The Morning After: Is the M3 MacBook Air any good?

Engadget’s resident laptop expert Devindra Hardawar put the 13- and 15-inch M3 MacBooks Air through their paces. Fundamentally, both are fantastic machines but probably lack some of the gosh-wow factor the M2 Airs had when they debuted in 2022. After all, the M2 heralded a new industrial design and far better internals, while the M3 is more of an iterative update. Think of it like the iPhone S-years, when a dramatic redesign (the iPhone 4, say) was followed by a more refined model (the 4S) the following year.

Consequently, reviewing the M3 is an exercise in spotting the small differences, like the faster Wi-Fi (6E), brighter display and quicker processing speed. Benchmarking saw both machines get out ahead of the M2, but you probably won’t notice if you’re using this machine casually. And Devindra’s clearly getting a kick out of being able to run games like Death Stranding on a fanless ultraportable. You can — and should — read on to find out if the M3 is a must-buy.

— Dan Cooper

The biggest stories you might have missed

Nikon buys high-end cinema camera company RED

You can write long-form articles on X if you pay for Premium+

Leica’s SL3 mirrorless camera offers a 60-megapixel sensor and 8K video

Spotify is mad at the French government and is taking it out on users

Prime Video’s latest Fallout trailer deftly captures the tone of the games

Microsoft’s neural voice tool for people with speech disabilities arrives later this year

Why Jack Dorsey thought Elon Musk could fix Twitter

This luxury handbag is made from the material NASA uses to collect comet dust

SpaceX lawsuit claims repeated instances of gender discrimination and basic safeguarding failures

Microsoft is holding a Surface and Windows AI event on March 21

​​You can get these reports delivered daily direct to your inbox. Subscribe right here!

Sony A6700 review: The company’s best APS-C camera yet

It’s great for video, less ideal for everything else.

Image of a black Sony A6700 on a black textbook in front of a blurred background with an orange flash.
Steve Dent for Engadget

Steve Dent, who knows more about cameras than I know about literally anything, has been using Sony’s A6700 and is now ready to lay down his verdict. He’s never been too much of a fan of Sony’s 6000-series models, which he says aren’t as good looking or usable as Fujifilm’s alternatives. The A6700 is an attempt to remedy this situation, and Steve says it’s a far better camera than its predecessor. But is it good enough for him to want to use it as his daily driver? You’ll have to read on to find out.

Continue Reading.

TikTok is encouraging its users to call their representatives about attempts to ban the app

Can the US Government withstand the stan army?

The geopolitical quagmire surrounding TikTok isn’t letting up, which has led the platform to use its secret weapon: its Stan Army. TikTok has started sending push messages to users telling them to speak to their representative lest the immensely addictive platform be shut down. It’s one way to get attention, but it may not endear the company to US lawmakers if it can so easily incite millions of people to start scrutinizing the political process all at once.

Continue Reading.

The real fight isn’t Tyson vs. Paul — it’s Netflix vs. its live streaming infrastructure

And the loser will probably be… humanity itself.

Netflix is devolving into the very thing it sought to destroy. It’s been stepping into the live broadcast space for a while and yesterday announced it would air a live punch fight between two people with extensive Controversies and Legal Issues sections on their Wikipedia pages. Given the high-profile nature of the participants and, presumably, people’s desire to see one or both get punched in the face, it should be a massive event. And it’s going to be the sternest test of Netflix’s capacity to use the internet to deliver millions of simultaneous streams of live TV.

Continue Reading.

The Tesla Model S shook the industry, but its echo is fading

It upended the EV world in so many ways, at least at the time.

Image of a Tesla Model S with its wheels horizontally-mounted to resemble a flying car from 'Back to the Future' on a green starscape.
Koren Shadmi for Engadget

Engadget is celebrating its 20th anniversary with a series of articles looking back on the biggest changes in the tech world over that time. The wonderful Tim Stevens is in the spotlight today to talk about the Tesla Model S and his experiences when it debuted. It’s a tale of the car’s innovations, its highs, lows and how the EV industry has changed in the ensuing years.

Continue Reading.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-morning-after-is-the-m3-macbook-air-any-good-121558687.html?src=rss

The Morning After: More fallout from the Digital Markets Act

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) limits the power of big platform holders, but it may have also created a new revenue stream (and some drama) for those same big names. Google has followed Apple’s lead in imposing extra charges on developers who want to circumvent its own app storefront. Companies luring users outside the Play Store will need to pay Google a cut of in-app purchases and subscriptions. I’m sure everyone will treat this as rationally as when Apple announced it too.

At the same time, Apple has once again suspended Epic Games’ developer access, concerned the games giant isn’t going to play by its rules. The iPhone maker pointed to tweets made by (Epic CEO) Tim Sweeney, suggesting a lack of faith in the company’s rules. Apple more or less said out loud it couldn’t trust Epic, especially given its track record of agreeing to work within Apple’s rules and then very publicly breaking those rules.

— Dan Cooper

The biggest stories you might have missed

41 state attorneys general tell Meta to fix its customer support for hacking victims

Rivian R2 specs leak from the automaker’s website

Meta explains how third-party apps will hook into Messenger and WhatsApp

Twitch will overhaul its mobile app for the first time since 2019

​​You can get these reports delivered daily direct to your inbox. Subscribe right here!

FDA approves the first over-the-counter continuous glucose monitor

You can buy one without a prescription in the summer.

The FDA has approved Dexcom’s Stelo Glucose Biosensor as the first wearable continuous glucose monitor to be sold over the counter. Sales of the device will begin this summer to help people who aren’t using insulin to manage their diabetes and also for more general use. I was surprised to learn these weren’t available to buy already since, in the UK, a startup called Zoe has been selling implantable monitors as part of its weight loss program for ages.

Continue Reading.

Microsoft engineer who raised concerns about Copilot image creator pens letter to the FTC

Shane Jones has blown the whistle on AI images before.

Microsoft’s rush to incorporate AI into so many user-facing products has driven whistleblower Shane Jones to the FTC. They wrote to the body, saying Copilot Designer can be used to create inappropriate images and should be removed until better safeguards are in place. The Windows giant and OpenAI have both previously said robust tools exist to steer the model away from creating some of the gruesome images Jones has alleged to have generated.

Continue Reading.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-morning-after-more-fallout-from-the-digital-markets-act-121534557.html?src=rss

The Morning After: More fallout from the Digital Markets Act

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) limits the power of big platform holders, but it may have also created a new revenue stream (and some drama) for those same big names. Google has followed Apple’s lead in imposing extra charges on developers who want to circumvent its own app storefront. Companies luring users outside the Play Store will need to pay Google a cut of in-app purchases and subscriptions. I’m sure everyone will treat this as rationally as when Apple announced it too.

At the same time, Apple has once again suspended Epic Games’ developer access, concerned the games giant isn’t going to play by its rules. The iPhone maker pointed to tweets made by (Epic CEO) Tim Sweeney, suggesting a lack of faith in the company’s rules. Apple more or less said out loud it couldn’t trust Epic, especially given its track record of agreeing to work within Apple’s rules and then very publicly breaking those rules.

— Dan Cooper

The biggest stories you might have missed

41 state attorneys general tell Meta to fix its customer support for hacking victims

Rivian R2 specs leak from the automaker’s website

Meta explains how third-party apps will hook into Messenger and WhatsApp

Twitch will overhaul its mobile app for the first time since 2019

​​You can get these reports delivered daily direct to your inbox. Subscribe right here!

FDA approves the first over-the-counter continuous glucose monitor

You can buy one without a prescription in the summer.

The FDA has approved Dexcom’s Stelo Glucose Biosensor as the first wearable continuous glucose monitor to be sold over the counter. Sales of the device will begin this summer to help people who aren’t using insulin to manage their diabetes and also for more general use. I was surprised to learn these weren’t available to buy already since, in the UK, a startup called Zoe has been selling implantable monitors as part of its weight loss program for ages.

Continue Reading.

Microsoft engineer who raised concerns about Copilot image creator pens letter to the FTC

Shane Jones has blown the whistle on AI images before.

Microsoft’s rush to incorporate AI into so many user-facing products has driven whistleblower Shane Jones to the FTC. They wrote to the body, saying Copilot Designer can be used to create inappropriate images and should be removed until better safeguards are in place. The Windows giant and OpenAI have both previously said robust tools exist to steer the model away from creating some of the gruesome images Jones has alleged to have generated.

Continue Reading.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-morning-after-more-fallout-from-the-digital-markets-act-121534557.html?src=rss

The best thing about the M3 MacBook Air is… the M2 MacBook Air

Apple has upgraded the 13 and 15-inch MacBook Airs with the M3 and a few new bells and whistles. But while I expected the company to keep the M1 around as its budget option, it swapped it out for the base model M2. Someone at Cupertino’s going to regret that, because the M2 Air is, despite its limitations, a damn fine machine. I don’t know if anyone needs the added performance the M3 Air provides, but I do know you can’t afford to ignore the base model M2.

Historically, Apple has kept a MacBook below a thousand dollars to hook price-sensitive buyers. A grand is a lot to spend on a machine if you’re broke, especially if there are cheaper low-end Windows machines (even if they are crap). Even then, the $999 MacBook is the “cheap” option, and Apple will hobble it just enough to upsell you to the $1,200 model it really wants you to buy.

That’s why I cynically expected the M1 to remain in place, because the slower chip and decade-old chassis was a nice compromise in exchange for a cheaper machine. Yes, the M1 would allow you to join the Apple SIlicon world, but you’d have to deal with a design that’s barely changed since 2017. The M2, by comparison, is less than two years old and is regarded as one of Apple’s best ever machines: The fact it’s available as the budget option is almost a flex.

This morning, I reread my colleague Devindra Hardawar’s great review of the M2 Air from 2022, and I still want one. The M2 has a wonderfully sleek design and comes equipped with plenty of great hardware. A fantastic 13.6-inch Liquid Retina display with a 500-nit backlight, a 1080p webcam, quad-speakers with support for Spatial Audio and Atmos. The better quality of stuff you got was probably Apple’s rationale for holding on to the M1, and charging $1,200 for the base M2 (which itself could be upsold for more with the better add-ons).

Then there’s the M2 silicon itself which, in this variation, has an 8-core CPU, 8-core GPU, 8GB RAM and a 256GB SSD. Look, I know that 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD are both major drags on the M2’s overall performance. But I can’t stress enough that this is an ultraportable without a fan designed for lower power tasks. If you buy a machine this thin and get annoyed that it can’t render a two hour 4K movie as efficiently as a Pro model, the computer isn’t the problem, no matter what it's running.

Of course, the sticks you could use to beat the M2 MacBook Air are the same ones for a lot of Apple Silicon machines. Limited external display support, limited port selection, no ability to add upgrades further down the road and nonexistent repair support. But some or all of those issues are probably not top of your list if you’re looking for a good machine to live your life with.

Ah, but what about the AI performance which Apple says is so much better on the M3 than its immediate predecessor? I’ll be honest, I don’t know how many people are doing AI-intensive tasks on a machine like this, or even beefier ones. After all, most people are more than happy to engage with generative AIs through a web client, which requires no local grunt at all.

Not to mention that the M2 has often been offered with a hefty discount through sellers like Amazon. I’d reckon that while the $999 is a bargain, someone will probably knock another hundred off that figure the next time there’s a shopping holiday. Who needs an M3 Air?

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-best-thing-about-the-m3-macbook-air-is-the-m2-macbook-air-144543065.html?src=rss

The best thing about the M3 MacBook Air is… the M2 MacBook Air

Apple has upgraded the 13 and 15-inch MacBook Airs with the M3 and a few new bells and whistles. But while I expected the company to keep the M1 around as its budget option, it swapped it out for the base model M2. Someone at Cupertino’s going to regret that, because the M2 Air is, despite its limitations, a damn fine machine. I don’t know if anyone needs the added performance the M3 Air provides, but I do know you can’t afford to ignore the base model M2.

Historically, Apple has kept a MacBook below a thousand dollars to hook price-sensitive buyers. A grand is a lot to spend on a machine if you’re broke, especially if there are cheaper low-end Windows machines (even if they are crap). Even then, the $999 MacBook is the “cheap” option, and Apple will hobble it just enough to upsell you to the $1,200 model it really wants you to buy.

That’s why I cynically expected the M1 to remain in place, because the slower chip and decade-old chassis was a nice compromise in exchange for a cheaper machine. Yes, the M1 would allow you to join the Apple SIlicon world, but you’d have to deal with a design that’s barely changed since 2017. The M2, by comparison, is less than two years old and is regarded as one of Apple’s best ever machines: The fact it’s available as the budget option is almost a flex.

This morning, I reread my colleague Devindra Hardawar’s great review of the M2 Air from 2022, and I still want one. The M2 has a wonderfully sleek design and comes equipped with plenty of great hardware. A fantastic 13.6-inch Liquid Retina display with a 500-nit backlight, a 1080p webcam, quad-speakers with support for Spatial Audio and Atmos. The better quality of stuff you got was probably Apple’s rationale for holding on to the M1, and charging $1,200 for the base M2 (which itself could be upsold for more with the better add-ons).

Then there’s the M2 silicon itself which, in this variation, has an 8-core CPU, 8-core GPU, 8GB RAM and a 256GB SSD. Look, I know that 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD are both major drags on the M2’s overall performance. But I can’t stress enough that this is an ultraportable without a fan designed for lower power tasks. If you buy a machine this thin and get annoyed that it can’t render a two hour 4K movie as efficiently as a Pro model, the computer isn’t the problem, no matter what it's running.

Of course, the sticks you could use to beat the M2 MacBook Air are the same ones for a lot of Apple Silicon machines. Limited external display support, limited port selection, no ability to add upgrades further down the road and nonexistent repair support. But some or all of those issues are probably not top of your list if you’re looking for a good machine to live your life with.

Ah, but what about the AI performance which Apple says is so much better on the M3 than its immediate predecessor? I’ll be honest, I don’t know how many people are doing AI-intensive tasks on a machine like this, or even beefier ones. After all, most people are more than happy to engage with generative AIs through a web client, which requires no local grunt at all.

Not to mention that the M2 has often been offered with a hefty discount through sellers like Amazon. I’d reckon that while the $999 is a bargain, someone will probably knock another hundred off that figure the next time there’s a shopping holiday. Who needs an M3 Air?

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-best-thing-about-the-m3-macbook-air-is-the-m2-macbook-air-144543065.html?src=rss

The Apple Car never felt real

Apple has reportedly pulled down the shutters on Project Titan, its initiative to build the future of transportation. If the reports are accurate, the project chewed through billions of dollars and several high-profile leaders as its mission shifted and shifted again. What may have started as a control-free autonomous vehicle was eventually scaled down to a generic EV but, ya know, made by Apple. But, I’ll be honest, I never believed we’d see an Apple Car in the real world, because it seemed so impossibly far-fetched as to be fictional.

I'm not saying Titan itself didn't exist, because every company has speculative projects, and I'm sure the reporting around what it achieved is accurate — Tim Cook definitely wrote "Car?" on a whiteboard at some point. If any company could walk in, learn the skills needed to build and launch a car and do it well (and profitably), it would be Apple. Other tech companies, like Sony, are making a real noise about entering the field, albeit in partnership with Honda. But, from a lot of logical angles, the idea that Apple would start making cars was impossible to fathom.

There’s a line in The Unbearable Lightness of Being where kitsch – a German word for bad or tacky art – is defined as a denial of the realities of life. Apple fits that description because while it’s wildly successful, it’s often despite decisions made that fly in the face of common sense. A watch that lasts for less than a day on a charge. A slippery, easily-dropped phone with a glass front and back that’s nightmarishly difficult to repair. A mouse that is still being sold with the charging port on its underside so you can only charge it when it’s not in use.

Even the most environmentally-friendly car still needs to lubricate its workings, wheels that leave rubber on the road, brake pads that wear down. Seats that have to deal with spilled coffee and toddler vomit when you’re on a long road trip, the grime you only seem to find when you’re loading IKEA boxes into your trunk. Can you imagine Apple’s design team, who were behind the FineWoven case, who had to be dragged kicking and screaming toward bigger batteries, USB-C and waterproofing, thinking about such considerations?

Not to mention that while Apple can exert a lot of control over its devices now, cars aren’t so neatly closed off. Imagine how hard it would be for a company obsessed with control to cede so much to the auto shops of the world. Yes, you need to take your Tesla back for major repairs but can you imagine not being able to replace your tires when you get a flat? Unless, of course, Apple is planning to build garages in every major population center to overcharge you when it comes time to get a routine service. 

And that’s before you get to the idea that Apple, who is quite obsessive about its brand, would have its logo plastered on the internet every time one of its cars so much as kissed a lamppost. Car accidents are currently an unfortunate fact of life that we, as a society, are not prepared to tackle the way we should. But all it would take is one fatality in an Apple car and the company would be demonized — and opened up to a raft of lawsuits all looking to get a piece of Apple’s cash pile.

A car also would muddy the company’s stance on environmental matters, and I can already picture the internal contortions. The executives driving their convertible Mercedes into Apple Park’s rarified subterranean parking garage would, I’m sure, quite like an Apple car. But I imagine the company’s teams who have to look at figures around energy consumption, emissions and climate change don’t. If Apple’s fine words about looking after the environment mean anything, it would throw its weight and expertise behind something better like scooters or e-bikes.

I’ve also struggled to fathom out how Apple would justify charging $100,000 for a limited-run EV when its real wins have come in the mass market. EVs take enormous amounts of capital and labor to assemble and it’s nowhere near as profitable as what Apple does today. In Q3 of 2023, VW — the world’s biggest car maker — made a net profit of about $4.7 billion, or about a quarter of what Apple made in the same period. How many luxury EVs would Apple be able to get out of the door and how many would it need to sell in order to justify that initial investment?

In fact, I suspect a lot of people piled a lot of unreasonable hopes on Project Titan's shoulders despite Apple's repeated scaling back. 'We'll make a car without a wheel, it'll be great,' you can imagine them saying, 'okay, maybe it'll have a wheel...' they added, years later, 'oh okay so, how about it's just a car that's not as autonomous as a Mercedes.' It hardly screams the sort of class-leading ambitions you normally see with an Apple product, does it?

And yes, there may have been lots of pretty renders of what an Apple car would look like made by talented graphic designers looking to bulk out their portfolio. And lots of wishful chat on social media about Apple buying another EV maker like Tesla or Rivian to slap its brand on top of — despite the fact that Apple buying a name-brand company outright has only happened once or twice in a decade. But, until the NDAs lapse and we get a tell-all book with internal imagery, I’m going to say that, despite the reported billions of dollars poured into it, the Apple Car never got close to being a real thing.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-apple-car-never-felt-real-163058168.html?src=rss

The Apple Car never felt real

Apple has reportedly pulled down the shutters on Project Titan, its initiative to build the future of transportation. If the reports are accurate, the project chewed through billions of dollars and several high-profile leaders as its mission shifted and shifted again. What may have started as a control-free autonomous vehicle was eventually scaled down to a generic EV but, ya know, made by Apple. But, I’ll be honest, I never believed we’d see an Apple Car in the real world, because it seemed so impossibly far-fetched as to be fictional.

I'm not saying Titan itself didn't exist, because every company has speculative projects, and I'm sure the reporting around what it achieved is accurate — Tim Cook definitely wrote "Car?" on a whiteboard at some point. If any company could walk in, learn the skills needed to build and launch a car and do it well (and profitably), it would be Apple. Other tech companies, like Sony, are making a real noise about entering the field, albeit in partnership with Honda. But, from a lot of logical angles, the idea that Apple would start making cars was impossible to fathom.

There’s a line in The Unbearable Lightness of Being where kitsch – a German word for bad or tacky art – is defined as a denial of the realities of life. Apple fits that description because while it’s wildly successful, it’s often despite decisions made that fly in the face of common sense. A watch that lasts for less than a day on a charge. A slippery, easily-dropped phone with a glass front and back that’s nightmarishly difficult to repair. A mouse that is still being sold with the charging port on its underside so you can only charge it when it’s not in use.

Even the most environmentally-friendly car still needs to lubricate its workings, wheels that leave rubber on the road, brake pads that wear down. Seats that have to deal with spilled coffee and toddler vomit when you’re on a long road trip, the grime you only seem to find when you’re loading IKEA boxes into your trunk. Can you imagine Apple’s design team, who were behind the FineWoven case, who had to be dragged kicking and screaming toward bigger batteries, USB-C and waterproofing, thinking about such considerations?

Not to mention that while Apple can exert a lot of control over its devices now, cars aren’t so neatly closed off. Imagine how hard it would be for a company obsessed with control to cede so much to the auto shops of the world. Yes, you need to take your Tesla back for major repairs but can you imagine not being able to replace your tires when you get a flat? Unless, of course, Apple is planning to build garages in every major population center to overcharge you when it comes time to get a routine service. 

And that’s before you get to the idea that Apple, who is quite obsessive about its brand, would have its logo plastered on the internet every time one of its cars so much as kissed a lamppost. Car accidents are currently an unfortunate fact of life that we, as a society, are not prepared to tackle the way we should. But all it would take is one fatality in an Apple car and the company would be demonized — and opened up to a raft of lawsuits all looking to get a piece of Apple’s cash pile.

A car also would muddy the company’s stance on environmental matters, and I can already picture the internal contortions. The executives driving their convertible Mercedes into Apple Park’s rarified subterranean parking garage would, I’m sure, quite like an Apple car. But I imagine the company’s teams who have to look at figures around energy consumption, emissions and climate change don’t. If Apple’s fine words about looking after the environment mean anything, it would throw its weight and expertise behind something better like scooters or e-bikes.

I’ve also struggled to fathom out how Apple would justify charging $100,000 for a limited-run EV when its real wins have come in the mass market. EVs take enormous amounts of capital and labor to assemble and it’s nowhere near as profitable as what Apple does today. In Q3 of 2023, VW — the world’s biggest car maker — made a net profit of about $4.7 billion, or about a quarter of what Apple made in the same period. How many luxury EVs would Apple be able to get out of the door and how many would it need to sell in order to justify that initial investment?

In fact, I suspect a lot of people piled a lot of unreasonable hopes on Project Titan's shoulders despite Apple's repeated scaling back. 'We'll make a car without a wheel, it'll be great,' you can imagine them saying, 'okay, maybe it'll have a wheel...' they added, years later, 'oh okay so, how about it's just a car that's not as autonomous as a Mercedes.' It hardly screams the sort of class-leading ambitions you normally see with an Apple product, does it?

And yes, there may have been lots of pretty renders of what an Apple car would look like made by talented graphic designers looking to bulk out their portfolio. And lots of wishful chat on social media about Apple buying another EV maker like Tesla or Rivian to slap its brand on top of — despite the fact that Apple buying a name-brand company outright has only happened once or twice in a decade. But, until the NDAs lapse and we get a tell-all book with internal imagery, I’m going to say that, despite the reported billions of dollars poured into it, the Apple Car never got close to being a real thing.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-apple-car-never-felt-real-163058168.html?src=rss

Apple Sports puts real-time scores on your iPhone lock screen

Apple today announced Sports, a new iPhone app offering real-time stats for a number of major leagues. Once installed, users can set their favorite team and get a trove of data on their lock screen in the live activities box when the team is playing. Available free starting today in the US, Canada and the UK, the app currently supports basketball, hockey and soccer football. The company added that other sports, including baseball and American football will debut for their upcoming seasons.

There are plenty of reasons you might not be able to watch your team of choice play live. You may have a prior engagement, the game may not be televised, or Todd Boehly has done so much damage to the club you can’t bear to look at it any more. In those situations, push alerts from major sports apps has been a lifeline, but it’s not always entirely reliable.

Now, it has been possible to get this working since iOS 16, if you fancied messing around in the depths of the Apple TV app. And some third-party platforms, like MLB’s homegrown app, would put this data in your lock screen or Dynamic Island. But Apple says that its own setup offers a “simple and fast way to stay up to speed on the teams and leagues they love.” The setup will also sync up with any sports preferences already stored in the Apple TV or Apple News apps.

Of more concern is that Sports will also offer up live betting odds for the games as they’re in play. It’s worth noting it will be possible to deactivate the live odds feature in settings, but it seems like it would have been smarter and less potentially harmful to make that opt-in, rather than opt-out.

Apple Sports is available to download now in English. French and Spanish are supported where available.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apple-sports-puts-real-time-scores-on-your-iphone-lock-screen-140050382.html?src=rss

Dr. Garmin will see you now

There’s a reason smartwatches haven’t replaced clinically validated gear when you visit the hospital — accuracy and reliability are paramount when the data informs medical procedures. Even so, researchers are looking for ways in which these devices can be meaningfully used in a clinical setting. One project in the UK has explored if a Garmin Venu 2 and dedicated companion app could be used to free up doctors and nurses, six minutes at a time.

The Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT) is used to diagnose and monitor a number of cardiovascular maladies. This includes conditions like Pulmonary Hypertension that, if left untreated, are eventually fatal. “[The test has been] a cornerstone of hospital practice and clinical trials for decades all around the world as [...] a marker of how well the heart and lungs are working,” project leader Dr. Joseph Newman told Engadget. While a change in a blood test marker might be clinically relevant, he said “it’s probably more important to someone that they can walk to the shop and back.” 

The test requires a patient walk on a flat, hard surface for six minutes straight, which stresses the heart enough to measure its capacity. A professional tests the patient’s heart rate and blood oxygen levels at the start and end. While it’s simple and reliable, "it’s not perfect,” according to Dr. Newman. “This is why we’ve looked to change it in two important ways," he said, "can we make it shorter [...] and digitize it for remote use?"

After all, six minutes is a lifetime in a clinical setting, and patients dislike having to schlep all the way to their hospital just to walk up and down a corridor. It’s why Newman and Lucy Robertson — both researchers at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge — began looking for ways to revolutionize the test. They wanted to see if the test could be shortened to a single minute, and also if it could be carried out by a patient at home using a Venu 2. 

The watch was connected to a secure and dedicated clinical trial platform built by Aparito – a Wrexham-based developer – for testing. This was then sent out to patients who were instructed to wear the watch and walk outdoors to complete their own tests. “They’re asked to walk on flat, even, dry, relatively straight roads rather than in laps or circuits,” Dr. Newman said, with patients walking at their own natural pace.

“We carried out a product appraisal early on in the research process and were open-minded as to the brand or model,” said Dr. Newman. “Garmin came out on top for a few reasons; we can access raw data as well as Garmin’s algorithmically-derived variables,” he said. Because the research was being funded by a charity, the British Heart Foundation, the watch had to offer good value for money. It helped that Garmin, with its established health research division, gave the team “confidence in the accuracy of the sensors,” not to mention the fact that Aparito feels that “the Garmin SDK is relatively easy to work with,” he added. 

But while Garmin is in use right now, there’s no reason this setup couldn’t eventually work with a number of other brands. “As long as the technology works, it’s accurate, reliable and patients accept it, then we’re not tied to any brand,” he said.

There are several benefits in giving patients the ability to run the tests at home: it’s more representative of the demands of their actual life, and patients can retake the test at regular intervals, making it easier to track that person’s health over time. “We can see real value in providing patients with pulmonary hypertension with an app and smartwatch to monitor their progress,” Dr. Newman said. “It’s unlikely to ever fully replace the need for in-person hospital reviews, but it will likely reduce their frequency.”

The results of the study right now suggest cutting the test to one minute has no detrimental effect on its outcome or accuracy, and that patients are far more likely to run the test regularly if they’re able to do so at home. “It’s likely that the upfront costs of wearables [to a hospital] may be offset by the longer term reduction in hospital visits,” Dr. Newman said. If that turns out to be right, it means clinicians can better focus their time and efforts where their expertise is more valuable.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/dr-garmin-will-see-you-now-160013340.html?src=rss

The ice caps are melting. Is geoengineering the solution?

Since 1979, Arctic ice has shrunk by 1.35 million square miles, a new JPL study found ice loss in Greenland is far worse than previously thought and Antarctic ice is now at the lowest level since records began. The more they melt, the faster the rate of decline for the ice that remains until we’re faced with a series of catastrophes. The most immediate of which is sea level rise which threatens to eradicate whole nations that are situated on low-lying islands. How do we stop such a problem? While we remedy the longer-term issues around fossil fuel consumption, we might have to buy ourselves more time with geoengineering.

The severity of this situation can’t be stressed enough. Professor John Moore of the Arctic Center, University of Lapland, says that we’re long past the point where emissions reductions alone will be effective. “We are faced with this situation where there’s no pathway to 1.5 [degrees] available through mitigation,” he said. “Things like the ice sheets [melting] and other tipping points will happen regardless,” adding that the Earth’s present situation is akin to a patient bleeding out on the operating table, “we are in this situation where we cannot mitigate ourselves out of the shit.”

Moore is one of the figures behind Frozen Arctic, a report produced by the universities of the Arctic and Lapland alongside UN-backed thinktank GRID-Arendal. It’s a rundown of sixty geoengineering projects that could slow down or reverse polar melting. A team of researchers opted to examine every idea, from those already in place to the ones at the fringes of science. “We wanted to be thorough,” said Moore, “because even the craziest idea might have a nugget of gold in there.” Each approach has been given a brief analysis, examining if it’s feasible on a scientific or practical basis, if it would be potentially helpful and how much it would cost. The report even went so far as to look at pykrete, a wacky World War Two initiative to create artificial glaciers for strategic use by mixing sawdust or paper products into ice.

If you’re curious and don’t have a day or two to read the report yourself, you can boil down the approaches to a handful of categories. The first is Solar Radiation Management, i.e. making the polar regions more reflective to bounce away more of the sun’s heat. Second, there’s artificial ice generation to compensate for what has already been lost. Third, enormous engineering work to buttress, isolate and protect the remaining ice — like massive undersea walls that act as a barrier against the seas as they get warmer. Finally, there are measures that nibble at the edges of the problem in terms of effect, but have more viable long-term success, like preventing flora and fauna (and the warmth they radiate) from encroaching on regions meant to remain frozen.

If you’re a climate scientist, the likely most obvious approach is the first, because we’ve seen the positive effects of it before. Albedo is the climate science term to describe how white ice acts as an enormous reflector, bouncing away a lot of the sun’s heat. Ice ages dramatically increase albedo, but there are more recent examples in living memory: In 1991 Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines, erupted, spewing an enormous amount of volcanic ash into the atmosphere. (The event also caused a large amount of damage, displaced 200,000 people and claimed the lives of at least 722.) According to NOAA, the ash dumped into the atmosphere helped reflect a lot of solar heat away from the Earth, causing a temporary global cooling effect of roughly 1.5 degrees celsius. The devastation of Pinatubo isn’t desirable, nor was the ozone depletion that it caused, but that cooling effect could be vital to slowing global warming and polar melting.

It’s possible to do this artificially by seeding the clouds with chemicals deposited by an airplane or with ground-based smoke generators, which can also be used to promote rain clouds. This is a tactic already used in China to help make rain for agriculture and to alleviate drought-like conditions. In this context, the clouds would act as a barrier between the sun and the ice caps, bouncing more of that solar radiation away from the Earth’s surface. Unfortunately, there’s a problem with this approach, which is that it’s incredibly expensive and incredibly fussy. The report says it’s only viable when the right clouds are overhead, and the work would require enormous infrastructure to be built nearby. Not to mention that while we have some small shreds of evidence to suggest it might be useful, there’s nothing proven as yet.

And then there are the second order effects when these approaches then spill over into the rest of the global ecosystem. “If you do sunlight reflection methods and you put anything up in the atmosphere, it doesn’t stay where you put it.” That’s the big issue identified by Dr. Phil Williamson, honorary associate professor at the University of East Anglia and a former contributor to the UN’s keystone Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. His concern is that regional, targeted climate solutions “don’t solve the problem for the whole world,” and that if you’re not tackling climate change on a global scale, then you’re “just accentuating the difference.” With a cold arctic, but rising temperatures elsewhere, you’re climbing aboard a “climate rollercoaster.”

Second in the ranking of hail-mary climate approaches is to build a freezer to both cool down the existing ice and make more. Sadly, many ideas in this area forget that ice sheets are not just big blocks of immovable ice and are, in fact, liable to move. Take the idea of drilling down two miles or so into the ice sheet and pumping out the warm water to cool it down: Thanks to the constantly shifting ice and water, a new site would need to be drilled fairly regularly.

There’s another problem: The report says one project to bore a hole down 2.5km (1.5 miles) burned 450,000 liters of fuel. Not to mention how much energy it would consume to run the heat exchangers or freezers to create fresh ice on such a scale. That's a considerable amount of greenhouse gas pollution for a project meant to undo that exact type of damage. Dumping a layer of artificially-made snow on a mountain may work fine for a ski resort when the powder’s a little thin, but not the whole planet.

As hard as the scientific and engineering battles will be, there’s also the political one that will need addressing. “A lot of people get quasi-religiously upset about putting stuff into the stratosphere,” said Professor John Moore, “you’d think they’d get similarly upset about greenhouse gasses.” One strategy under consideration is to inject sulfur into the atmosphere to replicate the cooling effects observed after major volcanic eruptions. The sulfur would form SO2, creating thick layers of dense cloud to block more heat from reaching the ice. But if you, like me, have a high school-level knowledge of science, that’s a scary prospect given that sulfur dioxide would resolve to sulfuric acid. Given the microscopic quantities involved, there would be little-to-no impact on the natural world. But the image of acid rain pouring down from the clouds means it’d be a hard sell to an uninformed population.

But if there is a reason for concern, it’s that any unintended consequences could pose a problem in the global political space. “It’s almost like declaring war on the rest of the world if [a nation] goes it alone,” says Phil Williamson, “because any damage or alteration to the global climate system, the country that did it is responsible for all future climatic disasters because the weather isn’t the same.”

Of course, Moore knows that the Frozen Arctic report’s conclusions aren’t too optimistic about a quick fix. He feels its conclusions should serve as a wake-up call for the planet. “Nobody is going to scale up something for the entire arctic ocean overnight,” he said, but that this is the time to “find ideas that might be valuable [...] and then put resources into finding out if [those ideas] really are useful.” He added that the short turnaround time before a total climate disaster isn’t much of an issue, saying “engineers can pretty much do anything you ask them to if you put enough resources into it.” Because the alternative is to do nothing, and “every day that we choose to do nothing, we accept more of the damages that are coming.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-ice-caps-are-melting-is-geoengineering-the-solution-150004916.html?src=rss