Thirty-eight years later, The Running Man is back on our screens, playing to a world that seems to have caught up with the original’s idiocy. This new one features a considerably less bulky, but no less watchable star in Glen Powell, playing runner Ben Richards. Fired from various jobs for insubordination, and tending to a sick toddler, he’s press-ganged into joining America’s favorite kill-or-be-killed game show, after a producer identifies him as “quantifiably the angriest man to ever audition.”

The show’s premise has been tweaked a bit, too. Instead of navigating a series of video-game-like levels for the length of a TV broadcast, Richards must now survive in the real world for 30 days, surveilled by hovering network TV camera droids, pursued by armed-to-the-teeth “hunters,” private police goons, and a general public who spot and film runners using a proprietary app on their smartphones. The longer he lasts, and the more pursuers he can kill, the more money he makes. He’s cheered (and booed) by a massive audience of brain-dead oafs called Running Fans, glued to their screens 24/7. Like Schwarzenegger’s Richard before him, Powell makes the transition from onscreen villain to beloved folk hero, mugging for the cameras as his antics drive the ratings.

If it sounds familiar, it’s because this new version of The Running Man, which is cowritten and directed by Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), draws as much from the original film and Stephen King’s source novel as it does from present-day reality. A modern-day America overseen by a game show president, where ICE squads team up with Dr. Phil McGraw to turn deportation raids into reality television, would seem ripe for a Running Man remake. But that’s the problem. Satire relies on caricature. And the new version is barely exaggerative. Does the very idea of a lethal game show seem that far off, in a world where the success of Netflix’s South Korean thriller series Squid Game (itself a variation on the The Running Man format) spawned an actual, licensed Squid Game-style competitive reality TV show? Or when a grinning zillennial YouTuber named “MrBeast” baits contestants with ten grand to sit in a bathtub full of snakes? A few weeks ago I watched live as rookie New York Giants’ running back Cam Skattebo’s ankle twisted 45-degrees, as if cranked by some invisible wrench, while a bar-full of rival fans cheered.

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have been tested as taxis for decades in San Francisco, Pittsburgh and around the world, and trucking companies have enormous incentives to adopt them.

But AV companies rarely share the crash- and safety-related data that is crucial to improving the safety of their vehicles—mostly because they have little incentive to do so.

Is AV safety data an auto company’s intellectual asset or a public good? It can be both—with a little tweaking, according to a team of Cornell researchers.

A new data-sharing roadmap

The team has created a roadmap outlining the barriers and opportunities to encourage AV companies to share the data to make AVs safer, from untangling public versus private data knowledge, to regulations to creating incentive programs.

“The core of AV market competition involves who has that crash data, because once you have that data, it’s much easier for you to train your AI to not make that error. The hope is to first make this data transparent and then use it for the public good, and not just profit,” said Hauke Sandhaus, M.S. ’24, a doctoral candidate at Cornell Tech and co-author of “My Precious Crash Data,” presented Oct. 16 at the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction.

His co-authors are Qian Yang, assistant professor at the Cornell Ann S. Bowers College of Computing and Information Science; Wendy Ju, associate professor of information science and design tech at Cornell Tech, the Cornell Ann S. Bowers College of Computing and Information Science and the Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute; and Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang, a former postdoctoral associate at Cornell and now assistant professor of communication at the University of Southern California, Annenberg.

Barriers to sharing AV safety data

The team interviewed 12 AV company employees who work on safety in AV design and deployment, to understand how they currently manage and share safety data, the data sharing challenges and concerns they face, and their ideal data-sharing practices.

The interviews revealed the AV companies have a surprising diversity of approaches, Sandhaus said. “Everyone really has some niche, homegrown data set, and there’s really not a lot of shared knowledge between these companies,” he said. “I expected they would be much more commonality.”

The research team discovered two key barriers to sharing data—both underscoring a lack of incentives. First, crash and safety data includes information about the machine-learning models and infrastructure that the company uses to improve safety.

“Data sharing, even within a company, is political and fraught,” the team wrote in the paper. Second, the interviewees believed AV safety knowledge is private and brings their company a competitive edge.

“This perspective leads them to view safety knowledge embedded in data as a contested space rather than public knowledge for social good,” the team wrote.

And U.S. and European regulations are not helping. They require only information such as the month when the crash occurred, the manufacturer and whether there were injuries. That doesn’t capture the underlying unexpected factors that often cause accidents, such as a person suddenly running onto the street, drivers violating traffic rules, extreme weather conditions or lost cargo blocking the road.

Potential solutions for safer autonomous vehicles

To encourage more data-sharing, it’s crucial to untangle safety knowledge from proprietary data, the researchers said. For example, AV companies could share information about the accident, but not raw video footage that would reveal the company’s technical infrastructure.

Companies could also come up with “exam questions” that AVs would have to pass in order to take the road. “If you have pedestrians coming from one side and vehicles from the other side, then you can use that as a test case that other AVs also have to pass,” Sandhaus said.

Academic institutions could act as data intermediaries with which AV companies could leverage strategic collaborations. Independent research institutions and other civic organizations have set precedents working with industry partners’ public knowledge. “There are arrangements, collaboration, patterns for higher ed to contribute to this without necessarily making the entire data set public,” Qian said.

The team also proposes standardizing AV safety assessment via more effective government regulations. For example, a federal policymaking agency could create a virtual city as a testing ground, with busy traffic intersections and pedestrian-heavy roads that every AV algorithm would have to be able to navigate, she said.

Federal regulators could encourage car companies to contribute scenarios to the testing environment. “The AV companies might say, ‘I want to put my test cases there, because my car probably has passed those tests.’ That can be a mechanism for encouraging safer vehicle development,” Yang said. “Proposing policy changes always feels a little bit distant, but I do think there are near-future policy solutions in this space.”

Other Ergonomic Mice to Consider

There are several more options on the market to consider. These didn’t cut it as our top picks for one reason or another, but we still like them enough to recommend.

Razer Pro Click V2 for $120: The biggest draw of the Pro Click V2 (7/10, WIRED Recommends) is the shape: It’s sleek, refined, and comfortable. Instead of the sharp edges and angles of the Razer Basilisk, the Pro Click V2 has the curves of a normal mouse and is just as comfortable in an office setting as it would be in a gaming setup. And that’s what makes the Click stand out—you can use it everywhere, for everything. The shape is comfortable for regular use, the design is innocuous yet still satisfying, and the mouse has most of the usual trappings of a productivity mouse: An ergonomic shape, dual-mode mouse wheel, multidevice Bluetooth connectivity, and a slot on the underside to store the dongle. At the same time, it has the specs of a gaming mouse: 1,000-Hz polling, 2.4-GHz connectivity, full programmability, rubberized grips on either side, and bright RGB lighting on the underside. The Pro Click V2 also has horizontal scrolling through the mouse wheel, where it can be tilted to either side to scroll left and right. This isn’t quite as quick or intuitive as the MX Master’s thumb wheel, but it’s still nice to have. While it doesn’t match the Basilisk in performance, the Pro Click V2 is more affordable and a professional option that still has the sturdy build quality and responsive sensors Razer is known for.

Logitech MX Master 3S

Photograph: Julian Chokkattu

Logitech MX Master 3S for $110: The previous-generation MX Master 3S is still worth considering if you can find it on sale for well below the MSRP or the price of the MX Master 4. You’re not missing a ton from the latest model, though the soft-touch plastic won’t look great after a few years of use (something the MX Master 4 addresses), and it doesn’t have the haptic-enabled Actions Ring. It’s still an excellent mouse and was previously the top pick in this guide.

Photograph: Henri Robbins

Elecom Deft Pro for $65: Likely the best of Elecom’s offerings, the Deft Pro is a simple and robust trackball operated with your index finger (as opposed to your thumb). This allows for more precise movements, but isn’t quite as intuitive. I found it comfortable to use for extended periods, but I had a few hiccups—the scroll wheel is awkward to use with a thumb, and the right-click button (located on the far side of the ball) is thin. Still, the overall shape is comfortable once you’ve adapted to it.

Contour Design Rollermouse Red Wireless for $394: This is a very niche and expensive product, but I was impressed by the build quality and usability. It is a wrist rest with an integrated mouse pad, operated using the cylinder at the top. You move the mouse left and right by sliding it along its rail, and up and down by rolling the cylinder forward and backward. It’s incredibly well made and shockingly smooth. A set of buttons sits underneath the spacebar, with dedicated copy/paste buttons, a double-click button, and adjustable sensitivity that beeps at you when you press the button. While the ergonomics feel unnatural at first, I quickly adapted to them and was able to navigate Windows easily within an hour or two of testing. However, as you would likely expect, any form of high-intensity gaming is out of the question: Halo CE felt less like a typical gaming experience and more like a challenge run with a drumset. The largest benefit of this device is that you can fully navigate your desktop without ever needing to remove your hands from the home row. It functions wonderfully and is a far more elegant solution than the trackpoint featured on keyboards like the HHKB Studio. With a high price and unconventional user experience, this is not for everyone. I struggle to say it’s worth the price. However, it’s specialized equipment, and these often tend to be expensive due to limited demand, high development costs, and low production numbers. If you’ve wanted something like this, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

Photograph: Henri Robbins

Elecom Huge Trackball for $55: This trackball is … huge. It takes up a large amount of space on my desk and is intended to be used as a full-hand experience. You would expect a trackball branded as “Huge” to be intended for large hands, but the opposite seems to be true. There is a clear way this is meant to be used, and it is not compatible with larger hands. In my testing, when my hand was placed in the “correct” position (with my palm in the center and my wrist resting fully on the device), my thumb and fingers all extended past the buttons on the mouse, to the point that I could not reach the scroll wheel or back button. Moving my hand back, the functionality of the ergonomic shape was limited—it felt no more effective than using a smaller trackball. However, multiple people I asked with smaller hands report that it’s quite comfortable for them. I recommend purchasing from a site with a reasonable return policy. Build quality is solid, with the buttons feeling clicky and responsive; the ball has the slightest bit of stickiness before it gets moving. The ratcheting of the mouse wheel is subtle, but still present, and all the buttons are made from textured matte plastic that allows for some grip without being abrasive.

Photograph: Henri Robbins

Elecom Rollermaster IST for $40: This is not a perfect trackball by any means, but for the price, it’s perfectly serviceable. The bearings are a bit loud, the materials don’t feel the most solid, but the functionality is all there, and the ergonomics are comfortable for a range of hand sizes. The trackball itself is easy to navigate, without any of the initial stickiness (sometimes called “stiction”) that some more premium models have—a trade-off for the louder operation of the ball. The roller bearings can also be easily removed and replaced with an included tool; however, a set of three replacement rollers is around half the price of the mouse at $18, and a set of the “upgraded” ball bearings is $25.

Keychron M6

Photograph: Henri Robbins

Keychron M6 for $70: If you like the design of the MX Master line, but would prefer a more gaming-oriented mouse, the Keychron M6 is a nice alternative. While the M6 doesn’t have Logitech’s advanced gesture controls or soft-touch exterior, it maintains the dual-mode scroll wheel, horizontal wheel, and general ergonomics while adding a 4,000-Hz refresh rate and shaving off almost half the weight of the 3S at only 78 grams. However, some small issues of build quality and a loss of functionality make this a less-than-ideal choice for most users—the dual-mode scroll wheel rattles during use, and the mouse feels lightweight to a fault. The higher-performance model’s wireless receiver requires a USB-C cable to connect to a device, which is a lot less convenient for laptop users compared to the low-profile dongle included with the 1,000-Hz model (and most other mice today).

Keychron M4

Photograph: Henri Robbins

Keychron M4 for $70: While you can realistically transport any of the mice on this list in a backpack or computer bag, I was impressed by just how compact the Keychron M4 is. I could easily slip it into a laptop bag or jacket pocket without any issue, and I even used it as a travel mouse for quite a while. While the shape isn’t great, or even good, ergonomically, I found the claw grip quite comfortable even during prolonged gaming sessions. However, it isn’t good enough that I would recommend it to anyone for daily use on a desktop setup unless they want the lightest mouse possible. The only real complaint I had with this mouse was the dongle: The 4,000-Hz model comes with a receiver shaped like a tiny keyboard with a USB-C port on the back, which meant I needed a cable to connect the receiver and a flat surface to place it on. Meanwhile, the 1,000-Hz model came with a simple USB dongle that could plug into the side of a laptop.

Logitech Pro X Superlight 2 Dex

Courtesy of Logitech

Logitech Pro X Superlight 2 Dex for $180: While this mouse is intended for high-intensity competitive gaming, I found its sculpted shape to be practical and comfortable for any long-term use, and its lightweight (60 grams!), no-frills design was quick and snappy for both spreadsheets and shooters. The mouse felt incredibly sturdy despite its weight, and the 8-kHz polling combined with a 44k-dpi sensor makes it the best-performing mouse on this list. While pricey, the Superlight DEX is a great single-mouse solution for someone who works from home and immediately starts queueing up after clocking out. It has a far more gaming-focused lean than the Razer Basilisk V3, which, while not bad, means you’re making a few more sacrifices to productivity in exchange for gaming performance.

Logitech MX Vertical

Photograph: Henri Robbins

Logitech MX Vertical for $120: While this mouse’s size and general shape both feel good for regular use, I found the shape to be a bit uncomfortable to fully grip and lift: A prominent ridge on the back dug into the space between my thumb and index finger, and the shape was just a bit too narrow to get a good hold on. However, the MX Vertical is still comfortable to hold with a looser grip, and it is perfectly serviceable for general office work and browsing, while putting less strain on the wrist than a standard horizontal mouse.

Logitech Lift

Photograph: Henri Robbins

Logitech Lift for $80: As one of the smaller vertical mice on this list, the Lift is just a bit too small. I found it difficult to comfortably grip this mouse for prolonged use, and friends with smaller hands found the same. That said, WIRED reviews editor Julian Chokkattu says his 5’2″ wife uses the Life and finds it perfect for her small hands, so your mileage will vary. Regardless of hand size, a larger vertical mouse is typically more comfortable for most people. It’s worth noting that the Lift is one of the only vertical mice I’ve tested with a left-handed configuration.

Mice to Avoid

Photograph: Henri Robbins

ProtoArc EM11 NL for $25: ProtoArc’s EM11 NL looks straight out of a sci-fi movie but falls short of real-world expectations. The sensor is a low-quality laser sensor that’s prone to jittering, and the underside of the mouse isn’t entirely flat—the sample I received wobbled like a chair with uneven legs. The shape of the mouse, while usable for smaller hands, is practically impossible to use comfortably with medium to large hands. The overall shape is too small to hold comfortably (the bottom of my hand dragged on the desk the entire time), and the flared section at the back, presumably meant to be a wrist rest, is far too angled to properly rest a hand on. There are some positive aspects to this mouse, like multi-device connectivity, a USB-A dongle, and adjustable sensitivity, but these struggle to make up for significant issues with build quality and ergonomics; issues I would argue are deal-breakers at any price.

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