choices do you need to make?” she asks. “We are behind, because technology is so rapidly advancing and is so tied to all jobs.”

The report pushed for K-12 institutions to emphasize AI literacy in conjunction with critical thinking and decision-making skills. But getting to that point of an expanded curriculum — let alone one that tackles the nuances of AI technology — may prove difficult. That’s because it will take concerted efforts from institutions, schools and leaders to make it happen.

Lack of Standards and Expertise

Federal standards for AI education began in the Obama administration and were most recently pushed again by the Trump administration, with the presidential action “Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth.” Yet when it comes to local implementation, it is largely up to the school or administrator — and more than half of U.S. schools or districts, many of them rural or classified as Title 1, have no standards at all.

According to the report, 60 percent of U.S. schools or districts have no guidance for generative AI usage. Many schools have previously told EdSurge that because the technology is so rapidly changing, decisions are often left up to the teacher’s discretion.

The lack of standards could also be a lack of expertise on AI and technology as a whole in the classroom. For example, according to the Milken report, only 17 percent of current computer science teachers have computer science degrees. While the report did not delve into what those teachers may have majored in instead, Musil added that some teachers are asked to cover the subject as the scope of their workload increases.

The same phenomenon could happen with AI literacy curricula.

“If you’ve been a teacher for 20 years, suddenly, you may not be an expert in medieval history, but you had to do something on it,” she says. “So, they’re teaching something they’re not necessarily deeply skilled in.”

Collective Action

The report had four specific focus points for K-12 schools: developmentally appropriate instruction in AI; ethical and critical use of AI tools; pairing human cognition with AI use; and learning through human interaction rather than screens alone.

For students, “K–12 education is often the first place they encounter STEM and computing topics,” the report says. “As an AI-driven workforce demands specialized skills earlier and earlier, K–12 has become an even more crucial intervention point. By building future-ready curricula and support systems, we can address gaps early and support student flourishing.”

They are lofty goals. A related challenge is the dearth of girls pursuing STEM fields. The report found roughly half (49 percent) of elementary school computer science students are girls. That drops to 44 percent by middle school, 33 percent by high school, and to about 20 percent by college graduation.

The Milken report acknowledges there is no easy, silver bullet solution to achieving these goals. There are the necessary federal efforts at play. And Musil suggested that employers or individual philanthropists could help support schools in funding, advocating and collaborating in curricula changes, to benefit both students and hiring organizations.

“This report makes it clear that the challenge is national in scope and the solutions must be collective,” says Michael Ellison, co-founder and CEO of CodePath, a nonprofit focused on diversifying the technology industry. The organization supported the Milken Institute in producing its report. “Philanthropists, industry leaders, policymakers, and educators all must act to rewire education and workforce systems for an AI-driven world.”

Risks of AI Integration

But there are also considerations to take when integrating the rapidly changing technology. A report released last month by The Center for Democracy and Technology found that schools’ embrace of AI was connected to increased risk of worse outcomes for students: half of the surveyed students said using AI in class makes them feel less connected with their teacher.

“As many hype up the possibilities for AI to transform education, we cannot let the negative impact on students get lost in the shuffle,” Elizabeth Laird, director of the Equity in Civic Technology Project at CDT, said in a statement. “Our research shows AI use in schools comes with real risks … Acknowledging those risks enables education leaders, policymakers, and communities to mount prevention and response efforts so that the positive uses of AI are not overshadowed by harm to students.”

And in a 2023 report titled “Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning,” the Department of Education warns of unchecked usage.

“We especially call upon leaders to avoid romancing the magic of AI or only focusing on promising applications or outcomes, but instead to interrogate with a critical eye how AI-enabled systems and tools function in the educational environment,” the report says.

But Musil points out that whether schools have specific rules or not when it comes to AI integration, the students will be using it in their free time — and it is best to teach them the best way to avoid those negative outcomes.

“My daughter is told AI is cheating, but there’s lots of things to do with pedagogy with AI; that piece of it is going to be their future.” she says. “When I’m hiring, I want someone to use AI and know when it is cheating, when it isn’t, and when it supports human thinking and when it supplants it.”

After a better-than-expected opening weekend in theaters, box office for Amazon’s “Melania” fell 67%, to an estimated $2.37 million, in its second weekend.

The documentary about First Melania Trump has grossed a total of $13.5 million so far (almost all of that in the United States), which means it’s extremely unlikely the film — which Amazon spent $40 million to acquire and $35 million to market — will break even in theaters.

Before “Melania”’s release, a former Amazon film executive asked how the price tag could be motivated by anything other than “currying favor” with the Trump administration or “an outright bribe.” 

Moviegoing typically slows during Super Bowl weekend, but the weekend’s top film, “Send Help,” only declined 47%. And after placing third on the charts last weekend, “Melania” is ninth this time.

Perhaps anticipating discussion about the film’s decline, Amazon released a statement from its head of domestic theatrical distribution Kevin Wilson, who said, “Together, theatrical and streaming represent two distinct value creating moments that amplify the film’s overall impact.”

“Melania” received universally negative reviews from critics, but its 99% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes was so good that the site put out a statement insisting that the score was real.