You can get an IDE to USB bridge from all the usual sources, but you may find those fail on the older drives in your collection– apparently they require drives using logical block addressing, which did not become standard until the mid-1990s. Some while some older drives got in on the LBA game early, you were more likely to see Cylinder-Head-Sector (CHS) addressing. That’s why [JJ Dasher], a.k.a [redruM0381] created ATABoy, an open-source IDE bridge that can handle the oldest drives that fit on the bus.
The heart of the build is an RP2350, which serves as both IDE and USB host controller. To computer, after a little bit of setup, the drive attached to ATABoy shows up as a regular USB mass storage device. A little bit of setup is to be expected with drives of this vintage, you may remember. Luckily [JJ] included a handy BIOS-themed configuration utility that can be accessed through any serial console. He says you’ll usually be able to get away with “Auto Detect & Set Geometry,” but if you need to plug in the CHS values yourself, well, it’ll feel just like old times. Seeing is believing, so check it out in the demo video embedded below.
Though the custom PCB has a USB-C connector, and the USB-C standard could provide enough power for ye olde spinning rust drives, [JJ] didn’t include any power delivery with ATABoy. If you’re using it with a desktop, you can use the PSU in the box; MOLEX hasn’t changed. If you’re on a laptop, you’ll need another power supply– perhaps this USB-C powered benchtop unit.
Advertisement
If you’re using a Raspberry Pi or similar SBC, go ahead and skip USB entirely–the GIPO can do PATA IDE.
Washington state Sen. Victoria Hunt, a co-sponsor of SB 6346, speaks during a virtual news conference on Monday about how she learned that her name had been fraudulently signed in as “con” over the weekend on a public comment page ahead of a House Committee on Finance hearing on the millionaires tax. (Screen grab via Invest in Washington Now)
Invest in Washington Now, a Washington state-based advocacy group focused on progressive revenue reform, is alleging that widespread fraud in the Legislature’s public comment system has been used to pad apparent opposition to the so-called “millionaires tax.”
In a news release and virtual press conference on Monday, Invest in Washington Now said there have been tens of thousands of duplicate names used as sign-ins for hearings on Senate Bill 6346 and House Bill 2724. The group said more than 100 sign-ins marked “con” were confirmed as fraudulent over the weekend and ahead of Tuesday’s public hearing in the House Committee on Finance.
Among those who were allegedly impersonated: Sen. Victoria Hunt (D-Issaquah), a co-sponsor of the millionaires tax; former Rep. Derek Kilmer; SEIU 775 Secretary Treasurer Adam Glickman; and WEA President Larry Delaney.
Invest In Washington Now shared a letter it sent to Attorney General Nick Brown and House Chief Clerk Bernard Dean calling for an investigation into the scale of the alleged fraud and who is behind it.
Advertisement
“This is a clearly fraudulent effort to mislead legislators and the public about the level of opposition to the millionaires tax, and the ability to commit this type of fraud could undermine the integrity of legislative process on this and other issues,” the letter said.
The millionaires tax, which was approved by the Senate last week, would create a 9.9% tax applied to taxable, personal annual income that exceeds $1 million. The legislation marks the first time in decades that state lawmakers have pursued a personal income tax aimed at high‑income residents.
The bill has drawn opposition from some tech leaders and entrepreneurs who worry it could undermine the sector by souring Washington’s relatively favorable tax laws for startup founders, investors and high-wage earners.
Opponents of the tax have been pointing to what they call the “most unpopular bill in state history,” citing the many thousands of Washington residents who have signed on in opposition.
Advertisement
“More than 60,000 people signed in against SB 6346 when it received a rushed hearing in the Senate,” Sen. John Braun (R-Centralia) said in a news release last week. “That is so impressive that Democrats have tried to say bots are responsible, even though the Legislature blocks bots. We know better.”
The legislative sign-in page does require CAPTCHA, a security mechanism used to prevent bots from abusing websites. But Invest in Washington Now pointed to the frequency and high number of duplicate names, many signed in within seconds of each other, that suggested the possible use of automated sign-in tools.
Hunt, who represents the 5th Legislative District, said she was signed in fraudulently twice.
“I did not sign in ‘con,’ I’m not sure who is doing this,” Hunt said. “I don’t know why a senator would sign into a House hearing in any event. It was not me.”
Advertisement
SEIU’s Glickman said he strongly supports the millionaires tax, so he was surprised to learn of his own apparent opposition to the bill.
“I was shocked to say the least, to learn that at 4:32 a.m. Thursday morning while I was home fast asleep, somebody apparently put my name and organization into the official testimony record as against the millionaires tax,” Glickman said. “I was even more appalled to learn that I wasn’t the only one that happened to over the weekend.”
Anthropic is issuing a call to action against AI “distillation attacks,” after accusing three AI companies of misusing its Claude chatbot. On its website, Anthropic claimed that DeepSeek, Moonshot and MiniMax have been conducting “industrial-scale campaigns…to illicitly extract Claude’s capabilities to improve their own models.”
Distillation in the AI world refers to when less capable models lean on the responses of more powerful ones to train themselves. While distillation isn’t a bad thing across the board, Anthropic said that these types of attacks can be used in a more nefarious way. According to Anthropic, these three Chinese AI firms were responsible for more than “16 million exchanges with Claude through approximately 24,000 fraudulent accounts.” From Anthropic’s perspective, these competing companies were using Claude as a shortcut to develop more advanced AI models, which could also lead to circumventing certain safeguards.
Anthropic said in its post that it was able to link each of these distilling attack campaigns to the specific companies with “high confidence” thanks to IP address correlation, metadata requests and infrastructure indicators, along with corroborating with others in the AI industry who have noticed similar behaviors.
Early last year, OpenAI made similar claims of rival firms distilling its models and banned suspected accounts in response. As for Anthropic, the company behind Claude said it would upgrade its system to make distillation attacks harder to do and easier to identify. While Anthropic is pointing fingers at these other firms, it’s also facing a lawsuit from music publishers who accused the AI company of using illegal copies of songs to train its Claude chatbot.
Long before wafer-scale processors became associated with AI accelerators and ultra-large chips, Gene Amdahl was already trying to turn an entire silicon wafer into a single processor.
Amdahl’s reputation alone made the industry pay attention. Known as the architect of IBM’s System/360 mainframe family, he helped define enterprise computing before leaving IBM in 1970 to found Amdahl Corporation, which became the leading maker of IBM-compatible mainframes.
By the time he launched Trilogy Systems Corp. with his son Carl, he had already proven he could challenge the industry giant on its own turf. Trilogy’s executives believed their reputations were on the line, and the company was pursuing funding on a scale unusual for a startup in the early 1980s.
Advertisement
In its July 18, 1983 issue, InfoWorld reported Amdahl had publicly unveiled “a prototype of a new semiconductor technology that he hopes will make him once again a giant killer.” The article described Trilogy’s audacious plan: wafer-scale integration.
From WISC to TRILOGY, lecture by Gene Amdahl – YouTube
Rather than cutting wafers into hundreds of individual chips, Trilogy intended to use the wafer itself as the processor.
“Based on an as-yet-unproven technology,” InfoWorld wrote, the company was attempting to build a new generation of mainframes using wafers measuring 2½ inches square. Each “macrochip” would contain circuitry equivalent to roughly 100 conventional chips.
Advertisement
The performance goals were striking. Trilogy planned to build a supercomputer that would outperform the fastest IBM systems of the time while taking “only 10% of the space” and potentially undercutting IBM pricing by up to 30%. This was not an incremental improvement but a direct challenge to the design assumptions of the semiconductor industry.
Sign up to the TechRadar Pro newsletter to get all the top news, opinion, features and guidance your business needs to succeed!
At the time, chip manufacturing depended on redundancy through volume. Manufacturers etched hundreds of identical dies onto a wafer because defects were unavoidable.
The idea of producing one giant chip seemed reckless. As InfoWorld explained, silicon fabrication was so sensitive that even microscopic contamination could ruin circuitry, requiring extreme clean-room conditions.
Advertisement
Trilogy turned this logic upside down. Instead of accepting defects as waste, the company planned to design around them.
With a larger surface area, the chip could include extra circuits able to reconfigure themselves around damaged regions.
Amdahl called this concept “redundancy,” giving the macrochip a better chance of working even when imperfections were present.
Advertisement
The idea was ambitious technically and commercially. Amdahl claimed Trilogy would build a prototype computer using just 40 macrochips.
If successful, it would deliver about 32 million instructions per second, placing it ahead of several IBM systems then in development. In interviews cited by InfoWorld, Amdahl even suggested the system could compare favorably with the Cray-1 supercomputer.
This is a WSI (Wafer Scale Integration) chip manufactured by Trilogy Systems (probably between 1982-1984 — specific date of manufacture unknown). Image was taken by laying the chip wafer on a scanner. This prototype WSI chip never succeeded in functioning. (Image credit: Richfiles/Wikipedia)
A really personal computer
The ambition extended beyond mainframes. Analyst Bob Simko told InfoWorld that wafer-scale integration could bring chip manufacturers “a step closer to the end market,” and Amdahl hinted the technology could eventually reach desktop machines.
Advertisement
“The technology could be applied to a personal computer,” he said. “It would be a really personal computer!”
In 1983, that idea sounded almost absurd. The IBM PC had only recently launched, and personal computing remained modest compared with mainframe power. Yet Amdahl’s vision was clear: compress supercomputer-class performance into smaller systems through radical silicon integration.
Behind the scenes, Trilogy was building aggressively. The company planned to recruit hundreds of engineers, considered manufacturing overseas, and emphasized volume production from the outset. This scale showed how seriously Amdahl viewed the opportunity — the goal was not a lab experiment but a brand new computing platform.
Advertisement
Trilogy crashes and burns
Reality, inevitably, proved harsher. Wafer-scale integration was far harder to commercialize than Trilogy had anticipated. The company burned through large amounts of capital in pursuit of its design, but it never established the breakthrough product it had promised.
By 1985, Trilogy had agreed in principle to merge with Elxsi, a smaller computer manufacturer, and later acquired it in a restructuring that effectively marked the end of Trilogy as an independent wafer-scale challenger.
The original vision of large monolithic macrochips driving a new class of supercomputers faded from the market for decades.
Even so, the core ideas were remarkably forward-looking. Designing fault tolerance directly into silicon, treating the wafer as a single computational unit, and pursuing extreme performance density all echo modern approaches seen in today’s large AI chips.
Advertisement
What looked impractical in the early 1980s is now accepted engineering strategy. Companies such as Cerebras have demonstrated that wafer-scale processors can be manufactured and deployed at scale, powering modern AI workloads with chips that span almost an entire silicon wafer.
The concept Amdahl described in 1983 — treat the wafer as the processor and build redundancy directly into it — has become a viable commercial architecture, even if the technology and fabrication ecosystems required decades to mature.
Looking back, Trilogy’s story reads less like failure and more like a preview of the future arriving too early. The semiconductor ecosystem, manufacturing precision, and market demand simply were not ready for what Amdahl envisioned.
“Silicon is now the platform,” Analyst Bob Simko said in the original InfoWorld article. Four decades later, that statement feels prophetic. Modern wafer-scale processors finally deliver the kind of computational density Amdahl imagined, validating a vision that sat dormant for years.
Advertisement
Before today’s AI-era giants embraced wafer-scale design, Gene Amdahl had already sketched the blueprint — betting that one giant piece of silicon could change the economics of computing itself.
The Fulu Foundation is offering a cash bounty to anyone who can break Ring cameras free from Amazon’s data ecosystem. The goal isn’t breaking into devices for misuse or surveillance.
It is about giving owners control over devices already installed in their homes, without forcing those cameras to constantly send data back to Amazon.
The @Ring Super Bowl Ad highlighted the inescapable reality that true privacy requires ownership.
Consumers should be able to modify their @Ring devices to maintain that privacy, which is why our newest bounty works to ensure consumer control over Ring cameras and to allow…
The bounty targets Ring’s video doorbell cameras, which are deeply tied to Amazon’s cloud services. Participants are being asked to find a way to prevent those devices from sending data to Amazon servers, without disabling the cameras themselves.
For many involved, the project is a response to growing discomfort with how Ring devices can be used beyond simple home security.
Inside the bounty and what hackers are being asked to do
The bounty is being offered by Fulu, which is a privacy-focused non-profit organization. Fulu cofounder Kevin O’Reilly told Wired, “People who install security cameras are looking for more security, not less. At the end of the day, control is at the heart of security. If we don’t control our data, we don’t control our devices.”
ScreenshotFulu
The solution must rely on readily available and inexpensive tools, and the steps must be clear enough that a moderately technical user could complete the modification in under an hour. The winner will not be required to publish their methods.
Advertisement
Doing so could expose them to legal risk under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which restricts the circumvention of digital locks. O’Reilly says that, as with other Fulu bounties, the decision to publish or keep the work private will be left to the winner.
Why Ring cameras are under scrutiny
Ring
Concern has intensified after Ring expanded its Search Party feature, which lets anyone using the Neighbors app help locate lost pets and items through nearby cameras. However, critics argue that personal devices are quietly becoming part of a surveillance network.
Whether the bounty succeeds or not, it highlights a growing demand for transparency and autonomy in connected home devices. Meanwhile, if you are not interested in sharing data, Ring does allow users to opt out, and here’s how to disable the Search Party feature.
We spend hours testing every product or service we review, so you can be sure you’re buying the best. Find out more about how we test.
Razer BlackShark V3 X review: One-minute review
The bells-and-whistles version of Razer’s latest BlackShark V3, the V3 Pro, is one of the best wireless gaming headsets on the market. This model might share the name and the basic chassis design, but it’s available at a very different price, and that means the feature spec sheet looks wildly different too.
Razer’s positioning this as an esports model, based on the low-latency wireless connection its Hyperspeed 2.4GHz wireless dongle offers, and the impressively svelte 9.6oz / 270g weight. In reality, as welcome as those attributes are, they’re probably more relevant to a non-professional gamer who wants to save some cash, stay comfortable while they play, and avoid connection dropouts more than a professional player in a stadium.
Advertisement
One thing that translates very well all the way down the BlackShark range is the comfort and adjustability of the headband and earcup design. There’s a brilliant balance of clamping force and headband weight distribution that makes this headset immediately comfy, and it stays that way into the last moments of your 40-player World of Warcraftraid.
The microphone isn’t especially standout, but it offers decent clarity and noise cancellation, and it’s detachable, which means if you opt to connect the headset to your smartphone via Bluetooth, you can wear these on the train or bus without looking like you’re organizing air traffic.
Your mileage of the 7.1 virtual surround may vary, but to this reviewer’s ears, it sounds thin and artificial, inevitably detracting from the original audio source rather than widening it. These aren’t the same titanium drivers as you’ll find in the standard Razer BlackShark V3, and they’re not quite as precise or authoritative in their sound production, which means there’s less leeway for affecting audio sources with virtual surround.
Advertisement
But if you can live with merely good audio and mic quality, the huge 70-hour battery, lightweight, comfortable feel, and clean look are a pretty considerable upside.
(Image credit: Future)
Razer BlackShark V3 X review: Price and availability
Costs $99.99 / £99.99 / around AU$141
Comparable to Microsoft’s Xbox Wireless headset
Considerably cheaper than the V3 and V3 Pro, so don’t expect a similar experience
This version of the Blackshark is really all about the price. A lot of the V3 and V3 Pro’s luxury trimmings have been jettisoned in order to meet a sub-$100 price point, but Razer’s decades of experience mean it knows which bits are essential: comfort, reliability, and usability. Those have stayed, of course.
Sign up for breaking news, reviews, opinion, top tech deals, and more.
The specs compare favorably to rivals at this price point, like the official Xbox Wireless headset and RIG R5 Spear Pro HS, a wired model that we’ve been digging lately in the sub-$100 pool.
Advertisement
Razer BlackShark V3 X: Specs
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Row 0 – Cell 0
Razer BlackShark V3 X
Price
$99.99 / £99.99 / around AU$141
Advertisement
Weight
9.5oz / 270g
Battery life
70 hours
Advertisement
Compatibility
PC, Xbox Series X/S (Xbox version), Playstation 4/5, (PlayStation version), iOS/Android
Connectivity
2.4 GHz Wireless / Bluetooth / USB Wired
Advertisement
Microphone
Unidirectional detachable cardioid mic
Razer BlackShark V3 X: Design and features
Similar design to the flagship BlackShark V3
Hyperspeed and Bluetooth, but not simultaneously
Simple control layout
The basic headband, earcup, and hinge design will be familiar to anyone who’s familiar with previous versions of the BlackShark, or indeed the pricier variations of this current V3 generation. The wireframe hinge allows for plenty of adjustability, and there’s a near-perfect balance between the weight carried by the wide, well-cushioned headband and the clamping force generated by the earcups against your temples.
Around those earcups, there’s a generous slice of memory foam to keep that horizontal force from digging in too much and becoming uncomfortable, and there’s a good amount of extension in the wireframe to allow for larger heads.
Advertisement
The control layout is simple and effective. On the left earcup, just above the USB-C cable input, there’s a textured power button, volume scroll wheel, and a mic mute button, while on the right-hand side, you’ll find the holy grail for gaming headsets, particularly more affordable models: a game/chat balance scroll wheel. Having grown accustomed to having this luxury through years of use with Arctis 7 headsets, I always miss it when it doesn’t feature, and I’m seriously grateful to find one on a cheaper headset like this one.
(Image credit: Future)
While one probably wouldn’t expect simultaneous 2.4GHz wireless and Bluetooth connectivity at this price, it should still be noted that, unlike the V3 and V3 Pro, it isn’t available on this model.
The Hyperspeed wireless connection is very stable in my experience, though, suffering no dropouts over the several years I’ve been connecting wirelessly with Razer devices. It does invite some very infrequent audio artefacting in my experience, but that only manifests as a glitchy half-second of audio here and there when connecting to a PC.
Overall, the combo of comfort and looks of this model makes for a powerful one-two punch. Material choices and finish quality are both fantastic at this price range, and really distinguish this headset from rivals priced similarly.
Advertisement
(Image credit: Future)
Razer BlackShark V3 X review: Performance
Decent sound but lacking that spark
Capacious battery
Mic does the job
The drivers within this V3 X’s earcups are a similar design to the V3 and V3 Pro’s drivers, with some important differences. All feature a 50mm size, but while the V3 Pro uses a bio-cellulose construction for its flagship version of the Tri-Force driver and the V3 uses titanium, this cheaper version uses… something else. It’s not stated in Razer’s materials.
That’s all academic until you get into road-testing the sound, and I’m bringing up the materials of various driver variations because those materials allow for faster and more supple articulation, which in turn gives you more sparkly high frequencies and more convincing, visceral lows. It’s in the raw sound quality category where I felt the V3 X’s pricing most obviously, and that certainly doesn’t mean they sound bad.
They’re clearly tuned for a balanced sound reproduction instead of wow factor, and that’s the right call. While at the extreme ends of the frequency response range, they sound a little dull, the overall quality is nice and neutral, and that speaks to the esports positioning of this headset. Pro players would probably use a more expensive model, of course, but if they did use this, they wouldn’t have to contend with vital audio cues being drowned out by over-emphasised bass.
Elsewhere, the battery deserves some serious acclaim. All the BlackShark V3s boast a 70-hour battery life, and while that’s boosted in part by the absence of RGB, it’s still an insane number. And it holds up in reality. I found I was even able to eke out a bit more than 70 hours from one charge, and charging is very quick via USB-C.
Advertisement
More muted praise – if you’ll excuse the excellent pun – for the microphone, which is simply serviceable. The audio reproduction lacks a little body, but it’s certainly crisp enough to cut through the mix and ensure your callouts are heard.
(Image credit: Future)
Should I buy the Razer BlackShark V3 X?
Buy it if…
Advertisement
Don’t buy it if…
Also consider…
Still not sold on the Razer BlackShark V3 X? Here’s how it compares to two similar sets.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Row 0 – Cell 0
Razer BlackShark V3 X Hyperspeed
Xbox Wireless Headset
Advertisement
RIG R5 Spear Pro HS
Price
$99.99 / £99.99 / around AU$141
$99.99 / £89.99 / AU$149.95
Advertisement
$69.99 / £69.99 (around AU$99)
Weight
9.5oz / 270g
11.2oz / 320g
Advertisement
11.9oz / 340g
Battery life
70 hours
20 hours
Advertisement
N/A
Connection type
Bluetooth, 2.4GHz wireless (Hyperspeed dongle), USB wired
Bluetooth, USB wired
Advertisement
Wired 3.5mm
Compatibility
PC, Xbox Series X/S (Xbox version), Playstation 4/5, (PlayStation version), iOS/Android
PC, Xbox X/S
Advertisement
PS5, PS4, Xbox Series X|S, Xbox One, Switch, Switch 2, PC
How I tested the Razer BlackShark V3 X
Weeks of daily use on PC and Xbox Series S
Both connection types tested
Compared to the flagship Razer BlackShark V3 Pro
I swam the waters of low-budget gaming headsets for two weeks with the V3 X Hyperspeed, which meant the usual mix of gaming, Discord, and work calls to get a feel for the driver and mic performance alike.
The meditative, ambient soundscapes of Cairn comprised a lot of that time, along with some callout-heavy Counter-Strike 2 sessions, a few co-op Minecraftadventures, and some long drives in Assetto Corsa Evo.
Both compatible devices were tested, and I kept track of each charge’s duration to check Razer’s stated 70 hours checks out in reality.
Deciding between a Whoop strap and a Garmin smartwatch can feel like a tough job, as both promise accurate tracking capabilities. That’s where we at Trusted Reviews come in.
We’ve reviewed countless Garmin smartwatches alongside many Whoop straps, and we’ve compared our experiences and answered key questions about both brands below.
Buying a Whoop is a totally different experience from buying a Garmin tracker. Whoop operates as a subscription model, whereby to access the app and supporting features, you’ll need to pay an annual membership fee.
Advertisement
There are three memberships to choose from: One, Peak and Life. We’ll discuss the overall differences here, but for a more in-depth look, visit our Life vs Peak vs One guide.
Advertisement
One is the cheapest with a starting price of £169/$169 for a 12-month subscription, and includes a Whoop 5.0 device, charger and a Jet Black CoreKnit band.
Peak is the mid-range offering, with a starting RRP of £229/$229 for 12 months. This plan also comes equipped with a Whoop 5.0 device but also includes a wireless PowerPack and an Obsidian SuperKnit band.
Advertisement
The most expensive of the three subscriptions is Life, which starts at £349/$349 for 12 months and comes with an upgraded Whoop MG device, a wireless PowerPack, and a Titanium SuperKnit Luxe band. We’ll mention both straps throughout this article, but for more information, check out Whoop 5 vs Whoop MG.
Finally, at the time of writing, Whoop is offering a one-month trial for anyone who wants to try the service before committing to a full 12 months. This trial includes a new or certified pre-owned Whoop 4.0 device, wireless battery pack and a new SuperKnit band.
Although there is a subscription available for Garmin, Connect Plus, it isn’t a necessity when using any smartwatch. Otherwise, Garmin offers a huge range of different smartwatches and fitness trackers, starting from £129.99/$149.99 up to £1099.99/$1199.99.
Advertisement
Advertisement
SQUIRREL_PLAYLIST_10207858
What does Whoop give you that Garmin doesn’t?
Whoop bands are lacking one significant feature that’s found in all other Garmin smartwatches and trackers: a screen. While this may seem like a surprising omission, Whoop explains this design should mean you can focus on your health and not get distracted by constant notifications.
Whoop MG. Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)
Garmin smartwatches boast some of the best battery life found in wearables, with the likes of the Fenix 8 boasting up to 29 days of life in smartwatch mode, while others like the Instinct 3 come equipped with a Solar display that keeps the device topped up with solar power. However, once it does come time to fully recharge the device, you’ll need to take it off, which means you’re losing some data tracking.
Garmin Forerunner 970. Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)
Whoop is different. Instead, you can use the wireless Power Pack (which is either sold separately or comes with both Peak and Life subscriptions) to recharge your device without removing the strap. This means you won’t miss a minute of data collection, giving you a truly uninterrupted tracking experience.
Advertisement
Is a Garmin better than a Whoop?
Whether a Garmin is better than a Whoop, or vice versa, boils down to your individual needs and wants from a wearable. If you don’t want to be distracted by a screen showing endless notifications while working out, then the Whoop is an easy recommendation as it’s completely screen-less. On the other hand, if you want a smartwatch that’s almost an extension of your smartphone, then you’ll definitely prefer a Garmin.
Advertisement
Aside from design, there are many factors that could determine whether a Garmin or Whoop strap is better for you. Firstly, Whoop is designed to provide a more in-depth look at your health and fitness, while offering your personalised insight into your data. However, Whoop isn’t equipped with built-in GPS, which could be an issue for those who want to accurately track their routes without needing to have their phone to hand. That’s where Garmin shines.
Garmin route tracking. Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)
Many of the latest Garmin wearables are equipped with multi-band GPS which offers accurate route tracking, regardless of whether you’re surrounded by skyscrapers or in an open field. With this in mind, Garmin is likely the better choice for runners, hikers, mountain bikers and the like.
Otherwise, remember you can track most sports and workouts with either a Garmin or Whoop. It’s worth noting that although Whoop is generally an accurate tracker, and provides useful insights, it doesn’t always pick up when you’ve done a lighter workout. Of course, you can manually start an activity, and add one after the fact, it would be better if it was more reliable for lighter exercises.
You can manually add or start an activity via the Whoop smartphone app
Advertisement
Is Whoop or Garmin more accurate?
It’s worth noting that we’ve found both Whoop and Garmin trackers to be impressively accurate when providing data. However, the lack of screen with the Whoop might be an issue for some, as you can’t see your real-time data without looking at your phone.
We also found with Whoop MG in particular that, while it does offer automatic exercising tracking, it can be rather hit-and-miss, as we noted that it often misses periods of low- to mid-effort exercise.
Advertisement
Plus, as we touched upon earlier, remember that Whoop doesn’t have built-in GPS, so all location tracking is down to your paired smartphone. Considering Garmin’s latest multi-band GPS, which is found in the likes of the Forerunner 970 and Instinct 3,was hailed by us as being the best and most accurate tracking performance available on a smartwatch, the lack of GPS on a Whoop seems a shame.
Garmin Fenix E map. Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)
Otherwise, when it comes to receiving general health, wellbeing and sleep metrics, both Whoop and Garmin trackers do a great job at providing accurate measurements.
Is Whoop the most accurate tracker?
In terms of accuracy, both Whoop and Garmin have proved themselves to offer reliable tracking results across the board. However, both ranges offer a different approach to such tracking.
Advertisement
Whoop offers three scores: sleep, recovery and strain, all of which assess your metrics and give you a score that correlates with how you’ve performed during the day. For example, with the recovery score, factors such as HRV, body temperature and even your daily habits can all contribute to your score.
Advertisement
Whoop Sleep, Recovery and Strain data. Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)
This is similar to Garmin’s morning and newly introduced evening report, which provides wearers with a general yet reliable overview of their sleep, recovery and HRV status while advising whether they should prioritise a workout or rest.
We found Whoop’s sleep tracking capabilities to be among the most accurate, as the score directly correlates to how we felt the following morning. Plus, unlike other trackers, it automatically tracks when we’ve fallen asleep, rather than just lying down in bed.
Specifically with the Whoop MG, there’s also the ability to take blood pressure readings from the device; however, it infers its readings based on heart rate data, which means it isn’t quite as accurate as a traditional blood pressure monitor.
Whoop Blood Pressure reading. Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)
Advertisement
Where Whoop isn’t quite as accurate or reliable is with exercise tracking. As mentioned earlier, we found the automatic exercise tracker was hit-and-miss, while overall functionality is pretty basic for such a pricey tracker.
In fact, many Whoop users, including us during our review, wear Whoop alongside another smartwatch which offers more exercise functionality and advanced metric tracking.
With all of this in mind, it’s probably not as clear-cut to hail Whoop as the most accurate tracker, as there are undoubtedly shortcomings to keep in mind. If you’d prefer both health and fitness tracking tools, then we’d suggest a Garmin smartwatch, even one of the cheaper options like the Vivoactive 6, which is “capable of delivering reliable continuous data”.
Having said that, Whoop is still a solid health tracker, so if this is more of a concern for you, then a Whoop band remains a good choice.
Advertisement
How accurate is Whoop’s VO2 max?
VO2 Max is a measure of the maximum amount of oxygen your body can take in and move through your bloodstream during exercise, with the higher the number, the better your cardiovascular fitness is.
Whoop is able to estimate VO2 Max levels through a “proprietary algorithm” that includes a wide range of data points, from physiological metrics, activity and demographic information. Whoop explains that an individual’s results are a “highly personalised estimate that is tailored to your unique physiology and lifestyle”.
Advertisement
While it’s difficult to determine just how accurate Whoop is, it explains that it has developed an algorithm to ensure a VO2 Max reading meets “stringent accuracy requirements”.
Similarly, many more premium Garmin smartwatches, like the Instinct 2, also offer VO2 Max readings, which provide an estimate by analysing performance data during activities like running and walking.
Garmin Instinct 2 VO2 Max reading. Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)
Verdict
Essentially, we’d advise that before you splurge on either a Whoop or one of the best Garmin watches, you should seriously consider what you actually want from a wearable. If you’re looking for a smartwatch that allows you to keep on top of your notifications and has built-in (and extremely accurate) GPS, then a Garmin watch is one for you. Plus, as Garmin has such a varied range of devices, there’s bound to be one that best suits your needs. For example, if you don’t like big and bulky watches on your wrist, then opt for a sleek Venu 4 rather than the rugged Fenix 8 Pro.
Advertisement
On the other hand, if you want a simple yet seriously clever wearable that may not sport the bells and whistles of some of the best smartwatches but is easily one of the best fitness trackers you can buy, then a Whoop has our vote.
Advertisement
The lack of screen allows you to quietly track and monitor your health and fitness, without getting distracted or bogged down by notifications. However, if you do want to check how you’re performing in real-time, then you can simply check your smartphone app instead. Personally, I think it’s better to not constantly track your movement and metrics when exercising, however I know that comes down to individual preference.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Nvidia is collaborating with MediaTek to develop its N1 and N1X PC SoCs, which integrate CPU, GPU, and NPU components into a single chip. Major PC manufacturers such as Dell and Lenovo are reportedly working on several laptops powered by the new processors, with… Read Entire Article Source link
Several mental health mobile apps with millions of downloads on Google Play contain security vulnerabilities that could expose users’ sensitive medical information.
In one of the apps, security researchers discovered more than 85 medium- and high-severity vulnerabilities that could be exploited to compromise users’ therapy data and privacy.
Some of the products are AI companions designed to help people suffering from clinical depression, multiple forms of anxiety, panic attacks, stress, and bipolar disorder.
At least six of the ten analyzed apps state that user conversations or chats remain private, or are encrypted securely on the vendor’s servers.
“Mental health data carries unique risks. On the dark web, therapy records sell for $1,000 or more per record, far more than credit card numbers,” says Sergey Toshin, founder of mobile security company Oversecured.
Advertisement
Over 1,500 security issues found
Oversecured scanned ten mobile apps advertised as tools that can help with various mental health problems, and uncovered a total of 1,575 security vulnerabilities (54 rated high-severity, 538 medium-severity, and 983 low-severity).
App Type
Installs
Advertisement
High
Medium
Low
Total
Advertisement
Scan date
01
Mood & habit tracker
10M+
1
Advertisement
147
189
337
01/23/2026
02
Advertisement
AI therapy chatbot
1M+
23
63
Advertisement
169
255
01/22/2026
03
AI emotional health platform
Advertisement
1M+
13
124
78
Advertisement
215
01/23/2026
04
Health & symptom tracker
500k+
Advertisement
7
31
173
211
Advertisement
01/22/2026
05
Depression management tool
100k+
–
Advertisement
66
91
157
01/23/2026
06
Advertisement
CBT-based anxiety app
500k+
3
45
Advertisement
62
110
01/22/2026
07
Online therapy & support community
Advertisement
1M+
7
20
71
Advertisement
98
01/23/2026
08
Anxiety & phobia self-help
50k+
Advertisement
–
15
54
69
Advertisement
01/22/2026
09
Military stress management
50k+
–
Advertisement
12
50
62
01/22/2026
10
Advertisement
AI CBT chatbot
500k+
–
15
Advertisement
46
61
01/23/2026
Although none of the discovered issues are critical, many can be leveraged to intercept login credentials, spoof notifications, HTML injection, or to locate the user.
The researchers used the Oversecured scanner to check the APK files of the ten mental health applications for known vulnerability patterns in dozens of categories.
Advertisement
In a report shared with BleepingComputer, the researchers say that some of the verified apps “parse user-supplied URIs without adequate validation.”
One therapy app with more than one million downloads uses Intent.parseUri() on an externally controlled string and launches the resulting messaging object (intent) without validating the target component.
This allows an attacker to force the app to open any internal activity, even if it is not intended for external access.
“Since these internal activities often handle authentication tokens and session data, exploitation could give an attacker access to a user’s therapy records,” Oversecured explains.
Advertisement
Another issue is storing data locally in a way that gives read access to any app on the device. Depending on the saved information, this could expose therapy details, such as therapy entries, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) session notes, and various scores.
Oversecured states that they also discovered plaintext configuration data, including backend API endpoints and a hardcoded Firebase database URL, within the APK resources.
Furthermore, some of the vulnerable apps use the cryptographically insecure java.util.Random class for generating session tokens or encryption keys.
According to the researchers, “most of the 10 apps lack any form of root detection.” On a rooted (jailbroken) device, any app with root privileges has access to all health data stored locally.
Advertisement
Oversecured says that six of the ten analyzed apps “had zero high-severity findings, but still carried medium-severity issues that weaken their overall security posture.”
“These apps collect and store some of the most sensitive personal data in mobile: therapy session transcripts, mood logs, medication schedules, self-harm indicators, and in some cases, information protected under HIPAA,” the researchers note.
From BleepingComputer’s observations the collective download count for the apps scanned by Oversecured is more than 14.7 million, and only four received an update as recently as this month. For the rest, the date of the latest update was as recent as November 2025 or even September 2024.
Oversecured’s scans occurred between January 22 and 23 and targeted the latest app versions available at the time. The researchers cannot confirm if any of the uncovered vulnerabilities have been addressed.
Advertisement
BleepingComputer has refrained from the sharing the names of the impacted apps as the vulnerabilities are still being disclosed by Oversecured.
Modern IT infrastructure moves faster than manual workflows can handle.
In this new Tines guide, learn how your team can reduce hidden manual delays, improve reliability through automated response, and build and scale intelligent workflows on top of tools you already use.
Panasonic is handing over the manufacturing, marketing, and sales of its TVs to Shenzhen-based Skyworth, effectively exiting in-house TV production. Ars Technica reports: Skyworth is a Shenzhen-headquartered TV brand. The company claims to be “a top three global provider of the Android TV platform.” In July, research firm Omdia reported that Skyworth was one of the top-five TV brands by sales revenue in Q1 2025; however, Skyworth hasn’t been able to maintain that position regularly. Panasonic made its announcement at a “launch event,” FlatpanelsHD reported today. During the event, a Panasonic representative reportedly said: “Under the agreement the new partner will lead sales, marketing, and logistics across the region, while Panasonic provide expertise and quality assurance to uphold its renowned audiovisual standards with full joint development on top-end OLED models.”
Panasonic also said that it will provide support “for all Panasonic TVs sold up to March 2026 and all those available from April.” Skyworth-made Panasonic TVs will be sold in the US and Europe. In the latter geography, the companies are aiming for double-digit market share. […] The news means there’s virtually no TV production happening in Japan anymore, as other Japanese companies, like Sharp, Toshiba, Hitachi, and Pioneer, have already exited TV production. Earlier this year, Sony announced that it was ceding control of its TV hardware business to TCL.
Young adults are eschewing all-in-one devices like the iPhone and moving more towards purpose-built technology, renewing interest in “vintage tech” like the classic iPod. Here’s why.
A veritable pile of ‘Pods
At one point, I think everyone collectively thought that smartphones were pretty great. However, in the last few years, younger generations have started to reject their glowing pocket rectangles in favor of older tech. This isn’t anything new. I know that when I was in my mid-20s, I felt a weird, inexorable urge to start collecting vinyl, despite not having anything to play them on. Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums