'Star Wars: Shadow of the Sith' Sends Rey's Parents on an Unforgettable Journey
'Star Wars: Shadow of the Sith' Sends Rey's Parents on an Unforgettable Journey
Cast your mind back, if you will, to the joyous era of Star Wars fandom that followed the release of sequel trilogy opener The Force Awakens in 2015. It felt like everyone was dying to know about mysterious new hero Rey's parents and what kinds of adventures Luke Skywalker had been on in the decades since the original trilogy.
The sight of Luke Skywalker wielding his green lightsaber on the cover of Star Wars: Shadow of the Sith is ludicrously exciting, and Adam Christopher's novel lives up to its potential.
Penguin Random House
Star Wars suddenly mattered again; the excitement was glorious and the storytelling possibilities seemed endless. The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker (the second and third movies in the sequel trilogy) answered some of the mysteries with varying degrees of success, but didn't dive quite as deeply as many fans would've liked.
Adam Christopher 's novel Star Wars: Shadow of the Sith, which comes out in print, digital and audiobook form on Tuesday, is the deep dive I've wanted since 2015. Taking place 17 years after Return of the Jedi (and 13 years prior to The Force Awakens), we're introduced to Rey's parents as they flee across the galaxy with their young daughter. The couple were seen briefly in a flashback in The Rise of Skywalker, but this is their first major appearance. Their names are revealed almost immediately, but we won't spoil their names in this review since Christopher builds up to them beautifully.
Unable to trust anyone with the agents of the resurrected Emperor Palpatine hot on their trail, the trio's situation feels desperate. Given the glimpses we got of Rey's parents in The Rise of Skywalker, this plot thread has a sense of dark inevitability. That doesn't stop Christopher from infusing these characters with emotional depth; you'll find yourself wholly invested in their quest for safe haven despite knowing how it ends.
The novel offers answers about Rey's parents, after our brief time with them in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.
Lucasfilm
The family has a glimmer of hope in Luke Skywalker, whose efforts to train the next generation of Jedi Knights are hampered by his visions of a sinister presence at the edge of the galaxy. This novel presents the original trilogy hero in his glorious prime -- exactly how many fans wanted him to appear in the sequels -- but Christopher deftly drops hints of the emotional state he's reached by the time of The Last Jedi.
He's joined by fellow classic hero Lando Calrissian, who's in bad shape due to his stalled search for his kidnapped daughter. This vulnerable state allows Christopher to explore the smooth gambler's inner life to an unprecedented degree; it draws from the cocky young man seen in prequel spinoff Solo, the self-assured hustler of the original trilogy and the haunted older warrior we met in The Rise of Skywalker.
Lando, seen in The Rise of Skywalker, goes on an epic emotional journey.
Lucasfilm
Luke and Lando's mission to save Rey's family is complicated by nasty assassin Ochi of Bestoon (another character who made a blink-and-you'll-miss-it appearance in The Rise of Skywalker), who's been tasked by members of a Sith cult with hunting down the parents and child. He's a loathsome but compelling presence and grows increasingly unhinged as the tale progresses.
Ochi's story here cleverly picks up plot threads from writer Greg Pak's recent Darth Vader comics, but Christopher includes enough detail that those shouldn't be considered required reading before diving into this book.
Rounding out the villainous side is a mysterious warrior empowered by the dark side of the Force. This side of the story leans into creepy arcane Sith lore and proves to be the novel's most fascinating element. It gets surprisingly dark and weird, and hopefully hints at avenues that Star Wars will explore in future.
Ochi of Bestoon has a tiny role in The Rise of Skywalker, but we learn all about him in Shadow of the Sith.
Lucasfilm
Once our heroes and villains cross paths, Christopher's cinematic writing shines in some epic action sequences that will delight those wanting to see the extent of Luke's power. The author sets him up with a worthy adversary, and it's fun to see the threat escalate to a level reminiscent of the old Legends continuity stories.
However, at 496 pages, Shadow of the Sith loses steam a few times. An extended sequence on a mining space station comes to an epic conclusion, but there's a little too much jumping between characters and wandering around before getting to it.
One extended cameo from a baddy seen in The Rise of Skywalker also feels extraneous to the main narrative thrust even if they're fun to spend time with. Thankfully, the other cameos are better judged, fitting nicely into the story and staying exactly as long as they're needed.
Despite these minor issues, Adam Christopher's Shadow of the Sith is the best kind of Star Wars novel and acts as an essential link between Return of the Jedi and The Force Awakens. It explores ambiguous aspects of the movies cleverly, tying up loose ends and adding emotional resonance while opening up a bunch of exciting new storytelling possibilities. After more than half a decade, the mystery of Rey's parents is solved in style.
What States Can and Can't Do When Banning Abortion
What States Can and Can't Do When Banning Abortion
For more information about your reproductive health rights and related federal resources, you can visit the US government's
Reproductive Rights
site.
Whether someone can get an abortion or related medical procedure mostly hinges on which state they live in after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last month and ended the constitutional right to abortion. But the switch from federal protection to state law isn't straightforward and has led to confusion and misinformation on what pregnant patients and physicians can do.
In this still developing landscape, how confident can people be that their treatment is still legal?
"The answer to all your questions is 'Who the heck knows,'" said Dr. Louise Perkins King, a surgeon and bioethicist at Harvard Medical School. "And that's the problem."
The US Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance on July 11 reminding physicians of their responsibilities under the existing Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTLA, which supports the need to treat and stabilize patients in an emergency, including pregnant patients who may require an abortion. Days later, Texas sued the Biden administration over the law, which allows for medical assistance to save the life of the mother, because, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, it "seeks to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic."
On Tuesday, a judge in Texas blocked the EMTLA guidance, so physicians in that state may no longer be protected by federal law if they perform an abortion when they deem it medically necessary but it falls outside of Texas' interpretation of a life-endangering pregnancy. Physicians nationwide who are members of the American Association of Pro-Life Gynecologists and Obstetricians or the Christian Medical and Dental Association are also exempt -- a total of about 18,000 health care providers, according to the court document.
Texas' new trigger law -- which will be in effect on Aug. 25 -- bans all abortions except when the pregnancy puts the mother "at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function." Physicians who perform an illegal abortion will be committing a felony. It doesn't make exceptions for rape, incest or fetal abnormalities, and it also doesn't make an exception for when the pregnant person's risk of death would come from a "claim or diagnosis" that they'll be hurt or might die in the future. (This could be interpreted to mean a doctor can't provide an abortion if a woman threatens to die by suicide because she has depression.) All abortions are currently banned in Texas after the state's Supreme Court ruled that a law from the 1920s could stand.
Legal battles within some states will continue to shape post-Roe America, with the landscape changing by the day. And lawsuits like the one in Texas clarify the country's stance on whether state law preempts federal rule on abortion or reproductive health care. Basically, can federal regulations trump state law?
"There's going to be cases that are going to have to determine this question," I. Glenn Cohen, a professor and bioethicist at Harvard Law School, said.
The argument over medication abortion access -- which is banned or restricted in many states but still available to people if they order it (not without risk) online -- will likely also be one of the first big court cases post-Roe, Cohen said. Questions of whether federal regulations on medication abortion conflict directly enough with state restrictions will continue to be center stage.
Medication abortion, for use in early pregnancy, accounts for more than half of abortions in the US. Restricting the pills is the new frontier of abortion bans.
Robyn Beck/Getty Images
Other federal guidance issued by the Biden administration includes a reminder to pharmacists that they are required to fill medication and birth control prescriptions for patients. Failing to do so is discrimination based on pregnancy status. This was in response to the many reports of women having treatment delayed or prescriptions denied while health care workers try to navigate around new state laws.
Here's what we know today.
Can states ban abortion pills? Not completely, but some are trying.
Any state with a current total ban on abortion -- including Texas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri and Wisconsin -- also bans medication abortion. Heavy restrictions in other states, including Tennessee and South Carolina, which ban abortion after about six weeks, also extend to medication abortion. This means providers can't prescribe the medication in those states and patients can't fill prescriptions at pharmacies.
"If a state law bans abortion broadly, that includes medication abortions," Elisabeth Smith, director of state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told MedPage Today.
But abortion bans and state laws seek to punish abortion providers or people who assist them, not the person seeking the abortion (there's reason to believe this might change in the future). For now, people living in the most restrictive states can still order pills from an overseas pharmacy, including Aid Access. However, the pills could take awhile to arrive and potentially put the person past the point of pregnancy for which the medication is safe and effective (about 10 weeks).
Peter Dazeley/Getty Images
The fate of medication abortion pills in Republican-leaning states centers on mifepristone, the first pill given in the two-dose regimen of medication abortion. Because the US Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone as a safe and effective way to end a pregnancy over 20 years ago, states shouldn't be able to restrict it, the US attorney general's office argued the same day Roe was overturned. (Misoprostol, the second pill, is used off-label for abortion and miscarriage treatment. It's also used to treat health conditions such as stomach ulcers.)
Whether this federal regulation (and the FDA's stamp of approval) supersedes state laws will need to be decided. Cohen said this is likely to be determined by the Supreme Court as "one of the first post-Dobbs cases."
"It's unclear whether that's going to be a winner of an argument, to be perfectly honest," Cohen said.
Last year, the FDA extended a pandemic-era rule that allowed patients to get medication abortion pills through the mail, instead of requiring them to be prescribed in person. This was seen as a victory for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical groups, which viewed the in-person requirement as unnecessary for a medication that's safe and effective in early pregnancy.
But states have their own requirements for medication abortion, and providers licensed in Montana can't prescribe pills to patients who travel over from a restrictive state like South Dakota, NPR reported.
Read more: Worries About Post-Roe Data Privacy Put Spotlight on Period Apps
Ectopic pregnancies can't result in a delivery and require medical treatment. Symptoms can start with typical pregnancy signs, including a missed period, but can progress to abdominal or pelvic pain, vaginal bleeding, weakness and more.
Svetlana Gustova/Getty Images
Can states ban treatment for high risk pregnancies? The HHS says no, but doctors say state laws are restricting care.
Even though the most restrictive states banning abortions leave room for some degree of medical emergency, practicing physicians need to decide where the medical emergency line is – and risk prosecution if a state sees it differently.
This month, the story of a 10-year-old girl who was raped and pregnant and who traveled to Indiana from Ohio, where abortion is banned around six weeks without exception for rape or incest, made headlines. Not only was the physician publicly questioned by Indiana's attorney general on whether she followed state law, but Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said in the aftermath that the girl should've been able to legally get an abortion under the state law's medical emergency exemption. Ohio's OB-GYNs disagreed.
"It states specifically 'medically diagnosed condition,' and as far as I can tell, adolescent pregnancy is not a medically diagnosed condition that's listed," Dr. Jason Sayat, a Columbus OB-GYN, told the Ohio Capital Journal.
The Department of Health and Human Services reminded physicians and hospitals that if they want to keep their Medicare agreement and avoid "civil penalties," they must treat pregnant patients and provide abortions if necessary as required under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The EMTLA, now blocked in Texas, outlines certain life-endangering pregnancies that doctors must treat regardless of state law, including ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia and complications of pregnancy loss.
But that narrow line of abortion exceptions for medical emergencies given by states like Wisconsin is what's troubling Dr. Jennifer McIntosh, a maternal-fetal medicine physician practicing in the state. While Wisconsin's attorney general said he wouldn't enforce a ban, physicians there stopped performing abortions because the state has a pre-Roe criminal statute that prohibits most abortions. The "save the life of the mother" abortion exception language in that law can leave out health conditions which may not be an immediate emergency but can become one down the line.
"Some of what we do is to prevent emergencies from happening," McIntosh said. "To have to wait for an emergency to actually appear puts your patient's life at risk."
The treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is termination, because terminating the pregnancy is the only safe outcome when an embryo grows outside of the uterus, typically in a fallopian tube. Without treatment, the fallopian tube is likely to rupture, which can lead to internal bleeding and death. But some laws, like one in Texas, specifically restrict medications including methotrexate, which has led to access problems for people who are pregnant as well as people who are taking methotrexate for another health reason.
Complicating confusion and risk over how abortion bans will affect treatments for ectopic pregnancies is the fact that more rare types of ectopic pregnancies exist, including ones where the pregnancy is growing inside a C-section scar or other area outside the safety of the main cavity of the uterus -- but still technically in the uterus. These rarer kinds of ectopic pregnancies are also life-threatening, and may be more difficult to diagnose and treat as such in a state that bans abortions with an emphasis on the pregnancy being in the uterus.
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
States are not prosecuting people who have abortions (yet)
Current state laws -- both those in effect and those in limbo in court -- prosecute other people involved in an abortion, not the person who's pregnant.
But the health impact may be already felt when a doctor is hesitant to treat patients, or pharmacists are reluctant to fill a prescription for mifepristone before interviewing a woman to ascertain whether her pregnancy is already ended and her situation is in line with state law.
"Even in these straightforward cases of basic OB/GYN practice, the laws leave providers questioning and afraid," Dr. Carley Zeal, an OB-GYN in Wisconsin, told The New York Times. "These laws are already hurting my patients."
Aside from hesitancy among health care providers, physicians also fear that worries people have about being prosecuted for having an abortion or miscarriage will stop patients experiencing complications from any kind of pregnancy loss from seeking care.
That's because it was already happening, before Roe was overturned. According to the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, there were over 1,700 arrests or prosecutions of women from 1973 (when Roe became law) to 2020 where their pregnancies were the focus of the case against them.
So will doctors report you if they suspect you had an abortion?
"The vast majority of health care professionals will not do that, because that's not caring for their patients," King said. But, she added, "I'm sure there's a very small, but unfortunately detrimental, minority who might."
Your current access to birth control shouldn't be impacted by the overturn of Roe v. Wade. However, there's reason to believe that could change in the future.
Carol Yepes/Getty Images
Birth control is still protected under the Affordable Care Act
Right now, IUDs, birth control pills and other birth control methods are legal in all 50 states. And they should also be covered at no out-of-pocket cost for those covered under the Affordable Care Act. The right to birth control is protected under two Supreme Court rulings: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird. (Another Supreme Court Case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, chipped away a little of that protection, however, finding that some corporations are exempt for religious reasons.)
Plan B or "morning after pill" brands are also not included in abortion bans, because they will not end an existing pregnancy. Most health plans should also cover them.
Legislators in Missouri last year voted to block taxpayer funding for IUDs and emergency contraception, casting doubt that all birth control devices will be protected indefinitely, at least in some states. The claims of legislators like Paul Wieland, a Republican state senator in Missouri, are that anything that has the potential to disrupt a fertilized egg's implantation into the uterus is an abortifacient.
The medical community has been clear that IUDs and emergency contraception do not cause abortions and will not end an existing pregnancy. Copper IUDs work mostly by causing a chemical change in the sperm and egg before they meet, according to the World Health Organization. Hormonal IUDs like Mirena work mostly by thickening cervical mucus so sperm can't reach the egg, and can also prevent ovulation. Plan B and similar pills likely won't work if a person has already ovulated, meaning the chances of it stopping implantation are currently understood to be slim.
Nevertheless, unlikely occurrences or instances where a fertilized egg may be prevented from implanting into a uterus could be called into question in future court cases.
Read more: Could a Post Roe v. Wade World Impact Your Access to Birth Control?
The information contained in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as health or medical advice. Always consult a physician or other qualified health provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.
Does Your Next Phone Really Need 5G? How to Decide
Does Your Next Phone Really Need 5G? How to Decide
5G was once synonymous with premium prices, but it's become the norm in most new phones -- even those that cost less than $300 in some cases.
But you might be wondering whether 5G is a necessary in a new a phone. Maybe you're getting a great deal on a refurbished device from a couple of years ago that doesn't support 5G. Perhaps you're eyeballing the iPhone 11, one of the cheapest phones Apple currently sells at $500 but that can't connect to 5G.
For US shoppers, the answer largely depends on what carrier you have, how much you're willing to spend and how long you're planning to hold onto your next phone. Since 5G is available in just about every new phone at no additional cost, there are few reasons not to buy a 5G-enabled phone.
Combine that with the fact that carriers are building out their midband networks -- which offer faster speeds than low-band 5G offerings as well as broader coverage than the fastest millimeter-wave networks -- and the argument for buying a 5G phone is even stronger.
Read more: Not All 5G Is the Same: We Explain the Different Names and Flavors
At the same time, it's important to remember that 5G speeds and coverage will vary depending on your carrier. And 4G phones will continue to function for years to come.
"They're not turning off those 4G networks anytime soon," said Avi Greengart, president and lead analyst for research and advisory firm Techsponential. "Your phone will be dead before you need to worry about it."
Understanding 5G
Figuring out whether you need 5G in your next phone starts with understanding the current state of 5G. All three major network providers in the US offer 5G, and there are three main flavors to be aware of.
There's low-band 5G, which is available broadly but provides similar speeds as 4G LTE, and millimeter-wave 5G, the super fast version that only operates at a short range. You likely won't notice the difference between 4G and 5G when you're on a low-band network. But millimeter-wave networks are so scarce you probably won't find yourself near one on a regular basis unless you frequent busy venues like stadiums, arenas or airports. Even then, the coverage is often only in select locations.
The happy medium between both of these networks is midband 5G, which provides faster speeds than 4G but can also cover much larger distances than millimeter wave. AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are all at different phases of their midband deployment, with T-Mobile currently taking the lead. The carrier said in February that its Ultra Capacity network, which is mostly composed of midband spectrum acquired from Sprint, reached 210 million people by the end of 2021. T-Mobile expects to reach 300 million people with its midband network, Ultra Capacity 5G, by the end of 2023.
Verizon, on the other hand, is aiming to cover 175 million people with its Ultra Wideband network, which uses millimeter wave and its midband spectrum, in 2022. AT&T plans to cover 200 million people with its own midband network by the end of the year.
Read more: Apple Needs Another Affordable 5G iPhone
T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T 5G
Faster 5G Network Reach
Time frame
T-Mobile
210 million people
2021
Verizon
175 million people
2022
AT&T
200 million people
2022
All these technologies can work together to provide better coverage, speed and performance than 4G LTE.
"So we're not just talking about cities, but a lot of the country where people live is covered by T-Mobile 5G," said Greengart. "And so you're going to want to buy a 5G phone both for coverage reasons and for speed."
How much are you willing to spend?
The iPhone 11 from 2019 is one of Apple's cheapest iPhones, but it doesn't support 5G.
Angela Lang/CNET
The biggest factor in determining whether you should buy a 5G phone is how much you're willing to spend. If you have less than $200 to spend on a new device, it might be difficult to find a worthwhile 5G phone.
If your budget allows for spending more than $400, there are several compelling 5G options like the $429 iPhone SE and $450 Galaxy A53 5G. The $450 Google Pixel 6A, which recently launched on July 28, also supports 5G. That's a significant departure compared to when the Samsung Galaxy S10 5G launched roughly three years ago for a sky high price of $1,300.
Cheaper phones may not support all flavors of 5G, namely the fastest millimeter-wave networks, but that shouldn't be a dealbreaker for most people shopping today. With its benefits in speed and range, the three major networks have prioritized midband 5G deployments over the past year. As long as your new phone supports midband 5G, you should be able to connect to faster speeds in more places.
It's important to consider what matters most to you in a phone and how long you're planning to hold onto a device. If you'd rather have a larger screen, a more contemporary design, dual cameras and are planning to upgrade your phone again in two years, the 4G-enabled $500 iPhone 11 might be a better choice than the $429 5G-capable iPhone SE.
But if you're looking for a phone that can get you through the next three years or so, it's probably best to look for a 5G device. Most Android phones in the $400-$500 range have 5G and modern features like multi-lens cameras and large screens.
The situation is different for Apple fans. The only 5G-enabled option under $600 is the 2022 iPhone SE, which has Apple's latest smartphone chip but lacks other staples like a big screen and multiple cameras. That might change this fall when the rumored iPhone 14 launches and Apple drops the iPhone 12 and 12 Mini's price accordingly.
Bob O'Donnell, president and chief analyst for Technalysis Research, says 5G will likely feel more essential in early 2024. By then, carriers will have had more time to build out their midband networks.
"You will get faster speeds," said O'Donnell. "Hopefully by then we'll see some additional services and apps that take advantage of 5G."
The bottom line
Sarah Tew/CNET
To decide whether you need 5G in your next phone, consider how much you're willing to spend, how long you plan to hold onto your phone before upgrading and what type of coverage your carrier provides.
Investing in a new 5G phone is generally the best move if you can afford it since it ensures that your device will feel fast and relevant for years to come. But if your budget is limited, or the 5G phones available to you right now don't fit your needs, you won't be missing out on too much by opting for 4G instead.
"As a purely functional phone, you can't go wrong with a good LTE phone," said O'Donnell.
At the year's Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, PC maker Lenovo showed off a handful of two-in-one PCs, some with new smart assistant software and game-ready graphics.
The Yoga 730 is the latest laptop to add Alexa, Amazon's smart assistant. At CES 2018, we saw Alexa announced for select ThinkPad laptops, but those were aimed at business users. The Yoga is a more mainstream product, making this yet another inroad for Alexa. Of course, since the Yoga 730 is a Windows machine, you can always use Cortana, the Microsoft smart assistant, as well.
The 13-inch Yoga 730.
Andrew Hoyle/CNET
The Yoga 730 comes in 13- and 15-inch versions. Both have UHD (4K) and full HD (1,920x1,080 pixels) touchscreen options, and 8th-gen Intel processors. The 15-inch model has an option for an Nvidia GeForce 1050 graphics card, which is powerful enough to play any current game at decent settings and full HD resolution, making this one of the only game-ready hybrids we've seen (there's also a GeForce 1060 option for the Surface Book 2).
The Flex 14 doesn't have the same flashy updates. But it's gotten a little bit thinner -- at 17.6 mm, Lenovo says its 11 percent thinner than the previous version -- and there's the option to add an Nvidia MX130 GPU, which isn't going to make this a gaming machine, but can help with photo and video editing. We've always like the Flex line for keeping most of what makes the Yoga so good, but at much lower prices.
The Yoga 730 will start at $879 for the 13-inch version (there's no international pricing at this time, but that's roughly £630 or AU$1,120) and $899 for the 15-inch version, while the Flex 14 starts at $599. All three will be available in April.
Galaxy S9 and S9 Plus : Hands-on with Samsung's iPhone X fighters.
MWC 2018 : All of CNET's coverage from the biggest phone show of the year.
Smartphone Accessory Deal: This Two-Pack of USB-C Cables is Just $6
Smartphone Accessory Deal: This Two-Pack of USB-C Cables is Just $6
It doesn't matter how many you've already got, you can never have too many USB cables. Particularly USB-C cables, which are becoming more universal by the day. There are even some Apple devices, which have historically stayed within their own charging ecosystem, that are making the switch to USB-C charging. And today only at Woot, you can snag this two-pack of USB-C charging cables for just $6, over half off the original $13 price.
This pack comes with two AmazonBasics 6-foot USB-C 2.0 to USB-C cables. Designed for universal use across devices from Apple, Samsung, Google and more, these cables are great for both charging and data transfer for phones, laptops, handheld consoles like the Nintendo Switch and more. They support fast charging of up to 60 watts, and data transfer speeds of up to 480Mbps. They're durable too, having passed rigorous bend tests, and they come with a limited lifetime warranty through Amazon.
The second-to-last episode of Westworld season 4 aired on Sunday, setting the stage for next week's finale. It caps off with a surprising twist -- this time involving Christina -- our brunette Dolores look-alike whose story took yet another turn.
In other news, this season's big bad, Chalores, has been replaced by her second-in-command. Let's run through what else happened in episode 7, including who's still standing on both sides as we head into the final episode.
A door to The Sublime
The episode starts with Bernard and Maeve pulling up to the futuristic Hoover Dam facility we saw in episode 1 -- the one William acquired with help from our first, nameless fly victim of the season. But eventually, the show reveals we are actually somewhere else… in The Sublime. When Bernard convened with Akecheta in The Sublime back in episode 3, he viewed these events before they took place (or it's one of the many paths he viewed that could potentially happen, I guess).
Bernard reveals to Maeve -- a version of her he's whipped up -- that "the hydroelectric server farm" they're looking at houses The Sublime. (Also called The Valley Beyond, The Sublime is a digital plane of existence we saw a bunch of Westworld hosts enter in season 2, leaving their physical bodies behind. Maeve's daughter is one of them.) In season 2, Dolores sent The Sublime -- and those in it -- somewhere out of reach. Turns out, it was here. Bernard uses the key he possesses to open the door.
Bernard tells Maeve that he's been down every possible path, and the outcome is always the same: extinction for both hosts and humans. He tells her they could escape that fate by uploading themselves to The Sublime. Maeve takes him up on the offer, and Bernard asks if that's what she would really say, or if that's just his impression of her.
Then, those events pretty much repeat in the real world (with the addition of some more on-screen action involving a big red robot). Bernard and Maeve arrive at the facility, where Bernard once again reveals it holds The Sublime and opens the door using his key. But he doesn't tell Maeve the truth about their ill-fated quest. Instead, he says that "If we get to her tower, we can save them as well as ourselves."
Chalores is shutting down the cities
Next, we spy Chalores, host William and a host version of Caleb. Like the last version of Caleb who got his neck snapped so unkindly last week, this one knows his daughter, Frankie, is alive. Chalores is a nickname for Charlotte Hale. In the past, Dolores made copies of herself -- the "self" that exists in her pearl -- and put one into a host version of Hale.
Chalores looked incredible in this episode (and has all season).
John Johnson/HBO
Chalores tells William to give them a minute, and then she reveals to Caleb that she's shutting down "the cities." (Does this mean there are more than the one we've seen?) She plans to stick humans in cold storage, mirroring how the hosts in Westworld were treated. She leaves Caleb in his confinement and tells a surprised William she's calling the human world quits because of the host/outlier issue. "If I don't do this today, there'll be less of us tomorrow," she says.
An already stressed-out host William is not happy about this news. Later, we see him visit human William again. In a long, icy spiel, human William tells his host doppelgänger that "culture doesn't survive, cockroaches do." He tells his host counterpart that if he could, he'd pull the plug on the whole world. "Only one of us needs to do what must be done," he tells the host. Host William says he understands, then stabs him.
'Dolores. Please.'
In this episode, Teddy confirms something many have probably suspected from the start: Christina is Dolores. But then the show piles on a new mystery: the version of Christina/Dolores we've been seeing in Hale's new world this season isn't actually there in the flesh. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one.
The "Christina equals Dolores" reveal comes relatively early on in the episode. Teddy tells Christina that he and she are "reflections of the people who made us." He then calls her Dolores. At this point, I'm still viewing her as being the Dolores robot from last season, with a memory-wiped mind courtesy of the Rehoboam machine. After learning from Teddy that her kind is less susceptible to death, she gets into a bath, drowns and instantly regains consciousness.
Later, Christina pays a visit to Olympiad Entertainment, where she uses her storytelling abilities to get the human writers to destroy their "stories" (putting what we've learned from past episodes together, I'm pretty sure these stories are the "pre-scripted loops" humans are traveling in). We see Christina and Teddy wander through Olympiad at the same time as Stubbs and Frankie. Christina and Teddy walk through a doorway, and then we see Stubbs and Frankie emerge a second later out of the same doorway. Strange. Shouldn't the good guys have bumped into each other?
Near the end of the episode, chaos reigns outside (more on that later), and Christina/Dolores tries to intervene. Teddy tells Christina that people can't see her. Christina asks why, and he reluctantly gives it up: "You're not in this world," he says, "It's real, but you're not."
Caleb and Frankie reunite
After Maeve and Bernard regroup with C/Frankie, C's girlfriend Odina and Stubbs at the abandoned '20s theme park, the squad is ready to enter Chalores' city.
Once there, they split up -- Odina grabs a boat, Bernard and Maeve set out to confront Chalores at her tower, and Frankie and Stubbs head to Caleb at Olympiad. Bernard reveals to Stubbs that Stubbs isn't going to make it.
Aurora Perrineau (Frankie) and Luke Hemsworth (Stubbs).
John Johnson/HBO
Thanks to Christina/Dolores' intervention, Caleb makes it out of his holding cell before Stubbs and C/Frankie arrive. Once they do, a traumatized Caleb ambushes them, locking Stubbs in the confined space and pinning Frankie up against a wall. But Caleb realizes that she's his real daughter soon enough, and the reunion is sweet. This long-awaited scene didn't disappoint.
A showdown between Maeve and Chalores
We've known since episode 5 that Chalores' plan for her kind is for them to eventually "transcend" -- undergo a procedure where they abandon their host bodies and, as she says in this episode, "evolve into the species that we were meant to become." Their pearls (aka, their minds) are taken out of their heads and placed at the top of tall, white machines. In the latest episode, she sends a message to the hosts that it's time to ditch their current bodies for good.
Maeve and Bernard approach Chalores in her tower, and they split up. But before they do, Bernard admits to Maeve what he's been hiding from her -- "No matter what we do, we can't win," he says. "There's no way to save this world. Everyone here is going to die. But we can save one tiny part of it." He asks Maeve if she's still willing to fight, and she shows him a small smile before continuing on.
Maeve finds Chalores about to transcend -- a drone host holding a whirring device near her head. Chalores grabs the device and she and Maeve battle it out. They tumble outside and continue to fight in shallow water. Then Maeve is shot in the head by host William. Next, the host turns on his creator, offering just a few words before also shooting Chalores in the head.
We see Bernard, who's up in Chalores' tower and recording himself speaking on what looks like a tablet. He cryptically says, "If you choose to give her that choice, you can't miss. Reach with your left hand." By the end of this episode, we still don't know who the message is for.
Host William arrives and shoots Bernard in the head. He also rejigs Chalores' sound-producing tower, causing "every man and woman and child -- host and human -- to fight until no one remains but the cockroaches." Given that the humans are controlled by the sounds, he must have ordered the humans to turn on the hosts.
Who's left standing
The show pivots to Frankie, Stubbs and Caleb, and we see people around them begin to fight each other violently. The three of them manage to escape the frenzy, but a bullet wounds Frankie.
On the other side of the fight, host William is pretty much our new big bad as we head into the finale.
Lingering questions
In last week's episode, Frankie caught on to Bernard's attempts to copy her and her friends using tech Chalores put in the '20s theme park. (He didn't deny it… or explain why.) This, combined with the fact that the door to The Sublime is sitting wide open has me thinking -- are copies of some humans (maybe those who visited the park) somehow going to end up in The Sublime?
How is Teddy back this season? At first, I thought he must have been a host created by Chalores, like William. But now it seems like he may not physically exist in Chalores' new world either.
Where did Maya, the roommate, go?
Is Bernard really gone? It seems like no one can actually die on this show, but Bernard's exit seemed more final than, say, Maeve's. We see him follow Charlie, his son as part of his backstory, through a door. We also hear his voice repeat what he said to Akecheta in the Sublime: "In every scenario, I die…" It seems to nail home that he was making a real sacrifice by carrying through with the plan.
Bipartisan Bill Would Compel Google to Break Up Its Ad Business
Bipartisan Bill Would Compel Google to Break Up Its Ad Business
What's happening
A group of senators introduced a new bill that would force Google to break up its online ad business if it's passed into law.
Why it matters
The bill is a threat to Google's primary revenue source and could up-end its business model.
What's next
The bill has a long way to go and there's no guarantee it will be passed into law, especially during an election year.
A bipartisan bill designed to break up Google's massive online ad business has been introduced in the US Senate.
The Competition and Transparency in Digital Advertising Act, introduced Thursday, would prevent companies processing more than $20 billion in digital ad transactions annually from engaging in ad sales, according to the text of the legislation. The bill would force Google to divest its digital ads business within a year if passed.
The bill targets companies like Google that operate in multiple parts of the online ad economy, which senators say is a conflict of interest. Ad sales on its giant Search product is a pillar of the $209 billion in revenue that Google raked in last year. The company also helps third-party advertisers sell and purchase ads online and runs auctions at which ads are sold.
"When you have Google simultaneously serving as a seller and a buyer and running an exchange, that gives them an unfair, undue advantage in the marketplace, one that doesn't necessarily reflect the value they are providing," Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican who is leading the bill, told The Wall Street Journal. "When a company can wear all these hats simultaneously, it can engage in conduct that harms everyone."
In a statement, Google said that its ad tools, along with those from its competitors, help American businesses grow and protect customers from privacy risks or misleading ads. "Breaking those tools would hurt publishers and advertisers, lower ad quality, and create new privacy risks," a Google spokesperson said. Google says that "low-quality data brokers" will flood the net with "spammy ads" and that this bill is the "wrong bill, at the wrong time, aimed at the wrong target."
In a press release, Lee and other senators called Google's business model a "tax on thousands of American businesses, and thus a tax on millions of American consumers."
The bill is the latest in a string of legislative proposals designed to limit the power of Big Tech. A package of five bills, including the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and Ending Platform Monopolies Act, directly target Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook parent Meta.
If some or all of these bills were to pass, it would give Congress substantially more power in dealing with the massive tech industry, which is widely seen as lightly regulated.
The bill is co-sponsored by Texas Republican Ted Cruz and Democrats Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. Similar legislation is set to be introduced in the House, according to The Journal.
The new legislation comes at a tricky time for Congress. Mid-term elections that could tip control to the Republicans take place in November. Opportunities to get a floor vote time might be limited.
Google is also facing lawsuits that accuse it of monopoly control of online ad sales. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is leading a coalition of 16 states and Puerto Rico in suing the search giant for allegedly controlling the online ad market. Google has said Paxton's allegations are inaccurate and asked a judge to dismiss the case.
Paxton has also filed a privacy lawsuit against Google. On Thursday, he amended it to include a claim that Google's Chrome browser tracks sensitive user data even when it's in incognito mode. A proposed class action lawsuit, Brown et al v. Google LLC, alleges that Google's Chrome browser collects data while in that private browsing mode.
