I was exhausted. I had just got back from a trip away, having done more driving in three days than I normally did in two weeks. This included several trips escorting a friend to a nearby hospital, where I had stayed until long past midnight. I was finally back home in my own bed, and I was desperate for a good night’s sleep.
Consequently, I reached for a device on the pile of gadgets I have for review: the Aura Smart Sleep Mask. It’s not exactly one of the best sleep trackers: unlike the Oura Ring, one of our best smart rings that monitor the quality of your sleep, the ‘Aura with an A’ sleep mask is more focused on improving it. It does so with a few interesting features, although it comes with an all-too-common-these-days subscription-based app.
I charged the mask with the included USB-C cable and synced it to the Aura app (after signing up for the free trial, which lasts for one week – then it’s a very expensive $59.99 a year to access all the personalized meditation, sleep and guided movement content on offer, so around £45 / AU$90). I slipped it on and was struck by how light and comfortable it was: the eye-cushion insert and coverings softened the press of the hard plastic casing against your face. Even though the sensation was unfamiliar, I quickly got used to sleeping on my side with it.
(Image credit: Future)
Its contoured design is said to block 100% of light, and I would say that apart from a very slender piece of light below the seam, it’s more or less completely accurate. All-fabric masks may be more comfortable for side sleepers, but this hard-case mask blocks out ambient light more effectively than a thin slip of fabric. It also allows you to have fun and gently annoy your significant other by pretending to be Cyclops from the X-Men.
Advertisement
The Aura mask is Bluetooth-enabled, allowing you to stream audio content from your phone through the mask using several ultra-thin speakers. The mask itself stores a few ambient soundscapes like rainfall and forest sounds in its Zen mode, and it’s designed to stream content from the Aura app.
I experimented with Spotify and found it could stream from there too, so if you wanted to use your own audiobooks from Audible, for example, there’s no reason you couldn’t do so. I opted for the basic Zen mode, pressed the under-fabric ‘on’ button at the center of the mask, and went to sleep. It’s an odd sensation, pressing the mask into your face to start it, and I spent a bit of time fumbling with it.
Other than waking up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom and momentarily forgetting I was wearing it, I slept extremely well. Inside the mask is a wake-up light bar called a Glow bar, which acts like the best wake-up lights to imitate a sunrise. It’s a comparable experience to using a separate wake-up light, and a really effective, very gentle way to wake up: far more preferable than your phone’s alarm clock.
(Image credit: Future)
Really, it’s an excellent piece of kit, and I can’t fault either its comfortable design, innovative features like the Glow bar, or its performance as a set of sleep headphones. I genuinely quite enjoyed wearing it, although some of that may have been novelty.
Advertisement
However, the biggest problem facing it, as mentioned in our full Aura Smart Sleep Mask review, is the price tag. At $229 (around £170 / AU$335) and with an additional $59.99 per year to access almost all the content on the Aura app, which you have to download to use the mask, it’s really only pitched at those with serious money to throw at better sleep.
I stopped my Calm subscription when prices went up to $69.99 per year: after subscribing at a cheaper tier for years, it had given me the tools to carry on a meditation practice without its guided content, and soundscapes exist on other streaming services like Spotify and YouTube.
There are cheaper alternatives to the Aura Smart Sleep Mask out there, like Snoozeband and Musicozy, which you might want to try first. I haven’t tried Snoozeband yet and so can’t speak to its quality, but the Deluxe model does clock in at $79.99 / £59.99 / around AU$120, and that’s without the ongoing subscription of the Aura app.
I loved the experience of the Aura Smart Sleep Mask, but wouldn’t necessarily buy it as an essential without trying some cheaper alternatives first, especially with the subscription attached.
It can sometimes be difficult to spot AI-generated videos such as deepfakes, in which a person’s facial expression or speech is generated or altered. Deepfakes’ potential to misinform or disrupt democratic processes is huge, especially given we are entering an era where anyone can create them with just a simple text prompt. Andrea Hickerson at the University of Mississippi and Edward J. Delp at Purdue University in Indiana discuss the rising threat from AI-created content and what we can do about it.
It’s been two years since Google burst into the smartwatch market, and that means we’ve seen a few upgrades since Google launched the very first Google Pixel Watch. If you’re still using that watch, you may wonder if now is the time to upgrade and whether the third-generation Pixel Watch 3 is worth it. Or you may be getting your first smartwatch and considering buying either a cheap first-generation Pixel Watch or the latest and greatest of Google’s wearables.
Choosing between these two devices is surprisingly easy. Sometimes, the newest is the best, and this is the case with the Pixel Watch 3. However, there’s a significant price difference, so is the Pixel Watch still worth buying? Let’s examine the differences to help determine which you should pick, and explain why now is the best time to upgrade from the original Pixel Watch.
Put the Pixel Watch 3 and Pixel Watch alongside each other, and aside from the size, it’s difficult to tell the difference. Google’s design language hasn’t changed a huge amount in three generations, and the minimalist look is attractive and works with most outfits.
The Pixel Watch 3 is the first of Google’s smartwatches to come in two sizes. The smaller 41mm size is identical to the original but 5 grams lighter, while the bigger 45mm version is just 1 gram heavier than the original. The larger size is ideal if you have bigger wrists or find the original Pixel Watch too small for daily use.
The new AMOLED-LTPO display gives the Pixel Watch 3 display a big upgrade over previous generations. Both sizes get the upgrade, which offers a variable refresh rate of 60Hz and shrunken bezels to maximize the screen real estate.
Joe Maring / Digital Trends
The display represents a significant upgrade in legibility, but otherwise, these two watches share the same physical traits. Domed Gorilla Glass displays provide protection, a rotating bezel allows you to scroll and select — a feature sorely missing from the new Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra — and the same lug-style watch band system lets any Pixel Watch band work with the third-generation model.
Each watch has the same 5ATM water resistance, which provides protection when submerged up to 500 meters, and a suite of sensors on the rear. The Pixel Watch 3’s sensors are improved over the original’s, and they have a different design, but otherwise, these two watches share many similarities.
The Pixel Watch 3 shares the same sensors as last year’s Pixel Watch 2, which saw Google improve the accuracy of the data collected. The heart rate sensor is one of the most accurate on any smartwatch and one of the many hardware sensors that are improved over the original.
The Pixel Watch 3 adds a thermometer and skin conductance sensors, which provide valuable insights into your skin temperature while asleep and are used for cycle tracking. There’s also a new light sensor, barometer, gyroscope, and the pulse oximeter used for the new Loss of Pulse Detection feature.
Advertisement
Joe Maring / Digital Trends
This feature is designed to get you help when you need it most. Most smartwatches offer a fall detection feature that will get you emergency help if you have a fall, but Loss of Pulse Detection takes things much further. If your Pixel Watch 3 fails to detect a pulse, it’ll undergo a further check to rule out a false negative and, failing that, contact emergency services. It’s only available in certain EU countries, but it’s a worthy reason to upgrade to the Pixel Watch 3.
The Pixel Watch 3 also adds new Cardio Load and Target Load features, a Daily Readiness score, and a Morning Briefing that gives you pertinent information on your health and sleep. The two Load features are designed to track your heart’s performance over the day (and longer) and give you a numerical understanding of your cardiac function. The Target Load feature then sets a daily goal to aspire to, ensuring you won’t overtrain or undertrain.
Joe Maring / Digital Trends
All of this information is presented in the Fitbit Premium app. Certain features, like the Daily Readiness score, required a Fitbit Premium subscription, but now all users get it included. The Pixel Watch 3 comes with six months of Fitbit Premium for free — just like the original — after which the subscription costs $10 per month or $80 per year.
The Pixel Watch 3 offers significantly more than the original, including hardware improvements and useful wellness features in Wear OS 5. Many of these are powered by Google AI, which analyzes and provides recommendations on achieving and surpassing your goals.
There are also unique features that only work when the Pixel Watch 3 is used alongside a Pixel phone. For example, if you have the Pixel 9 Pro or Pixel 9 Pro XL, you can use the Pixel Watch 3 to control the camera. You can also use it to control Google TV, letting you change volume, inputs, and virtually everything else from your watch.
Joe Maring / Digital Trends
You can also see your Nest Cam feed on the tiny screen and either respond using the microphone or send a canned response. Then, there are features like call screening and a smart recorder that can record and analyze audio using AI in real time. There are many Pixel Watch 3 features that will delight anyone who upgrades.
The original Pixel Watch is far more limited. It runs Wear OS 3.5 and offers a fairly standard introduction to the Pixel Watch experience. Many of the Pixel Watch 3 improvements launched on the Pixel Watch 2, and while some of these may eventually come to the original, some will likely remain exclusive to Google’s newer models.
One of our biggest complaints about the first Pixel Watch was its battery life. Simply put, it’s not very good and requires recharging more than once per day. The Pixel Watch 3 solves these problems with a more efficient chipset, a larger battery, and improvements in the operating system.
The Pixel Watch has a 294mAh battery, while the Pixel Watch 3 has a larger 307mAh battery in the 41mm model and a 420mAh battery in the 45mm. The Exynos 9110 processor in the Pixel Watch offers far less efficiency than the Snapdragon SW5100 powering the Pixel Watch 3.
Advertisement
Our Pixel Watch 3 review found that the battery life on Google’s latest smartwatch is exceptional and routinely exceeds Google’s own estimates. That’s with the always-on display enabled, tracking multiple workouts and sleep overnight, and receiving notifications throughout the day when paired with the Pixel 9 Pro. Simply put, the battery life has been very impressive and is one of the best reasons to upgrade from the original.
Joe Maring / Digital Trends
This means you can expect all-day battery life of around 24 hours with the Always On display turned on or up to 36 hours with the Battery Saver mode enabled. Both are large improvements over the original Pixel Watch, which requires recharging to last a full day.
The Pixel Watch 3 is also vastly improved when it comes to charging. The 41mm is rated as recharging to 50% in just 24 minutes and reaching 85% in 35 minutes, while the 45mm is slightly slower at 28 minutes and 50 minutes, respectively. We found that it charges from 12% to 62% in 30 minutes, and a full charge takes just over an hour, but the fast charging is great for those days when you’ve been using it heavily.
The Pixel Watch 3 is available now with a starting price of $349, while the original Pixel Watch launched at a similar price and is now available for just under $200. The price difference is significant, but the Pixel Watch 3 represents much better value despite the higher price.
If you want the Pixel Watch 3 in the 41mm size, the Bluetooth-only model is $349, while the LTE version is $449. For the larger size, add $50 to both of those prices.
The Pixel Watch 3 comes in a choice of colors. If you buy the 41mm model, you can choose from Polished Silver, Matte Black, or Champagne Gold, while the larger model ditches the gold option in favor of a more neutral Hazel color. There is a choice of bands, including a striking new Rose Quartz option that matches the colors of Google’s latest phones.
If you have the original Pixel Watch, there’s never been a better time to upgrade. The Pixel Watch 3 offers everything you need from a smartwatch and is one of the most stylish options on our best smartwatch list. Crucially, it also adds features that will make your life easier and potentially even save it one day. If you’re considering which to buy and don’t currently have a Pixel Watch, it’s worth first looking at the Pixel Watch 3.
It is Google’s best smartwatch, but it costs double the original. If budget is a concern, the first Pixel Watch is a decent choice, but keep in mind that there are other smartwatches from the same era that are much better, like the Samsung Galaxy Watch 5. If you’d rather stay with Google, then we’d recommend buying the Pixel Watch 2, which is just $70 more, but a much better smartwatch.
However, if you can stretch your budget or snag a good deal, our Pixel Watch 3 review found that it’s the Google smartwatch we have been waiting for. It’s the best that Google offers and one of the best smartwatches you can buy in 2024. The original Pixel Watch still has some value, but given the vast improvements in the third generation, there’s no doubt that the Pixel Watch 3 is the better one to buy.
Casey Legler is 6’2″, a gay activist, swam for France in the Olympic Games, and has become internationally acclaimed as the world’s first female male model. She spoke to Monique Schafter after completing an artist’s residency in Sydney. Read more here: http://ab.co/1GuC6Qs
For more from ABC News, click here: https://ab.co/2kd3ALi
You can watch more ABC News content ad-free on iview: https://ab.co/39iq2Xt
Subscribe to ABC News In-depth: https://www.youtube.com/c/abcnewsindepth
For breaking and trending news, subscribe to ABC News on YouTube: http://ab.co/1svxLVE
You can also like us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/abcnews.au
Or follow us on Instagram: http://instagram.com/abcnews_au
Or even on Twitter: http://twitter.com/abcnews
Palworld was once one of gaming’s biggest hits thanks to its blend of Pokémon-like gameplay elements mixed with survival and crafting mechanics, but it was perhaps only a matter of time before Nintendo and The Pokémon Company filed a lawsuit against the game’s developers. That’s exactly what’s happening as Nintendo officially announced that together with The Pokémon Company it’s filing a lawsuit against Pocketpair.
Palworld saw huge success following its early access launch having sold nearly 5 million copies in just a few days. And it’s this kind of success that seems to have drawn Nintendo’s ire. The possibility of a lawsuit was looming well before now. However, it was also suspected that Nintendo may just let the whole thing go. After all, the game launched in January and it’s been 9 months. Pocketpair at one point also said that it had the game put through a few legal reviews and no issues were found.
But Nintendo seems to have found something, as its lawsuit states that Pocketpair is infringing on multiple patents. This lawsuit also shouldn’t come as a huge surprise, as The Pokémon Company confirmed back in January that it intended to investigate Palworld.
The Nintendo lawsuit against Palworld deve Pocketpair doesn’t mention specifics
While Nintendo has confirmed it’s filing a lawsuit against Pocketpair, the statement about the lawsuit doesn’t mention any specific details. As of right now, Nintendo isn’t saying what patents Pocketpair is infringing. However, it’s likely that information will come out in due time. Provided this lawsuit goes to court and the case proceeds.
Advertisement
So far the only thing Nintendo has said is that its lawsuit is seeking an injunction against Pocketpair for these infringements. However, no information is given in terms of what it’s actually seeking as an end result. “Nintendo Co., Ltd. (HQ: Kyoto, Minami-ku, Japan; Representative Director and President: Shuntaro Furukawa, “Nintendo” hereafter), together with The Pokémon Company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court against Pocketpair, Inc. (HQ: 2-10-2 Higashigotanda, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, “Defendant” hereafter) on September 18, 2024.
This lawsuit seeks an injunction against infringement and compensation for damages on the grounds that Palworld, a game developed and released by the Defendant, infringes multiple patent rights. Nintendo will continue to take necessary actions against any infringement of its intellectual property rights including the Nintendo brand itself, to protect the intellectual properties it has worked hard to establish over the years,” the statement reads.
Pocketpair has responded to the lawsuit
Following Nintendo’s statement, Pocketpair has issued its own statement in response to the lawsuit. Stating that at this time, it’s “unaware of the specific patents” that it’s accused of infringing. The developer also says that it “hasn’t been notified of such details.”
Pocketpair is a small indie dev based in Tokyo, Japan. So it’s likely an easy target for Nintendo given the size of the studio and the success of its game. Pocketpair says it will do everything it can to ensure that indie devs are not hindered or discouraged from pursuing their creative ideas. This might suggest that Pocketpair fully intends to fight this lawsuit. As it believes it hasn’t infringed on any of Nintendo or The Pokémon Company’s patents.
Advertisement
Palworld was launched on January 19, 2024, and was made available to play via GeForce NOW back on May 16.
Cast your mind back to 2019, when by the idea of terrorizing a quaint English village as a loud, annoying goose. , but it was fairly short and left me wanting more. In another universe, a TV adaptation would have happened already. While that didn’t quite pan out here, we do have a funny proof-of-concept to enjoy.
House House, the game’s developer, a “proof-of-concept for a hypothetical Untitled Goose Programme” on its YouTube channel on Friday. The studio created the short with Playdate maker and Untitled Goose Game publisher Panic and animation house Chromosphere Studio. It’s a great four-minute clip that’s well worth your time. It shows a goose bullying a journalist and groundskeeper during a TV interview. The art style is lovely, the Wallace and Gromit-esque humor is on point and the goose is just as much of a jerk as the one in the game.
Sadly, House House says that the show didn’t gain traction and those involved put the idea on the shelf. But at least we get this very amusing video out of it. If nothing else, it reminded me that I need to play the Panic-published , which seems
“Normally when there are 30 shots in the game, it is the United States with about 25 of ’em. Not today!”
It wasn’t just the ESPN commentator who was shocked.
Advertisement
Heather O’Reilly had scored the game’s final goal, dragging world number ones and two-time champions United States to a 2-2 draw in their opening match at the 2007 Women’s World Cup.
O’Reilly wasn’t surprised by the scoreline though. Or how evenly-fought the game was. She knew it would be tough.
Instead, as the final whistle blew, it was the attitude of the US’s opponents, who saw a chance missed, rather than a point gained, that struck her.
“I remember North Korea seeming disappointed,” says O’Reilly.
Advertisement
“Their body language seemed to say ‘oh my gosh, we were so close to taking down the giant’.”
North Korea is the world’s most isolated country, a state based around the infallibility of Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un and a deep suspicion of the outside world.
Yet, despite living standards being well behind most other nations, North Korea has been one of the strongest female football nations on the planet.
When they took on the United States in 2007, they were ranked fifth in the world and amid a run of three Asian titles in the space of a decade.
Advertisement
Their record at youth level is even better. In 2016, they won the U20 Women’s World Cup, defeating Spain, the United States and France in the knockout rounds. That same year, their under-17 team also lifted their age-grade World Cup.
“The game in 2007 was challenging, really super hard,” remembers O’Reilly of her meeting with North Korea’s senior side. “It was hard to get the ball off them, they were buzzing around, very quick.”
There was another challenge though, one that was unique to North Korea.
“It was just such a cloud of uncertainty,” says O’Reilly. “The film we had on them was very limited, even by the standard of the times.
Advertisement
“Every time we played North Korea, it was always a mystery.”
The mystery now is, after a doping controversy and a four-year absence from international football, can North Korea’s women be a force once again?
You must be logged in to post a comment Login