ResidentialBusiness

An unpopular government cannot afford to be branded dishonest by the public View the full article

The most obvious use case for generative AI in editorial operations is to write copy. When ChatGPT lit the fuse on the current AI boom, it was its ability to crank out hundreds of comprehensible words almost instantly, on virtually any topic, that captured our imaginations. Hundreds of “ChatGPT wrote this article” think pieces resulted, and college essays haven’t been the same since. Neither has the media. In October, a report from AI analytics firm Graphite revealed that AI is now producing more articles than humans. And it’s not all content farms cranking out AI slop: A recent study from the University of Maryland examined over 1,500 newspapers in the U.S. and found that AI-generated copy constitutes about 9% of their output, on average. Even major publications like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal appear to be publishing a minimal number of words that originated from a machine. I’ll come back to that, but the big takeaway from the study is that local newspapers—often thought to be the crucial foundation of free press, and still the most trusted arm of the media—are the largest producers of AI writing. Boone Newsmedia, which operates newspapers and other publications in 91 communities in the southeast, is a heavy user of synthetic content, with 20.9% of its articles detected as being partially or entirely written with AI. Why local papers rely on AI Putting aside any default revulsion at AI content, this actually makes a lot of sense. Local news has been stripped down to the bone in recent years as reader attention has fragmented and advertising dollars have shrunk. A great deal of local papers have folded (more than 3,500 since 2005, according to Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University), and those that remain have adopted other means to survive. In smaller markets, like my New Jersey town, it’s not uncommon for the community paper to republish press releases from local businesses. The fact is, writers cost money, and writing takes time. AI, of course, radically alters that reality: for a $20 a month ChatGPT subscription, you now have a lightning-fast robot writer, ready to tackle any subject. Many unscrupulous people treat this ability as their own room full of monkeys with typewriters, cranking out articles just to attract eyeballs—the definition of AI slop. But there’s a difference between slop and AI-generated copy written to inform, with the proper context, and edited by a journalist with the proper expertise. In a local news context, the use case for AI writing that’s most often cited is the lengthy school board meeting that, if covered, would take a reporter several hours of listening to transcripts, synthesizing, and contextualizing just to cover what happened. With AI, those hours compress to minutes, freeing up the reporter to write more unique and valuable stories. More likely, of course, is that the reporter no longer exists, and an editor or even a sole proprietor simply publishes as many pieces as they can that serve the community. And while it’s not the ideal, I don’t see what’s wrong with that from a utilitarian perspective. If the copy informs, a human has done a quality check, and the audience is engaging with it, what does it matter whether or not it came from a machine? AI mistakes hit different That said, when mistakes happen with AI content, they can undermine a publication’s integrity like nothing else. This past summer, when the Chicago Sun-Times published a list of hallucinated book titles as a summer reading list, it caused a national backlash. That’s because AI errors are in a different category—since AI lacks human judgment and experience, it makes mistakes a human never would. That’s the main reason using AI in copy is a risky business, but safeguards are possible. For starters, you can train editors to catch the mistakes that are unique to AI. Robust fact-checking is obvious, and using grounded tools like Google’s NotebookLM can greatly reduce the chance of hallucinations. Besides factual errors, though, AI writing has many telltale quirks (repeated sentence structures, dashes, “let’s delve . . .,” etc.). I call these “slop indicators,” and, while they’re not disastrous, their continued presence in copy is a subtle signal to readers that they should question what they’re reading. Editors should stamp them out. Which is not to say publications shouldn’t be transparent about the use of AI in their content. They absolutely should. In fact, I’d argue being as detailed as possible about the AI’s role at both the article level and in overall strategy is crucial in maintaining trust with an audience. Most editorial “scandals” over AI articles blew up because the copy was presented as human-written (think about Sports Illustrated‘s fake writers from two years ago). When the publication is upfront about the use of AI, such as ESPN’s write-ups of certain sports games, it’s increasingly a non-event. Which is why it’s confusing that some major publications seem to be publishing AI copy without disclosing its presence. The study claims that AI copy is showing up in some national outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. This appears to be a similar, if smaller scale, issue as the Sun-Times incident: Almost all of the instances were in opinion pieces from third parties, though it appears to be happening around 4–5% of the time. That suggests third parties are using AI in their writing process without telling the publication. In all likelihood, they’re not aware of the outlet’s AI policy, and their writing contracts may be ambiguous. However, it’s not like the rest of the content was totally immune from AI writing; the study revealed it to be present 0.71% of the time. Getting ahead of AI problems All of this speaks to the point about transparency: be straight with your audience and your staff about what’s allowed, and you’ll save yourself headaches later. Of course, policies are only effective with enforcement. With AI text becoming more common and more sophisticated, having effective ways of detecting and dealing with it is a key pillar of maintaining integrity. And dealing with it doesn’t necessarily mean forbidding it. The reality is AI text is here, growing, and not going away. The truism about AI that’s often cited—that today is the worst it will ever be—goes double for its writing ability, as that is at the core of what large language models do. Of course, you can bet there will be train wrecks over AI writing in the future, but they won’t be about who’s using AI to write. They’ll be about who’s doing it irresponsibly. View the full article

Being asked to apply for a promotion is often framed as an unqualified win: validation that your work is seen and your potential recognized. Yet for many high-achieving professionals, that invitation can spark as much ambivalence as excitement. Because the question isn’t only “Can I do this?” It’s also “Do I want to live this way?” Promotions can be career accelerators, but they also reconfigure your days, your priorities, and your sense of balance. The challenge is learning to evaluate the opportunity without being swept away by it—to discern whether it’s truly aligned with this season of your life. The recognition feels good—until the logistics set in There’s an undeniable thrill in being seen. Someone has connected the dots between your competence and your potential. A promotion can expand your reach and amplify your impact. But recognition isn’t the same as readiness. The women I coach rarely question whether they can do the job; they question whether they can do it well while maintaining the life they’ve intentionally built. Before saying yes, imagine your typical Tuesday six months from now. What fills your calendar? What’s energizing—and what’s draining? If the answer feels expansive, that’s information. If it feels heavy, that’s information, too. Beware the “just for practice” mindset Many people apply with low expectations, telling themselves they’re “just interviewing for practice.” But interview processes are designed to entice you—they make you picture yourself in the role and attach to the possibility. That’s not a reason to opt out, but it’s a reason to stay clear-headed. Know what success looks like before you begin, so you’re deciding from intention, not momentum. Ask two grounding questions When you’re stuck between ambition and hesitation, two questions can clarify your thinking: Can I live with the outcome if I don’t apply and dislike who gets the job? If that thought bothers you, it may signal that you care deeply about the work or the direction of your organization. What looks like ambivalence might actually be conviction. Can I live with the outcome if I do apply and don’t get it? If rejection would shake your sense of worth, pause and make sure you have the support to weather it. If you can answer yes to both, you’re operating from clarity rather than fear. Readiness vs. willingness When someone says, “You’d be great for this,” they’re recognizing your readiness. But willingness—the energy and capacity to take it on—is a separate question. You may have every credential yet still feel an internal no. Maybe your kids need you differently right now, or you’ve finally found equilibrium after years of intensity. That’s not a lack of drive—it’s discernment. Sustainable growth depends on timing. The real cost of “up” Leadership often brings influence—but also more meetings, politics, and distance from the work you love most. One client put it bluntly: “I thought a promotion would mean more freedom. It meant more meetings about other people’s freedom.” If the day-to-day realities of the new role sound energizing, that’s your green light. If they sound exhausting, it’s okay to hit pause. Ambition doesn’t have to mean saying yes to everything. Build the infrastructure for success If you move forward, do it deliberately. A bigger job requires a sturdier foundation—at work and at home. Clarify what support you’ll need, what boundaries will sustain you, and what you can delegate. Thriving in a higher role isn’t about doing more alone; it’s about designing systems that help you hold more together. Decide—and own it If you say yes, treat the process as a two-way interview. Ask about resources, expectations, and what success actually looks like. Enter the role with curiosity and flexibility, not perfectionism. If you say no, do it with confidence. Try something like: “I’m honored to be considered. Right now, I’m focused on deepening my impact where I am and want to be intentional about my next step.” That’s not avoidance—it’s leadership. The paradox of promotion Promotions are both validating and destabilizing. They can expand your influence—or stretch you too thin. The goal isn’t to make the “right” choice, but an honest one. When someone taps you on the shoulder and says, “You should apply,” take the compliment. Then take a breath. Listen to both voices inside you—the one that craves growth and the one that craves peace. True wisdom lives in the space between them. View the full article

Tech leaders say systems now rival human intelligence in key tasks, further fuelling the superintelligence debateView the full article

UK broadcaster says uncertain economic outlook causing widespread cautionView the full article

Matt outworked his peers and risen a rung too high on the career ladder—at least, too high for the good of anything but his insecure ego. Constantly fearing his bluff would be blown, he overcompensated by striving to impress upward while leading from fear. His anxiety seeped through his management team, then filtered into the ranks beneath, chipping away at everyone’s courage. He micromanaged, filtered feedback, and pushed out anyone who challenged him—the best, brightest, and boldest. When crisis hit, his “play not to lose” mentality magnified while competitors gained ground Chances are you’ve met someone like Matt. They’re crushing every deadline, exceeding every target, climbing every ladder. But look closer, and you may also see fractured relationships, disenchanted colleagues, and toxic team dynamics in their wake. Meet the “insecure overachiever”—exceptionally capable people whose deep-seated insecurities override their nobler aspirations. These aren’t garden-variety workaholics. They’re high performers driven by a gnawing fear of not being enough: not smart enough, valued enough, worthy enough. The distinction between healthy ambition and insecure overachievement is deceptively subtle. Both deliver results. But healthy ambition stems from wanting to contribute value and build connection, while insecure overachievement is fueled by the need to prove worth and alleviate anxiety. Why The Best Workers Can Destroy The Most Value What makes this pattern problematic is that organizations often reward the dysfunction. Insecure overachievers stay later, work harder, say yes faster, and consistently over-deliver. Those in power generally love them—until the hidden costs surface: toxic cultures, talent loss, and teams that become competitive battlegrounds rather than collaborative ecosystems. The warning signs can be subtle. Wins bring only fleeting relief before anxiety about the next goal kicks in. They sacrifice essentials—sleep, health, relationships—for work extras. Self-worth becomes dangerously intertwined with output: a bad day at work equals being a bad human. Here’s where it gets destructive: insecurity rarely stays contained. Insecure overachievers often shore up fragile egos by diminishing others. When your worth feels constantly threatened, making others feel smaller provides temporary relief. Axios cofounder Jim VandeHei put it bluntly “Nothing destroys more relationships, teams, or companies than insecure people in power,” he warned. “It’s an insidious form of cancer.” Breaking Free Without Breaking Down Recognizing yourself in this pattern? The good news: breaking free doesn’t mean abandoning ambition. It means realigning it from proving something to improving something. Find Your Summon Bonum. Roman philosopher Cicero coined this phrase—Latin for “the highest good”—believing everyone should aspire toward it. Until we’re more committed to a positive future outcome, our actions will be governed by fear of a negative one. Trade proving for improving. When all your energy focuses on impressing others, it’s taken from improving yourself and tapping into your creative faculty to bring smarter solutions. The irony? Shifting from external validation to personal growth and contribution creates more sustainable success—and greater respect—over time. Instead of “What did others think?” ask “What did I learn?” Schedule non-negotiable recovery. Treat rest like any other crucial meeting. Organizational psychologist Adam Grant’s research demonstrates that meaningful contribution—not endless output—drives long-term well-being and sustainable performance. Practice radical self-compassion. Talk to yourself like you would a trusted friend facing the same struggles. Dr. Kristin Neff’s research shows self-compassion actually improves performance by reducing the fear that fuels over-functioning. Embrace the insecure part of yourself; befriend that younger version who learned that achievement equaled love. Leading Insecure Overachievers If you manage these high performers, resist the temptation to simply enjoy their output while ignoring their patterns. Left unchecked, their behaviors can poison entire teams. Spot the early warnings. Notice team members who rarely delegate, constantly seek reassurance despite competence, take more credit than due, or obsess over managing upward while neglecting their own teams. Like Matt, they create competitive rather than collaborative environments. Have direct conversations about workload and help them see how their drive affects team dynamics, not just individual metrics. Recognize effort, not just results. Focus on contribution over competition. Acknowledge people for who they are, not only what they produce. Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety shows that when people feel safe to be imperfect, teams become more innovative and resilient. Model healthy boundaries. If you’re sending midnight emails and working weekends, you’re reinforcing the very behaviors you want to change. Demonstrate that rest and boundaries are professional strengths, not weaknesses. The Path Forward Organizations need ambitious, competitive, and driven professionals. But the healthiest ambition comes from being committed to outcomes that transcend self-interest and insecurity alleviation. Organizations whose leaders are more committed to purposeful growth over impression management will ultimately outperform others. The real question isn’t whether you’re achieving enough—it’s whether you’re achieving for the right reasons, and whether your drive lifts others up or tears them down. Sustainable success isn’t about proving your worth at others’ expense. It’s about expressing your potential while helping others do the same. Don’t be a Matt. The world has enough insecure overachievers already. View the full article

Libertarian president vows to double down on radical transformation of Argentina’s economy after midterm election victoryView the full article

Former Tory minister Sir John Redwood and City executive Mark Dowding contribute to CFABB reportView the full article

Mohammed bin Salman’s utopian city was undone by the laws of physics and financeView the full article

On Jeff Bezos’s defence of AI maniaView the full article

Big Four firm says move reflects better management of workloads View the full article

Use of derivatives to enhance bets on UK government bonds raises parallels with strategies that fuelled 2022 meltdownView the full article

The lender reported $33.3 million in net income in the third quarter this year, up from the second quarter and same period a year earlier. View the full article

Chancellor looks to offset a forecast sharp drop in government revenue from fuel duty View the full article

Anna's Archive, a popular website for pirating books and articles, seems to be square in Google's sights, according to copyright and digital rights publication TorrentFreak. The search giant is said to have blocked some 749 million Anna's Archive URLs from showing up in search results, TorrentFreak found, after combing through a recent transparency report. The removal wasn't necessarily targeted, as Google regularly delists content at the request of copyright holders. At time of this writing, has taken down links to 15,125,359,564 pages since 2011. But this is the latest in an ongoing, AI-prompted saga that is seeing copyright holders crack down on so-called "shadow libraries," and it already represents around 5% of Google's overall takedowns. Anna's Archive is a platform for pirated e-booksPersonally, I hadn't heard of Anna's Archive, which makes sense—it's a newer player in the field. The platform popped up in 2022, shortly after its predecessor, Z-Library, had its domains seized by the U.S. Department of Justice. Since then, it's been quietly operating on its own little corner of the internet, serving as an open-source search engine for literary works that links to free publicly available sources when they exist, and pirated uploads when they don't. Like Z-Library, it's been blocked by German ISPs and sued in the U.S., but remains operational. You can think of it kind of like the Pirate Bay, but for literary works—but on a larger scale (impressive given how new it is). TorrentFreak notes that only 4.2 million Pirate Bay URLs have been taken off Google, which is paltry compared to Anna's Archive's numbers. AI scraping could be a factorThat discrepancy could be due to more aggressive takedown filing from publishers and authors, as more than 1,000 separate users have issued takedown requests to date, according to the Google data. These include both individuals and larger names like Penguin Random House, and their diligence could be related to Anna's Archives' stance on AI, as the site has admitted that it has freely provided access to 30 LLM developers to train on its "illegal archive of books," and still openly hosts freely accessible pages for others to access. Where copyright holders and readers will go from here is still up in the air. It's important to note that, despite all appearances to the contrary, Google does not own the internet. Removing a site from its search engine does not prevent users from visiting it directly, and all three Anna's Archive domains—annas-archive.org, annas-archive.se, and annas-archive.li—remain live. Additionally, Anna's Archive does not host any pirated content itself, but simply provides users to links where they can find it. All of this puts it in a legal gray area, which, when backed by the site's open-source nature and strong commitment to the ideal that "preserving and hosting these files is morally right," means it's likely to continue in some form or another for years. Still, as companies like Meta are found to have used pirated content to train its AI models, it's likely actions that Google's will become more common, and other sites, or even legal entities, might follow suit. Plan accordingly. (And if, like me, you've been asking yourself "Who the heck is Anna?" the archive's FAQ has an answer: "You are Anna." It's a nod at the anonymous uploaders who provide it with much of its material.) View the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Meta has begun rolling out its latest firmware update for its Ray-Ban and Oakley smart glasses. The update, V19.2, is available this week, and improves Garmin integration and video recording for both first and second generation Ray-Ban Meta and Oakley Meta wearables. Ray-Ban Meta - Wayfarer Large glasses with Meta AI, Audio, Photo, Video Compatibility - Polarized Gradient Graphite Lens (Refurbished) - Matte Black $263.00 at Best Buy Get Deal Get Deal $263.00 at Best Buy The improvements to Garmin device integration lets Meta users sync Garmin stats to videos and photos, ask Meta AI for health info, and get real-time voice updates of fitness metrics while active. These features were previously exclusive to Oakley Meta Vanguard glasses, but now everyone has access. As for the improvements to videos, the update introduces selectable stabilization modes (auto, low, medium, and high), the ability to record clips that are five minutes long (up from three minutes), and the option of recording 1080p video at 60 FPS—not bad for a camera you wear on your face. Oakley | Meta HSTN - with Meta AI, Audio, Photo, Video Compatibility - Black, Prizm™ Black Polarized $449.00 at Amazon Get Deal Get Deal $449.00 at Amazon How to update your Meta smart glassesIf you have Meta glasses set to "automatic update," all you have to do is make sure your specs have power and are connected to your phone via Bluetooth and they'll automatically update over the air. If you want to check for an update manually, follow these steps: Open the Meta AI app. Click the glasses icon at the top right. Select the Gear icon next to the glasses. Hit "Updates" Hit "Check" to see if your device is up-to-date. Meta's update schedule is impressiveRay-Ban Metas have been my daily-wear glasses for over a year now and they're my choice for best overall smart glasses on the market. One of the reasons I like them so much is that Meta provides regular software updates. The company makes fixes and adds features approximately every six to eight weeks, and they're usually notable improvements. August's update added AI photo restyling and Google and Outlook calendar integration, and May's update added Live AI and translation features. The pace of updates is on par with a platform instead of a gadget, making these smart glasses feel like they're designed for the long haul, instead of a "buy one this year, then buy the new one next year" gadget. View the full article

Social media group will integrate the artificial intelligence search engine within its appView the full article

Previously, Kim was a managing director in J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s strategic investments group, where she managed a diverse portfolio of fintech investments. View the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication. Ahead of Black Friday, Amazon has discounted several versions of the Google Pixel 10. Right now, you can get the Google Pixel 10 Pro XL with 256 GB of storage and 16 GB of RAM for $899 (originally $1,199), marking a record-low price according to price-tracking tools. Google Pixel 10 Pro XL $899.00 at Amazon $1,199.00 Save $300.00 Get Deal Get Deal $899.00 at Amazon $1,199.00 Save $300.00 Built with aluminum and Corning Gorilla Glass Victus 2, the phone has an IP68 rating, meaning it can withstand dust and be submerged to 1.5 meters for up to 30 minutes. Its 6.8″ Super Actua display reaches 3,300-nit peak brightness, making it easier to use in direct sunlight. Powered by the Google Tensor G5 chip, it integrates AI tools like the Magic Cue and Gemini Live, which help you brainstorm or point your camera at something you want more information about. The camera system offers 50 MP images and 8K video in low light. It has a 42 MP main lens, a 48 MP ultrawide lens, and a 48 MP telephoto with up to 100× digital zoom. The battery should last over 24 hours on a charge, and up to 100 hours with Extreme Battery Saver turned on. It takes between 77 and 90 minutes to fully charge and reaches around 70% in half an hour with a wired 45W charger. Google promises seven years of software support, which ensures lasting performance and security updates down the line. Altogether, the currently discounted Google Pixel 10 Pro XL is a great option for Android users who want to level up with a bigger, faster, and more powerful phone with impressive camera performance. Our Best Editor-Vetted Tech Deals Right Now Apple AirPods 4 Wireless Earbuds — $119.00 (List Price $129.00) Apple iPad 11" 128GB A16 WiFi Tablet (Blue, 2025) — $299.00 (List Price $349.00) Shark AI Ultra Matrix Clean Mapping Voice Control Robot Vacuum with XL Self-Empty Base — $299.99 (List Price $599.00) Bose QuietComfort Noise Cancelling Wireless Headphones — $199.00 (List Price $349.00) Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K Plus — $29.99 (List Price $49.99) Google Pixel 10 Pro 128GB Unlocked Phone (Obsidian) — $749.00 (List Price $999.00) Amazon Fire HD 10 (2023) — $69.99 (List Price $139.99) Introducing Amazon Fire TV 55" Omni Mini-LED Series, QLED 4K UHD smart TV, Dolby Vision IQ, 144hz gaming mode, Ambient Experience, hands-free with Alexa, 2024 release — $699.99 (List Price $819.99) Google Nest Cam Indoor (Wired, 3rd Gen) - Security Camera with 2K Video and Gemini, Night Vision, 2-Way Audio, Works with Google Home - 2025 Model - Snow — $74.99 (List Price $99.99) Sony WH-1000XM5 — $328.00 (List Price $399.99) Deals are selected by our commerce team View the full article

Russian president asks officials to draft proposals amid fears of a new atomic arms raceView the full article

Food delivery app said acquisition of UK’s Deliveroo would contribute less to earnings than forecastView the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. If you have a Fitbit, or if you use the Fitbit app with a compatible device like a Pixel watch, you’ve probably seen “zone minutes” or "active zone minutes" pop up on your screen. So what exactly are active zone minutes, and how do they compare to the other ways we measure exercise, like steps? Zone minutes relate to the U.S. Physical Activity GuidelinesBefore we get into how zone minutes are measured, I think it will be most useful to look at why we’re counting up minutes at all. Fitbit’s purpose here is actually pretty neat: They’re trying to give you an automated way of telling whether you are keeping up with public health guidelines for exercise, like the World Health Organization’s recommendations for exercise, and the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (which, conveniently, use the same numbers). As I explain here, these guidelines state that we should all get at least 150 minutes of exercise each week. “Moderate” exercise counts for the guidelines, which includes light activities like walking and housework. I have more here on what counts as "moderate" for these purposes. The guidelines also say that if you’re getting “vigorous” exercise, like running, you only need 75 minutes to meet the guidelines. Another way of thinking of these numbers is to consider vigorous exercise as counting double. If you’ve done 100 minutes of moderate exercise (like walking), you only need 25 minutes of vigorous exercise to meet your weekly goal. And while 150 minutes is a target, it’s actually only the entry level target. The U.S. and World Health Organization guidelines both say that if you’re hitting 150 minutes just fine, you should set your sights on a 300-minute target. In general, more exercise is better (within reason), so it’s handy to keep tabs on how many minutes’ worth of exercise you’ve done this week. Fitbit keeps track of that for you. Active zone minutes are detected based on your heart rateNow we can talk about where active zone minutes come from, and why they’re called “zone” minutes. Your Fitbit (or compatible gadget) can measure your heart rate pretty easily, so the app simply marks you down as completing a “zone minute” any time your heart rate seems to be in a zone that suggests you’re exercising. There are many ways of dividing up heart rates into zones, and I have a rundown of the most common schemes here. Fitbit likes to use a system where, instead of numbers, your heart rate can be at rest, or in one of these zones. "Heart rate reserve" refers to the difference between your resting and maximum heart rates. Moderate (previously “fat burn”): 40% to 59% of your heart rate reserve (each minute here earns you one zone minute) Vigorous (previously “cardio”): 60% to 84% of your heart rate reserve (each minute here counts double) Peak: 85% or more of your heart rate reserve (each minute here counts the same as vigorous) To be totally clear, the Physical Activity Guidelines are not based on heart rate, but on a different measurement called METs. In the MET system, walking is always moderate and jogging is always vigorous. (More about that system here.) On the other hand, in the “active zone minutes” system, an experienced runner may find that jogging is so easy for them that their heart rate stays in the moderate zone. So zone minutes are not a perfect match to the guidelines, but they’ll get you pretty close without having to ask you what you’re doing or for how long. Your gadget counts up the minutes, and at the end of the week you can see whether you beat your 150-minute (or whatever) target. For example, my app is telling me that I logged 349 zone minutes last week. Great! And I didn’t have to do anything to count them. If your zone minutes don’t make sense, check your heart rate settingsHere’s my main complaint about zone minutes: they only make sense if your zones are set correctly. By default, Fitbit calculates your heart rate zones from what it guesses your maximum heart rate probably is. And as I’ve explained before, no formula can accurately tell you what your maximum heart rate actually is. It’s very common for these calculations to be off by 10 or more beats in either direction, which screws with your zones. So go into your app, and take a look at the zone minutes you’ve earned each day. Are you getting “moderate” zone minutes when you walk or do light exercise, and “vigorous” zone minutes for jogging or anything strenuous? If so, your zones are probably close enough to accurate, and you can assume they’re giving you a reasonable estimate of how much exercise you’re getting. But if you’re getting “vigorous” minutes from walks, or “moderate” minutes from hard exercise, you may want to adjust your zones. Tap your profile picture in the FItbit app, then select Fitbit Settings, then Heart Rate, then Heart Rate Zones, and enter a Custom Max Heart Rate. That will let you manually enter a max heart rate. If you’ve done a max heart rate field test, use that. Otherwise, enter the highest number you’ve seen when doing a hard workout. If you haven’t done a hard effort, but your zones seem really off, you can experiment with putting in different numbers and seeing what that does to your zones. As long as you’re getting moderate minutes when doing moderate exercise, and vigorous or peak minutes when you’re doing harder exercise, you’re getting useful metrics to track how active you are. View the full article

As Lifehacker’s smart glasses and virtual reality expert, I spend a lot of time flooding my eyes with bright light. Last night, I was testing a pair of soon-to-be released display style glasses that blast out 1,200 nits of light. That’s roughly car-headlight-bright, squeezed into a postage-stamp-sized image projected on glass about a half inch from my eyes. I thought to myself, “Wait, am I frying my eyeballs?” So I called up Dr. Sunir Garg, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology and professor of ophthalmology at Wills Eye Hospital, and asked him point blank: What am I doing to my eyes with this stuff? “We think not much,” Garg replied. “If the light is not physically causing you to look away—if it’s a bright screen but it’s not uncomfortable—we don't think that that's going to cause any harm to the eye.” There’s not a ton of research on the long-term effects of VR headsets on vision, but the data out there isn’t raising alarms among eye professionals. According to the AAO, ophthalmologists agree that there is no reason to be concerned that VR headsets and/or smart glasses will damage eye health, function, or development. To close the case, I asked Garg whether he’d ever seen or heard of any eye injuries from virtual reality, and he said, “The only scenario [in which] we've seen eye injuries is when people were doing something like boxing and tripped over the coffee table and fell down and hit their head.” How young is too young for using virtual reality? “But what about the children?” you might be asking (you hand-wringer, you). Good news there too: Virtual reality headset manufacturers may have age-based guidelines for their products—Meta recommends a minimum age of 10 years for its headsets, and Apple says its Vision Pro should not be used by children under 13—but they aren’t based on research about eyesight. “There’s not a lot of data that suggests that the VR headsets are problematic for kids,” Garg said. “I think we'll have to kind of hit [Meta and Apple] up for where that justification is coming from,” Garg said, ”because it's not something that we are really concerned about, per se.” There’s also no reason to think virtual reality helmets cause long-term vision problems in kids, but if a child is inside all day using VR, it could lead to nearsightedness. It’s not from the VR though—it’s the "being inside" part. “Something about being outside with natural sunlight seems to help regulate the growth of the eye and helps to reduce the amount of near-sightedness that people could be at risk of developing,” Garg said. So it seems there's some truth to the old trope of bookworms wearing glasses. Exactly why being an indoor-kid correlates with nearsightedness isn’t clear though; more research needs to be done. Virtual reality can cause eyestrain, thoughEven if VR gear and smart glasses don’t damage your eyes, they can still cause uncomfortable eyestrain. According to Garg, when you’re using VR or staring at any digital screen, your eyes are not moving much and you tend to blink less, so your eyes dry out, and that can lead to irritation and eyestrain. “The fix for that is either moving your eyes around consciously, blinking a bit more consciously, or following the American Academy of Ophthalmology’s ’20/20/20 rule.’” That is: When using any kind of screen, every 20 minutes you should look at something 20 feet away for at least 20 seconds. Motion sickness and dizziness in virtual reality Along with eyestrain, common pitfalls of using VR can include headaches, dizziness, and nausea. While your vision might have something to do with these things, the main cause of general VR sickness seems to be the inner ear, not the eyes. “Some people are just really sensitive to the motion component of virtual reality,” Garg said, “It's less clear to me how much of it is from the eyeballs.” Your eyes can handle 1,200 nits because they are toughTo sum up: Available evidence suggests your eyes will not be damaged if you go crazy with the VR, as long as you take breaks every once in a while and blink enough to avoid discomfort. It’s too late for us to save our 20/20 vision by soaking up more sunlight as a child, but at least we're not frying our eyeballs—and it’s reassuring to know that the biggest health risk from using virtual reality is barking your shins on the coffee table. View the full article

The latest sale consists of close to 1,200 HECMs secured by vacant residential units found in 46 states, according to data provided by the government agency. View the full article

CEO criticises western ‘cynicism’ while Beijing loosens regulations and cuts energy costs for data centresView the full article