×
Netflix invented binge-watching. Now it may have outgrown it. | TechCrunch
A buzzy Bloomberg report citing Netflix data suggests viewers are increasingly abandoning popular shows before the second season. The likely reasons aren’t hard to guess: Netflix frequently cancels shows, there’s too long a wait in between seasons, and much of Netflix’s content is designed for an algorithm instead of for the sake of art.

But the data also points to a shift in how people are consuming entertainment. Netflix’s defining innovation – the binge — was built for an era when streaming was competing with traditional TV. Today, Netflix is competing with TikTok, YouTube, Reels, and various microdrama apps. That shift makes Netflix’s binge model feel like a dated relic from another era.

Bingeing helped Netflix beat TV

When Netflix first dropped an entire season of “House of Cards” in February 2013, it was a revelation. Ad-free, internet-connected TV meant we could be unshackled from the traditional routine of once-per-week shows punctuated by commercials. Instead, bingeable shows meant viewers could be entertained for hours on end, quickly forming a bond with titles and their characters that would have otherwise taken years to develop. Plus, you could drop in on them at any time — not only the day the network decided to air them, as with linear television. 







This way of viewing made sense in a world where Netflix was largely still competing with traditional TV like broadcast, cable, and satellite. But Netflix won that fight. Nielsen in June 2025 announced that the TV era reached a new milestone, when the Netflix-style streaming format for the first time eclipsed broadcast and cable viewing — a milestone that made clear Netflix’s original competition was no longer the threat.

Now Netflix’s competition isn’t the TV of old, but what has become the TV of today: video apps. 

TikTok and YouTube are today’s threats

Thanks to the rise of TikTok, Reels, and other short-form video platforms, there’s no need for you to visit Netflix when you have a couple of hours to kill with mindless entertainment. There’s an endless, free supply of video you can turn to instead.

According to eMarketer analysts, TikTok was already nearing Netflix in terms of time spent back in 2024, when U.S. adults were spending an average of 62.1 minutes per day streaming from Netflix and 58.4 minutes per day on TikTok. In 2024, the Financial Times reported that, globally, TikTok users spent an average of 95 minutes per day on the app, the highest engagement rate among major social networks. 

Image Credits:eMarketer

Then there is YouTube, which offers a combination of both short and longer-form content. Per a report released this year by Digital i, YouTube surpassed Netflix in average daily viewing for the first time, with 99.1 minutes daily in 2025 compared with Netflix’s 93.4 minutes. 

These market reports use differing methodologies and demographics, so they should be taken with a grain of salt — but directionally, they point the same way. YouTube and apps like TikTok are Netflix’s real competition, not TV.

Netflix has even acknowledged this existential threat by way of a product redesign in April that added a TikTok-like feed based on Netflix content.

Where Netflix gets the feed wrong is that it’s still pitched as a way to help you find something to watch, rather than being the thing you watch. It’s understandable why Netflix went this route, given its library, but it’s not necessarily what the end user wants. Today, many people with dopamine-drained attention spans are instead seeking out microdrama apps in growing numbers when they want a serialized storyline they can consume in minutes.

Image Credits:ReelShort

According to data from the app intelligence firm Appfigures, one top microdrama app, ReelShort, saw roughly .2 billion in gross consumer spending in 2025, up 119% from 2024, TechCrunch’s Amanda Silberling previously reported. Meanwhile, another leading app, DramaBox, generated 6 million in gross consumer spending last year, more than doubling its 2024 numbers. Even TikTok acknowledged the competition, launching a microdrama app of its own to test the market appetite for this type of content.

Where does Netflix go from here?

Where does that leave Netflix, whose claim to fame has been full seasons dropped at once for rapid consumption? 







Likely, it will have to rethink how it’s greenlighting, producing, and releasing what it considers a “TV show.” 

That doesn’t mean that the Netflix model has to pivot entirely to short-form to keep up with the competition, but it may need to reconsider how people want to stream. Viewers may no longer want to commit the hours and weeks it takes to get through a show and all of its subsequent seasons, for instance. They want something that feels more “finishable,” the way you can easily get through a YouTube video or TikTok series from a creator.

A simple fix could see Netflix try prioritizing single-season shows, traditionally known as miniseries or limited series, allowing people to tune into a completed work without having to worry whether it would end on a cliffhanger and never be renewed. 

Netflix could also experiment with breaking up shows into smaller chunks, like the before-its-time Quibi model. 

The Jeffrey Katzenberg-backed startup, Quibi, had bet that people would eventually gravitate towards TV content designed to be consumed in shorter sessions. Unfortunately for Quibi, the pandemic hit, and people suddenly had a lot of time to watch TV, leading to its demise.

Many Netflix shows could be easily revamped for shorter viewing sessions, particularly lightweight competition shows like “Nailed It,” “Is It Cake?,” or “Squid Game: The Challenge.” Meanwhile, Netflix could surely produce better microdramas than the ones currently on the market with their awful acting and ridiculous storylines.

To generate interest in its higher-quality content, some Netflix shows could be shifted to the weekly release model. This is something Netflix has already proven works in specific cases. For instance, it drops new episodes of its reality show “Love Is Blind” in weekly dumps, making it great watercooler fodder as everyone is watching the new episodes around the same time. (Faster consumption models could work, too. For instance, Peacock’s “Love Island USA” is the reality hit of the summer, as there’s a new episode almost daily).

But instead of experimenting with different types of short-form content for quick entertainment, combined with slower releases for seasons, or focusing more heavily on miniseries worth watching, Netflix has been dabbling in other areas. 







As of late, it’s expanded its lineup with podcasts, which reportedly no one is watching, and live content, which can be hit or miss. In terms of the latter, Netflix investments in live sports have generally done well, but its recent entry into live reality competition shows, “Star Search,” has already been canceled despite a clever real-time voting feature. More work here is still needed.

Bloomberg’s report framed the problem facing Netflix as a failure to create loyal TV viewers who tune into a Season 2, but the underlying issue facing the streamer is much bigger. Netflix may need to rethink whether it still needs to focus on competing with traditional TV and its long-running shows, or whether it should focus on entertainment projects whose storytelling arcs have less filler and wrap up more quickly. 

To find the right balance between viewers ditching cable and those who just want something better than TikTok, Netflix is finding itself needing to reinvent TV all over again.




When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#Netflix #invented #bingewatching #outgrown #TechCrunchNetflix,streaming,tv

Netflix invented binge-watching. Now it may have outgrown it. | TechCrunch

A buzzy Bloomberg report citing Netflix data suggests viewers are increasingly abandoning popular shows before the second season. The likely reasons aren’t hard to guess: Netflix frequently cancels shows, there’s too long a wait in between seasons, and much of Netflix’s content is designed for an algorithm instead of for the sake of art.

But the data also points to a shift in how people are consuming entertainment. Netflix’s defining innovation – the binge — was built for an era when streaming was competing with traditional TV. Today, Netflix is competing with TikTok, YouTube, Reels, and various microdrama apps. That shift makes Netflix’s binge model feel like a dated relic from another era.

Bingeing helped Netflix beat TV

When Netflix first dropped an entire season of “House of Cards” in February 2013, it was a revelation.
Ad-free, internet-connected TV meant we could be unshackled from the traditional routine of once-per-week shows punctuated by commercials. Instead, bingeable shows meant viewers could be entertained for hours on end, quickly forming a bond with titles and their characters that would have otherwise taken years to develop. Plus, you could drop in on them at any time — not only the day the network decided to air them, as with linear television.

This way of viewing made sense in a world where Netflix was largely still competing with traditional TV like broadcast, cable, and satellite. But Netflix won that fight. Nielsen in June 2025 announced that the TV era reached a new milestone, when the Netflix-style streaming format for the first time eclipsed broadcast and cable viewing — a milestone that made clear Netflix’s original competition was no longer the threat.

Now Netflix’s competition isn’t the TV of old, but what has become the TV of today: video apps.

TikTok and YouTube are today’s threats

Thanks to the rise of TikTok, Reels, and other short-form video platforms, there’s no need for you to visit Netflix when you have a couple of hours to kill with mindless entertainment. There’s an endless, free supply of video you can turn to instead.

According to eMarketer analysts, TikTok was already nearing Netflix in terms of time spent back in 2024, when U.S. adults were spending an average of 62.1 minutes per day streaming from Netflix and 58.4 minutes per day on TikTok. In 2024, the Financial Times reported that, globally, TikTok users spent an average of 95 minutes per day on the app, the highest engagement rate among major social networks.

Netflix invented binge-watching. Now it may have outgrown it. | TechCrunch
A buzzy Bloomberg report citing Netflix data suggests viewers are increasingly abandoning popular shows before the second season. The likely reasons aren’t hard to guess: Netflix frequently cancels shows, there’s too long a wait in between seasons, and much of Netflix’s content is designed for an algorithm instead of for the sake of art.

But the data also points to a shift in how people are consuming entertainment. Netflix’s defining innovation – the binge — was built for an era when streaming was competing with traditional TV. Today, Netflix is competing with TikTok, YouTube, Reels, and various microdrama apps. That shift makes Netflix’s binge model feel like a dated relic from another era.

Bingeing helped Netflix beat TV

When Netflix first dropped an entire season of “House of Cards” in February 2013, it was a revelation. Ad-free, internet-connected TV meant we could be unshackled from the traditional routine of once-per-week shows punctuated by commercials. Instead, bingeable shows meant viewers could be entertained for hours on end, quickly forming a bond with titles and their characters that would have otherwise taken years to develop. Plus, you could drop in on them at any time — not only the day the network decided to air them, as with linear television. 







This way of viewing made sense in a world where Netflix was largely still competing with traditional TV like broadcast, cable, and satellite. But Netflix won that fight. Nielsen in June 2025 announced that the TV era reached a new milestone, when the Netflix-style streaming format for the first time eclipsed broadcast and cable viewing — a milestone that made clear Netflix’s original competition was no longer the threat.

Now Netflix’s competition isn’t the TV of old, but what has become the TV of today: video apps. 

TikTok and YouTube are today’s threats

Thanks to the rise of TikTok, Reels, and other short-form video platforms, there’s no need for you to visit Netflix when you have a couple of hours to kill with mindless entertainment. There’s an endless, free supply of video you can turn to instead.

According to eMarketer analysts, TikTok was already nearing Netflix in terms of time spent back in 2024, when U.S. adults were spending an average of 62.1 minutes per day streaming from Netflix and 58.4 minutes per day on TikTok. In 2024, the Financial Times reported that, globally, TikTok users spent an average of 95 minutes per day on the app, the highest engagement rate among major social networks. 

Image Credits:eMarketer

Then there is YouTube, which offers a combination of both short and longer-form content. Per a report released this year by Digital i, YouTube surpassed Netflix in average daily viewing for the first time, with 99.1 minutes daily in 2025 compared with Netflix’s 93.4 minutes. 

These market reports use differing methodologies and demographics, so they should be taken with a grain of salt — but directionally, they point the same way. YouTube and apps like TikTok are Netflix’s real competition, not TV.

Netflix has even acknowledged this existential threat by way of a product redesign in April that added a TikTok-like feed based on Netflix content.

Where Netflix gets the feed wrong is that it’s still pitched as a way to help you find something to watch, rather than being the thing you watch. It’s understandable why Netflix went this route, given its library, but it’s not necessarily what the end user wants. Today, many people with dopamine-drained attention spans are instead seeking out microdrama apps in growing numbers when they want a serialized storyline they can consume in minutes.

Image Credits:ReelShort

According to data from the app intelligence firm Appfigures, one top microdrama app, ReelShort, saw roughly .2 billion in gross consumer spending in 2025, up 119% from 2024, TechCrunch’s Amanda Silberling previously reported. Meanwhile, another leading app, DramaBox, generated 6 million in gross consumer spending last year, more than doubling its 2024 numbers. Even TikTok acknowledged the competition, launching a microdrama app of its own to test the market appetite for this type of content.

Where does Netflix go from here?

Where does that leave Netflix, whose claim to fame has been full seasons dropped at once for rapid consumption? 







Likely, it will have to rethink how it’s greenlighting, producing, and releasing what it considers a “TV show.” 

That doesn’t mean that the Netflix model has to pivot entirely to short-form to keep up with the competition, but it may need to reconsider how people want to stream. Viewers may no longer want to commit the hours and weeks it takes to get through a show and all of its subsequent seasons, for instance. They want something that feels more “finishable,” the way you can easily get through a YouTube video or TikTok series from a creator.

A simple fix could see Netflix try prioritizing single-season shows, traditionally known as miniseries or limited series, allowing people to tune into a completed work without having to worry whether it would end on a cliffhanger and never be renewed. 

Netflix could also experiment with breaking up shows into smaller chunks, like the before-its-time Quibi model. 

The Jeffrey Katzenberg-backed startup, Quibi, had bet that people would eventually gravitate towards TV content designed to be consumed in shorter sessions. Unfortunately for Quibi, the pandemic hit, and people suddenly had a lot of time to watch TV, leading to its demise.

Many Netflix shows could be easily revamped for shorter viewing sessions, particularly lightweight competition shows like “Nailed It,” “Is It Cake?,” or “Squid Game: The Challenge.” Meanwhile, Netflix could surely produce better microdramas than the ones currently on the market with their awful acting and ridiculous storylines.

To generate interest in its higher-quality content, some Netflix shows could be shifted to the weekly release model. This is something Netflix has already proven works in specific cases. For instance, it drops new episodes of its reality show “Love Is Blind” in weekly dumps, making it great watercooler fodder as everyone is watching the new episodes around the same time. (Faster consumption models could work, too. For instance, Peacock’s “Love Island USA” is the reality hit of the summer, as there’s a new episode almost daily).

But instead of experimenting with different types of short-form content for quick entertainment, combined with slower releases for seasons, or focusing more heavily on miniseries worth watching, Netflix has been dabbling in other areas. 







As of late, it’s expanded its lineup with podcasts, which reportedly no one is watching, and live content, which can be hit or miss. In terms of the latter, Netflix investments in live sports have generally done well, but its recent entry into live reality competition shows, “Star Search,” has already been canceled despite a clever real-time voting feature. More work here is still needed.

Bloomberg’s report framed the problem facing Netflix as a failure to create loyal TV viewers who tune into a Season 2, but the underlying issue facing the streamer is much bigger. Netflix may need to rethink whether it still needs to focus on competing with traditional TV and its long-running shows, or whether it should focus on entertainment projects whose storytelling arcs have less filler and wrap up more quickly. 

To find the right balance between viewers ditching cable and those who just want something better than TikTok, Netflix is finding itself needing to reinvent TV all over again.




When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#Netflix #invented #bingewatching #outgrown #TechCrunchNetflix,streaming,tv
Image Credits:eMarketer

Then there is YouTube, which offers a combination of both short and longer-form content. Per a report released this year by Digital i, YouTube surpassed Netflix in average daily viewing for the first time, with 99.1 minutes daily in 2025 compared with Netflix’s 93.4 minutes.

These market reports use differing methodologies and demographics, so they should be taken with a grain of salt — but directionally, they point the same way. YouTube and apps like TikTok are Netflix’s real competition, not TV.

Netflix has even acknowledged this existential threat by way of a product redesign in April that added a TikTok-like feed based on Netflix content.

Where Netflix gets the feed wrong is that it’s still pitched as a way to help you find something to watch, rather than being the thing you watch. It’s understandable why Netflix went this route, given its library, but it’s not necessarily what the end user wants. Today, many people with dopamine-drained attention spans are instead seeking out microdrama apps in growing numbers when they want a serialized storyline they can consume in minutes.

Image Credits:ReelShort

According to data from the app intelligence firm Appfigures, one top microdrama app, ReelShort, saw roughly $1.2 billion in gross consumer spending in 2025, up 119% from 2024, TechCrunch’s Amanda Silberling previously reported. Meanwhile, another leading app, DramaBox, generated $276 million in gross consumer spending last year, more than doubling its 2024 numbers. Even TikTok acknowledged the competition, launching a microdrama app of its own to test the market appetite for this type of content.

Where does Netflix go from here?

Where does that leave Netflix, whose claim to fame has been full seasons dropped at once for rapid consumption?

Likely, it will have to rethink how it’s greenlighting, producing, and releasing what it considers a “TV show.”

That doesn’t mean that the Netflix model has to pivot entirely to short-form to keep up with the competition, but it may need to reconsider how people want to stream. Viewers may no longer want to commit the hours and weeks it takes to get through a show and all of its subsequent seasons, for instance. They want something that feels more “finishable,” the way you can easily get through a YouTube video or TikTok series from a creator.

A simple fix could see Netflix try prioritizing single-season shows, traditionally known as miniseries or limited series, allowing people to tune into a completed work without having to worry whether it would end on a cliffhanger and never be renewed.

Netflix could also experiment with breaking up shows into smaller chunks, like the before-its-time Quibi model.

The Jeffrey Katzenberg-backed startup, Quibi, had bet that people would eventually gravitate towards TV content designed to be consumed in shorter sessions. Unfortunately for Quibi, the pandemic hit, and people suddenly had a lot of time to watch TV, leading to its demise.

Many Netflix shows could be easily revamped for shorter viewing sessions, particularly lightweight competition shows like “Nailed It,” “Is It Cake?,” or “Squid Game: The Challenge.” Meanwhile, Netflix could surely produce better microdramas than the ones currently on the market with their awful acting and ridiculous storylines.

To generate interest in its higher-quality content, some Netflix shows could be shifted to the weekly release model. This is something Netflix has already proven works in specific cases. For instance, it drops new episodes of its reality show “Love Is Blind” in weekly dumps, making it great watercooler fodder as everyone is watching the new episodes around the same time. (Faster consumption models could work, too. For instance, Peacock’s “Love Island USA” is the reality hit of the summer, as there’s a new episode almost daily).

But instead of experimenting with different types of short-form content for quick entertainment, combined with slower releases for seasons, or focusing more heavily on miniseries worth watching, Netflix has been dabbling in other areas.

As of late, it’s expanded its lineup with podcasts, which reportedly no one is watching, and live content, which can be hit or miss. In terms of the latter, Netflix investments in live sports have generally done well, but its recent entry into live reality competition shows, “Star Search,” has already been canceled despite a clever real-time voting feature. More work here is still needed.

Bloomberg’s report framed the problem facing Netflix as a failure to create loyal TV viewers who tune into a Season 2, but the underlying issue facing the streamer is much bigger. Netflix may need to rethink whether it still needs to focus on competing with traditional TV and its long-running shows, or whether it should focus on entertainment projects whose storytelling arcs have less filler and wrap up more quickly.

To find the right balance between viewers ditching cable and those who just want something better than TikTok, Netflix is finding itself needing to reinvent TV all over again.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#Netflix #invented #bingewatching #outgrown #TechCrunchNetflix,streaming,tv

A buzzy Bloomberg report citing Netflix data suggests viewers are increasingly abandoning popular shows before the second season. The likely reasons aren’t hard to guess: Netflix frequently cancels shows, there’s too long a wait in between seasons, and much of Netflix’s content is designed for an algorithm instead of for the sake of art.

But the data also points to a shift in how people are consuming entertainment. Netflix’s defining innovation – the binge — was built for an era when streaming was competing with traditional TV. Today, Netflix is competing with TikTok, YouTube, Reels, and various microdrama apps. That shift makes Netflix’s binge model feel like a dated relic from another era.

Bingeing helped Netflix beat TV

When Netflix first dropped an entire season of “House of Cards” in February 2013, it was a revelation.
Ad-free, internet-connected TV meant we could be unshackled from the traditional routine of once-per-week shows punctuated by commercials. Instead, bingeable shows meant viewers could be entertained for hours on end, quickly forming a bond with titles and their characters that would have otherwise taken years to develop. Plus, you could drop in on them at any time — not only the day the network decided to air them, as with linear television.

This way of viewing made sense in a world where Netflix was largely still competing with traditional TV like broadcast, cable, and satellite. But Netflix won that fight. Nielsen in June 2025 announced that the TV era reached a new milestone, when the Netflix-style streaming format for the first time eclipsed broadcast and cable viewing — a milestone that made clear Netflix’s original competition was no longer the threat.

Now Netflix’s competition isn’t the TV of old, but what has become the TV of today: video apps.

TikTok and YouTube are today’s threats

Thanks to the rise of TikTok, Reels, and other short-form video platforms, there’s no need for you to visit Netflix when you have a couple of hours to kill with mindless entertainment. There’s an endless, free supply of video you can turn to instead.

According to eMarketer analysts, TikTok was already nearing Netflix in terms of time spent back in 2024, when U.S. adults were spending an average of 62.1 minutes per day streaming from Netflix and 58.4 minutes per day on TikTok. In 2024, the Financial Times reported that, globally, TikTok users spent an average of 95 minutes per day on the app, the highest engagement rate among major social networks.

Image Credits:eMarketer

Then there is YouTube, which offers a combination of both short and longer-form content. Per a report released this year by Digital i, YouTube surpassed Netflix in average daily viewing for the first time, with 99.1 minutes daily in 2025 compared with Netflix’s 93.4 minutes.

These market reports use differing methodologies and demographics, so they should be taken with a grain of salt — but directionally, they point the same way. YouTube and apps like TikTok are Netflix’s real competition, not TV.

Netflix has even acknowledged this existential threat by way of a product redesign in April that added a TikTok-like feed based on Netflix content.

Where Netflix gets the feed wrong is that it’s still pitched as a way to help you find something to watch, rather than being the thing you watch. It’s understandable why Netflix went this route, given its library, but it’s not necessarily what the end user wants. Today, many people with dopamine-drained attention spans are instead seeking out microdrama apps in growing numbers when they want a serialized storyline they can consume in minutes.

Image Credits:ReelShort

According to data from the app intelligence firm Appfigures, one top microdrama app, ReelShort, saw roughly $1.2 billion in gross consumer spending in 2025, up 119% from 2024, TechCrunch’s Amanda Silberling previously reported. Meanwhile, another leading app, DramaBox, generated $276 million in gross consumer spending last year, more than doubling its 2024 numbers. Even TikTok acknowledged the competition, launching a microdrama app of its own to test the market appetite for this type of content.

Where does Netflix go from here?

Where does that leave Netflix, whose claim to fame has been full seasons dropped at once for rapid consumption?

Likely, it will have to rethink how it’s greenlighting, producing, and releasing what it considers a “TV show.”

That doesn’t mean that the Netflix model has to pivot entirely to short-form to keep up with the competition, but it may need to reconsider how people want to stream. Viewers may no longer want to commit the hours and weeks it takes to get through a show and all of its subsequent seasons, for instance. They want something that feels more “finishable,” the way you can easily get through a YouTube video or TikTok series from a creator.

A simple fix could see Netflix try prioritizing single-season shows, traditionally known as miniseries or limited series, allowing people to tune into a completed work without having to worry whether it would end on a cliffhanger and never be renewed.

Netflix could also experiment with breaking up shows into smaller chunks, like the before-its-time Quibi model.

The Jeffrey Katzenberg-backed startup, Quibi, had bet that people would eventually gravitate towards TV content designed to be consumed in shorter sessions. Unfortunately for Quibi, the pandemic hit, and people suddenly had a lot of time to watch TV, leading to its demise.

Many Netflix shows could be easily revamped for shorter viewing sessions, particularly lightweight competition shows like “Nailed It,” “Is It Cake?,” or “Squid Game: The Challenge.” Meanwhile, Netflix could surely produce better microdramas than the ones currently on the market with their awful acting and ridiculous storylines.

To generate interest in its higher-quality content, some Netflix shows could be shifted to the weekly release model. This is something Netflix has already proven works in specific cases. For instance, it drops new episodes of its reality show “Love Is Blind” in weekly dumps, making it great watercooler fodder as everyone is watching the new episodes around the same time. (Faster consumption models could work, too. For instance, Peacock’s “Love Island USA” is the reality hit of the summer, as there’s a new episode almost daily).

But instead of experimenting with different types of short-form content for quick entertainment, combined with slower releases for seasons, or focusing more heavily on miniseries worth watching, Netflix has been dabbling in other areas.

As of late, it’s expanded its lineup with podcasts, which reportedly no one is watching, and live content, which can be hit or miss. In terms of the latter, Netflix investments in live sports have generally done well, but its recent entry into live reality competition shows, “Star Search,” has already been canceled despite a clever real-time voting feature. More work here is still needed.

Bloomberg’s report framed the problem facing Netflix as a failure to create loyal TV viewers who tune into a Season 2, but the underlying issue facing the streamer is much bigger. Netflix may need to rethink whether it still needs to focus on competing with traditional TV and its long-running shows, or whether it should focus on entertainment projects whose storytelling arcs have less filler and wrap up more quickly.

To find the right balance between viewers ditching cable and those who just want something better than TikTok, Netflix is finding itself needing to reinvent TV all over again.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Source link
#Netflix #invented #bingewatching #outgrown #TechCrunch


The humble cockroach: depending on where you live, they’re variously the bane of apartment dwellers, a tasty snacc, or a source of political inspiration. The cliché is that they’d be the only creatures to survive a nuclear apocalypse, and whether or not that’s true, you probably wouldn’t put them first in line for further enhancements to their already legendary ability to survive.

However, it seems that no one’s told that to the folks at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, because a group of researchers from the university’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering recently published a paper describing the process of fitting a cockroach with a diving suit. As the paper’s abstract explains, “The suit integrates a miniaturized oxygen generation module with a flexible waterproof shell, enabling continuous oxygen supply and isolation from surrounding water.”

Or, in other words, the suit successfully allowed the insect to breathe underwater, turning it into a sort of nightmarish amphibious cyborg. If this sounds like a terrible idea at face value, console yourself with the knowledge that these cyber-roaches are designed to be used for benevolent purposes. As per the paper, said purposes include pipe inspections, “object transportation,” and, apparently, search-and-rescue missions. (Smash cut to 2031 and Elon Musk ranting about a “pedo roach”.)

Research into the creation of cyborg insects has been a thing for some time, both in academia and in the world of tech. On the latter point, readers may remember the RoboRoach, a $200 DIY kit for creating your own cyborg cockroach that was funded via Kickstarter in 2013. The kit is still available, and these days it seems to be marketed as a fun activity for kids—on the manufacturer’s website, it’s labelled as being for “Grade 9+” and “[Requiring] supervision.” If the idea of a bunch of 15-year-olds performing surgery on cockroaches makes you kinda queasy—supervision or not—well, you’re not alone.

Let’s get back to the Nanyang Technological University, where the experiments are presumably not being conducted by middle-schoolers. If you’ve ever wondered how a cockroach breathes, the paper explains that “like most terrestrial insects, [they] breathe through thoracic spiracles that take in oxygen directly from the air.” The “diving suit” is basically a flexible waterproof shell into which a miniature oxygen generator pumps oxygen, effectively creating a tiny breathing bubble around the insect’s air-intake thingamajigs.

This allowed the insect to breathe underwater for up to three hours, although it seems there were some initial, um, design issues to sort out: “Dorsal mounting of the oxygen generator on the cockroach created significant water-resistance during underwater locomotion… causing postural instability and rollover.” Once this issue was resolved, it seems the roaches got on just fine underwater, exhibiting “stable and smooth underwater walking without rollover.” The researchers conclude that the idea is a winner, and that it could be “potentially extended to other terrestrial cyborg insect platforms, such as [other] cockroaches, locusts and beetles.” Amphibious locusts! What could possibly go wrong?

#Scientists #Built #Amphibious #Cyborg #Cockroaches #Regret #Inform #Workcockroaches,cyborgs">Scientists Built Amphibious Cyborg Cockroaches and We Regret to Inform You They Work
                The humble cockroach: depending on where you live, they’re variously the bane of apartment dwellers, a tasty snacc, or a source of political inspiration. The cliché is that they’d be the only creatures to survive a nuclear apocalypse, and whether or not that’s true, you probably wouldn’t put them first in line for further enhancements to their already legendary ability to survive. However, it seems that no one’s told that to the folks at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, because a group of researchers from the university’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering recently published a paper describing the process of fitting a cockroach with a diving suit. As the paper’s abstract explains, “The suit integrates a miniaturized oxygen generation module with a flexible waterproof shell, enabling continuous oxygen supply and isolation from surrounding water.” Or, in other words, the suit successfully allowed the insect to breathe underwater, turning it into a sort of nightmarish amphibious cyborg. If this sounds like a terrible idea at face value, console yourself with the knowledge that these cyber-roaches are designed to be used for benevolent purposes. As per the paper, said purposes include pipe inspections, “object transportation,” and, apparently, search-and-rescue missions. (Smash cut to 2031 and Elon Musk ranting about a “pedo roach”.)

 Research into the creation of cyborg insects has been a thing for some time, both in academia and in the world of tech. On the latter point, readers may remember the RoboRoach, a 0 DIY kit for creating your own cyborg cockroach that was funded via Kickstarter in 2013. The kit is still available, and these days it seems to be marketed as a fun activity for kids—on the manufacturer’s website, it’s labelled as being for “Grade 9+” and “[Requiring] supervision.” If the idea of a bunch of 15-year-olds performing surgery on cockroaches makes you kinda queasy—supervision or not—well, you’re not alone.

 Let’s get back to the Nanyang Technological University, where the experiments are presumably not being conducted by middle-schoolers. If you’ve ever wondered how a cockroach breathes, the paper explains that “like most terrestrial insects, [they] breathe through thoracic spiracles that take in oxygen directly from the air.” The “diving suit” is basically a flexible waterproof shell into which a miniature oxygen generator pumps oxygen, effectively creating a tiny breathing bubble around the insect’s air-intake thingamajigs. This allowed the insect to breathe underwater for up to three hours, although it seems there were some initial, um, design issues to sort out: “Dorsal mounting of the oxygen generator on the cockroach created significant water-resistance during underwater locomotion… causing postural instability and rollover.” Once this issue was resolved, it seems the roaches got on just fine underwater, exhibiting “stable and smooth underwater walking without rollover.” The researchers conclude that the idea is a winner, and that it could be “potentially extended to other terrestrial cyborg insect platforms, such as [other] cockroaches, locusts and beetles.” Amphibious locusts! What could possibly go wrong?      #Scientists #Built #Amphibious #Cyborg #Cockroaches #Regret #Inform #Workcockroaches,cyborgs

bane of apartment dwellers, a tasty snacc, or a source of political inspiration. The cliché is that they’d be the only creatures to survive a nuclear apocalypse, and whether or not that’s true, you probably wouldn’t put them first in line for further enhancements to their already legendary ability to survive.

However, it seems that no one’s told that to the folks at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, because a group of researchers from the university’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering recently published a paper describing the process of fitting a cockroach with a diving suit. As the paper’s abstract explains, “The suit integrates a miniaturized oxygen generation module with a flexible waterproof shell, enabling continuous oxygen supply and isolation from surrounding water.”

Or, in other words, the suit successfully allowed the insect to breathe underwater, turning it into a sort of nightmarish amphibious cyborg. If this sounds like a terrible idea at face value, console yourself with the knowledge that these cyber-roaches are designed to be used for benevolent purposes. As per the paper, said purposes include pipe inspections, “object transportation,” and, apparently, search-and-rescue missions. (Smash cut to 2031 and Elon Musk ranting about a “pedo roach”.)

Research into the creation of cyborg insects has been a thing for some time, both in academia and in the world of tech. On the latter point, readers may remember the RoboRoach, a $200 DIY kit for creating your own cyborg cockroach that was funded via Kickstarter in 2013. The kit is still available, and these days it seems to be marketed as a fun activity for kids—on the manufacturer’s website, it’s labelled as being for “Grade 9+” and “[Requiring] supervision.” If the idea of a bunch of 15-year-olds performing surgery on cockroaches makes you kinda queasy—supervision or not—well, you’re not alone.

Let’s get back to the Nanyang Technological University, where the experiments are presumably not being conducted by middle-schoolers. If you’ve ever wondered how a cockroach breathes, the paper explains that “like most terrestrial insects, [they] breathe through thoracic spiracles that take in oxygen directly from the air.” The “diving suit” is basically a flexible waterproof shell into which a miniature oxygen generator pumps oxygen, effectively creating a tiny breathing bubble around the insect’s air-intake thingamajigs.

This allowed the insect to breathe underwater for up to three hours, although it seems there were some initial, um, design issues to sort out: “Dorsal mounting of the oxygen generator on the cockroach created significant water-resistance during underwater locomotion… causing postural instability and rollover.” Once this issue was resolved, it seems the roaches got on just fine underwater, exhibiting “stable and smooth underwater walking without rollover.” The researchers conclude that the idea is a winner, and that it could be “potentially extended to other terrestrial cyborg insect platforms, such as [other] cockroaches, locusts and beetles.” Amphibious locusts! What could possibly go wrong?

#Scientists #Built #Amphibious #Cyborg #Cockroaches #Regret #Inform #Workcockroaches,cyborgs">Scientists Built Amphibious Cyborg Cockroaches and We Regret to Inform You They WorkScientists Built Amphibious Cyborg Cockroaches and We Regret to Inform You They Work
                The humble cockroach: depending on where you live, they’re variously the bane of apartment dwellers, a tasty snacc, or a source of political inspiration. The cliché is that they’d be the only creatures to survive a nuclear apocalypse, and whether or not that’s true, you probably wouldn’t put them first in line for further enhancements to their already legendary ability to survive. However, it seems that no one’s told that to the folks at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, because a group of researchers from the university’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering recently published a paper describing the process of fitting a cockroach with a diving suit. As the paper’s abstract explains, “The suit integrates a miniaturized oxygen generation module with a flexible waterproof shell, enabling continuous oxygen supply and isolation from surrounding water.” Or, in other words, the suit successfully allowed the insect to breathe underwater, turning it into a sort of nightmarish amphibious cyborg. If this sounds like a terrible idea at face value, console yourself with the knowledge that these cyber-roaches are designed to be used for benevolent purposes. As per the paper, said purposes include pipe inspections, “object transportation,” and, apparently, search-and-rescue missions. (Smash cut to 2031 and Elon Musk ranting about a “pedo roach”.)

 Research into the creation of cyborg insects has been a thing for some time, both in academia and in the world of tech. On the latter point, readers may remember the RoboRoach, a $200 DIY kit for creating your own cyborg cockroach that was funded via Kickstarter in 2013. The kit is still available, and these days it seems to be marketed as a fun activity for kids—on the manufacturer’s website, it’s labelled as being for “Grade 9+” and “[Requiring] supervision.” If the idea of a bunch of 15-year-olds performing surgery on cockroaches makes you kinda queasy—supervision or not—well, you’re not alone.

 Let’s get back to the Nanyang Technological University, where the experiments are presumably not being conducted by middle-schoolers. If you’ve ever wondered how a cockroach breathes, the paper explains that “like most terrestrial insects, [they] breathe through thoracic spiracles that take in oxygen directly from the air.” The “diving suit” is basically a flexible waterproof shell into which a miniature oxygen generator pumps oxygen, effectively creating a tiny breathing bubble around the insect’s air-intake thingamajigs. This allowed the insect to breathe underwater for up to three hours, although it seems there were some initial, um, design issues to sort out: “Dorsal mounting of the oxygen generator on the cockroach created significant water-resistance during underwater locomotion… causing postural instability and rollover.” Once this issue was resolved, it seems the roaches got on just fine underwater, exhibiting “stable and smooth underwater walking without rollover.” The researchers conclude that the idea is a winner, and that it could be “potentially extended to other terrestrial cyborg insect platforms, such as [other] cockroaches, locusts and beetles.” Amphibious locusts! What could possibly go wrong?      #Scientists #Built #Amphibious #Cyborg #Cockroaches #Regret #Inform #Workcockroaches,cyborgs

The humble cockroach: depending on where you live, they’re variously the bane of apartment dwellers, a tasty snacc, or a source of political inspiration. The cliché is that they’d be the only creatures to survive a nuclear apocalypse, and whether or not that’s true, you probably wouldn’t put them first in line for further enhancements to their already legendary ability to survive.

However, it seems that no one’s told that to the folks at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, because a group of researchers from the university’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering recently published a paper describing the process of fitting a cockroach with a diving suit. As the paper’s abstract explains, “The suit integrates a miniaturized oxygen generation module with a flexible waterproof shell, enabling continuous oxygen supply and isolation from surrounding water.”

Or, in other words, the suit successfully allowed the insect to breathe underwater, turning it into a sort of nightmarish amphibious cyborg. If this sounds like a terrible idea at face value, console yourself with the knowledge that these cyber-roaches are designed to be used for benevolent purposes. As per the paper, said purposes include pipe inspections, “object transportation,” and, apparently, search-and-rescue missions. (Smash cut to 2031 and Elon Musk ranting about a “pedo roach”.)

Research into the creation of cyborg insects has been a thing for some time, both in academia and in the world of tech. On the latter point, readers may remember the RoboRoach, a $200 DIY kit for creating your own cyborg cockroach that was funded via Kickstarter in 2013. The kit is still available, and these days it seems to be marketed as a fun activity for kids—on the manufacturer’s website, it’s labelled as being for “Grade 9+” and “[Requiring] supervision.” If the idea of a bunch of 15-year-olds performing surgery on cockroaches makes you kinda queasy—supervision or not—well, you’re not alone.

Let’s get back to the Nanyang Technological University, where the experiments are presumably not being conducted by middle-schoolers. If you’ve ever wondered how a cockroach breathes, the paper explains that “like most terrestrial insects, [they] breathe through thoracic spiracles that take in oxygen directly from the air.” The “diving suit” is basically a flexible waterproof shell into which a miniature oxygen generator pumps oxygen, effectively creating a tiny breathing bubble around the insect’s air-intake thingamajigs.

This allowed the insect to breathe underwater for up to three hours, although it seems there were some initial, um, design issues to sort out: “Dorsal mounting of the oxygen generator on the cockroach created significant water-resistance during underwater locomotion… causing postural instability and rollover.” Once this issue was resolved, it seems the roaches got on just fine underwater, exhibiting “stable and smooth underwater walking without rollover.” The researchers conclude that the idea is a winner, and that it could be “potentially extended to other terrestrial cyborg insect platforms, such as [other] cockroaches, locusts and beetles.” Amphibious locusts! What could possibly go wrong?

#Scientists #Built #Amphibious #Cyborg #Cockroaches #Regret #Inform #Workcockroaches,cyborgs

During this year’s World Cup, one scene repeats itself game after game: Several players take the field with holes in the calves of their socks. Social media is rife with theories about the supposed competitive advantage this might give them. But the practice isn’t new. It has been seen at the European Championships, the Olympic Games, and other international competitions over the past decade. Still, science has yet to find evidence that it improves performance.

Professional soccer socks are, by design, form-fitting. In addition to holding shin guards in place, they provide support to the ankle, the arch of the foot, and the calf; they help manage moisture and reduce foot movement inside the cleat to improve stability. This design principle has been used in professional soccer for decades. Although materials have evolved to become lighter and more durable, they are still primarily based on synthetic fibers such as polyester, nylon, and spandex.

But quite a few players have complained that the socks are too tight and cause a tingling and numb sensation in the calf area. The discomfort is so great that, halfway through a game, they cut several holes in the calf area to “release tension” and run better.

There is a biomechanical component to this sensation. During a sprint or a change of direction, the largest muscle in the calf contracts and increases in thickness to generate the force that propels the athlete forward. This change in shape occurs thousands of times during a game. For some, the repeated expansion of the muscle is enough to create a sensation of pressure when the sock exerts constant compression on the calf.

Over time, the practice of cutting holes in socks has taken on an almost intuitive explanation among the players themselves: splitting open the fabric allows the muscle to “breathe,” relieving pressure and reducing the likelihood of pain or cramps. However, specialists in sports medicine and recovery point out that there are no studies demonstrating that cutting holes in socks provides any benefit. In fact, much of the research on compression garments concludes that, when properly designed and fitted, they can help limit muscle inflammation after intense exertion.

Despite the lack of evidence regarding physiological benefits, the practice continues to spread among professional soccer players. Today, it is considered primarily an anecdotal phenomenon, based on each player’s personal experience rather than scientific evidence. Furthermore, the rules of the game do not prohibit modifying socks, as long as the equipment remains safe and the shin guards remain properly covered. (A soccer player, however, cannot play with a torn jersey.)

Given the lack of scientific evidence, several specialists believe that part of the phenomenon could be explained by the player’s own perception of comfort. In high-performance sports, the feeling of comfort can influence the confidence with which an athlete competes. If a soccer player believes a piece of clothing is restrictive, eliminating that perceived discomfort can make them feel freer to run, accelerate, or change direction—even if their performance remains objectively unchanged.

Though there is no evidence that cutting the socks provides a competitive advantage or reduces the risk of injury, that does not mean the sensation of discomfort is imaginary. The perception of pressure, restriction, or comfort depends on multiple factors, ranging from anatomy and individual sensitivity to the athlete’s past experiences. In other words, two players may react differently while wearing exactly the same equipment.

For now, it seems the cutting of socks will continue. The available evidence points to a mechanism similar to that of other sports rituals: Its effect is primarily psychological, not necessarily physiological.

#Science #Soccer #Players #World #Cup #Cutting #Socksworld cup 2026,sports,training,health,fashion,soccer">The Science Behind Why Soccer Players at the 2026 World Cup Are Cutting Their SocksDuring this year’s World Cup, one scene repeats itself game after game: Several players take the field with holes in the calves of their socks. Social media is rife with theories about the supposed competitive advantage this might give them. But the practice isn’t new. It has been seen at the European Championships, the Olympic Games, and other international competitions over the past decade. Still, science has yet to find evidence that it improves performance.Professional soccer socks are, by design, form-fitting. In addition to holding shin guards in place, they provide support to the ankle, the arch of the foot, and the calf; they help manage moisture and reduce foot movement inside the cleat to improve stability. This design principle has been used in professional soccer for decades. Although materials have evolved to become lighter and more durable, they are still primarily based on synthetic fibers such as polyester, nylon, and spandex.But quite a few players have complained that the socks are too tight and cause a tingling and numb sensation in the calf area. The discomfort is so great that, halfway through a game, they cut several holes in the calf area to “release tension” and run better.There is a biomechanical component to this sensation. During a sprint or a change of direction, the largest muscle in the calf contracts and increases in thickness to generate the force that propels the athlete forward. This change in shape occurs thousands of times during a game. For some, the repeated expansion of the muscle is enough to create a sensation of pressure when the sock exerts constant compression on the calf.Over time, the practice of cutting holes in socks has taken on an almost intuitive explanation among the players themselves: splitting open the fabric allows the muscle to “breathe,” relieving pressure and reducing the likelihood of pain or cramps. However, specialists in sports medicine and recovery point out that there are no studies demonstrating that cutting holes in socks provides any benefit. In fact, much of the research on compression garments concludes that, when properly designed and fitted, they can help limit muscle inflammation after intense exertion.Despite the lack of evidence regarding physiological benefits, the practice continues to spread among professional soccer players. Today, it is considered primarily an anecdotal phenomenon, based on each player’s personal experience rather than scientific evidence. Furthermore, the rules of the game do not prohibit modifying socks, as long as the equipment remains safe and the shin guards remain properly covered. (A soccer player, however, cannot play with a torn jersey.)Given the lack of scientific evidence, several specialists believe that part of the phenomenon could be explained by the player’s own perception of comfort. In high-performance sports, the feeling of comfort can influence the confidence with which an athlete competes. If a soccer player believes a piece of clothing is restrictive, eliminating that perceived discomfort can make them feel freer to run, accelerate, or change direction—even if their performance remains objectively unchanged.Though there is no evidence that cutting the socks provides a competitive advantage or reduces the risk of injury, that does not mean the sensation of discomfort is imaginary. The perception of pressure, restriction, or comfort depends on multiple factors, ranging from anatomy and individual sensitivity to the athlete’s past experiences. In other words, two players may react differently while wearing exactly the same equipment.For now, it seems the cutting of socks will continue. The available evidence points to a mechanism similar to that of other sports rituals: Its effect is primarily psychological, not necessarily physiological.#Science #Soccer #Players #World #Cup #Cutting #Socksworld cup 2026,sports,training,health,fashion,soccer

World Cup, one scene repeats itself game after game: Several players take the field with holes in the calves of their socks. Social media is rife with theories about the supposed competitive advantage this might give them. But the practice isn’t new. It has been seen at the European Championships, the Olympic Games, and other international competitions over the past decade. Still, science has yet to find evidence that it improves performance.

Professional soccer socks are, by design, form-fitting. In addition to holding shin guards in place, they provide support to the ankle, the arch of the foot, and the calf; they help manage moisture and reduce foot movement inside the cleat to improve stability. This design principle has been used in professional soccer for decades. Although materials have evolved to become lighter and more durable, they are still primarily based on synthetic fibers such as polyester, nylon, and spandex.

But quite a few players have complained that the socks are too tight and cause a tingling and numb sensation in the calf area. The discomfort is so great that, halfway through a game, they cut several holes in the calf area to “release tension” and run better.

There is a biomechanical component to this sensation. During a sprint or a change of direction, the largest muscle in the calf contracts and increases in thickness to generate the force that propels the athlete forward. This change in shape occurs thousands of times during a game. For some, the repeated expansion of the muscle is enough to create a sensation of pressure when the sock exerts constant compression on the calf.

Over time, the practice of cutting holes in socks has taken on an almost intuitive explanation among the players themselves: splitting open the fabric allows the muscle to “breathe,” relieving pressure and reducing the likelihood of pain or cramps. However, specialists in sports medicine and recovery point out that there are no studies demonstrating that cutting holes in socks provides any benefit. In fact, much of the research on compression garments concludes that, when properly designed and fitted, they can help limit muscle inflammation after intense exertion.

Despite the lack of evidence regarding physiological benefits, the practice continues to spread among professional soccer players. Today, it is considered primarily an anecdotal phenomenon, based on each player’s personal experience rather than scientific evidence. Furthermore, the rules of the game do not prohibit modifying socks, as long as the equipment remains safe and the shin guards remain properly covered. (A soccer player, however, cannot play with a torn jersey.)

Given the lack of scientific evidence, several specialists believe that part of the phenomenon could be explained by the player’s own perception of comfort. In high-performance sports, the feeling of comfort can influence the confidence with which an athlete competes. If a soccer player believes a piece of clothing is restrictive, eliminating that perceived discomfort can make them feel freer to run, accelerate, or change direction—even if their performance remains objectively unchanged.

Though there is no evidence that cutting the socks provides a competitive advantage or reduces the risk of injury, that does not mean the sensation of discomfort is imaginary. The perception of pressure, restriction, or comfort depends on multiple factors, ranging from anatomy and individual sensitivity to the athlete’s past experiences. In other words, two players may react differently while wearing exactly the same equipment.

For now, it seems the cutting of socks will continue. The available evidence points to a mechanism similar to that of other sports rituals: Its effect is primarily psychological, not necessarily physiological.

#Science #Soccer #Players #World #Cup #Cutting #Socksworld cup 2026,sports,training,health,fashion,soccer">The Science Behind Why Soccer Players at the 2026 World Cup Are Cutting Their Socks

During this year’s World Cup, one scene repeats itself game after game: Several players take the field with holes in the calves of their socks. Social media is rife with theories about the supposed competitive advantage this might give them. But the practice isn’t new. It has been seen at the European Championships, the Olympic Games, and other international competitions over the past decade. Still, science has yet to find evidence that it improves performance.

Professional soccer socks are, by design, form-fitting. In addition to holding shin guards in place, they provide support to the ankle, the arch of the foot, and the calf; they help manage moisture and reduce foot movement inside the cleat to improve stability. This design principle has been used in professional soccer for decades. Although materials have evolved to become lighter and more durable, they are still primarily based on synthetic fibers such as polyester, nylon, and spandex.

But quite a few players have complained that the socks are too tight and cause a tingling and numb sensation in the calf area. The discomfort is so great that, halfway through a game, they cut several holes in the calf area to “release tension” and run better.

There is a biomechanical component to this sensation. During a sprint or a change of direction, the largest muscle in the calf contracts and increases in thickness to generate the force that propels the athlete forward. This change in shape occurs thousands of times during a game. For some, the repeated expansion of the muscle is enough to create a sensation of pressure when the sock exerts constant compression on the calf.

Over time, the practice of cutting holes in socks has taken on an almost intuitive explanation among the players themselves: splitting open the fabric allows the muscle to “breathe,” relieving pressure and reducing the likelihood of pain or cramps. However, specialists in sports medicine and recovery point out that there are no studies demonstrating that cutting holes in socks provides any benefit. In fact, much of the research on compression garments concludes that, when properly designed and fitted, they can help limit muscle inflammation after intense exertion.

Despite the lack of evidence regarding physiological benefits, the practice continues to spread among professional soccer players. Today, it is considered primarily an anecdotal phenomenon, based on each player’s personal experience rather than scientific evidence. Furthermore, the rules of the game do not prohibit modifying socks, as long as the equipment remains safe and the shin guards remain properly covered. (A soccer player, however, cannot play with a torn jersey.)

Given the lack of scientific evidence, several specialists believe that part of the phenomenon could be explained by the player’s own perception of comfort. In high-performance sports, the feeling of comfort can influence the confidence with which an athlete competes. If a soccer player believes a piece of clothing is restrictive, eliminating that perceived discomfort can make them feel freer to run, accelerate, or change direction—even if their performance remains objectively unchanged.

Though there is no evidence that cutting the socks provides a competitive advantage or reduces the risk of injury, that does not mean the sensation of discomfort is imaginary. The perception of pressure, restriction, or comfort depends on multiple factors, ranging from anatomy and individual sensitivity to the athlete’s past experiences. In other words, two players may react differently while wearing exactly the same equipment.

For now, it seems the cutting of socks will continue. The available evidence points to a mechanism similar to that of other sports rituals: Its effect is primarily psychological, not necessarily physiological.

#Science #Soccer #Players #World #Cup #Cutting #Socksworld cup 2026,sports,training,health,fashion,soccer

Post Comment