On Sunday, three runners at the London Marathon set the sporting world on fire—not least because of their shared choice of footwear. Kenya’s Sabastian Sawe won the men’s race with a record-setting time of one hour, 59 minutes and 30 seconds (1:59:30) while Ethiopia’s Yomif Kejelcha came in second, finishing in 1:59:41, and fellow Ethiopian Tigist Assefa broke the women’s record with a time of 2:15:41. All three were wearing a pair of new Adidas shoes specifically designed for marathoning, the Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3.
The shoes’ apparent success is the latest shot fired in a long-simmering war among athletic wear companies to design footwear to help people move faster on long-distance runs. While “it’s gotta be the shoes” was once used as a tongue-in-cheek tagline for Air Jordans, there’s quite a bit of truth to that sentiment when it comes to marathoning, says Brad Wilkins, director of the University of Oregon’s Performance Research Laboratory.
“People are just getting faster and faster and faster, partially due to equipment, partially due to belief in the fact that we can run this fast, and partially due to training and adaptations because of that belief,” he says.
The Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3 is somewhat odd-looking when compared to a regular running shoe. The sole is packed with padding that surrounds a curved carbon plate, all of which gives the shoe the appearance of the bottom of a rocking chair. The design is all about economy, Wilkins explains. The padding is made of ultralightweight foam, which keeps the shoe’s mass as low as possible while still providing cushioning for the foot. The carbon plate, meanwhile, is designed to put the runner “kind of in a forward tilt,” he says. If you were just walking in the shoes, you would find it more difficult to get around than you would in an average pair of sneakers. But a long-distance runner’s stride is fundamentally different from the gait of someone going for a stroll.
“It puts you more on your forefoot,” Wilkins says, referring to the bend in such running shoes. “Some of the models of these shoes don’t even have outsoles in the heel. They’re basically expecting that you’re going to be running on your forefoot the whole time.”
The reason for that assumption is that conserving energy is one of the keys to success in marathoning. A running gait that primarily uses the front of the foot is more efficient than one that has the heel making contact with the ground. That’s because pressing down on the ground with the heel can generate backward momentum, requiring the runner to use more energy to propel themselves forward.
The materials and design of these shoes combine to “increase the springlike capability of the leg by adding, essentially, a spring on your foot,” says Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological sciences at Harvard University and an amateur marathoner. “When a runner hits the ground with these shoes, the shoe is storing up elastic energy, and then it’s recoiling, pushing the runner back up into the air.”
He estimates that the latest generation of marathon shoes could help runners expend 4 to 6 percent less energy per stride.
“There’s no question, study after study shows these shoes are responsible for people running faster because they have more energy, and more energy means more gas on the tank,” he says.
In a statement, Adidas’ general manager of running, Patrick Nava said that the Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3 shoes are the result of “more than a dozen iterations, working closely with our athletes and testing everywhere from our labs in Herzogenaurach [in Germany] to high-altitude camps in Kenya and Ethiopia.”
“At that level, every detail really matters—we were measuring things down to the nearest nanogram,” Nava said. “It was a long process, but it’s led to something we believe genuinely changes what a race-day shoe can feel like.”
Marathon times have grown steadily shorter since the distance of 42.195 kilometers (26.2 miles) was formalized in 1921. That’s not to say that footwear technology is the sole reason for the improved performance. Initially, winning times tended to be just under three hours. By the 1950s, they were down to around two hours and 20 minutes—and athletes have been shaving minutes and seconds off ever since. Lieberman says that because training and nutrition sciences have also improved over time, it’s impossible to determine how much credit to give new shoes for the improvement.
“When you have somebody running 26.2 miles, and you try to figure out scientifically what it is that’s causing one person to run faster than another, nobody can figure that out,” he says.
He points to the late neurologist Roger Bannister, who, as a medical student, ran the first sub-four-minute mile in 1954, as a comparison point.
“Now you’ve got these fancy, big shoes and these companies, and it’s a different world,” he says. “To me, it’s not quite the same thing, and there’s no question: the shoes have had a major effect on the ability to do it. This is technology-assisted, which is not to say that these athletes aren’t exceptional. But to me, it’s not quite exactly the same thing.”
As impressive as breaking the two-hour mark is, Wilkins says he doesn’t think humans have come close to their maximum long-distance speed. Seconds and minutes will continue to be stripped away as technology and training improves, he says.
“The bar has 100 percent been changed,” he says. “I think it’ll be very soon where, if you’re not running sub-two hours, you’re no longer in the elite kind of category.”
.
Sabastian Sawe celebrates winning the 2026 London Marathon. Karwai Tang/WireImage via Getty Images
Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures are at risk of losing their seats in Alabama’s Black congressional districts after ruling. The fight for democracy is supported by
The lawmakers who represent Alabama’s two Black congressional districts, who are now at risk of losing their seats after the Supreme Court effectively decimated the Voting Rights Act, said the decision sends the US “backwards”.
The 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v Callais on Wednesday weakens a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, opening the door for Republicans to eliminate majority-minority congressional districts across the south, and representatives Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures stand in the crosshairs.
“People in my home town fought, braved, died, marched for the right of all Americans to vote,” Sewell, who represents Alabama’s seventh congressional district, said shortly before Wednesday’s decision. “And I know I wouldn’t be here, were it not for the Voting Rights Act. I mean, actually, all Black elected officials. It’s pretty frightening to think that on our collective watch, we’re going backwards and not forwards.”
Figures, who represents Alabama’s newly drawn second congressional district, said the ruling threatens far more than the seats currently held by Black members of Congress. “The impact will be great,” he said in an interview before the decision, anticipating that the court would weaken the landmark voting law. “At the end of the day, the Voting Rights Act is about fairness. It’s about having the opportunity to elect members of Congress of your choice, and not have the district lines drawn in a way that inhibits the ability of a significant racial group to have an impact in the outcome of an election.”
In a ruling split along ideological lines, the Supreme Court affirmed that Louisiana’s congressional maps violated the equal protection clause. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which for four decades had been used to challenge electoral maps producing racially discriminatory results, does not require states to draw majority-minority districts. Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the decision effectively eviscerates the law.
‘All we want is fair representation.’
The implications for Alabama are immediate and deeply personal for both Sewell and Figures. Republican lawmakers in Alabama will likely move quickly to redraw the state’s congressional maps, Sewell said, but not in time to affect the 2026 midterms. The state’s deadline to qualify as a major party candidate for the 19 May primary was in January, meaning it’s likely too late for Republicans to change maps before the upcoming elections. Sewell and Figures may be safe in November, but Republicans will likely redraw their districts and push them out of Congress in 2028.
Sewell, who represents a swath of the state’s Black Belt that includes Selma, the city where she grew up – has served in Congress since 2011. For 13 of those years, she was the only Democrat in Alabama’s congressional delegation and the only representative from a district where Black voters could elect a candidate of their own choice. Her district, which winds through some of the poorest counties in the nation, was itself a product of the Voting Rights Act, redrawn to give Black Alabamians, who make up about 28% of the state’s population, a voice in federal representation.
Figures’ district, the newly drawn second district, exists solely because of a recent legal victory. The seat was created after the Supreme Court ruled in Allen v Milligan in 2023 that Alabama’s congressional map illegally diluted Black voting power. That decision reaffirmed section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and compelled Alabama to draw a second opportunity district. Figures, a first-term congressman from Mobile, won that seat in 2024 in what Sewell called a historic moment: for the first time in modern Alabama history, two Black representatives sat together in the congressional delegation.
“It was a long time coming,” Sewell said of that day. “When you think about representation, all we want is fair representation.”
Wednesday’s ruling puts that representation directly at risk. But Sewell and Figures were both clear that the threat extends far beyond Congress. With the Voting Rights Act weakened, representation at all levels is threatened, Sewell said, including in state legislatures, county commissions, city councils, and school boards.
.
The 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v Callais weakens a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Composite: Javier Palma/The Guardian/Getty Images
Jerome H. Powell capped off his eight-year tenure as chair of the Federal Reserve with the most divisive policy meeting in decades, as three officials suggested the central bank should more directly signal that the Fed’s next move could just as likely be a rate increase as a cut.
Adding to the drama was an announcement by Mr. Powell that he would remain as governor at the central bank after his term as chair ends May 15 and President Trump’s handpicked successor, Kevin M. Warsh, takes over. That decision will deny Mr. Trump the opportunity to appoint another governor to the Fed’s seven-member board until Mr. Powell leaves.
Mr. Powell’s decision to stay, which he can do until January 2028, breaks with tradition. But he pegged it to the numerous broadsides that Mr. Trump and his administration had launched against the Fed in the last year, which he warned put the central bank’s independence “at risk.”
Wednesday’s meeting, at which the Fed voted to keep rates unchanged at a range of 3.5 to 3.75 percent, encapsulated the acute challenges that Mr. Warsh will inherit once he steps into the role. In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Warsh said he wanted “messier” meetings and for the Fed to have a good “family fight,” which he seems likely to get.
But he is also at risk of becoming Mr. Trump’s newest target if he is unable to deliver the rate cuts that the president has long demanded. He has spent years attacking Mr. Powell for not cutting rates quickly or aggressively enough, calling him a series of names, including “too late,” “a stupid person,” and a “moron.”
Mr. Trump on Wednesday reiterated that it was a “good time” to lower rates, just as officials at the Fed were making clear that they had turned more wary about providing that relief. Inside the central bank, the debate has shifted away from when to cut again toward whether to do so at all, resulting in the most divisive meeting since 1992. The calculus has changed largely because of the war in Iran, which has sent energy prices soaring and lifted inflation.
Stephen I. Miran, who was appointed to the Fed last year by Mr. Trump, issued his sixth straight dissent and voted for a quarter-point cut. Presidents from three of the regional reserve banks supported the decision to hold rates steady. But they wanted the Fed to signal more explicitly in its policy statement that the next move from the central bank was not necessarily another rate cut.
Instead, the Fed maintained in its statement that “in considering the extent and timing of additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook and the balance of risks.”
The dissents came from Beth Hammack, president of the Cleveland Fed; Lorie Logan, who runs the Dallas Fed; and Neel Kashkari, who heads up the Minneapolis Fed.
The concern for a growing number of officials is that the longer the war with Iran drags on, the bigger the economic hit will be. Officials fear a situation in which higher energy prices push up prices elsewhere, especially across the services sector, leading to a more persistent inflation problem that would be more difficult to address.
Expectations about future inflation indicate that Americans have not lost faith in the Fed’s ability to eventually bring inflation back down to its 2 percent target. But the emergence of another shock that has pushed inflation further from the Fed’s goal — the fourth in five years — will no doubt test that confidence.
.
Jerome H. Powell on Wednesday said that he would remain at the central bank after his term as chair ends on May 15 and his successor, Kevin M. Warsh, takes over. Credit…Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times
The plot of “The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace” seems like that of a typical Simpsons episode. In it, Homer struggles with a midlife crisis. Disappointed by a lack of accomplishments in his life, he decides to emulate famous inventor Thomas Edison and, in turn, tries to develop technical innovations, which, of course, all end in disaster. But if you follow the episode carefully, which was first broadcast in 1998, you’ll be in for a surprise—at least if you know anything about mathematics.
In one particular scene, Homer stands pensively at a fully scribbled blackboard. Next to the obligatory drawings of doughnuts, which are not only Homer’s favorite food but also critical to the field of topology, there is a seemingly harmless equation: 3,98712 + 4,36512 = 4,47212. Type it into a calculator, and it appears correct. But amazingly, it contradicts one of the most established theorems of mathematics.
The Great Theorem of Fermat: A Centuries-Old Mathematical Riddle
This story dates back to the 17th century. It starts with the equation xn + yn = zn. If you choose n = 1, then this equation will always be satisfied: no matter how one chooses the values for x and y, z will always be a positive integer result. For example, 3 + 6 = 9.
For n = 2, it gets a bit trickier because the equation becomes quadratic: x2+ y2 = z2. This formulation feels familiar, particularly if you like geometry—it’s the Pythagorean theorem. Still, there are some quirks: if x and y have integer values, z is not necessarily an integer. For example, for x = 1 and y = 2, the formula 12 + 22 = 5. But 5 is not a square number.
Look at the equation again when n = 3, and things get strange. You cannot find a solution that is an integer for x3 + y3 = z3. That means you cannot divide a cube with integer side lengths z into two smaller cubes that have integer side lengths x and y. The same is true for all other values of n.
Seventeenth-century French scholar Pierre de Fermat recognized this, too, and claimed to have discovered a proof for the statement that there are no three positive integers x, y, and z that can satisfy xn + yn = zn when n is greater than 2. The catch: he wrote about achieving this mathematical wizardry in a note in the margins of a book by an ancient scientist, Diophantus of Alexandria, and he didn’t actually spell out the proof.
Fermat left similar scribbles behind frequently. And all of them—except this one—were successfully proved by later experts. So this mystery proof became known as Fermat’s last theorem.
Generations of scholars took a crack at it until, finally, more than 350 years later, in 1994, mathematician Andrew Wiles solved the puzzle. His impressive work made waves: he developed novel methods that led to further groundbreaking discoveries in the field. For this, among other things, he was honored in 2016 with the Abel Prize, one of the highest honors in mathematics.
For Wiles’s proof, you have to leave the algebra you know from school and enter more branched mathematical areas. In fact, you have to enter into the esoteric realms of elliptic curves and modular forms—concepts developed in the 1980s.
Nobody seriously doubts that Wiles’s approach is correct. His technical paper has been reviewed by many experts, especially because some of his techniques are repeatedly revisited to reveal other mathematical relationships. This reduces the probability that an error could have crept in somewhere.
But Fermat could not have known about elliptic curves and modular forms. So that creates new questions: Had the scholar been joking? Had he miscalculated? Or does a substantially simpler proof exist? The debate goes on.
Homer Simpson versus Pierre de Fermat
Fortunately, the Homer Simpson mystery is easier to solve. Yes, 3,98712 + 4,36512 = 4,47212 represents an integer solution of the equation xn + yn = zn for n = 12. But the problem here is in the conventional calculator.
The numbers 3,98712 + 4,36512 are enormously large values consisting of 44 digits. Ordinary calculators typically provide only 10 digits, which is why they round the numerical values up or down. With a more accurate calculator or computer program, you will find that 3,98712 + 4,36512 does not actually equal 4,47212.
In fact, what “The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace” proves is that many of the creators of The Simpsons have a surprisingly deep knowledge of mathematics. Many of its writers have had backgrounds in computer science, mathematics or physics, including David X. Cohen, who was responsible for the Fermat joke. He had written a computer program specifically to spit out a near solution for this purpose. That he chose Fermat’s great theorem may not have been pure coincidence: in fact, as a student, Cohen attended lectures by mathematician Ken Ribet, who had done some of the preliminary work for Wiles’s proof.
And that’s far from the only Simpsons episode with a slyly placed nerdy Easter egg. In his book The Simpsons and Their Mathematical Secrets, mathematician Simon Singh presents many more examples. If nothing else, the show invites you to take a closer look during a cozy evening TV viewing—and perhaps make a mathematical discovery in the process.
.
Homer refuting Fermat’s last theorem in “The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace.” Disney+
Leading up to the birth of my first child, I remember having two main things on my mind: the fear of childbirth and dreading sleepless nights. And, let’s be clear — those were both valid concerns. However, along with the feedings and diaper changes to interrupt my sleep, I also found myself lying awake with another sense of dread: realizing just how much money you end up paying for a newborn baby.
A recent BabyCenter survey found that parents can expect to spend $20,384 on baby-related costs in the first year of their kid’s life (which, in “no, duh” news, also contributed to 89% of moms saying finances impacted their mental health). It’s a stress I was reminded of all over again as we welcomed our second kid this year.
The cost of bringing a newborn into the world goes far beyond baby gear. You’re looking at things like insurance, hospital bills, college savings, and more. According to the experts, these are the major financial things to plan for when you have a newborn.
Budget for essentials: hospital bills, health insurance, and basic needs
Budgeting for the essentials is key when it comes to not going into sticker shock when your newborn arrives. According to Michelle Paiva of The Finance Therapist, some of the basics worth saving for are “health insurance costs, hospital bills, and a little cushion for unexpected doctor visits.” You’ll have 30 to 60 days after your child’s birth to register them for health insurance during a Special Enrollment Period (because you didn’t have enough going on, right?).
From there, diapers, clothing, cribs, car seats, and feeding supplies will make up the core of your first major purchases. “If you can, start a small savings account for your baby’s future — it doesn’t matter if it’s $10 at a time; the habit itself builds confidence.”
Paiva recommends saving up for three to six months of basic expenses as a goal. However, if that seems high, something is always better than nothing. “Even $1,000 tucked away can give you breathing room,” she says. “What matters most is not a magic number — it’s having a plan and knowing you can adjust as you go.”
All the insurance
Life insurance for yourself and your partner can help protect your family, putting financial resources in place if (knock on wood) anything were to happen to either of you.
Disability insurance is another consideration, as it provides financial support if one or both parents are unable to work due to a severe illness or injury. Depending on your plan, this can help cover essentials like mortgage, childcare, and household expenses for a certain period of time.
Legal stuff: savings account, a trust, updated will
Sophoan Prak, a certified financial planner at Vanguard, shared the importance of estate planning and guardianship when welcoming a newborn to your family.
“Estate planning entails the creation of legal documents to specify your wishes for your assets in the event of your passing or inability to make decisions for yourself,” Prak shares. “It can involve setting up a trust, selecting beneficiaries for retirement accounts and life insurance policies, and how you transfer ownership of your assets. For underage children, it’s crucial to designate a guardian who can raise your child if you’re unable.”
Childcare costs
“Childcare is often the biggest shock, sometimes costing as much as a mortgage,” Paiva explains. I know for my family, having two working parents required finding childcare options early — and I’m likely not the first person to stress how expensive it can be. The cost of our daycare for two kids is not far off from the majority of my salary, something my husband and I had to account for and plan for when deciding whether I should stay at home or not.
College savings
While not all kids may choose to pursue college after high school graduation, it’s never a bad idea to have money set aside for if they do.
“Start investing in your child’s future goals now,” Prak advises. “While school might feel far off, it will be here before you know it. Opening a 529 savings plan, which is a tax-advantaged savings account, can be a great way to get a head start on saving for your child’s education. These accounts offer tax benefits, high contribution limits, easy gifting options, and flexibility — in fact, you can utilize a 529 for K-12 expenses, trade school tuition, college expenses, including room and board, and even for studying abroad.”
Unexpected costs
According to Prak, more than half of parents report spending $1,000 or more annually on unexpected costs. In my personal experience, that number has probably been even higher. From unexpected hospital visits to supplies we didn’t know we needed (who knew an infant could be so picky with a bottle type?), we spent a lot more in our first year than we had planned to.
“Consider saving a minimum of $2,000 or at least half a month of expenses for spending shocks, and 3-6 months’ worth of expenses — if you can swing saving a larger sum — in case of income loss,” Prak recommends.
The court’s conservative majority said they had upheld the landmark law, as liberal justices accused them of gutting it. In striking down a Louisiana voting map as a racial gerrymander, the court opened the door for other states to redraw their maps.
The Florida House of Representatives on Wednesday.Credit…Mike Stewart/Associated Press
.
The Florida House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to approve an aggressive new map that would redraw the state’s congressional districts and could give Republicans up to four new seats.
The vote came about an hour after the Supreme Court issued a decision limiting a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act; the case was the main justification that Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, used to redraw Florida’s map.
Martin Luther King III assailed the ruling as weakening “the crown jewel of the civil rights movement,” a reference to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In a statement with his wife, Arndrea Waters King, he said the ruling went beyond a legal setback and was “a moral indictment that reflects a continued retreat from the promise of equal justice.”
“While future courts may address this ruling, the damage is immediate,” the Kings said, “and this moment demands that we choose whether to accept the erosion of our democracy or stand together to defend it.”
Voters casting ballots in Miami in 2024. Gov. Ron DeSantis has pushed a new map that would give Republicans more House seats. Credit…Scott McIntyre for The New York Times
.
Perhaps nowhere in the country was the timing of the Supreme Court decision more dramatic than in Florida, where just as the ruling was announced, state lawmakers were debating an aggressive new congressional map that could give Republicans up to four additional seats.
In the State House, Democrats called for a two-hour break to digest the decision. Republicans disagreed and raced to pass the map. In the State Senate, the Republican Senate president briefly paused the proceedings to give lawmakers a little time to read the court decision.
.
A series of rulings by the justices has weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Credit…Eric Lee for The New York Times
Hmmmm … Fusion reactors produce Helium, which is a useful byproduct.
Click the link below the picture
.
On Tuesday, a fusion energy start-up announced that it has applied to join a U.S. power grid—a first that could one day see households and businesses powered by nuclear fusion.
Commonwealth Fusion Systems is looking to join a power grid that is operated by PJM Interconnection and provides 182,000 megawatts of power to more than 67 million people living in 13 states and Washington, D.C. But technical hurdles to bringing fusion online remain—one major obstacle is actually producing a stable fusion reaction that generates more energy than it consumes.
The application process requires a potential energy provider to provide extensive technical information to the grid operator, including descriptions of the planned fuel type. In Commonwealth’s case, the company is developing a tokamak reactor design that uses high-powered lasers and powerful magnetic fields to combine two isotopes of hydrogen—deuterium and tritium—in a process that mimics the nuclear reactions in the sun. The promise of the device is that a fusion reaction could feasibly generate limitless clean energy. That energy, in the form of heat, is used to boil water into steam, which then pushes a turbine to produce electricity.
Much of that process remains theoretical, however, because physicists have yet to prove that fusion can work as a large-scale power source. Recent results from Germany’s Wendelstein 7-X demonstrated it could contain superheated plasma for 43 seconds. And its rival, the Joint European Torus, was apparently able to accomplish that feat for a full minute before its reactor was retired in 2023. While such capabilities are impressive, there is still a long way to go before a fusion device could be connected to a grid. Commonwealth plans to open its first power plant, called ARC (for “affordable, robust, compact”), in Virginia in the early 2030s. And the company aims to demonstrate an initial model, called SPARC (for “smallest possible ARC”), in 2027.
Commonwealth has demonstrated some success: The company’s toroidal field magnet technology was validated by the Department of Energy in September 2025. The superconducting magnets generate the magnetic field that is used to contain the high-temperature plasma generated by a fusion reaction. But Commonwealth has yet to test the full system.
Commonwealth co-founder and CEO Bob Mumgaard said in a statement that the company is committed “to delivering the benefits of fusion, and enabling a future with abundant, secure energy, [which] means that we’re not just proving fusion physics works—we’re showing exactly how fusion power plant watts get from our machine to the customer, working with the grid and a utility.”
“By becoming the first fusion energy developer to enter a major grid operator’s interconnection queue, we’re demonstrating that when you’re serious about building a power plant in the early 2030s, you act now,” he said. “This is execution.”
Commonwealth’s application will likely take years to be approved; the company will navigate a complex process that will include several impact studies and other analyses, as well as reviews of the its capabilities, readiness, safety controls, and other compliance.
PJM Interconnection did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Breastplates have dotted the battlefield since the 1300s, but it took until 1969 for them to appear on the runway. Yves Saint Laurent—who took inspiration from fine arts throughout his 40-year career—tapped sculptor Claude Lalanne to combine sculpture and fashion. In his fall 1969 couture collection, two models walked down the runway, moulds of their bodies worn on their dresses.
From then on, designers have offered their own renderings of the breastplate: armor-esque replicas, chiselled abs and perky breasts, and smooth, hard bodices among them.
Greta Lee in Issey Miyake at 2026 SFFILM Festival Opening Night. Miikka Skaffari/Getty Images
Zendaya in Tom Ford at the 2020 Critics Choice Awards. Photo: Getty Images
Rihanna performing in Loewe at the 2023 Super Bowl Half-Time Show. Kevin Mazur/Getty Images
In the decades after Saint Laurent, the breastplate has remained ever-popular: Thierry Mugler, a notable fan of the look, sent Jerry Hall down his 1980 runway in a moulded corset with a flowing skirt; in 2022, Jonathan Anderson offered multiple interpretations, from muscleman abs to gold-plated organic sculptures at Loewe. But there was perhaps no bigger enthusiast than Alexander McQueen, who worked a wide variety of breastplates into his many collections across Givenchy and his namesake brand.
Although breastplates aren’t de rigueuer in street style, fashion-forward celebrities are also on board. Zendaya arrived at the 2020 Critics Choice Awards in a magenta Tom Ford body cast, while Rihanna hit the Super Bowl stage in another Loewe by Jonathan Anderson molded creation. And just this past weekend, Greta Lee attended the opening night of the 2026 SFFILM Festival in a glossy mahogany Issey Miyake. They’ve also retained their popularity on the runway, from longtime proponents like Miyake to newer talents like Grace Ling.
This year, the 2026 Met Gala, “Costume Art,” places fashion on the same lofty pedestal as fine art media. The breastplate, with its history as a hybrid of fashion and sculpture, serves as a reminder that the two are more connected than we often think. Below, revisit some of the breastplates that have walked the runways, from 1969 through 2026.
King Charles III on Tuesday delivered an optimistic assessment of American-British relations at what is arguably their lowest point in decades, telling a joint meeting of Congress that the two countries had always found a way to come together.
“The very principle on which your Congress was founded — no taxation without representation — was at once a fundamental disagreement between us, and at the same time a shared democratic value which you inherited from us,” the king said. “Ours is a partnership born out of dispute.”
True to form, King Charles has devoted a large chunk of his speech to environmentalism and “the natural wonders” of the United States. He spoke about what Teddy Roosevelt called “the glorious heritage of this land’s extraordinary natural splendor, of which so much of its prosperity has always depended.” This has been his life’s great passion.
Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, sits unmoved, looking toward the dais, as the king mentions trade relations between the U.S. and Britain.
“We celebrate the $430 billion in annual trade that continues to grow; the $1.7 trillion in mutual investment that fuels that innovation; and the millions of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic supported across both economies,” King Charles says, adding that “these are strong foundations on which to continue to build.”
King Charles notes that Britain and the U.S. have supported each other in “two world wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan, and moments that have defined our shared security.” He then says, “that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine.” His comments are notable given it comes as Trump has insulted the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, questioning his leadership and lack of support for the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran.The subtext of this part of the king’s speech: Climate change is real, and NATO matters.
The king says that the same unified support for the United States in the aftermath of Sept. 11 attacks “is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people — in order to secure a truly just and lasting peace.”
Many of the themes the king has mentioned — the foundations of democracy, the assurances of checks and balances, and how thoughtful debate strengthens the legislative process — land at a time when this Congress has ceded much of its authority to President Trump.
Lawmakers have spent much of this session battling through gridlock and dysfunction to get anything passed. Even today, it is unclear if a host of large legislative priorities around national security, agriculture, and food assistance, will be able to pass before critical deadlines.
On the morning of April 14, 2026, at Cotswold Airport in southwest England, a test pilot rose straight into the air. He was testing the VX4—an electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, or air taxi—built by the British firm Vertical Aerospace. During the test, the VX4’s eight propellers lifted it like a drone. Then the four front propellers tilted forward, and the aircraft accelerated, no longer hanging on its rotors like a helicopter but cruising on its wings like a small airplane. Moments later, it reversed the sequence: the propellers tilted back up, and the aircraft decelerated, returned to a hover, and landed vertically on the same pad it had left.
In completing this test, Vertical—founded in 2016 and based in Bristol—accomplished one of the hardest feats in eVTOL development: its prototype changed from flying like a helicopter to flying like an airplane, then back again. But a prototype is allowed to fly because a regulator has agreed it is safe enough to test. A certified commercial aircraft, meanwhile, has to be safe enough for strangers to buckle their children into it.
Vertical is among the first Western developers to demonstrate piloted transition, but the April flight also matters because of the regulatory context. Other developers have flown to prove the technology works; Vertical is trying to build a case for certification. “The significance of this flight is that it has been achieved in a way that is aligned with the certification pathway from the outset,” says David King, Vertical’s chief engineer. In other words, Vertical is getting closer to the actual business of running an air taxi company.
King’s journey to eVTOLs began with his work at Boeing in 1989, on a military aircraft called the V-22 Osprey. The Osprey was the first production tiltrotor—an aircraft with propellers that can swivel on their mounts, pointing up for vertical takeoff and tilting forward for horizontal flight. For most of the next three decades, at Bell and then at Italian aerospace firm Leonardo, King worked on civil tiltrotors, the passenger-carrying cousins of the Osprey.
King decided to join Vertical in 2023 because the VX4 is essentially a tiltrotor with electric motors. “The beauty of the tiltrotor is it takes you less than a minute from the time you apply power to cruising on a wing,” he says. “The basic magic of being able to transition from thrustborne to wingborne is proven.” What remains is to tune the system to carry different loads in varied weather and on different routes.
Daniel Pleffken, an assistant professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida, who specializes in aircraft certification, is more measured about what the flight proves. “A successful flight shows that something can work,” he says. “Certification requires proving that it works safely, consistently, and under all expected conditions.” The aircraft still must accumulate evidence from failure tests, repeat flights, and design reviews before regulators will let it carry passengers.
Vertical’s situation is unusual. Since 2023, the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has overseen every test flight of the VX4. Most eVTOL companies fly their prototypes under research flight licenses, but the data they produce don’t count toward certification. Vertical flies under an arrangement that has been accumulating evidence toward certification for three years. “We are demonstrating to the regulator that we have the engineering capability, design assurance processes and internal governance required for full type certification,” King says.
The other two Western developers that have flown piloted transitions, California-based Joby Aviation and Vermont-based BETA Technologies, have done so under the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) experimental permit system. Chinese developers have moved faster—EHang received the world’s first eVTOL type certificate from Chinese regulators in 2023—but under a regulatory framework that Western airlines and aviation authorities don’t treat as equivalent. An experimental permit lets you fly, but does not build the same certification file. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), whose eVTOL rules the CAA has adopted, built a single new rule book. The FAA, by contrast, is certifying eVTOLs by stitching together rules written for small airplanes and helicopters. The European framework “is generally clearer because it was designed specifically for this class of aircraft,” Pleffken says.
But clarity, Pleffken stresses, isn’t the same as leniency. “The FAA, CAA, and EASA are using different regulatory architectures, but the underlying safety intent is not necessarily lower in one system than in another,” he says. The European system is cleaner to navigate because its rule book was written for eVTOLs from the start—but that makes it a clearer test to study for, not an easier one to pass. Vertical’s test flight counts, in other words, because the company has been studying for the right test, with the proctor in the room, for three years.
Even certification would not solve the whole problem. An air taxi is just one piece of a transportation infrastructure that barely exists yet. “The main constraint is increasingly the operational ecosystem, not just the aircraft,” Pleffken says. “Vertiports, charging infrastructure, airspace integration, pilot training, maintenance, and operational procedures all need to mature together. If one element lags, the entire system lags.” Vertiports are purpose-built takeoff and landing pads with chargers and air-traffic coordination—essentially, tiny airports scaled for aircraft the size of a large SUV. Few have been built. The air-traffic rules for how dozens of these aircraft will share low-altitude urban airspace with helicopters, drones, and one another are still being written.
.
Vertical Aerospace’s VX4 electric aircraft flies during a piloted transition test flight on April 14, 2026. Vertical Aerospace
Film and Writing Festival for Comedy. Showcasing best of comedy short films at the FEEDBACK Film Festival. Plus, showcasing best of comedy novels, short stories, poems, screenplays (TV, short, feature) at the festival performed by professional actors.
NewBorn
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
King Charles
James' World 2 