Many remember the 1960s only because of the fast muscle cars, but the decade was easily one of the most significant for the automotive world more broadly. It was at this time that we got the Corvette Stingray, Jaguar E-Type, Ford Mustang, and Ferrari 250 GTO, among many other legends. And that’s precisely the problem; those cars were so good that today it’s impossible for them to not dominate auction headlines and take up all available oxygen in conversations about the ’60s auto world.
Those cars’ fame is deserved, as they are remarkable machines; but they overshadow other remarkable vehicles that merely lacked the right combination of things like marketing, racing success, or cultural timing. Every case (on this list, that is) has a story just as interesting as its contemporaries.
One car combined European styling with the great hulking V8 of a muscle car. Another was simply too odd to get mainstream acceptance despite being an engineering miracle. Still another was a bold experiment that failed commercially, but succeeded artistically. Tragically, history has largely forgotten these cars, so we’re going to give them their due.
Advertisement
Facel Vega HK500
Eagle2308/Getty Images
The French are no strangers to big, luxurious, grand touring vehicles, and the Facel Vega HK500 was one of the best ever made. The company was originally just called Facel, and it used to make a model called the Vega, primarily for affluent buyers. However, the Vega became so popular and synonymous with the brand, that the name was changed to Facel-Vega later on. It would have been like Ford renaming itself Ford F-150; a bit of an odd move, but it was the 1960s — a lot of much weirder things were happening.
The company made fewer than 500 HK500 models, and they sold for a whopping $9,795 when new. The engine in this gorgeous car was actually American; having been made for Facel by the Chrysler group. The “typhoon” was a V8 unit that made 350 hp or 385 hp, depending on how it was set up. Models with the three-speed auto gearbox made 350 hp and had a single quad-barrel carb; while the four-speed manual made 385 hp and had dual quad-barrel carburetors, at least that was the claim.
Most sources however, quote that the car offered 360 hp, and 460 lb-ft of torque. A 1960 HK500 failed to sell at an RM Sotheby’s auction in Paris in 2023 — one of the most premier automotive auctions in the world — so that should tell you everything about how criminally under-appreciated the HK500 is.
Advertisement
Sunbeam Tiger
JoshBryan/Shutterstock
Everything about the Sunbeam Tiger screams 1960s, from the long flowing lines and chromed windscreen border, to the tubular bumper running across the grill opening. The Tiger was essentially just a British-made Sunbeam Alpine ,with a Ford 260 cubic-inch V8 stuffed into it, by Caroll Shelby no less. In terms of engine choices, the ones from the first half of the 1960s had the 260 cubic inch from Ford making 164 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque, while the ones from 1966 had an upgraded 289 cubic incher making 210 hp.
For the people keeping track of the numbers, this means the Mk I Sunbeam Tiger had about 200 pounds more heft than the standard Alpine. However, it also had about double the power, which balanced things out nicely. Further down the line, there was also a Sunbeam Tiger with a Ford big block shoved under the bonnet, though this didn’t see mass production.
Advertisement
The Sunbeam Tigers with the 260 had a 0-60 mph time of 8 seconds, while the ones with the bigger 289 fared slightly worse at 8.9 seconds, and cost $3,500 when new — which was actually quite okay for a luxury sports cabriolet of the time. Additionally, one of these ended up selling for the sum of $43,680; which shows that even some of these obscure 1960s classics can have high resale value.
Advertisement
Iso Grifo GL
John Keeble/Getty Images
At first glance, the Iso Grifo GL looks like a Ferrari 250 2+2 with the front end of a Dodge something-or-other. In other words, it looks positively brilliant. Its sloping rear end, mega-long bonnet, and set-back driving position represents the epitome of 1960s styling. And that Ferrari-reminiscent design is far from coincidence. The creator of the Iso Grifo GL was actually a former Ferrari employee. The name GL stands for “Gran Lusso,” which literally translates to “great luxury” in English.
Iso is better known for its famous Isetta bubble car that people either love or hate. Later, it made another coupe called the Rivolta, followed by the Grifo GL in the years to come after that. When launched, the Grifo GL looked very different from anything Iso had ever attempted, and it was quite eye-catching to say the least.
Power came from a Chevy small-block 327 cubic inch engine (the same one as used in the Rivo that we mentioned), at least at first. In initial models, the 327 made 300 hp, though it was later up-rated to produce a better 340-350 hp down the line. Just a short while after that, the engineers decided to shove in a Chevy 427 cubic inch, which required some modifications to the structure of the car; but these were well worth it, as power output now stood at 435 hp.
Advertisement
Gordon Keeble
Sue Thatcher/Shutterstock
The strange thing about the Gordon Keeble — yeah, that’s its actual name — was that there was nothing strange about it. The small two-door car for working families came in an array of colors, and had funky slightly-off-angle headlamps that sat above the indicator lights on the front. The only tell that gave anything of the Keeble’s defining feature away was the rather subtle air scoop on the hood of the car. This scoop fed fresh air to a 4.7-liter V8 engine from GM that produced 300 hp along with 360 lb-ft of torque, all of which was available from a respectable 5,000 RPM.
Yes, Italian-styled vehicle using U.S. power for its engine; just like the Iso Grifo GL and the Sunbeam Tiger. The Keeble had an uber-impressive (for the 1960s anyway) standing to 60 mph time of 6 seconds; and ran the quarter mile in 15.3 seconds, at the end of which the speedo would read somewhere near 98 mph. Impressiveness aside, all those numbers have a touch of irony in them, because the badge on the hood of the car was a tortoise; which is not exactly an animal known for its speediness. Perhaps an eagle or condor would have been a better bet, but we highly doubt this trivial detail matters to the owners of the 99 Gordon Keeble units that were made.
Advertisement
Maserati Sebring
FernandoV/Shutterstock
While it may currently be one of the worst-depreciating car brands on the market; Maserati’s always known how to make a good looking car. Back in 1962, the company came out with one of its first road cars. The Sebring shares its name with the famous American racetrack down South, and like so many other cars of this decade, it also has a lookalike — though it’s tough to say whether it inspired the Lamborghini 400GT or was inspired by it.
The engine in the Maserati Sebring was a 3.5-liter six-banger inline engine that ended up making the impressive sum of 235 hp and 261 lb-ft of torque. Notable features on the initial Mk I (or series one, as they are called) Sebrings were the inclusion of quad-disk brakes and air conditioning. It’s also worth noting that these were not the only engines offered on the Sebring, as a mildly higher displacement 3.7-liter was added down the line, with the option of a four-liter option too.
Reaching 60 mph took about 8.5 seconds, and it could run the quarter-mile in a stellar 15.6 seconds. The Sebring name was adopted because a few years prior, a driver for Maserati had won an important race for the brand at that very same track. When they come up for auction (as only a few hundred were ever made), these cars fetch astronomical sums, often in the several-hundred-thousand dollar range.
Marshals, a new Yellowstone spinoff starring Luke Grimes as Kayce Dutton, is currently airing on CBS. You can also tune in with Paramount Plus.
The Yellowstone sequel series sees Grimes’ former Navy SEAL join an elite unit of US Marshals to bring range justice to Montana, according to a synopsis from CBS. The show also includes Yellowstone actors Gil Birmingham as Thomas Rainwater, Mo Brings Plenty as Mo and Brecken Merrill as Tate. Spencer Hudnut is the showrunner of Marshals — formerly known as Y: Marshals — and Taylor Sheridan is an executive producer.
Advertisement
When to watch new Marshals episodes on Paramount Plus
Episode 3 of Marshals airs on CBS on Sunday, March 15. Viewing options for Paramount Plus customers vary by subscription tier. You can watch the episode live if you have Paramount Plus Premium, which includes your local CBS station. If you subscribe to Paramount Plus Essential, you can watch the installment on demand the following Monday, but not live on Sunday.
Here’s how to watch the next two episodes of Marshals.
Episode 3, Road to Nowhere: Premieres on CBS/Paramount Plus Premium on March 15 at 8 p.m. ET/8 p.m. PT/7 p.m. CT. Streams on Paramount Plus Essential on March 16.
Episode 4, The Gathering Storm: Premieres on CBS/Paramount Plus Premium on March 22 at 8 p.m. ET/8 p.m. PT/7 p.m. CT. Streams on Paramount Plus Essential on March 23.
You can also watch CBS and the third episode of Marshals without cable with a live TV streaming service such as YouTube TV, Hulu Plus Live TV or the DirecTV MyNews skinny bundle. In addition to offering a lower-cost option, Paramount Plus lets you watch the other two Yellowstone spinoffs: the prequels 1883 and 1923.
After a price increase in early 2026, the ad-supported Essential version runs $9 per month or $90 per year. The ad-free Premium version runs $14 per month or $140 per year. Paying more for Premium gives you downloads, the ability to watch more Showtime programming than Essential and access to your live, local CBS station.
TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance has figured out a way to access NVIDIA’s latest AI chips despite export restrictions, according to a report by . The company is working with a firm called Aolani Cloud and building out Blackwell computing systems in Malaysia.
This should give ByteDance access to around 36,000 B200 chips. That’s NVIDIA’s most powerful processor. The hardware buildout will reportedly cost more than $2.5 billion. The company says it plans on using this new computing power for AI research and development outside of China.
The country has been unable to access the B200 chip, as it was designed in California and, as such, subject to US export controls. This has led to do what ByteDance is doing with Aolani Cloud. The Singapore-based firm will buy up the components from NVIDIA and will operate exclusively in Malaysia, giving ByteDance access in the process.
“By design, the export rules allow clouds to be built and operated outside controlled countries,” an NVIDIA spokesperson said. They also said that all of the company’s cloud partners go through review before being approved to receive its products.
Advertisement
A representative from Aolani Cloud that the company adheres to all applicable export control regulations and that ByteDance will be just one of many customers. It plans on providing cloud-computing services to multiple companies across Asia and the globe. However, it’s worth noting that Aolani currently operates with just $100 million worth of hardware and ByteDance is planning to inject a whopping $2.5 billion.
The US did recently , but they’ve been slapped with a 25 percent tariff. Additionally, the US government mandated that the export license would only be approved if NVIDIA accepted a Know-Your-Customer requirement, which is an attempt to ensure that China’s military can’t access the chips. NVIDIA .
Broadcom’s acquisition of VMware in 2023 set off a wave of migrations that shows no signs of subsiding. But moving from VMware to another hypervisor may introduce significant technical and operational risks.
IT teams must prepare for challenges that are not always apparent at the start of a migration.
Price hikes, licensing changes and shifts in customer support have driven VMware customers to look for alternatives. Recent operational problems haven’t helped.
Many of those workloads will shift to platforms such as Microsoft Hyper‑V, Azure Stack HCI, Nutanix AHV, Proxmox VE or KVM. Unfortunately, the journey comes with challenges. Switching hypervisors is a high-stakes infrastructure change.
IT professionals need to focus on completing a successful migration with their data intact and available.
Why hypervisor migration is technically risky
It sounds simple: Export data, convert it to a new format and then import it into a new hypervisor. But that process is far riskier than it sounds.
That’s because hypervisors don’t interoperate. Multiple technical variables increase the risk of failed or unstable migrations. Hypervisors differ in disk formats, hardware abstractions, driver stacks and networking models.
Snapshots and templates behave differently. Even subtle configuration differences can create instability that only surfaces once workloads are under real production pressure.
Migrating from VMware can increase cost, risk and operational drag, while limiting strategic options.
Acronis Cyber Protect gives IT leaders control with a flexible, AI‑powered cyber protection platform that cuts migration time by up to 60% and keeps the business secure and responsive throughout change.
Backup is essential to a successful hypervisor migration
The most important prerequisite for any platform migration is not a conversion tool. It is verified, restorable backup.
Organizations need to protect workloads with full-image, application-consistent backups that IT pros can restore not only to the same hypervisor but to dissimilar hardware or an entirely different virtualization platform.
IT teams need to perform recovery drills before they start migration, not just after cutover.
A platform-agnostic backup architecture provides a necessary safety net. It enables restoration from the source environment to the destination environment, and it allows rapid reversion to the original platform if compatibility or performance issues arise.
Advertisement
The bottom line is that data remains safe and accessible.
Any-to-any hypervisor recovery — restoration from physical, virtual or cloud environments to any other destination — reduces migration risk and has the added advantage of reducing long-term vendor lock-in.
How to avoid three risks most teams underestimate during migration
Even the most carefully planned and executed migrations can fail for predictable reasons.
1. Teams often underestimate planned downtime
Advertisement
Too many teams plan for an ideal level of downtime as opposed to a worst-case scenario. Unfortunately, migrations frequently stretch beyond maintenance windows. If a window closes when systems are not stable, organizations can suffer missed transactions, stalled operations, SLA violations and reputational damage.
That’s why migration planning must include a formal business continuity strategy, Ask in advance:
How long can each workload realistically be offline?
What happens if rollback is required?
Who makes the go or no-go decision?
What is the communication plan if restoration time exceeds expectations?
Backup and recovery are critical. The ability to quickly restore workloads to their original platform can mean the difference between a short delay and a multi-day outage.
2. Backup and recovery gaps can plague transitions
Migration creates a dangerous gray zone for backup and disaster recovery, with environments are often split between old and new platforms. That is when recoverability must be strongest. The time it takes to restore backups from either environment is critical.
Advertisement
Common gaps appear when:
Backup chains are broken during VM exports.
Incremental backup jobs may fail after platform conversion.
Application-consistent snapshots are not validated on the new hypervisor.
DR replication targets are not synchronized during phased cutovers.
Backup and recovery must function continuously throughout the migration. IT teams need to maintain parallel protection during overlap periods so that workloads are recoverable from both the legacy and target platforms until the transition is finished.
3. An expanding attack surface means backup images need protection
Migration also expands your attack surface.
With two hypervisor stacks running, complexity spikes. Backup repositories, an image-level backups in particular, can become high-value targets. If attackers compromise them during migration, your rollback and recovery options disappear.
Advertisement
Immutability is essential during this phase. IT teams need to protect backup images against modification or deletion, even by privileged accounts. They need to tighten role-based access controls and limit administrative access.
Equally important is adherence to the 3-2-1 principle: At least three copies of data, on two different media types, with one copy stored off-site or offline. During migration, that third copy becomes critical insurance.
If both production and primary backup infrastructure are affected, an isolated copy preserves your recovery path.
The value of a natively integrated platform
Maintaining parallel protection is essential because it lowers operational risk. However, it also increases management complexity. Two hypervisor stacks, multiple storage systems and parallel protection policies must coexist without creating gaps.
Advertisement
A unified cyber protection platform can simplify this process for IT teams. A unified cyber protection platform can reduce complexity by delivering consistent backup, recovery and security controls across physical servers, hypervisors and cloud workloads through a single point of control.
Natively integrated protection and migration capabilities in Acronis Cyber Protect can reduce transition timelines while maintaining rollback readiness and continuous synchronization.
Migration as a resilience opportunity
The shift away from VMware has made one concept clear: Migration planning is a long-term competency, not a one-time project.
Teams that succeed treat hypervisor transitions as resilience exercises. They validate backups in advance, ensure cross-platform recovery capability, maintain rollback paths, harden backup storage against ransomware and verify data integrity after cutover.
Advertisement
With these safeguards in place, migration becomes more predictable and significantly more likely to succeed.
VMware migrations don’t have to be slow, risky or disruptive.
With Acronis Cyber Protect, IT teams gain a flexible, responsive platform that accelerates migration while delivering AI‑powered security, backup and recovery in one natively integrated solution.
If you’re planning a move away from VMware, see how Acronis helps organizations migrate faster and stay protected at every step.
With newer car brands like Tesla gaining prominence, along with the broader rise of electric powertrains, and other formerly high-end technology becoming common on even the most basic new cars, it often feels that the line between luxury automakers and mainstream car brands is blurrier than ever.
Still, no matter what type of powertrain is under the hood, there are lots of car buyers who desire the prestige, performance, and extra amenities that come with these luxury brands, and they’re happy to pay the additional cost to own them. This market position is distinct enough for luxury brands to have their own separate category when it comes to ranking things like reliability and customer satisfaction. When it comes to the top-ranked luxury brand for customer satisfaction, the winner shouldn’t be too surprising for anyone who has followed the industry for a while.
In the 2025 American Customer Satisfaction Index Automobile Study, it was the Toyota-owned Lexus that ranked highest among luxury automakers, jumping up two spots and overtaking both Mercedes-Benz and Tesla when compared to the previous year’s rankings. A big part of of that is the wide-ranging and high-quality Lexus hybrid vehicle lineup, with hybrids in general earning higher satisfaction rankings across all brands, especially when compared to electric vehicles.
Advertisement
Hybrid is the way
ACSI conducted its automobile satisfaction survey between 2024 and 2025, surveying a little under 10,000 vehicle owners on a variety of different categories that summarize the ownership experience. The list includes traditional satisfaction categories like driving performance, efficiency, comfort, and reliability, along with two new categories added for 2025, total range on a fuel tank or electric charge, and expected resale value.
Advertisement
Lexus took the top spot among all luxury brands with a total score of 87 on a scale of 100, five points ahead of second-place Mercedes-Benz. The result isn’t shocking, as the brand’s corporate parent, Toyota, is also ranked highly when it comes to customer satisfaction. What especially drove Lexus’ rise in this year’s rankings is its hybrid vehicles. Hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles like the popular Lexus RX 500h crossover make up a big part of the brand’s volume, with the vast majority of the Lexus lineup offering some form of hybrid powertrain.
When separated by powertrain type across all luxury brands, hybrids earned the highest satisfaction score with an 83 out of 100, followed by gasoline at 80, and electric at 78. While Lexus does have EV offerings in its lineup, the brand has largely gone the way of parent company Toyota in focusing heavily on hybrid models over pure electric vehicles. Right now, that decision seems to be paying dividends, especially when compared to the European luxury brands that have pursued EVs more aggressively.
Advertisement
Other findings in the luxury car market
Overall, across the luxury segment, customer satisfaction scores were down slightly in 2025 from the previous year, with most of that decline attributed to poor performance from electric vehicles, particularly those from Audi and BMW. In its findings, ACSI points out that high driver frustration with those German EVs not only drags down an individual brand’s rankings, but aggregates customer satisfaction across all brands.
One of the new customer satisfaction categories added for 2025, which looks at the driving distance on a full charge or full tank of gas is especially interesting to look at, as it represents a real-world interpretation of driving range that can differ from official specs or EPA ratings. It’s here where luxury hybrids win once again, with a score of 76, compared to 74 for gasoline, and 71 for electric vehicles.
As for the future, with EV sales on a downward trend in America, it’s possible that brands like Audi, BMW, and Mercedes could regain some of their lost ground if EVs represent a smaller slice of their sales going forward, but for now, Lexus seems to be in the catbird seat. Along with luxury brand rankings, ACSI’s study also covers mass market brands, and in the 2025 mass market car customer satisfaction rankings, it was another Japanese automaker that earned the number one spot.
Apple introduction of its late Siri overhaul is expected to finally arrive during WWDC, as part of a trend by the company to improve the quality of the software it ships.
We’re still waiting for New Siri…
Apple was thought to be preparing its big update to Siri for a developer beta of iOS 26.4, as well as similar betas for macOS Tahoe and iPadOS 26.4. With it not visible in the developer beta builds at this late stage, the next probable launch time for it will be during WWDC in June. However, Siri faces being only a part of a number of areas Apple will improve during its annual developer showcase. Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums
The Camp Snap is a digital pocket camera with the design of a retro-styled film camera. It’s extremely inexpensive and leans into the digicam trend that’s popular among 20-somethings and younger. It doesn’t quite succeed in the same way similar cameras do, like the Flashback.
Image quality is fairly mediocre, even for a budget camera, which, to be fair, might be what some people are looking for with the retro trend. However, spending even a small amount more can get you better images to start with, giving you more options for how the final photos look.
For the price, the Camp Snap isn’t bad. In fact, it’s better than some ultrabudget cameras I’ve tested, but beyond the overall design, the Camp Snap has less to offer, even compared to other cameras with similar vibes and style.
Advertisement
Camp Snap specs
Photo resolution
8 megapixels (3,264×2,448)
Video resolution
N/A
Sensor size
1/3.2-inch
Lens
32mm (35mm equivalent) f/1.8
Image stabilization
None
Screen type
Monochrome LCD with image count only
Storage
MicroSD (4GB card included)
Weight
97grams (0.2 pounds)
App
None
The Camp Snap has fairly unimpressive specs, not too surprising for something that costs $70. The version I bought was V105, which overall looks the same as previous versions but has the ability to install custom filters for the photos and a slight redesign of the flash toggle.
The toggle also turns the camera on and off. Previous versions used the shutter button to do that. I can see why they made that change. It’s far less likely to take 50 photos of the inside of your bag with a physical power switch.
Advertisement
Geoff Morrison/CNET
Surprisingly, the camera actually has a removable microSD card on the bottom under a door that’s secured with a screw. That’s not exactly the most user-friendly design, which I suppose is why Camp Snap recommends connecting the camera via USB and barely mentions the card.
Next to the card slot, hidden by the same door, are the extent of the Camp Snap’s settings: a mode button and two others for up and down. This is to set the date recorded in the photo’s metadata. That’s it. No exposure settings, modes, switchable filters, nada.
This camera was designed to replicate the feeling of using disposable film cameras. If you want more than that, look elsewhere.
Advertisement
Geoff Morrison/CNET
You can install a filter for your photos, though this process also isn’t user-friendly. To switch filters, you need to plug the camera into a computer and download a .flt file from the Camp Snap website, drop it into the camera’s memory and all images taken after that will use that filter’s settings. You can’t change it on the go, and unlike the Flashback, you don’t get unfiltered photos to adjust later.
Geoff Morrison/CNET
You can, however, design your own filter if one of the premade options on the website isn’t to your liking. It’s an easy-to-use interface, complete with a preview of your adjustments.
Most people buying the Camp Snap will probably stick with either the preinstalled “Camp Classic” or “Vintage” filter (it’s called both on different parts of its site) or choose one of the other premade ones that are available, but being able to design your own this easily is a great feature.
However, again, switching filters isn’t as simple as pressing a button or scrolling through menus.
Advertisement
The filter design page on Camp Snap’s website.
Camp Snap/CNET
Not having Bluetooth or Wi-Fi is likely one of the reasons the Camp Snap is so cheap. It’s also why spending a bit more on the Flashback is probably a wise investment. Not having to connect to a computer to do anything is definitely a bonus.
The other problem is that the base image quality isn’t great, limiting the effectiveness of the filters in general. I’ll get to that in the next section.
Usability and photo quality
Advertisement
Enlarge Image
All images in this section are unedited other than cropping and use the preinstalled Camp Classic/Vintage filter unless otherwise noted.
Geoff Morrison/CNET
Using the Camp Snap isn’t quite as satisfying as the Flashback either. First, it feels even more cheaply made. You wouldn’t think there’d be much of a difference between the Camp Snap’s 97 grams and the Flashback’s 147 grams, but it’s noticeable, and the lighter Camp Snap feels even more disposable.
There’s less tactile and audible enjoyment as well, with a cheap-feeling shutter button, extremely unsatisfying electronic shutter sound and none of the ratcheting click-click-click of the Flashback’s “film” advance dial.
Advertisement
Enlarge Image
Geoff Morrison/CNET
That said, with a single button and no settings to adjust, the Camp Snap is obviously very easy to use. It doesn’t even have a screen, unless you count a small monochromatic LCD that shows the picture count. You can line up a shot with an optical viewfinder. These never worked particularly well, but it’s better than nothing.
Enlarge Image
Advertisement
Geoff Morrison/CNET
Going for the retro aesthetic is one thing, but it invites the question: What’s retro? Does that mean the 2000s digital cameras? Or is it 90s disposable film cameras? Black and white?
Digital cameras have long had settings and “filters” that adjust how the final image looks. Some, like many Fujifilm cameras, have built a cult following around their filters (or, as we in the cult call them, recipes).
The Camp Snap’s preinstalled filter is alternately called Camp Classic or Vintage, which they describe as “that classic summer camp vibe.” But again, summer camp from what period?
Geoff Morrison/CNET
The images with the preinstalled filter have an overly warm color temperature that wasn’t typical in-era, but some imagine it was. The images are noisy and oversharpened, looking vaguely like a budget 2000s digital camera or early camera phone. The camera also tends to blow out highlights. They look better than the Kodak Charmera, at least.
Advertisement
Enlarge Image
From left to right: Camp Classic/Vintage, Kodaclone, 101Clone and a custom “neutral” filter made using the website tool’s Standard preset.
Geoff Morrison/CNET
I can see what Camp Snap was trying for with the looks of some of the filters, but because the underlying images are mediocre, the filters end up looking like the kind of filters you’d get on a cheap digital camera that you never use after the first day.
Then again, that’s not entirely different than what Camp Snap says it’s going for with this camera. Such marketing just ends up feeling like “if you can’t fix it, feature it,” though. Or to put it another way, you could do what these filters are doing on a camera that produces better images, and the final result would overall be better.
Advertisement
Maybe I’m overthinking it. If people wanted “better” photos, they wouldn’t be looking to mimic old disposable cameras.
More camp, less snap
Geoff Morrison/CNET
I’ve mentioned it a bunch in this review because I came away from my time with the Flashback rather enamored with it. It’s a nostalgia-induced dopamine hit for those who used disposable cameras and something delightfully retro for many (most?) of its potential customers that likely never experienced such things the first time around. That’s fine — every generation has that about something.
The bones on the Flashback were good, though. It took decent pictures for a $120 camera, and it was easy to use. I didn’t get that same warm feeling after my time with the Camp Snap. This is a very inexpensive camera that feels and performs like a very inexpensive camera, trying to mimic something it isn’t.
The Camp Snap has the added hassle of needing to connect to a computer to view your images. Not ideal. Even if you have a microSD card reader for your phone, you’d need to also carry a tiny screwdriver to get at the card. Also not ideal.
Advertisement
Then there’s the pictures themselves, which are retro but in a bad way. The Flashback presents images that are an idealized aesthetic of what once was. The Camp Snap is what was, specifically, the worst cameras of the era.
Swan boats with the 101Clone filter taken approximately 0.75 miles from the 101 highway.
Geoff Morrison/CNET
Physically, though, it looks great, and is available in a selection of colors I wish more products had in this era of grays on grays on grays. I don’t believe for a second they sell out of specific colors as often as its website says. That manufactured scarcity seems to be a trend in budget camera viral marketing.
Advertisement
For a little more, the Flashback is the better option. Also, for the same price as that camera is a step-up Camp Snap model, the CS-Pro, which has a 16-megapixel resolution and the ability to choose between four filters on the fly. Plus, it upgrades the flash from the base model’s LED to Xenon.
That latter feature should help get that 90s flashbang look when using it. Camp Snap’s marketing says it has better image quality, but it still doesn’t have Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. It also has a silver-on-black design that looks like SLRs from the 70s. To each their own, but I prefer the color options of the base Camp, snappy as they are.
While there are Canadian AI companies, they remain for-profit enterprises, their interests not necessarily aligned with our collective good. The only real alternative is to be bold and invest in a wholly Canadian public AI: an AI model built and funded by Canada for Canadians, as public infrastructure. This would give Canadians access to the myriad of benefits from AI without having to depend on the U.S. or other countries. It would mean Canadian universities and public agencies building and operating AI models optimized not for global scale and corporate profit, but for practical use by Canadians…
We are already on our way to having AI become an inextricable part of society. To ensure stability and prosperity for this country, Canadian users and developers must be able to turn to AI models built, controlled, and operated publicly in Canada instead of building on corporate platforms, American or otherwise… [Switzerland’s funding of a public AI model, Apertus] represents precisely the paradigm shift Canada should embrace: AI as public infrastructure, like systems for transportation, water, or electricity, rather than private commodity… Public AI systems can incorporate mechanisms for genuine public input and democratic oversight on critical ethical questions: how to handle copyrighted works in training data, how to mitigate bias, how to distribute access when demand outstrips capacity, and how to license use for sensitive applications like policing or medicine…
Canada already has many of the building blocks for public AI. The country has world-class AI research institutions, including the Vector Institute, Mila, and CIFAR, which pioneered much of the deep learning revolution. Canada’s $2-billion Sovereign AI Compute Strategy provides substantial funding. What’s needed now is a reorientation away from viewing this as an opportunity to attract private capital, and toward a fully open public AI model. Long-time Slashdot reader sinij has a different opinion. “To me, this sounds dystopian, because I can also imagine AI declining your permits, renewal of license, or medication due to misalignment or ‘greater good’ reasons.”
Advertisement
But the Schneier/Sanders essays argues this creates “an alternative ownership structure for AI technology” that is allocating decision-making authority and value “to national public institutions rather than foreign corporations.”
If you’re at all familiar with digital computing, you’ll know that computers represent everything in binary values of one and zero. Except that’s not technically the only way to do computing! You can use any numerical system you like if you build your hardware to suit, as [Jeroen Brinkman’s] ternary adder demonstrates.
As you might guess from the prefix, “ternary” refers to a base-3 numerical system. In this case, [Jeroen] implemented a balanced ternary system, which effectively uses values of -, 0, and + instead of just 1 and 0. The adder is built using relay logic, and is designed to handle 4 trits—the ternary equivalent of bits, where each trit can have one of the three aforementioned states. On a hardware level, trit states are represented with voltages of -5, 0, or 5 V in this case, and are handled with special tri-state switching elements that [Jeroen] constructed out of simple SPDT relays.
[Jeroen]’s write-up does a great job of explaining both ternary basics as well as the functioning of the adder. It’s also quite intuitive because it’s possible to see the relays clicking away and the LEDs flashing on and off as the circuit does its work to add values stored in ternary format.
If you’re cooking up your own computing apparatus that uses some weird number system or something, remember—we’d love to hear about it on the tipsline!
Unlike recent MacBook Air and Pro models, where Apple’s unibody “top case” design turns keyboard problems into major surgery, the Neo’s keyboard is treated as its own part rather than being permanently bundled with the upper shell. Read Entire Article Source link
David Pogue, author of “Apple: The First 50 Years” is our special guest talking about what did and did not make it into the book, plus there are rumors of the HomeHub and real-world news of the MacBook Neo and iPhone 17e, all on the AppleInsider Podcast.
David Pogue talks about his new history of Apple book
Pogue is everywhere this week, talking about his 600-page history of Apple, but now you can hear the very first interview he gave about it. Listen to the stories behind the book, but also hear just how keen he was to find out what AppleInsider thought of it. Listen to the interview here or read the lightly-edited transcript. It’s a wide-ranging interview, but of course the book is not the only thing happening this week. Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums
