×
Could Contact-Tracing Apps Help With the Hantavirus? Not ReallyAfter three people died on a cruise ship struck by a hantavirus, authorities are actively tracking down 29 people who had left the ship. They’re trying to trace the spread of the virus. It’s a long, arduous, global process to find and notify people who might be at risk of infection.Hey, wasn’t there supposed to be an app for that?Contact-tracing apps were a global effort starting in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. Enabled by phone companies like Apple and Google, contact tracing was designed to use Bluetooth connections to detect when people had come in contact with someone who had or would later test positive for Covid and report as much. It didn’t do much to solve the spread of the pandemic, but tracking the virus became more effective at least. The same process wouldn’t go well for the hantavirus problem.“There is no use of apps for this hantavirus outbreak,” Emily Gurley, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in an email response to WIRED. “The number of cases are small, and it’s important to trace all contacts exactly to stop transmission.”On a smaller scale of infection like this, officials have to start at the source (an infected individual), then go person-by-person, confirming where they went and who they might have come into contact with. Data collected by apps from a broad swath of devices would not be anywhere close to accurate enough to give a good idea of where the virus might have hitchhiked to next.Contact tracing on a wider scale, like, say, a global pandemic, is less about tracking the individual infections and more about understanding what parts of the population might be affected, giving people the opportunity to self-quarantine after exposure. But that depends on how people choose to respond, and how the technology is utilized by public emergency systems. During the Covid pandemic, contact-tracing via apps tended to work better in more carefully managed European countries, but did not slow the spread in the US.Making devices accessible to that kind of proximity information has also brought all sorts of concerns about privacy, given that the technology would require always-on access to work properly. Contact tracing also struggled to maintain accuracy, and in some cases could be providing false negatives or positives that don’t help further real information about the spread of the virus.Especially in the case of something like the Hantavirus, where every person on that cruise ship can theoretically be directly tracked and contacted, it’s better to do that process the hard way.“During small but highly fatal outbreaks, more precision is required,” Gurley wrote.#ContactTracing #Apps #Hantaviruscoronavirus,covid-19,viruses,health,pandemics

Could Contact-Tracing Apps Help With the Hantavirus? Not Really

After three people died on a cruise ship struck by a hantavirus, authorities are actively tracking down 29 people who had left the ship. They’re trying to trace the spread of the virus. It’s a long, arduous, global process to find and notify people who might be at risk of infection.

Hey, wasn’t there supposed to be an app for that?

Contact-tracing apps were a global effort starting in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. Enabled by phone companies like Apple and Google, contact tracing was designed to use Bluetooth connections to detect when people had come in contact with someone who had or would later test positive for Covid and report as much. It didn’t do much to solve the spread of the pandemic, but tracking the virus became more effective at least. The same process wouldn’t go well for the hantavirus problem.

“There is no use of apps for this hantavirus outbreak,” Emily Gurley, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in an email response to WIRED. “The number of cases are small, and it’s important to trace all contacts exactly to stop transmission.”

On a smaller scale of infection like this, officials have to start at the source (an infected individual), then go person-by-person, confirming where they went and who they might have come into contact with. Data collected by apps from a broad swath of devices would not be anywhere close to accurate enough to give a good idea of where the virus might have hitchhiked to next.

Contact tracing on a wider scale, like, say, a global pandemic, is less about tracking the individual infections and more about understanding what parts of the population might be affected, giving people the opportunity to self-quarantine after exposure. But that depends on how people choose to respond, and how the technology is utilized by public emergency systems. During the Covid pandemic, contact-tracing via apps tended to work better in more carefully managed European countries, but did not slow the spread in the US.

Making devices accessible to that kind of proximity information has also brought all sorts of concerns about privacy, given that the technology would require always-on access to work properly. Contact tracing also struggled to maintain accuracy, and in some cases could be providing false negatives or positives that don’t help further real information about the spread of the virus.

Especially in the case of something like the Hantavirus, where every person on that cruise ship can theoretically be directly tracked and contacted, it’s better to do that process the hard way.

“During small but highly fatal outbreaks, more precision is required,” Gurley wrote.

#ContactTracing #Apps #Hantaviruscoronavirus,covid-19,viruses,health,pandemics

After three people died on a cruise ship struck by a hantavirus, authorities are actively tracking down 29 people who had left the ship. They’re trying to trace the spread of the virus. It’s a long, arduous, global process to find and notify people who might be at risk of infection.

Hey, wasn’t there supposed to be an app for that?

Contact-tracing apps were a global effort starting in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. Enabled by phone companies like Apple and Google, contact tracing was designed to use Bluetooth connections to detect when people had come in contact with someone who had or would later test positive for Covid and report as much. It didn’t do much to solve the spread of the pandemic, but tracking the virus became more effective at least. The same process wouldn’t go well for the hantavirus problem.

“There is no use of apps for this hantavirus outbreak,” Emily Gurley, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in an email response to WIRED. “The number of cases are small, and it’s important to trace all contacts exactly to stop transmission.”

On a smaller scale of infection like this, officials have to start at the source (an infected individual), then go person-by-person, confirming where they went and who they might have come into contact with. Data collected by apps from a broad swath of devices would not be anywhere close to accurate enough to give a good idea of where the virus might have hitchhiked to next.

Contact tracing on a wider scale, like, say, a global pandemic, is less about tracking the individual infections and more about understanding what parts of the population might be affected, giving people the opportunity to self-quarantine after exposure. But that depends on how people choose to respond, and how the technology is utilized by public emergency systems. During the Covid pandemic, contact-tracing via apps tended to work better in more carefully managed European countries, but did not slow the spread in the US.

Making devices accessible to that kind of proximity information has also brought all sorts of concerns about privacy, given that the technology would require always-on access to work properly. Contact tracing also struggled to maintain accuracy, and in some cases could be providing false negatives or positives that don’t help further real information about the spread of the virus.

Especially in the case of something like the Hantavirus, where every person on that cruise ship can theoretically be directly tracked and contacted, it’s better to do that process the hard way.

“During small but highly fatal outbreaks, more precision is required,” Gurley wrote.

Source link
#ContactTracing #Apps #Hantavirus

Previous post

IPL इतिहास में दूसरी बार हुआ ऐसा, हैरान रह गए फैंस, पहली ही गेंद पर निराश होकर लौटे विराट कोहली

Next post

इंदौर में नशे में युवक ने नगर निगम जोन कार्यालय में मचाया हंगामा, सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल हुआ वीडियो; पुलिस ने पकड़ा


In a blog post on Thursday, Anthropic wrote that it “has raised $65 billion in Series H funding led by Altimeter Capital, Dragoneer, Greenoaks, and Sequoia Capital, valuing the company at $965 billion post-money.” The most recent blog post along similar lines from OpenAI places its valuation at $852 billion.

That means the top of the leaderboard has flipped. Among AI-first tech companies, Anthropic, “the Claude one,” is now technically more valuable than OpenAI, “the ChatGPT one.”

There are, however, some mitigating factors to keep in mind about these valuations. First of all,  as critics like Ed Zitron avidly and constantly point out (as well as more staid, mainstream critics like HSBC), AI as a core business is—to say the leas—unproven as a strategy for long-term profitability. Anthropic claims to have just turned an operating profit for one quarter, as the Wall Street Journal reported, but that story also notes that “it is unclear what accounting methods Anthropic has used to book revenue and costs,” and that, “The company might not remain profitable for the full year as it plans spending increases due to its vast computing needs.“

So it would be a stretch to call Anthropic a profitable company. Those aforementioned “vast computing needs” are no secret. It has committed hundreds of billions of dollars to companies like Amazon, Google, and Broadcom over the next decade, and it’s made a short term commitment of $1.5 billion per month to SpaceX.

Investors are no doubt aware of all that spending, but they also know Anthropic’s revenue exploded around the start of the 2026 calendar year because of an influx of enterprise clients. Vibe coding is the apparent norm now, creating a narrative in which companies supposedly no longer need young coders to do menial work thanks to Claude Code—along with competitor products like OpenAI’s Codex. Announcements of small changes to Anthropic’s Claude Code product have started to have huge impacts on the stock market, particularly the valuations of software-as-a-service (SaaS) companies.

Rather than leading lately, OpenAI is seen to be playing catch-up.

However, another thing to keep in mind about Anthropic being the new valuation champion is that OpenAI’s most recent valuation was calculated based on a funding round from two months before Anthropic’s. So this is a little like when a sports team overtakes a rival in league rankings having played one more game than the other. There’s more ball still to come.

Since OpenAI and Anthropic are—for now—both privately held companies, price discovery is scattered and a bit sketchy, especially since the companies still don’t have to report their earnings and expenditures publicly. For what it’s worth, Anthropic’s valuation on Forge Global, a secondary market for private shares overtook OpenAI’s last month, with Anthropic’s estimated value at around $1 trillion, and OpenAI’s at $880 billion.

Want an even sketchier estimate? Polymarket places the odds of Anthropic having a higher valuation than OpenAI at the end of June at 89% as of this writing.

Some degree of clarity is probably on its way. A May 20 New York Times article citing “two people with knowledge of the matter“ said OpenAI was expected to file for an IPO “in the coming weeks.” In fact, it may have filed confidentially on May 22. Meanwhile, Forbes says Anthropic’s IPO could come “as soon as October.”

So perhaps in fall there’ll be a clearer winner in this contest. By then, the pricing of shares in OpenAI and Anthropic will be publicly available in real time. If people dispute that one publicly traded AI company is “worth more” than the other, they can, and probably will, fire up an app like Robinhood and vote with their life savings. And then, well, God help them.

#Anthropic #Worth #OpenAIAnthropic,OpenAI,valuation">Anthropic Is Now Worth More Than OpenAI
                In a blog post on Thursday, Anthropic wrote that it “has raised  billion in Series H funding led by Altimeter Capital, Dragoneer, Greenoaks, and Sequoia Capital, valuing the company at 5 billion post-money.” The most recent blog post along similar lines from OpenAI places its valuation at 2 billion. That means the top of the leaderboard has flipped. Among AI-first tech companies, Anthropic, “the Claude one,” is now technically more valuable than OpenAI, “the ChatGPT one.” There are, however, some mitigating factors to keep in mind about these valuations. First of all,  as critics like Ed Zitron avidly and constantly point out (as well as more staid, mainstream critics like HSBC), AI as a core business is—to say the leas—unproven as a strategy for long-term profitability. Anthropic claims to have just turned an operating profit for one quarter, as the Wall Street Journal reported, but that story also notes that “it is unclear what accounting methods Anthropic has used to book revenue and costs,” and that, “The company might not remain profitable for the full year as it plans spending increases due to its vast computing needs.“

 So it would be a stretch to call Anthropic a profitable company. Those aforementioned “vast computing needs” are no secret. It has committed hundreds of billions of dollars to companies like Amazon, Google, and Broadcom over the next decade, and it’s made a short term commitment of .5 billion per month to SpaceX.

 Investors are no doubt aware of all that spending, but they also know Anthropic’s revenue exploded around the start of the 2026 calendar year because of an influx of enterprise clients. Vibe coding is the apparent norm now, creating a narrative in which companies supposedly no longer need young coders to do menial work thanks to Claude Code—along with competitor products like OpenAI’s Codex. Announcements of small changes to Anthropic’s Claude Code product have started to have huge impacts on the stock market, particularly the valuations of software-as-a-service (SaaS) companies. Rather than leading lately, OpenAI is seen to be playing catch-up. However, another thing to keep in mind about Anthropic being the new valuation champion is that OpenAI’s most recent valuation was calculated based on a funding round from two months before Anthropic’s. So this is a little like when a sports team overtakes a rival in league rankings having played one more game than the other. There’s more ball still to come.

 Since OpenAI and Anthropic are—for now—both privately held companies, price discovery is scattered and a bit sketchy, especially since the companies still don’t have to report their earnings and expenditures publicly. For what it’s worth, Anthropic’s valuation on Forge Global, a secondary market for private shares overtook OpenAI’s last month, with Anthropic’s estimated value at around  trillion, and OpenAI’s at 0 billion. Want an even sketchier estimate? Polymarket places the odds of Anthropic having a higher valuation than OpenAI at the end of June at 89% as of this writing. Some degree of clarity is probably on its way. A May 20 New York Times article citing “two people with knowledge of the matter“ said OpenAI was expected to file for an IPO “in the coming weeks.” In fact, it may have filed confidentially on May 22. Meanwhile, Forbes says Anthropic’s IPO could come “as soon as October.”

 So perhaps in fall there’ll be a clearer winner in this contest. By then, the pricing of shares in OpenAI and Anthropic will be publicly available in real time. If people dispute that one publicly traded AI company is “worth more” than the other, they can, and probably will, fire up an app like Robinhood and vote with their life savings. And then, well, God help them.      #Anthropic #Worth #OpenAIAnthropic,OpenAI,valuation

blog post on Thursday, Anthropic wrote that it “has raised $65 billion in Series H funding led by Altimeter Capital, Dragoneer, Greenoaks, and Sequoia Capital, valuing the company at $965 billion post-money.” The most recent blog post along similar lines from OpenAI places its valuation at $852 billion.

That means the top of the leaderboard has flipped. Among AI-first tech companies, Anthropic, “the Claude one,” is now technically more valuable than OpenAI, “the ChatGPT one.”

There are, however, some mitigating factors to keep in mind about these valuations. First of all,  as critics like Ed Zitron avidly and constantly point out (as well as more staid, mainstream critics like HSBC), AI as a core business is—to say the leas—unproven as a strategy for long-term profitability. Anthropic claims to have just turned an operating profit for one quarter, as the Wall Street Journal reported, but that story also notes that “it is unclear what accounting methods Anthropic has used to book revenue and costs,” and that, “The company might not remain profitable for the full year as it plans spending increases due to its vast computing needs.“

So it would be a stretch to call Anthropic a profitable company. Those aforementioned “vast computing needs” are no secret. It has committed hundreds of billions of dollars to companies like Amazon, Google, and Broadcom over the next decade, and it’s made a short term commitment of $1.5 billion per month to SpaceX.

Investors are no doubt aware of all that spending, but they also know Anthropic’s revenue exploded around the start of the 2026 calendar year because of an influx of enterprise clients. Vibe coding is the apparent norm now, creating a narrative in which companies supposedly no longer need young coders to do menial work thanks to Claude Code—along with competitor products like OpenAI’s Codex. Announcements of small changes to Anthropic’s Claude Code product have started to have huge impacts on the stock market, particularly the valuations of software-as-a-service (SaaS) companies.

Rather than leading lately, OpenAI is seen to be playing catch-up.

However, another thing to keep in mind about Anthropic being the new valuation champion is that OpenAI’s most recent valuation was calculated based on a funding round from two months before Anthropic’s. So this is a little like when a sports team overtakes a rival in league rankings having played one more game than the other. There’s more ball still to come.

Since OpenAI and Anthropic are—for now—both privately held companies, price discovery is scattered and a bit sketchy, especially since the companies still don’t have to report their earnings and expenditures publicly. For what it’s worth, Anthropic’s valuation on Forge Global, a secondary market for private shares overtook OpenAI’s last month, with Anthropic’s estimated value at around $1 trillion, and OpenAI’s at $880 billion.

Want an even sketchier estimate? Polymarket places the odds of Anthropic having a higher valuation than OpenAI at the end of June at 89% as of this writing.

Some degree of clarity is probably on its way. A May 20 New York Times article citing “two people with knowledge of the matter“ said OpenAI was expected to file for an IPO “in the coming weeks.” In fact, it may have filed confidentially on May 22. Meanwhile, Forbes says Anthropic’s IPO could come “as soon as October.”

So perhaps in fall there’ll be a clearer winner in this contest. By then, the pricing of shares in OpenAI and Anthropic will be publicly available in real time. If people dispute that one publicly traded AI company is “worth more” than the other, they can, and probably will, fire up an app like Robinhood and vote with their life savings. And then, well, God help them.

#Anthropic #Worth #OpenAIAnthropic,OpenAI,valuation">Anthropic Is Now Worth More Than OpenAIAnthropic Is Now Worth More Than OpenAI
                In a blog post on Thursday, Anthropic wrote that it “has raised $65 billion in Series H funding led by Altimeter Capital, Dragoneer, Greenoaks, and Sequoia Capital, valuing the company at $965 billion post-money.” The most recent blog post along similar lines from OpenAI places its valuation at $852 billion. That means the top of the leaderboard has flipped. Among AI-first tech companies, Anthropic, “the Claude one,” is now technically more valuable than OpenAI, “the ChatGPT one.” There are, however, some mitigating factors to keep in mind about these valuations. First of all,  as critics like Ed Zitron avidly and constantly point out (as well as more staid, mainstream critics like HSBC), AI as a core business is—to say the leas—unproven as a strategy for long-term profitability. Anthropic claims to have just turned an operating profit for one quarter, as the Wall Street Journal reported, but that story also notes that “it is unclear what accounting methods Anthropic has used to book revenue and costs,” and that, “The company might not remain profitable for the full year as it plans spending increases due to its vast computing needs.“

 So it would be a stretch to call Anthropic a profitable company. Those aforementioned “vast computing needs” are no secret. It has committed hundreds of billions of dollars to companies like Amazon, Google, and Broadcom over the next decade, and it’s made a short term commitment of $1.5 billion per month to SpaceX.

 Investors are no doubt aware of all that spending, but they also know Anthropic’s revenue exploded around the start of the 2026 calendar year because of an influx of enterprise clients. Vibe coding is the apparent norm now, creating a narrative in which companies supposedly no longer need young coders to do menial work thanks to Claude Code—along with competitor products like OpenAI’s Codex. Announcements of small changes to Anthropic’s Claude Code product have started to have huge impacts on the stock market, particularly the valuations of software-as-a-service (SaaS) companies. Rather than leading lately, OpenAI is seen to be playing catch-up. However, another thing to keep in mind about Anthropic being the new valuation champion is that OpenAI’s most recent valuation was calculated based on a funding round from two months before Anthropic’s. So this is a little like when a sports team overtakes a rival in league rankings having played one more game than the other. There’s more ball still to come.

 Since OpenAI and Anthropic are—for now—both privately held companies, price discovery is scattered and a bit sketchy, especially since the companies still don’t have to report their earnings and expenditures publicly. For what it’s worth, Anthropic’s valuation on Forge Global, a secondary market for private shares overtook OpenAI’s last month, with Anthropic’s estimated value at around $1 trillion, and OpenAI’s at $880 billion. Want an even sketchier estimate? Polymarket places the odds of Anthropic having a higher valuation than OpenAI at the end of June at 89% as of this writing. Some degree of clarity is probably on its way. A May 20 New York Times article citing “two people with knowledge of the matter“ said OpenAI was expected to file for an IPO “in the coming weeks.” In fact, it may have filed confidentially on May 22. Meanwhile, Forbes says Anthropic’s IPO could come “as soon as October.”

 So perhaps in fall there’ll be a clearer winner in this contest. By then, the pricing of shares in OpenAI and Anthropic will be publicly available in real time. If people dispute that one publicly traded AI company is “worth more” than the other, they can, and probably will, fire up an app like Robinhood and vote with their life savings. And then, well, God help them.      #Anthropic #Worth #OpenAIAnthropic,OpenAI,valuation

In a blog post on Thursday, Anthropic wrote that it “has raised $65 billion in Series H funding led by Altimeter Capital, Dragoneer, Greenoaks, and Sequoia Capital, valuing the company at $965 billion post-money.” The most recent blog post along similar lines from OpenAI places its valuation at $852 billion.

That means the top of the leaderboard has flipped. Among AI-first tech companies, Anthropic, “the Claude one,” is now technically more valuable than OpenAI, “the ChatGPT one.”

There are, however, some mitigating factors to keep in mind about these valuations. First of all,  as critics like Ed Zitron avidly and constantly point out (as well as more staid, mainstream critics like HSBC), AI as a core business is—to say the leas—unproven as a strategy for long-term profitability. Anthropic claims to have just turned an operating profit for one quarter, as the Wall Street Journal reported, but that story also notes that “it is unclear what accounting methods Anthropic has used to book revenue and costs,” and that, “The company might not remain profitable for the full year as it plans spending increases due to its vast computing needs.“

So it would be a stretch to call Anthropic a profitable company. Those aforementioned “vast computing needs” are no secret. It has committed hundreds of billions of dollars to companies like Amazon, Google, and Broadcom over the next decade, and it’s made a short term commitment of $1.5 billion per month to SpaceX.

Investors are no doubt aware of all that spending, but they also know Anthropic’s revenue exploded around the start of the 2026 calendar year because of an influx of enterprise clients. Vibe coding is the apparent norm now, creating a narrative in which companies supposedly no longer need young coders to do menial work thanks to Claude Code—along with competitor products like OpenAI’s Codex. Announcements of small changes to Anthropic’s Claude Code product have started to have huge impacts on the stock market, particularly the valuations of software-as-a-service (SaaS) companies.

Rather than leading lately, OpenAI is seen to be playing catch-up.

However, another thing to keep in mind about Anthropic being the new valuation champion is that OpenAI’s most recent valuation was calculated based on a funding round from two months before Anthropic’s. So this is a little like when a sports team overtakes a rival in league rankings having played one more game than the other. There’s more ball still to come.

Since OpenAI and Anthropic are—for now—both privately held companies, price discovery is scattered and a bit sketchy, especially since the companies still don’t have to report their earnings and expenditures publicly. For what it’s worth, Anthropic’s valuation on Forge Global, a secondary market for private shares overtook OpenAI’s last month, with Anthropic’s estimated value at around $1 trillion, and OpenAI’s at $880 billion.

Want an even sketchier estimate? Polymarket places the odds of Anthropic having a higher valuation than OpenAI at the end of June at 89% as of this writing.

Some degree of clarity is probably on its way. A May 20 New York Times article citing “two people with knowledge of the matter“ said OpenAI was expected to file for an IPO “in the coming weeks.” In fact, it may have filed confidentially on May 22. Meanwhile, Forbes says Anthropic’s IPO could come “as soon as October.”

So perhaps in fall there’ll be a clearer winner in this contest. By then, the pricing of shares in OpenAI and Anthropic will be publicly available in real time. If people dispute that one publicly traded AI company is “worth more” than the other, they can, and probably will, fire up an app like Robinhood and vote with their life savings. And then, well, God help them.

#Anthropic #Worth #OpenAIAnthropic,OpenAI,valuation

The 20-year-old filmmaker Kane Parsons has risen to the top so fast that he’s had zero time to process how far he’s come.

“It’s been go, go, go,” Parsons tells WIRED. “Even the tiniest bit of a break,” he says, would give him some better perspective on everything that’s happened over the past few years. But for the moment, he’s soaking up the limelight—and thinks it’ll be at least another month before he has the space to reflect on his big break.

Backrooms, a moody horror piece that stars Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve, is a cerebral expansion of Parsons’ atmospheric YouTube web series of the same name. It marks his feature debut as A24’s youngest director to date, at the helm of a movie long anticipated by a huge and hungry internet fan base. You could hardly ask for a better kick start to summer blockbuster season.

Yet Parsons makes his meteoric success sound like something of an accident. “I never went into making that first short or making the series with the intention of, ‘I want to do this so I can prove to Hollywood that this is an engine that is viable for a film,’” he says.

That original nine-minute video, titled “The Backrooms (Found Footage)” and uploaded by Parsons in 2022, was inspired by—of all things—a sinister 4chan meme that spawned a collaborative mythology. The 2019 post on the notorious image board’s /x/ forum included a disquieting photo of an empty hallway bathed in sickly light. An anonymous user described being transported into “the Backrooms, where it’s nothing but the stink of old, moist carpet, the madness of mono-yellow, the endless background noise of fluorescent lights at maximum hum-buzz, and approximately six hundred million square miles of randomly segmented empty rooms to be trapped in.”

“God save you if you hear something wandering around nearby, because it sure as hell has heard you,” the 4chan user added.

Other people took up the concept, creating spinoff imagery and stories on various social platforms. Parsons encountered these, as well as then-popular memes about surreal liminal spaces—the Backrooms being a paranormal extension of this phenomenon. He was intrigued by what this material evoked but felt it hadn’t been fully explored.

“It was clearly scratching something that I didn’t really see much other media scratching,” he says. “I think there was an element of like, I wish there was more for me to engage with here.”

To that end, Parsons decided to see whether he could conjure an immersive vision of the Backrooms with Blender 3D graphics software and Adobe After Effects. That initial video, in which a person is chased through the Backrooms by a malevolent life-form, went massively viral, with viewers marveling at Parsons’ technical skill and the chilling suspense he’d created. Fans excitedly speculated on the larger mythology of the uncanny setting. Within a month, studios were approaching Parsons with hopes for a full-length movie.

Although still a teenager at the time, Parsons knew enough to be wary of the offers. “I was very distrustful of pretty much everything that was happening, just because I feel like it’s a very common experience for that sort of event to turn into nothing,” he says. “Or you end up with less than nothing.”

Ultimately, however, he got what a young filmmaker dreams of: the chance to pursue his vision, in this case with top talent at his side. The feature film has a script by Homeland and Westworld writer Will Soodik, and its producers include horror maestros Osgood Perkins and James Wan.

#Backrooms #Takes #Deeper #Internets #Uncanny #Horror #Mythmovies,horror,youtube,hollywood,4chan">‘Backrooms’ Takes You Deeper Inside the Internet’s Most Uncanny Horror MythThe 20-year-old filmmaker Kane Parsons has risen to the top so fast that he’s had zero time to process how far he’s come.“It’s been go, go, go,” Parsons tells WIRED. “Even the tiniest bit of a break,” he says, would give him some better perspective on everything that’s happened over the past few years. But for the moment, he’s soaking up the limelight—and thinks it’ll be at least another month before he has the space to reflect on his big break.Backrooms, a moody horror piece that stars Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve, is a cerebral expansion of Parsons’ atmospheric YouTube web series of the same name. It marks his feature debut as A24’s youngest director to date, at the helm of a movie long anticipated by a huge and hungry internet fan base. You could hardly ask for a better kick start to summer blockbuster season.Yet Parsons makes his meteoric success sound like something of an accident. “I never went into making that first short or making the series with the intention of, ‘I want to do this so I can prove to Hollywood that this is an engine that is viable for a film,’” he says.That original nine-minute video, titled “The Backrooms (Found Footage)” and uploaded by Parsons in 2022, was inspired by—of all things—a sinister 4chan meme that spawned a collaborative mythology. The 2019 post on the notorious image board’s /x/ forum included a disquieting photo of an empty hallway bathed in sickly light. An anonymous user described being transported into “the Backrooms, where it’s nothing but the stink of old, moist carpet, the madness of mono-yellow, the endless background noise of fluorescent lights at maximum hum-buzz, and approximately six hundred million square miles of randomly segmented empty rooms to be trapped in.”“God save you if you hear something wandering around nearby, because it sure as hell has heard you,” the 4chan user added.Other people took up the concept, creating spinoff imagery and stories on various social platforms. Parsons encountered these, as well as then-popular memes about surreal liminal spaces—the Backrooms being a paranormal extension of this phenomenon. He was intrigued by what this material evoked but felt it hadn’t been fully explored.“It was clearly scratching something that I didn’t really see much other media scratching,” he says. “I think there was an element of like, I wish there was more for me to engage with here.”To that end, Parsons decided to see whether he could conjure an immersive vision of the Backrooms with Blender 3D graphics software and Adobe After Effects. That initial video, in which a person is chased through the Backrooms by a malevolent life-form, went massively viral, with viewers marveling at Parsons’ technical skill and the chilling suspense he’d created. Fans excitedly speculated on the larger mythology of the uncanny setting. Within a month, studios were approaching Parsons with hopes for a full-length movie.Although still a teenager at the time, Parsons knew enough to be wary of the offers. “I was very distrustful of pretty much everything that was happening, just because I feel like it’s a very common experience for that sort of event to turn into nothing,” he says. “Or you end up with less than nothing.”Ultimately, however, he got what a young filmmaker dreams of: the chance to pursue his vision, in this case with top talent at his side. The feature film has a script by Homeland and Westworld writer Will Soodik, and its producers include horror maestros Osgood Perkins and James Wan.#Backrooms #Takes #Deeper #Internets #Uncanny #Horror #Mythmovies,horror,youtube,hollywood,4chan

Backrooms, a moody horror piece that stars Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve, is a cerebral expansion of Parsons’ atmospheric YouTube web series of the same name. It marks his feature debut as A24’s youngest director to date, at the helm of a movie long anticipated by a huge and hungry internet fan base. You could hardly ask for a better kick start to summer blockbuster season.

Yet Parsons makes his meteoric success sound like something of an accident. “I never went into making that first short or making the series with the intention of, ‘I want to do this so I can prove to Hollywood that this is an engine that is viable for a film,’” he says.

That original nine-minute video, titled “The Backrooms (Found Footage)” and uploaded by Parsons in 2022, was inspired by—of all things—a sinister 4chan meme that spawned a collaborative mythology. The 2019 post on the notorious image board’s /x/ forum included a disquieting photo of an empty hallway bathed in sickly light. An anonymous user described being transported into “the Backrooms, where it’s nothing but the stink of old, moist carpet, the madness of mono-yellow, the endless background noise of fluorescent lights at maximum hum-buzz, and approximately six hundred million square miles of randomly segmented empty rooms to be trapped in.”

“God save you if you hear something wandering around nearby, because it sure as hell has heard you,” the 4chan user added.

Other people took up the concept, creating spinoff imagery and stories on various social platforms. Parsons encountered these, as well as then-popular memes about surreal liminal spaces—the Backrooms being a paranormal extension of this phenomenon. He was intrigued by what this material evoked but felt it hadn’t been fully explored.

“It was clearly scratching something that I didn’t really see much other media scratching,” he says. “I think there was an element of like, I wish there was more for me to engage with here.”

To that end, Parsons decided to see whether he could conjure an immersive vision of the Backrooms with Blender 3D graphics software and Adobe After Effects. That initial video, in which a person is chased through the Backrooms by a malevolent life-form, went massively viral, with viewers marveling at Parsons’ technical skill and the chilling suspense he’d created. Fans excitedly speculated on the larger mythology of the uncanny setting. Within a month, studios were approaching Parsons with hopes for a full-length movie.

Although still a teenager at the time, Parsons knew enough to be wary of the offers. “I was very distrustful of pretty much everything that was happening, just because I feel like it’s a very common experience for that sort of event to turn into nothing,” he says. “Or you end up with less than nothing.”

Ultimately, however, he got what a young filmmaker dreams of: the chance to pursue his vision, in this case with top talent at his side. The feature film has a script by Homeland and Westworld writer Will Soodik, and its producers include horror maestros Osgood Perkins and James Wan.

#Backrooms #Takes #Deeper #Internets #Uncanny #Horror #Mythmovies,horror,youtube,hollywood,4chan">‘Backrooms’ Takes You Deeper Inside the Internet’s Most Uncanny Horror Myth

The 20-year-old filmmaker Kane Parsons has risen to the top so fast that he’s had zero time to process how far he’s come.

“It’s been go, go, go,” Parsons tells WIRED. “Even the tiniest bit of a break,” he says, would give him some better perspective on everything that’s happened over the past few years. But for the moment, he’s soaking up the limelight—and thinks it’ll be at least another month before he has the space to reflect on his big break.

Backrooms, a moody horror piece that stars Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve, is a cerebral expansion of Parsons’ atmospheric YouTube web series of the same name. It marks his feature debut as A24’s youngest director to date, at the helm of a movie long anticipated by a huge and hungry internet fan base. You could hardly ask for a better kick start to summer blockbuster season.

Yet Parsons makes his meteoric success sound like something of an accident. “I never went into making that first short or making the series with the intention of, ‘I want to do this so I can prove to Hollywood that this is an engine that is viable for a film,’” he says.

That original nine-minute video, titled “The Backrooms (Found Footage)” and uploaded by Parsons in 2022, was inspired by—of all things—a sinister 4chan meme that spawned a collaborative mythology. The 2019 post on the notorious image board’s /x/ forum included a disquieting photo of an empty hallway bathed in sickly light. An anonymous user described being transported into “the Backrooms, where it’s nothing but the stink of old, moist carpet, the madness of mono-yellow, the endless background noise of fluorescent lights at maximum hum-buzz, and approximately six hundred million square miles of randomly segmented empty rooms to be trapped in.”

“God save you if you hear something wandering around nearby, because it sure as hell has heard you,” the 4chan user added.

Other people took up the concept, creating spinoff imagery and stories on various social platforms. Parsons encountered these, as well as then-popular memes about surreal liminal spaces—the Backrooms being a paranormal extension of this phenomenon. He was intrigued by what this material evoked but felt it hadn’t been fully explored.

“It was clearly scratching something that I didn’t really see much other media scratching,” he says. “I think there was an element of like, I wish there was more for me to engage with here.”

To that end, Parsons decided to see whether he could conjure an immersive vision of the Backrooms with Blender 3D graphics software and Adobe After Effects. That initial video, in which a person is chased through the Backrooms by a malevolent life-form, went massively viral, with viewers marveling at Parsons’ technical skill and the chilling suspense he’d created. Fans excitedly speculated on the larger mythology of the uncanny setting. Within a month, studios were approaching Parsons with hopes for a full-length movie.

Although still a teenager at the time, Parsons knew enough to be wary of the offers. “I was very distrustful of pretty much everything that was happening, just because I feel like it’s a very common experience for that sort of event to turn into nothing,” he says. “Or you end up with less than nothing.”

Ultimately, however, he got what a young filmmaker dreams of: the chance to pursue his vision, in this case with top talent at his side. The feature film has a script by Homeland and Westworld writer Will Soodik, and its producers include horror maestros Osgood Perkins and James Wan.

#Backrooms #Takes #Deeper #Internets #Uncanny #Horror #Mythmovies,horror,youtube,hollywood,4chan

Post Comment