Microsoft has quietly removed official documentation recommending 32 gigabytes of RAM for Windows 11 gaming PCs, a reversal that comes as the company simultaneously works to optimize the operating system for devices with far less memory, amid a sharp rise in DRAM prices affecting the broader PC industry.

The removal was first spotted by the outlet Windows Latest, which had previously covered Microsoft’s earlier guidance on the topic. A support document titled “How to optimize your gaming PC setup,” originally published to Microsoft’s Windows Learning Center on Nov. 28, 2025, is now gone, with its web address redirecting users straight to the Learning Center’s homepage rather than displaying the original content.

What the Deleted Guidance Said

The now-removed documents had described 32 gigabytes of RAM as the “no-worries zone” for gaming PCs running Windows 11, positioning it as the ideal configuration for serious players running demanding titles or heavy game modifications. A related document, first spotted by Windows Latest in February, similarly told users that 16 gigabytes of RAM was “plenty for most games,” while 32 gigabytes was framed as “ideal for serious players who run the most demanding titles or use heavy mods.” That same document also promoted Microsoft’s Copilot+ PCs as a convenient shortcut for gamers, describing the devices as pre-configured with CPUs, GPUs and thermal designs tuned specifically for gaming.

Both documents have now been deleted in full. According to Windows Latest, there is no trace of the November document even in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, suggesting the removal was thorough. Microsoft also eliminated separate references recommending Copilot+ PCs specifically for gaming purposes from the Learning Center.

A Reversal Under Public Pressure

This is not the first time Microsoft has walked back this particular recommendation. The company initially removed a version of the 32-gigabyte guidance in May, following what multiple outlets described as significant backlash from the gaming community across tech forums and social media once the original recommendation circulated widely. That May removal addressed a February document, but a separate document from November 2025 containing similar guidance remained live until this week’s more comprehensive cleanup, which finally eliminated all remaining references to the 32-gigabyte recommendation from Microsoft’s public-facing materials.

The Real Driver: A Global Memory Price Surge

The documentation changes come amid a dramatic spike in memory prices tied to surging global demand for the chips used in artificial intelligence data centers. According to reporting on the shift, current market prices now exceed $250 for 32 gigabytes of DDR4 memory and more than $400 for the same capacity in DDR5, costs that have made high-capacity memory configurations considerably more expensive for both everyday consumers and PC manufacturers building new systems.

That price pressure has already reshaped the broader PC hardware market. According to data from research firm IDC, global PC shipments fell 4.9% year over year during the second quarter of 2026, a decline the firm attributed in part to rising memory costs affecting consumer purchasing decisions across the industry. In response to that shifting market, Microsoft has reintroduced entry-level hardware configurations with just 8 gigabytes of RAM, including new Surface Pro 12 models, a move that stood in obvious tension with the company’s own documentation elsewhere recommending 32 gigabytes as the ideal configuration for a good Windows 11 experience.

Microsoft’s New Strategy: Software Optimization, Not More Memory

Rather than continuing to steer consumers toward buying more physical RAM, Microsoft has pivoted its public messaging toward software-based efficiency improvements instead. The company has confirmed it is undertaking engineering efforts specifically aimed at reducing Windows 11’s baseline memory footprint, targeting optimizations across system processes, WinUI 3 components and background services, with the stated goal of making the operating system run responsively even on devices with just 8 gigabytes of RAM. Microsoft has said it plans to deliver memory-footprint improvements to key features and applications by the end of the year, changes the company says should benefit users across all hardware tiers, not just budget configurations.

A Message That Undercuts Itself

Despite the documentation removal, several outlets covering the story have noted that Microsoft’s underlying technical reality hasn’t actually changed: Windows 11 still generally performs best with more memory, and 32 gigabytes remains a genuinely strong configuration for gamers and power users who want a smooth experience for years to come. What has changed is Microsoft’s willingness to publicly recommend that configuration at a moment when doing so runs directly counter to the company’s own push to sell more affordable, lower-memory hardware. As one outlet covering the change put it, recommending 32 gigabytes as an ideal baseline on one official page while actively marketing brand-new 8-gigabyte Surface laptops elsewhere created an increasingly awkward and contradictory message for consumers trying to make informed purchasing decisions.

A Pattern of AI-Generated Documentation Under Scrutiny

Adding to the controversy, some reports have suggested the original 32-gigabyte recommendation documents may have been produced using a large language model as part of Microsoft’s broader Learning Center content strategy, a section of the company’s website used to publish guides and marketing materials that tend to rank well in search engine results. That detail has fed into broader skepticism among some critics about the reliability of AI-assisted technical guidance published by major technology companies, particularly when that guidance later proves to be at odds with the company’s own commercial strategy.

With the 32-gigabyte recommendation now fully scrubbed from Microsoft’s official channels and the company continuing to push forward with its memory-optimization engineering efforts, attention is likely to shift toward whether those software improvements can meaningfully close the gap between Windows 11’s real-world performance on lower-memory devices and the more robust experience users have historically expected from higher-RAM configurations. In the meantime, consumers who built or purchased PCs based on Microsoft’s now-deleted guidance may find themselves holding hardware that no longer matches the company’s current recommended configuration, even as the underlying technical case for more memory, according to reviewers, remains largely unchanged.

EA Sports’ Madden NFL 27 has arrived carrying some of the loftiest promises the football simulation series has made in years, and early reviews of the game suggest the studio may have actually delivered on them, marking what several outlets are calling the biggest step forward for the franchise in recent memory.

Developed by EA Orlando, Madden NFL 27 released early through its Deluxe Edition on Aug. 6, with the standard version set to follow on Aug. 13 across PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X and S, Nintendo Switch 2 and PC through the EA app, Steam and Epic Games Store. A separate Madden Arcade Edition, built specifically for the platform rather than ported down, is also coming to Apple Arcade.

A New Engine Built Around Player Personality

The centerpiece of this year’s release is the Persona Engine, a new underlying system EA has described as the biggest change the studio has ever made to player behavior, negotiations, weekly management, news and free agency. Rather than treating every player as simply a collection of numerical attributes, the Persona Engine assigns each NFL athlete in the game a distinct personality profile that shapes their motivations, demands and in-game reactions. According to game previews, a pocket passer with a high-composure persona will behave differently in a two-minute drill compared with a scrambling quarterback carrying a risk-taking profile, even if the two players carry similar raw statistical ratings, a design goal aimed at making star quarterbacks feel like genuinely distinct individuals rather than interchangeable stat blocks.

Reworked Passing Takes Center Stage

Early hands-on impressions have singled out the game’s reworked passing mechanics as an immediate, noticeable improvement. A new Timing-Based Catch mechanic gives players direct control over contested-catch situations: after throwing to a receiver, holding down the catch button brings up a meter above the receiver’s head, adding a layer of skill-based precision to 50-50 balls that reviewers say elevates the fidelity of tight coverage windows compared with previous entries in the series. EA has also touted new contested catch interactions more broadly, alongside reworked short-yardage mechanics and improvements to defensive back and receiver battles during route coverage.

One reviewer for GameBastion, writing under the byline Wil, described the early experience in strongly positive terms, noting that from the very first pregame animation, Madden NFL 27 carried a presence not felt in the series for some time. The reviewer wrote that the reworked passing game felt instantly impactful thanks to the new timing-based mechanic, and concluded that, compared with Madden NFL 25, “this is simply a straight up better game than Madden 25, both on the field and off of it.” The review noted that while only a few hours had been logged so far ahead of a fuller assessment, early impressions already surpassed the previous year’s title, adding that there remains room for improvement, as there always does with the franchise, but calling the overall leap in presentation, in-game action and Franchise mode difficult to overstate.

Franchise Mode Gets Renewed Attention

Much of the excitement surrounding this year’s release centers on improvements to Franchise mode, which multiple previews describe as receiving its most significant overhaul in years thanks to the Persona Engine’s influence on free agency, contract negotiations and week-to-week team management. According to early impressions, every snap, roster move and game-day decision now carries added weight, with player tendencies and personality profiles factoring meaningfully into strategic planning in a way previous Madden entries have not matched. Reviewers have noted that Superstar mode and Madden Ultimate Team received comparatively less attention this cycle, with one reviewer noting dryly that MUT remains largely MUT, suggesting EA’s primary development focus this year was clearly directed toward simulation depth and Franchise mode rather than the game’s competitive online modes.

Strong Visuals, With Some Familiar Criticism

On the presentation side, reviewers have consistently praised the game’s visual quality, describing both Madden NFL 27 and its college football sibling title as delivering a premium visual experience. That said, early coverage has also flagged some recurring criticisms familiar to longtime Madden players, including continued frustration over legendary players being locked behind the Ultimate Team mode rather than made available across all game modes.

This Year’s Cover Athletes and Ratings Reveal

Madden NFL 27 features Chicago Bears quarterback Caleb Williams on its cover, part of EA’s annual tradition of spotlighting a rising NFL star ahead of the new season. The game’s annual Ratings Reveal generated its usual wave of community discussion in the lead-up to launch, with Cleveland Browns defensive end Myles Garrett earning his third career induction into the game’s exclusive 99 overall rating club after breaking the single-season sack record with 23 sacks during the 2025 season, adding to two Defensive Player of the Year awards and five first-team All-Pro selections. Buffalo Bills quarterback Josh Allen also returned to the 99 club, marking his fifth straight year at a 90-plus overall rating. In a lighter moment from Ratings Reveal week, Cowboys backup quarterback Joe Milton was revealed to hold the game’s highest throw power rating, edging out established stars including Josh Allen, Patrick Mahomes and Aaron Rodgers.

Pricing and Platform Details

The Deluxe Edition of Madden NFL 27 carries a $99.99 price tag on PlayStation 5, with an EA Play membership discount bringing that down to approximately $89.99. The standard edition is expected to be priced in line with previous Madden releases when it launches Aug. 13. Online play supports up to six simultaneous players on PlayStation 5 for those with a PS Plus subscription, covering the game’s franchise-style online modes.

With early impressions pointing to Madden NFL 27 as a genuine improvement over recent entries in the series, particularly through its new Persona Engine and reworked passing mechanics, full critical reviews are expected to continue rolling out in the days surrounding the game’s Aug. 13 standard release. For a franchise that has faced years of recurring criticism over incremental year-to-year changes, early signs suggest this year’s entry may represent a more substantial step forward, though how well the Persona Engine holds up across a full season of Franchise mode play, and whether Superstar mode and Ultimate Team receive further attention in post-launch updates, remain open questions heading into the broader release window.

Scientists at Stanford University and the Arc Institute have used artificial intelligence to design entirely new viruses from scratch, a scientific first that has generated both excitement over potential new treatments for drug-resistant infections and renewed concern about how quickly biotechnology is outpacing the safeguards meant to govern it. Here are five key facts to understand about the breakthrough, published this week in the journal Science.

1. This is the first time AI has designed a functional virus from scratch, not just copied one

For years, scientists have been able to synthesize viruses in the lab, but that work relied almost entirely on replicating known pathogens or their existing variants. The new research marks a genuine departure from that approach. Using AI models called Evo 1 and Evo 2, foundational systems developed specifically for computational biology, researchers trained the AI on genetic sequences drawn from millions of organisms across the natural world, including animals, plants, microbes, bacteria and viruses. That training allowed the models to learn complex evolutionary patterns, including how genes are typically organized and the biological constraints that keep an organism functional, and then apply that knowledge to generate entirely novel viral genomes rather than simply copying an existing one.

2. The viruses only target bacteria, not humans, by design

Researchers deliberately worked with bacteriophages, viruses that infect only bacteria, rather than pathogens capable of infecting humans, animals or plants. Bacteriophages have relatively small, comparatively simple genomes that are easier to synthesize and manipulate under controlled laboratory conditions. According to the research team, the AI models were further trained specifically on genetic sequences from thousands of viruses in the same broad family as Phi X-174, a well-studied bacteriophage capable of infecting the bacterium E. coli, while deliberately excluding any viral sequences capable of infecting humans, animals, plants or fungi from that training process. The goal was not to reproduce Phi X-174 itself, but to use it purely as a reference point for generating genuinely new genomes with the biological architecture needed to infect the same bacterium.

3. Only 16 of 300 tested genomes actually worked

The gap between AI-generated candidates and functional, real-world viruses proved enormous. The AI models generated hundreds of thousands of candidate genomes, which researchers narrowed down to roughly 300 considered most likely to be functional based on factors including gene organization and the presence of regulatory elements. Each of those 300 candidates was then physically synthesized, molecule by molecule, in the laboratory and introduced into E. coli bacteria to test whether it could produce a working virus. Of those 300 synthesized genomes, only 16 actually gave rise to fully functional bacteriophages, each featuring previously unpublished genetic sequences, different genes, new regulatory elements, and in some cases different genome sizes altogether compared with anything found in nature. The 16 successful viruses also behaved differently from one another, with some infecting bacteria more quickly and others showing varying replication abilities.

4. The AI-designed viruses overcame bacterial resistance in lab tests

Beyond simply confirming the viruses could function, researchers tested their ability to fight drug-resistant bacteria directly, a key question given bacteriophages’ potential as an alternative to antibiotics. In that experiment, scientists exposed strains of E. coli that had already developed resistance to Phi X-174 to a mixture of the newly AI-designed phages alongside a comparison mixture of natural phages similar to Phi X-174. The AI-generated viruses were able to rapidly overcome the bacteria’s existing resistance and establish infection, a result the study’s authors said demonstrates a path toward AI-generated phage therapies capable of targeting rapidly evolving bacterial pathogens, potentially offering a new tool in the ongoing fight against antibiotic-resistant infections.

5. The breakthrough has reignited concerns about biosecurity and AI oversight

While the achievement offers genuine promise for treating drug-resistant infections, it has also renewed alarm among biosecurity experts about the pace at which AI-driven genome design is advancing relative to the regulatory frameworks meant to govern it. Moritz Hanke, a researcher at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, warned about the underlying dual-use risk directly, noting that a similar genome language model could in principle be asked to design something considerably more dangerous, such as an influenza genome modified to be more infectious or lethal. Speaking separately to The New York Times, Hanke said there remains what he described as a huge disconnect between the speed at which the underlying science and technology are advancing and the development of regulatory frameworks capable of keeping pace with it.

A Debate That Predates This Study

Concerns over AI’s potential role in biological weapons development are not new. A study published roughly three years ago by the Rand Corporation warned that even the AI systems available at that time had the capacity to help refine the planning and execution of attacks using biological weapons. Rand separately cautioned that the speed at which AI systems continue to evolve routinely outpaces governments’ ability to develop and implement effective regulatory oversight, a warning that has only grown more pointed as genome-design capabilities like those demonstrated in this new study have continued to advance.

What the Research Means Going Forward

Researchers involved in the work say the approach could eventually support the development of highly personalized bacteriophage treatments capable of evolving nearly as quickly as the bacterial pathogens they’re designed to fight, a potentially significant advance given the growing global public health threat posed by antibiotic-resistant infections. At the same time, the study’s authors have framed their work primarily as a proof of concept for AI-assisted phage therapy rather than a template for broader genome engineering, even as the broader scientific and policy communities continue grappling with how to balance the technology’s genuine medical promise against the biosecurity risks it simultaneously introduces.

With the research now published and drawing significant attention across both the scientific and biosecurity communities, calls are likely to grow for closer collaboration between AI developers, biologists, policymakers and regulators to establish clearer safeguards around genome language models before the underlying capability advances further. For now, the study stands as both a genuine scientific milestone in the fight against drug-resistant bacteria and a fresh reminder of the governance challenges facing increasingly powerful AI-driven biological design tools.

With BTS formally withdrawing from consideration at the 69th Grammy Awards, the inaugural Best Asian Pop Music Performance category will be handed to another act when nominees are announced in mid-November, opening the door for a group other than the genre’s biggest global name to claim the award’s first-ever winner status.

BTS’s seven members announced their decision on July 29, saying through Korean-language Instagram statements that they hoped their music could be “heard and loved for what it is, rather than being divided by region or language.” The withdrawal followed the Recording Academy’s June 16 announcement of five new Grammy categories, including Best Asian Pop Music Performance, which the Academy’s rulebook describes as recognizing “artistic excellence in Asian pop music performances originating from or widely recognized within Asian markets, including but not limited to K-pop, J-pop and C-pop, with meaningful use of one or more Asian languages.”

A Category BTS Could Have Dominated

Given BTS’s commercial dominance, industry watchers have widely noted that the group would have entered as the overwhelming favorite had it chosen to compete. The band’s new album, “Arirang,” released after all seven members completed South Korea’s mandatory military service, debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 and topped Apple Music charts in 115 countries and regions upon its March release. With BTS out of the running, that clearer path to becoming the category’s first-ever winner now opens up for a smaller group of contenders.

The Leading Contenders

Industry observers have pointed to several acts as the strongest candidates to claim the inaugural award. Among K-pop groups, ATEEZ, Stray Kids, Hearts2Hearts and the newer boy group CORTIS have been named repeatedly as likely nominees, given their commercial performance and continued willingness to submit music for Grammy consideration despite the surrounding controversy. Filipino girl group BINI, who made their live festival debut at Coachella earlier this year, has also been cited as a strong contender, reflecting the category’s stated intent to recognize Asian pop acts beyond Korea’s borders specifically.

Beyond K-pop, Japanese singer-songwriter Kenshi Yonezu has been named among the category’s strongest potential nominees, illustrating a notable tension within the award itself. As The Conversation noted in an analysis of the controversy, Yonezu has little connection to the idol-group production model most closely associated with K-pop, meaning the category’s eventual winner could highlight just how broad and varied the term “Asian pop” actually covers, spanning everything from tightly choreographed idol groups to solo singer-songwriters working in an entirely different tradition. The same analysis noted that Chinese pop, or C-pop, similarly spans multiple distinct regional and linguistic subgenres that the category’s current wording does little to differentiate.

Why So Few Other Artists Have Joined the Boycott

Despite widespread public commentary supporting BTS’s decision, remarkably few other prominent K-pop acts have followed the group in withdrawing their own music from Grammy consideration. Industry analysts attribute that reluctance to BTS’s unique commercial standing within the music business. Unlike newer or less established acts, BTS can afford to forgo Grammy recognition entirely without meaningfully affecting its global commercial position, a luxury not every group competing for the new category currently shares. HYBE, BTS’s label, has explicitly clarified that the withdrawal does not represent a company-wide boycott, with a source telling reporters that other artists under the label will proceed with Grammy submissions if they choose to do so.

Limited Public Solidarity, Mostly Symbolic

Public support for BTS’s stance has come primarily from figures adjacent to the K-pop industry rather than from direct competitors likely to benefit from the group’s absence. Tablo, frontman of the Korean hip-hop group Epik High, shared a story from BTS leader RM’s Instagram with the message “ARIRANG > Grammys.” Bang Yong-guk of the K-pop group B.A.P and Korean American actor Daniel Dae Kim similarly shared news coverage of the boycott to their own followers. None of these gestures, however, have translated into other major K-pop acts actually pulling their own music from the new category.

A Familiar Pattern Across Award Shows

The controversy surrounding BTS’s absence echoes a broader pattern that has played out across other major U.S. award shows in recent years. MTV’s Video Music Awards introduced a Best K-pop category in 2019, the American Music Awards added a Favorite K-pop Artist award in 2022, and the Billboard Music Awards introduced four K-pop-related categories in 2023. Some commentators have drawn a comparison to the Grammys’ own history, pointing specifically to the ceremony’s 1989 decision to introduce a Hard Rock/Metal category, an addition remembered for one of the Grammys’ more notable missteps when voters awarded the inaugural prize to the progressive rock band Jethro Tull rather than a genre-defining act like Metallica or AC/DC, illustrating how a new category doesn’t always deliver the recognition its creators intended.

The Recording Academy’s Position

Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. has defended the new category directly, saying it “was created to celebrate the depth, diversity and extraordinary growth of pop artistry coming out of Asia,” and adding that “more categories mean more artists’ work is recognized.” Mason has separately stressed that submitting music in a genre category does not exclude an artist from also being considered in the Grammys’ general field, which includes Album of the Year, Record of the Year and Song of the Year.

With eligibility for Best Asian Pop Music Performance running through Aug. 28 and nominees expected to be announced in mid-November, ahead of the ceremony’s Feb. 7, 2027 broadcast, the coming weeks will determine which acts formally enter the running for the category’s first-ever trophy. Whichever group or artist ultimately wins, industry observers say the moment is likely to carry outsized symbolic weight, marking not just the start of a new Grammy category but also a test case for whether recognition through a genre-specific award can coexist with, rather than substitute for, broader inclusion in the ceremony’s most prestigious general-field honors that BTS itself has spent years pursuing without success.

A total solar eclipse will sweep across the Northern Hemisphere on Wednesday, Aug. 12, and for the vast majority of the world’s population who won’t be standing inside the narrow path of totality, a livestream will be the only way to watch the moon fully block the sun. Here’s a country-by-country breakdown of where and how to watch online.

NASA’s Flagship Broadcast

NASA will anchor the day’s coverage with a live broadcast beginning at 1:15 p.m. Eastern time, available on NASA+, the agency’s website, and its social media accounts on Facebook, Instagram, X, Twitch and YouTube, as well as through Amazon Prime. The broadcast will feature telescope views from multiple points along the eclipse path, footage from a WB-57 high-altitude research aircraft chasing the moon’s shadow across the sky, and expert commentary from solar physicists throughout the event. NASA’s 2024 eclipse broadcast drew more than 15 million concurrent viewers, and the agency’s 2026 stream is expected to match or exceed that figure. Viewers can also access NASA’s stream through its dedicated app, available on iOS, Android, Roku, Apple TV and Fire TV devices, which supports background audio for those who want to listen to commentary while doing other tasks.

Where Totality Will Actually Be Visible

The path of totality begins over a remote, sparsely populated stretch of northern Russia before crossing the Arctic Ocean into eastern Greenland, sweeping down over Iceland, clipping the northwestern tip of Portugal, and finally crossing northern Spain and the Balearic Islands before ending over the Mediterranean Sea. Totality reaches Iceland at 1:45 p.m. Eastern time and arrives in Spain at 2:28 p.m. Eastern time, according to NASA. Only viewers physically located within that roughly 182-mile-wide band will see the sun fully disappear behind the moon; everyone else in the Northern Hemisphere positioned near the path will see only a partial eclipse.

Iceland

Iceland stands as one of the most accessible destinations along the path of totality and is expected to draw significant crowds of eclipse tourists. For those watching remotely rather than traveling, Iceland-based astronomy outlets and international broadcasters are expected to carry dedicated coverage as the shadow crosses directly over Reykjavik in the late afternoon local time, marking the first total eclipse visible from the Icelandic capital since 1433.

Spain

Spain will host the first total solar eclipse visible from mainland Europe since 1999, and as such is expected to be a major focus of international livestream coverage. NASA’s own broadcast will feature live feeds from multiple locations across Spain’s path of totality, including professional solar telescopes and wide-angle cameras designed to capture the dramatic 360-degree sunset effect created as totality occurs just before the sun sets locally in the late evening.

Greenland and Northern Russia

Coverage from Greenland and the remote stretch of northern Russia where the eclipse first makes landfall is expected to be more limited given the sparse population and logistical difficulty of broadcasting from those locations, though NASA’s broadcast is expected to include footage from the Greenland portion of the path as part of its overall coverage.

United States

The eclipse will not reach totality anywhere in the United States. Instead, parts of the northern U.S., ranging from Alaska down through the northeastern states to North Carolina, will see only a partial eclipse, with the moon taking what NASA describes as a small “bite” out of the sun. Alaska will see the strongest partial eclipse effect among U.S. locations, with visibility diminishing further south and east. American viewers hoping to see totality itself will need to watch NASA’s livestream, which begins at 1:15 p.m. Eastern time with views from Iceland and Spain.

Canada

Most of Canada will experience a partial solar eclipse, similar to the northern United States, without reaching totality at any point within the country. Canadian viewers can access the same NASA livestream available to American audiences, along with coverage from Canadian astronomy and science broadcasters expected to air alongside the international feed.

United Kingdom and Ireland

Neither the United Kingdom nor Ireland falls within the path of totality, but both will see a partial eclipse, appearing as a thin, low crescent of sunlight near the western horizon. Given the significant public interest generated by Spain hosting the first mainland European total eclipse since 1999, British and Irish broadcasters and astronomy outlets are expected to carry supplementary partial-eclipse coverage alongside international feeds of the Spanish totality.

Continental Europe

Much of continental Europe, including France, Germany, Italy and the Scandinavian countries, will see a partial eclipse, with the visible portion of the sun’s disk covered by the moon varying by location and generally increasing the closer a viewer is to the path of totality in Spain. European viewers can follow NASA’s English-language broadcast or the agency’s Spanish-language version, both of which will be accessible online, alongside expected coverage from national broadcasters across the continent given the historic nature of Spain’s eclipse.

Northwestern Africa

Parts of northwestern Africa are also positioned to see a partial eclipse as the moon’s shadow passes to the north over Spain, though as with much of mainland Europe, the sun will be setting locally while still partially eclipsed in the westernmost parts of the visible region, creating an opportunity for a striking sunset eclipse view for those watching in person or through regional broadcast coverage.

Additional Streaming Options

Beyond NASA’s flagship broadcast, astronomy website Time and Date is expected to offer its own dedicated eclipse livestream through a specialized app that automatically detects a viewer’s location and displays local eclipse timing and cloud cover forecasts specific to their city. Every major broadcaster covering the event is also expected to stream simultaneously on YouTube, meaning viewers searching “2026 total solar eclipse” on the platform on Aug. 12 should find multiple live options to choose from, castable to a television through devices like Chromecast for those who prefer to watch on a larger screen.

A Reminder on Safe Viewing

For anyone watching in person rather than online, NASA and eye-safety experts stress that certified eclipse glasses meeting the ISO 12312-2 international safety standard, or a properly fitted solar filter on any telescope, binoculars or camera, must be used throughout every partial phase of the eclipse. Only viewers standing within the narrow path of totality may safely remove eclipse glasses, and only during the brief window when the moon fully covers the sun.

This article was written by

Follow

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.