Whenever I wear a smartwatch, I find that my anxiety increases — specifically, my health anxiety. Also known as hypochondria or illness anxiety disorder, this type of anxiety makes me worry that I am or may become ill even when I’m healthy.
What’s ironic is that part of my job involves testing health-monitoring wearables, including fitness trackers and smart rings. While I love exploring this technology and do think it can help you learn more about your body, I have to be careful about how I use it so my anxiety isn’t triggered. I know I’m not alone.
“Healthy adults and individuals with pre-existing medical conditions are increasingly using these devices to manage their health,” says Dr. Lindsey Rosman, assistant professor of medicine in the Division of Cardiology and co-director of the Cardiovascular Device and Data Science Lab at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. “Whether 24/7 access to health information from a wearable actually helps or potentially harms people is really unclear.”
Advertisement
When you add in the ability to search your symptoms online or ask an AI chatbot in your wearable’s app every health question under the sun, it becomes even more difficult to discern between what’s helpful and harmful.
To help myself and others with health anxiety navigate the world of wearables so we can either enjoy using them or know when it’s time to stop, I reached out to experts for their advice.
1. Turn off health alerts
Rosman has observed clinically that it can be beneficial to either scale back or turn off the features that make you anxious. This can be especially helpful for people with pre-existing conditions that are already being treated, such as atrial fibrillation (AFib, an irregular heartbeat), as your wearable’s irregular heart rhythm notifications will only make you anxious and can prompt you to see your doctor when it’s not medically necessary.
Plus, certain medications can affect the accuracy of wearable sensors, provoking false alarms.
Advertisement
“We published a case report on a patient who performed over 900 EKGs [electrocardiograms or ECGs, which measure the heart’s electrical activity] on her smartwatch in a single year,” says Rosman. While most of the EKGs were normal, inconclusive alerts fueled her anxiety, leading to multiple ER visits, spousal conflict and the need for therapy to reclaim her daily life. The patient had no psychiatric history prior to getting a smartwatch.
When you get an unexpected health alert on your device, it can understandably cause panic.
Cole Kan/CNET/Apple
Dr. Karen Cassiday, author of Freedom from Health Anxiety and owner and managing director of the Anxiety Treatment Center of Greater Chicago, says that even patients who don’t have health anxiety can find wearables to be intrusive when they get too many alerts. “They discover they want to be less aware of every moment of their body’s functioning,” she says.
Advertisement
Thankfully, most wearable health features can be turned off completely or customized.
For instance, Shyamal Patel, SVP of science at Oura, maker of the Oura Ring, shares that the device’s Personalized Activity Goals allow you to choose to see steps instead of calories, adjust your daily activity goal or hide calories completely, which can be necessary for anyone who finds calorie counting triggering or overly rigid.
Advertisement
2. Avoid compulsively checking your device
Referring to a 2024 study she worked on that examined the impact of wearables on the psychological well-being of patients with AFib, Rosman says that about half of the participants were checking their heart rate every day out of habit, not because they felt symptoms.
Cassidy explains that while people with health anxiety may initially find wearables helpful, compulsively checking to make sure their vitals are normal can accidentally become a form of negative reinforcement that further propels the anxiety.
“Often when I work with anxious people, we try to cut back or eliminate the need to compulsively check for reassurance on their wearables, as well as with ChapGPT or other digital ‘doctors,’” says Cassiday.
When people refrain from compulsively checking, wearables can provide useful feedback that counters the false belief that something terrible will happen to their health.
Advertisement
If checking your health metrics causes anxiety, try reducing how often you view them on your device or in its app. Setting an alert to check weekly, at a minimum, could help — especially since it’ll give you a broader picture, making you less likely to hyperfocus on a single data point that seems off.
You should also avoid checking your wearable’s health information right after you wake up or before you go to bed, as this can set the tone for an anxious day or make it harder to fall asleep.
If having a screen on your wrist makes it difficult for you to stop checking, a screenless smart ring or fitness tracker such as the Whoop 5.0 may be a better option, since they rely on apps instead of screens.
Advertisement
A screenless smart ring may help you stop compusively checking your device.
Anna Gragert/CNET
“You choose how much or how little you engage with the app, which gives those who might be anxious about their health the option to limit the amount of time they spend with their data,” says Patel.
3. Focus on trends, not one-off metrics
When I asked both Patel and Dr. Jacqueline Shreibati, head of clinical for platforms and devices at Google, how people who wear their devices can reduce health anxiety, they emphasized the importance of tracking trends — not individual metrics.
“We focus on long-term trends (rather than isolated metrics) to help users maintain a balanced relationship with their data,” says Shreibati. “What being healthy means differs for everyone, and we encourage users to consult their physician if they have any concerns.”
Advertisement
Patel points to the Tags and Trends features in the Oura app. Tags lets you tag lifestyle factors such as travel, alcohol, meditation or late meals, which you can then view in Trends to see how your behavior affects your recovery and sleep over weeks, rather than looking at a single score that may one day seem abnormal.
Instead of viewing a single sleep or stress score, consider looking at that data weekly or monthly.
Vanessa Hand Orellana/CNET
4. Remember: Your smartwatch can’t replace a doctor
“Most consumer wearables were originally developed as personal wellness devices, which are not required to demonstrate safety and efficacy like traditional medical devices (e.g., a blood pressure cuff or pacemaker),” Rosman explains.
Advertisement
Yet we’ve begun using these wearables to monitor our health, using metrics such as heart rate and rhythm, blood oxygen, stress, sleep and physical activity. Now, some of these devices have medical-grade sensors, software and algorithms approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to detect irregular heart rhythms, hypertension and sleep apnea.
Despite FDA approval, wearables are simply not doctors, and they cannot provide medical diagnoses or treatment. That’s why it’s essential to understand what your device actually measures.
The ECG feature on many smartwatches is just one example of this. FDA-cleared as it may be, a single-lead ECG that only uses one electrode to record your heart’s electrical activity from your wrist is not the same as the 12-lead, hospital-grade ECG a cardiologist would use.
While your wearable’s ECG can surface a potential symptom worth investigating with your doctor, it can’t replace a professional or their medical-grade equipment.
Advertisement
Performing an ECG on your smartwatch is not the same as having that same measurement taken in a doctor’s office.
Viva Tung/CNET/Apple
The gap is even wider for features including stress and sleep scores, which haven’t been clinically validated because there’s no one single gold standard to validate against. These numerical scores are calculated from bodily signals such as heart rate, temperature, movement and heart rate variability, which tend to correlate with your stress and sleep states. But the translation from raw signal to “your stress score is 74” is more of an educated estimate.
“What you’re seeing is a rough indicator of how your nervous system is functioning, not a medical diagnosis,” Rosman emphasizes.
Advertisement
Patel adds that not all physiological stress is inherently negative. “Some forms of short-term physiological stress can be healthy and adaptive,” he says. “That’s why we aim to pair data with in-app context and insights, so members can better understand what they’re seeing rather than receiving that information in a vacuum.”
Nonetheless, when you don’t know exactly what your wearable is measuring, a “bad” stress or sleep score can seem scary when it isn’t necessarily a cause for alarm, but rather a sign that you may want to have a deeper conversation with your doctor.
5. Get your doctor’s thoughts
Just like you should talk to your doctor before starting a new medication or diet, you should get their thoughts on whether you could benefit from using a wearable.
“Education is probably the most underused tool we have,” Rosman says.
Advertisement
When you don’t know what a healthy heart rate or ECG looks like, one seemingly atypical reading can send you into a panic. That’s why it’s essential to speak with your doctor so you understand your own baseline and if a wearable makes sense for your current health condition.
As a guide, Rosman provides the following questions you can ask your doctor:
Advertisement
What type of wearable should I use?
How often should I check this data?
What are healthy numbers for me?
What do I do when I get an alert?
When should I call the clinic or seek emergency care versus waiting?
“A fast heart rate after climbing stairs is not the same as a dangerous arrhythmia, but without that context, a notification can feel terrifying,” Rosman adds. “So much wearable-related anxiety comes not from the data itself, but from not knowing what to do with it.”
6. Know when it’s time to remove that device and get help
When asked when someone should consider parting with their wearable or seeing a professional for health anxiety, Cassiday says that it’s similar to what many notice when they keep checking their smartphone for the next text, TikTok or other digital data.
“If you find yourself interrupting pleasurable activities or your free time to check, or if you feel anxious about not checking, you have a problem,” Cassiday states.
For instance, if you only stop thinking that you’ll have a heart attack when you check your wearable and see your resting heart rate. Or, put simply, if you only feel at peace after someone or something, such as a wearable reassures you that you’re in good health, it’s time to get professional support.
Advertisement
If health anxiety is making it difficult for you to enjoy life, then it’s time to talk to a professional.
When you have health anxiety, the gold standard for care is cognitive behavioral therapy. It involves exposure to health-related worries without any form of reassurance and learning to accept the uncertainty that comes with not knowing our future health status, manner of death or time of death.
“People need to learn that all the vague symptoms that trigger their health anxiety are just normal variations of normal body functioning and aging,” Cassiday explains. “They have to reframe the symptoms they notice as nothing to examine, discuss or manage and instead trust the facts of their other evidence of good health.”
CBT can help you live in the present instead of spiraling into the anxiety-inducing “What if?” of the future.
Who should and shouldn’t use wearables
Wearables can be great for people who like tracking their fitness to motivate them toward their goals, or for patients and their care teams when medically necessary. Though they usually cost hundreds of dollars, wearables can be less expensive than medical tests. Some are even HSA- or FSA-eligible.
Advertisement
“In AFib specifically, being able to correlate your symptoms with actual rhythm data can be genuinely empowering,” Rosman says. She’s observed that the patients who thrive with wearables are those who use the data as information — not as something to fear — and those who don’t participate in 24/7 surveillance.
In Rosman’s 2024 study, two-thirds of AFib patients said their wearable made them feel safer and more in control. Even so, there is still the risk of unintended consequences.
While they can be beneficial, wearables can also come with risks — especially since there isn’t enough research on the subject.
Advertisement
Giselle Castro-Sloboda/CNET
Just as doctors would never prescribe a medication without knowing the potential benefits, risks and how to manage them, wearables should be no different. “The technology has moved so much faster than the science, and we need the scientific evidence from clinical trials to catch up,” Rosman explains.
Since the evidence isn’t there yet, Rosman is hesitant to say anyone should categorically avoid wearables.
Despite that, people who are highly anxious about their heart or prone to obsessive symptom monitoring should approach with caution. The same goes for those with conditions involving unpredictable, abrupt symptoms, such as paroxysmal AFib and POTS, because the uncertainty of not knowing when the next episode will hit is stressful enough, and constant monitoring can make it worse.
A note on the science (or lack thereof)
Rosman has conducted research on the connection between wearables and anxiety, including a 2025 review describing the psychological effects of wearables on patients with cardiovascular disease and a 2024 study examining their impact on the psychological well-being of patients with AFib.
The 2025 review found that while wearables can help promote healthy behaviors and provide data for diagnosis and treatment, they also pose risks, such as adverse psychological reactions.
In the 2024 study, it was concluded that wearables were connected with higher rates of patients becoming preoccupied with their symptoms, being concerned about their treatments and using both formal and informal health care resources.
Advertisement
On the other hand, a 2021 study that analyzed the 2019 and 2020 US-based Health Information National Trends Survey found that using wearable devices for self-tracking can indirectly reduce psychological distress. Still, misinterpretation of wearable data may cause unnecessary panic and anxiety.
A 2020 qualitative interview study featuring patients with chronic heart disease also found that while wearables’ data may be a resource for self-care, it can create uncertainty, fear and anxiety.
Ultimately, more studies are needed.
“Honestly, we don’t have good scientific evidence in this area yet,” says Rosman. “Despite widespread use, there have been no clinical trials I’m aware of that have looked at the benefits and potential health risks of specific wearable health features.”
Advertisement
Rosman’s team plans to be the first to investigate this in patients with pre-existing heart conditions.
Wearables’ impact on our health care system
When wearables cause health anxiety, they can prompt healthy individuals to schedule unnecessary doctor’s appointments. This places a burden on our health care system, which is already experiencing shortages, making it difficult for people who actually require medical attention to access care.
Rosman’s 2024 study found that those using a wearable sent nearly twice as many patient portal messages to their doctors. Responding to these messages from patients takes time, isn’t reimbursed by insurance and can contribute to burnout.
Advertisement
When health anxiety caused by wearables prompts people to message their doctors, it can put a strain on the health care system.
MoMo Productions/Getty Images
As a result, Rosman believes we need better systems for managing wearable data in clinical settings before we scale it further: “Wearables are changing how we deliver care in ways we haven’t fully prepared for.”
Wearables can further widen health care inequity due to their cost.
“These devices are expensive, they were mostly designed and tested in young healthy people and they’re marketed toward higher-income consumers,” Rosman explains. “If we’re not thoughtful about access, wearables could actually widen health disparities rather than close them. That’s the opposite of what we want.”
The bottom line
While wearables have their benefits, there are also risks to consider, especially given the limited research on the subject.
If you purchase a wearable and it triggers health anxiety, you don’t have to use every available feature, wear it constantly or continue to wear it at all. Before you even buy that device, you can arm yourself with anxiety-reducing knowledge by getting your doctor’s expert opinion.
Advertisement
However, if health anxiety continues to take over your life, it may be time to remove your wearable and seek professional help.
As for me, writing this piece has been a necessary reminder that, while there’s a lot we can’t control in life, the power is in our hands (or on our wrists or fingers) when it comes to the technology we put on our bodies or invite into our homes. Just like an itchy sweater or a lumpy armchair, we can send the technology that doesn’t serve us packing.
Legora is already hiring to fill its new offices, with plans to grow its combined EMEA headcount to 700.
Swedish legal AI start-up Legora is expanding its footprint with a new engineering hub in London alongside new offices in Madrid, Milan and Paris. The expansion comes just months after the company raised $550m in a Series D round which valued Legora at $5.5bn.
Founded as Leya in 2023, Legora is an agentic AI platform supporting legal professionals with research, review and document drafting. It is used by more than 100,000 legal professionals at more than 1,200 law firms and in-house legal teams across more than 50 markets, according to the company.
The Madrid, Milan, and Paris offices will serve as regional hubs for customer success, go to market functions and legal engineering, while the new London engineering hub will be co-located with Legora’s existing presence in the city.
Advertisement
The new offices will open during Q3 this year and represent Legora’s most concentrated Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) investment to date, the company said.
Legora is already hiring for positions to fill the new offices, with plans to grow its combined EMEA headcount to 700 within the next year. According to its website, Legora currently employs more than 400.
“Our customers in these countries have built Legora into the way they work,” said Max Junestrand, the CEO and co-founder of Legora. “Opening offices in Madrid, Milan and Paris means we can be genuinely close to them as we build the future of the platform together.
“Engineers who understand how AI applies in professional contexts are disproportionately concentrated in London,” said Junestrand added. “People here have built things that have to perform under real legal and regulatory constraints. That’s a different problem from building a consumer product, and it’s precisely the problem we’re solving.”
Advertisement
The new offices will bring Legora’s global footprint to 16 cities including Munich, Chicago, Houston, San Francisco, Toronto, Bengaluru and Sydney, as well as the recently announced offices in Singapore and Tokyo, the company said. Legora also has existing engineering hubs in Stockholm and New York.
Legora’s March Series D round was led by Accel, with participation from the likes of Benchmark, general Catalyst, Y Combinator, Menlo Ventures and Salesforce Ventures – taking the legal-tech’s total raise to date to $815m.
The company, at the time, said it planned to use the newly raised funds to further expand across the US, including with new offices in Texas and Illinois, as well as new local hubs. Legora plans to expand its US headcount to more than 300 by the end of 2026.
Engineering teams building agentic coding pipelines now have a concrete open-source alternative to managed models like Claude Fable 5 — one that runs on a single H100. The tradeoff: Cohere’s North Mini Code, which launched Tuesday, generated three times the output tokens of comparable models in independent testing, a verbosity cost that compounds in high-volume production workloads.
The new open-source model is a 30 billion parameter mixture-of-experts (MoE) model with 3 billion parameters active per token, built for agentic software engineering including sub-agent orchestration, architecture mapping, code review and terminal work. The model supports a 256,000 token context window with a 64,000 token maximum generation length, and is available on Hugging Face under an Apache 2.0 license.
What North Mini Code can do
North Mini Code targets the full agentic coding stack. Here is what the model does and what it runs on.
Software engineering. Cohere built North Mini Code specifically for agentic software engineering, not adapted from a general-purpose base. It has integrated tool-use capabilities and supports interleaved thinking, which Cohere says improves performance across multi-step agentic work.
Advertisement
Architecture mapping and code review. North Mini Code can analyze and map systems architecture, surface dependencies and perform code review across large codebases. With a 256,000 token context window, it can hold substantial multi-file projects in a single context pass.
Terminal-based agentic tasks. The model is trained for terminal environments, handling shell interactions, package scripts and command-line tooling. Cohere benchmarked it on Terminal-Bench v2, which tests agents in real terminal environments rather than synthetic code generation tasks.
How it was built
North Mini Code is a sparse mixture-of-experts model with 128 experts, of which 8 activate per token. The compute requirement at inference time is closer to a 3 billion parameter model despite 30 billion total parameters. Nick Frosst, co-founder of Cohere, demoed it running on a Mac Studio via MLX at around 20 gigabytes of RAM, the same machine he uses for his own local coding work.
Cohere trained the model through two stages of supervised fine-tuning followed by reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards across more than 70,000 verifiable tasks spanning approximately 5,000 repositories, deduplicated against SWE-Bench.
Advertisement
Rather than optimizing against a single agent scaffold, Cohere trained across three. SWE-Agent uses a rich CLI with specialized commands. Mini-SWE-Agent uses a single bash tool with raw shell output. OpenCode uses individually typed tools returning structured JSON. Cohere reports a 10 percentage point gain on OpenCode evaluation from the multi-harness approach while maintaining SWE-Agent performance.
Where it fits
North Mini Code enters a market that now includes Mistral Devstral Small 2, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Claude Fable 5 — each with distinct cost and deployment tradeoffs.
Cohere’s primary benchmark comparison is against Mistral Devstral Small 2, a 24 billion parameter dense model. In vendor-reported internal tests, Cohere claims 2.8x higher output throughput and a 30% inter-token latency advantage over Devstral Small 2 in internal tests under identical hardware configurations. Cohere also claims, in its Hugging Face technical post, that North Mini Code outperforms open-source models up to four times its parameter count on its reported benchmarks, including models at 120 billion parameters.
Artificial Analysis independently ranks it eighth of 127 comparable open-weight models on output speed at 210 tokens per second, with a time to first token of 0.25 second against a class median of 1.95 seconds. It places 18th of 127 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. One flag from the same data: the model generated 75 million output tokens to complete the Intelligence Index against a class median of 25 million. In high-volume agentic pipelines, that verbosity compounds into inference cost and latency.
Advertisement
“Suddenly people are thinking like hey, am I getting enough economic value out of the tokens from a model?” Frosst said during the launch video. “Local deployment is one way of empowering people and making AI really something that works for them.”
GitHub Copilot, Cursor and Claude Code operate on per-usage or subscription pricing with no on-premises option. Anthropic’s Claude Fable 5, now the most capable publicly available managed coding model, runs at $50 per million output tokens. For Frosst, the model is the polar opposite of Fable.
“Its small, cost effective, apache 2.0, and locally deployable. This is the way LLMs should go. small, open source, transparent and sovereign, vs large, expensive, proprietary and hegemonic,” Frosst wrote in a post on X.
What this means for enterprises
For teams building production agentic coding pipelines, North Mini Code’s release clarifies a set of decisions that have been forming for months.
Advertisement
Purpose-built agentic training is now a baseline to evaluate against. The distinction between models fine-tuned for code and models trained specifically for agentic workflows, with verified tool calls and multi-harness robustness, is now a material factor in pipeline decisions. Any model vendor claiming agentic coding capability should be able to answer whether its training used verifiable agentic tasks or was adapted from a general-purpose base.
Verbosity is a hidden pipeline cost that benchmarks do not surface. Artificial Analysis measured North Mini Code generating three times the output tokens of comparable models. That verbosity compounds across inference cost and latency in high-volume pipelines. Throughput testing against actual workload volume is the evaluation step the benchmark rankings skip.
The frontier pricing split is now a real architectural decision. Fable 5 at $50 per million output tokens and North Mini Code on a single H100 represent a genuine tradeoff between cost control and data residency on one side, and managed infrastructure overhead on the other. Teams running high-volume agentic coding pipelines should model both cost paths against their actual workload before committing to either.
AI is rapidly expanding across finance, but most agentic offerings have yet to reach core production systems. Only 10% of enterprises are using AI tools in a meaningful, production-grade way. Not because of a lack of interest, but because connecting AI to core systems to trade capture, risk, and surveillance is still a work in progress.
These systems offer the greatest opportunity for AI to simplify finance operations through efficient workflows and live trading queries. Yet, legacy systems force this technology to operate in isolation. The volume of architecture connected to traditional platforms often creates this constraint.
Andrew George
Managing Director and Solutions Architect at 3forge.
The financial services industry has forced firms to adapt core architecture rather than replace it, preserving operations, but limiting AI compatibility. Now, the challenge is incorporating AI into these existing systems without forcing an infrastructure replacement that would cause platforms to pause or fail.
Latest Videos From
To bridge the gap between existing systems and modern demands, firms need an architectural layer to help bridge legacy access, implement a governed AI gateway, and introduce AI-native workflows within trusted guardrails. With the right foundation, firms can extend these capabilities directly into production systems and utilize the full value of AI.
Advertisement
Taming the legacy stack without rewiring it
Years of regulations, acquisitions, asset-class specialization, and incremental development without a shared core have created an extensive stack of internal software required to keep operations running – a stack that was never designed to support responsive, AI-driven interaction.
Rather than rebuilding these systems, financial institutions are introducing an architectural layer that unifies access across fragmented infrastructure. This virtualized approach eliminates the need for costly rewiring while allowing organizations to consolidate access to both static and streaming data.
Instead of adding complexity, it creates a simpler path to deploying AI within existing environments.
Advertisement
Sign up to the TechRadar Pro newsletter to get all the top news, opinion, features and guidance your business needs to succeed!
IT teams can start this process by establishing a single abstraction layer across fragmented systems, allowing technology integration while applying entitlements at the data layer. In practice, this would allow:
Natural-language interrogation: Organization-specific data through chatbots and AI assistants.
Virtualization of systems: Abstraction of all systems behind a permission-aware access point.
Safe interaction: AI accessible touchpoints within operational infrastructures.
When organizations effectively apply abstraction layers to existing legacy architecture, AI can improve functions while interacting with internal systems through a controlled, permission-aware layer.
A controlled gateway for AI interaction
Abstraction layers are most effective when financial institutions apply them with gateways for AI access. When organizations apply these models together, this infrastructure creates a controlled AI interaction layer that provides a deliberate medium for producing deterministic, repeatable outputs.
Advertisement
Agents can then access data exclusively through the created pathway. This architecture creates transparency and provides for the application of a consistent set of data and functional access controls.
Ultimately, it allows stakeholders to gain confidence and trust, allowing agentic solutions to migrate from an assistive layer to an operational one capable of coordinating workflows, executing logic, and interacting with live systems.
Through this channel, agents can operate within defined policies and fully log all outputs, verifying repeatability and providing compliance teams with unified oversight of operations. A single control plane can grant permissions, log events, and instantly kill defective outputs, assuaging regulatory concerns.
Advertisement
These capabilities allow AI to expand financial institution growth in production-ready technological environments.
Accelerating development inside trusted boundaries
Once these foundations are in place, AI development can accelerate inside trusted boundaries. By doing so, organizations can reduce code surface area and shorten audit cycles.
Within these types of environments:
Advertisement
AI is equipped with proper boundaries for successful development.
Agents can generate layouts, workflows, and full applications.
AI can operate inside transparent and fully auditable runtimes.
Advanced coding can often power this controlled scale, offering development workflows that promote multimodal interaction, including voice, visual, and text. These capabilities further facilitate AI to fully operationalize efficient workflows across financial organizations.
However, when implementing AI adoption pathways, many organizations are now working through how to scale these capabilities consistently across systems. Financial firms facing this dilemma should follow the example of other industries.
The shift from rebuilding to building on top
Other industries have already solved a similar challenge of rebuilding their technology stacks much earlier in the development process. When this issue arose, they standardized their foundation across their industry, focusing on differentiated delivery rather than excessive rebuilding.
This often meant establishing application engines, a feature now used in gaming (Unity/Unreal), E-Commerce (Shopify), and general CRM (Salesforce).
Advertisement
If IT teams adopted these systems, purpose-built for finance, financial firms could focus primarily on delivery.
An engine could lay the foundation for virtualized legacy access, AI-governed gateways, and AI-native development within trusted guardrails, avoiding a full infrastructure replacement and establishing a safe way to integrate technology that reduces manual reconciliation.
A new foundation in financial systems
As AI moves deeper into core financial systems, the opportunity is not just in deploying models but rethinking how software is built and operated. Application engines provide a path forward by allowing firms to integrate AI into live systems, scale workflows, and generate new functionality from human intent, all within a governed environment.
This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit
NASA has named Randy Bresnik, Luca Parmitano, Frank Rubio, and Andre Douglas as the crew for Artemis III, which has been reworked from a moon-landing mission into a roughly two-week Earth-orbit test of lunar landers being built by SpaceX and Blue Origin. NBC News reports: Randy Bresnik, Luca Parmitano, Frank Rubio and Andre Douglas are expected to launch into Earth orbit next year, with the goal of testing two commercially developed lunar landers that are slated to carry astronauts to the surface of the moon during the Artemis IV mission in 2028. Bresnik will be the mission’s commander, with Parmitano, an Italian astronaut with the European Space Agency, serving as the pilot. Douglas and Rubio will be mission specialists, and Bob Hines will train with the crew as a backup member. “This test flight will enable us to prove we can carry out highly choreographed operations with our partners across hardware interfaces, software propulsion systems and life support elements with crew in the high-stakes space environment,” Jeremy Parsons, NASA’s Artemis program manager, said during NASA’s announcement on Tuesday.
Bresnik has been to the International Space Station twice, most recently as commander of an expedition in 2017. A retired U.S. Marine colonel, he was selected as a NASA astronaut in 2004. Bresnik has helped oversee development and testing of spacecraft for the Artemis program as an assistant to the chief of the Astronaut Office, which manages astronaut training and operations. Parmitano has also done two stints on the ISS and served as commander of an expedition in 2019. He has completed a total of six spacewalks and also performed the first live DJ set in orbit. Before becoming an astronaut, Parmitano was a test pilot for the Italian air force.
For Rubio, a physician with 28 years of service in the Army, Artemis III will be his second trip to space. From 2022 to 2023, he spent 371 days on the space station, breaking the record for longest-duration spaceflight by an American, according to NASA. Douglas is the only crew member making his spaceflight debut. An engineer who previously worked on space exploration and robotics at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, he became a NASA astronaut in 2022. Douglas was the backup crew member for the Artemis II mission around the moon earlier this year. He told NBC News in an interview after Tuesday’s announcement that the role had at times been a challenge. “It was hard to figure out how do you balance getting ready to go, not go, all that stuff,” he said. “But to go now is just fantastic.”
Back in January of this year, RFK Jr. clearly strong armed the CDC into changing the childhood vaccination schedules in America to mimic those of Denmark. The public messaging was crafted to sound as reasonable as possible and amounted to a claim that America was going to revise vaccination schedules to match those of another successful, industrialized, peer country. There were a couple of problems with the move.
For starters, Kennedy did his usual move of trying to make this change completely outside of the normal process for such things. There was no indication that any of this was done at the behest of his reformed ACIP panel. It didn’t go through the normal scientific checks and balances. And even if it had, the courts later put a stay on all such changes, because Kennedy didn’t follow the American Procedure Act in either those revised schedules or even the formation of ACIP itself. The Trump administration has appealed that decision.
The other main issue with the change was the obvious one: America is not Denmark. Calling Denmark a peer nation to America is laughable for many reasons. As one Danish official pointed out at the time: Denmark has a homogeneous population, universal free healthcare, lower serious outcomes from infectious diseases that they don’t vaccinate for, and a population that actually largely trusts government institutions. America doesn’t have any of that, in large part because the party of Trump doesn’t want us to have it.
Donald Trump doesn’t know how to take an “L”, though, so of course he simply picked up a pen recently and is attempting to executive order his way to trying to change those same vaccination schedules.
Advertisement
While the federal government is appealing that injunction, the new executive order on Friday reaffirms Kennedy’s plans to adopt Denmark’s strategy, calling for “realigning” US vaccine policy with “best practices from peer, developed countries.”It states that the scientific assessment written by Høeg and Kulldorff is a “guiding resource for the Federal Government” and that the CDC shall ” take any appropriate steps to update the United States childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule.”
As before, the AMA is strongly against the unilateral change made without backing from scientific evidence.
“Altering [the vaccine schedule] without clear, evidence-based justification risks continued confusion for parents and patients, undermining trust in vaccines, and ultimately lowering vaccination rates,” Mukkamala said. “That would put more children and communities at risk of preventable illness.”
The American Medical Association (AMA) wasn’t the only one to come out against this top-down edict. The American College of Physicians (ACP) likewise pushed back on the EO publicly, stating unequivocally that it must not be implemented or there would be severe negative health outcomes for American children.
As did, hilariously, scientists in Denmark itself.
Advertisement
Anders Hviid, who leads research on vaccine safety and effectiveness at the Statens Serum Institut, Denmark’s equivalent of the CDC, told The New York Times in December that it did not make sense to compare the US to Denmark. “It’s not at all fair to say look at Denmark unless you can match the other characteristics of Denmark,” he said.
Hviid also told the Times that the US public health policies under Kennedy “get crazier and crazier” by the month. “It is surreal, and it is difficult, from a Danish perspective, to understand what’s going on.”
Trust me, dear Anders, it’s difficult to understand from within the American borders, too.
Now, neither Trump nor Kennedy give a flying damn about Denmark, of course. That much is obvious to anyone with a working frontal cortex. The country’s vaccination schedules are merely being used as a prop to reduce the vaccination schedules for American children because that’s all Kennedy really wants. Over the objections, it turns out, of Danish scientists themselves.
I’m sure the AMA, ACP, or the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) will be filing lawsuits over this Executive Order. And I see no reason why the courts shouldn’t put a hold on its implementation, as it did to Kennedy.
Advertisement
But the real mystery is why the do-nothings in Congress just can’t be bothered to push back directly on all of this.
MSP says it is ‘absolutely devastated’ as woman arrested on suspicion of murder
Neil Muller, newly appointed Group CEO of managed service provider Node4, has died after an alleged stabbing at his home. He was 54.
Muller, a well-respected and long-serving figure in Britain’s tech supply chain, was found with chest wounds at his residence in Claverdon, Warwickshire, in the early hours of June 7.
Advertisement
Warwickshire Police said in a statement: “We received a report from ambulance services at 6.15am about a man in his 50s who required emergency medical care following a stab wound in his chest. Sadly, he was declared deceased at the scene at 6.37am.”
A 55-year-old woman from Birmingham was arrested on suspicion of murder at 7.33am and has since been released on bail. Police confirmed an investigation is underway and said there is “no wider risk to the public.”
Muller had only taken on the Group CEO role at Node4 this month, tasked with refining its strategy and expanding its AI-augmented managed services platform. The MSP said it was “absolutely devastated” by his death, adding: “Although Neil only recently joined Node4, he made a meaningful impact in a short space of time. Our thoughts are with Neil’s family at this very difficult time.”
Before Node4, Muller led Digital Space for seven years, and prior to that he was chief exec at telecoms biz Daisy Group, whose B2B ops merged with Virgin Media O2 last year. Muller started his career at Computacenter – one of Europe’s largest services-based resellers – rising through sales and operations to become UK and Ireland managing director during a 21-year tenure.
Advertisement
Mike Norris, Group CEO at Computacenter and a close friend of Muller, told The Register that he was “deeply saddened from a personal point of view.”
Norris was not alone: many in Britain’s tech business community expressed shock. Charles Bligh, former TalkTalk chief operating officer, wrote on LinkedIn: “Just so shocked to hear this terrible news. Neil was a class act and he filled the room with his energy and leadership. My condolences to his family and his children should know their father was a respected, liked and thought leader in the business community. I know this is cold comfort. Neil you will be missed terribly and RIP.”
Muller is survived by his wife and two children. ®
Even before the recent nationwide rise in gas prices in response to geopolitical circumstances in the Middle East, fuel economy has always been one of the biggest factors that buyers consider when choosing a new vehicle. Whenever gas prices go up, the differences in fuel efficiency ratings between different models matter more to people.
Yet even with elevated fuel prices, the popularity of pickup trucks in America seems unlikely to fade. And while these vehicles may not be as efficient as your average sedan or crossover, recent fuel economy gains have been impressive. So which trucks are the most efficient? If you’re looking for maximum pickup truck efficiency overall, Rivian is the truck brand that gets the win, but its all-electric models are not directly comparable to internal combustion models.
Advertisement
When it comes to traditional pickup trucks with internal combustion engines, a few models come out on top in the fuel economy rankings, though their efficiency is heavily dependent on which engine option you choose. Thanks in particular to the growth of the hybrid truck market, many of these pickups have far better MPG figures than you might assume — we’ve highlighted the standouts below.
Advertisement
Ford Maverick
Sure, you could put an asterisk next to the Ford Maverick’s inclusion in this list because it’s not a “real” body-on-frame pickup and instead uses a more car-like unibody platform with front-wheel drive being the standard drivetrain layout. Buyers don’t seem to mind, though, and the Maverick has been an absolute hit as far as sales figures go.
When it comes to gasoline use, the Maverick is the most fuel-efficient pickup choice out there, by a significant margin. In its front-wheel-drive hybrid form, the Maverick delivers an incredible 38 MPG combined rating from the EPA, with the all-wheel-drive hybrid version coming in just behind that. Maverick buyers can also opt for non-hybrid models with the more powerful 2.0-liter turbocharged engine, and though the fuel efficiency ratings for the 2.0 Maverick aren’t as high, they are still quite good by pickup truck standards.
As our testing has found, though, there’s more to the Ford Maverick than just great MPG. The truck has also won over buyers who like its compact size, and the Maverick’s affordable price tag is another huge draw at a time when many feel that pickup truck prices are ballooning out of control. When looking for a sensible truck, the potential to save serious money at the gas pump is just one part of the Maverick’s compelling formula.
Advertisement
Chevy Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500
One might assume that full-size half-ton pickup trucks would be pretty far down a list like this, well behind the smaller mid-size trucks, but that’s not actually the case. Per the EPA’s fuel economy ratings, the truck that comes in second place to the Ford Maverick for fuel efficiency is the Chevrolet Silverado 1500, along with its GMC twin, the Sierra 1500.
More specifically, it’s the Silverado and Sierra powered by the stellar 3.0-liter Duramax inline-six turbodiesel engine. When equipped with this engine, the two-wheel drive Silverado and Sierra 1500 both deliver a combined EPA rating of 25 MPG. The engine’s stout horsepower and torque numbers aside, this is a number that was formerly unheard of when it comes to full-size pickups.
Advertisement
However, when talking about fuel efficiency and saving money on gas, it’s important to note that diesel prices are often higher than gasoline, and even more so under current conditions. You can, of course, get Silverados and Sierras with gasoline engines like the 2.7-liter turbocharged four-cylinder. Despite its lower fuel economy rating, the gas 2.7 could end up being cheaper to fuel than the more efficient turbodiesel models, and even the EPA’s official estimates show the expected annual fuel costs of the two engines are nearly identical.
Advertisement
Ford F-150
The Ford F-150 pickup isn’t just a perennial bestseller, depending on powertrain options, it can also be one of the most fuel-efficient trucks on the road. When equipped with its available hybridized 3.5-liter V6 engine, the F-150 PowerBoost is actually the most fuel-efficient non-diesel full-size truck you can buy right now.
The F-150 PowerBoost has an EPA combined rating of 23 MPG, which includes an especially high rating of 22 MPG in city driving — and better yet, that’s the rating for a four-wheel drive model. The Chevy and GMC Duramax diesel half-ton trucks might have the edge in pure fuel efficiency, but per the EPA, the gasoline-powered F-150 Hybrid should be significantly cheaper to fuel up than a comparable Duramax truck.
In our review of the 2025 F-150 Hybrid, we found the added efficiency of the F-150’s hybrid option to be well worth its extra cost, which also buys you a nice bump in horsepower and a fairly substantial boost in torque over the non-hybrid 3.5 EcoBoost F-150. Ford of course, offers other less efficient powertrains in the F-150, including the Raptor R’s gas-guzzling supercharged V8 — but when it comes to balancing performance and fuel economy, the PowerBoost version is hard to beat.
Advertisement
Toyota Tacoma
If you are in the market for a mid-sized pickup truck and place a high value on fuel economy, the Toyota Tacoma is going to be difficult to top. Toyota currently offers the Tacoma with two different engines — a standard 2.4-liter turbocharged four-cylinder or a hybrid i-Force Max version of that same engine, which is available on the truck’s upper trim models.
Toyota has been greatly increasing hybrid options across its vehicle lineup in recent years, but the hybrid Tacoma is less about raw fuel efficiency and more about the added horsepower and torque compared to the non-hybrid version. In our review of the 2024 Toyota Tacoma TRD Pro, we found the engine’s impressive 326 hp and 465 lb-ft of torque to be a significant improvement over the base, non-hybrid versions.
Advertisement
However, if you’re simply looking for the most fuel-efficient Tacoma, there actually isn’t a massive difference between the Tacoma Hybrid 4WD’s 23 MPG combined EPA rating, and the non-hybrid 4WD model’s 21 MPG combined rating. If you factor in the added cost of the hybrid powertrain, the money-saving math probably won’t work out in the hybrid’s favor, but that’s not surprising. As mentioned a moment ago, the i-Force Max version of the Tacoma is more about driving performance than saving money at the pump.
Advertisement
Ford Ranger
Not to be overlooked between the compact Ford Maverick and the larger F-150 is the mid-sized Ford Ranger, which also offers strong fuel-efficiency numbers for its class. Unlike some of the other trucks on this list, the Ranger gets these numbers not from a hybrid or upmarket turbodiesel powertrain, but with its base 2.3-liter turbocharged EcoBoost four-cylinder.
In its two-wheel-drive spec, the 2.3-liter Ranger earns an EPA rating of 23 MPG combined, which, for the money, is about as good as you’ll find in any body-on-frame pickup truck on sale right now. Our review of the current generation Ranger XLT found that the truck’s real-world economy backs those numbers up, which we found very impressive for a non-hybrid, base engine. Those looking for more power from their Ranger can opt for the larger 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 engine, but as you’d expect, that drops overall fuel economy numbers by a few miles per gallon.
Beyond that, there’s the much more powerful Ford Ranger Raptor, which, not surprisingly, drops that combined EPA rating down even further to 17 MPG. Given recent electrification trends, perhaps at some point Ford will add a hybrid Ranger option similar to the F-150, which would likely take the Ranger’s already-strong fuel economy numbers to a new level.
Advertisement
Methodology
When putting this list together, we used official EPA fuel ratings as our primary source to pick five of the best-performing, current pickup trucks with internal combustion engines. We also used our first-hand experience on most of these models to back up the selection with real-world fuel economy and performance observations. We all allowed current truck models with either gasoline, hybrid, or turbodiesel engines.
Marshall’s prolific 2026 continues with the launch of the Stockwell II wireless speaker, which boasts some pretty big specs.
The Stockwell II was one of our favourite Bluetooth speakers when it launched, so we’re looking forward to seeing how Marshall can improve, and on paper, there are some big improvements.
But before that, let’s start with sustainability. The Stockwell III introduces replaceable and modular components, a list which includes the battery, carry strap, silicone sleeve as well as the front and rear grilles to ensure that the Stockwell III can last as long as possible without the need for a full replacement if it gets damaged.
To help its longevity, battery life has been expanded from the Stockwell II’s 20+ to 40+, practically double the battery life than before. The speaker can also act as a powerbank for other devices (such as your mobile device).
Advertisement
Image Credit (Marshall)
Advertisement
Marshall’s True Stereophonic 360 sound has made its way to the Stockwell III, offering consistent audio from whichever angle the speaker is placed to ensure there’s no ‘sweet spots’. Dynamic Loudness also features, taking care of managing bass, mid and treble at any volume and keeping them in balance.
The design remains practically the same, with its vertical silhouette and guitar-inspired PU leather strap and velvet lining. Controls have been updated to make it easier to access presets with the M-button or skip tracks with the media jog. An IP55 rating means that it’s not fully waterproof, but can survive a dip into water for a small amount of time. That’s still a jump up from the Stockwell II’s IPX4 rating.
Pricing is within reach of the older model in some markets, but overall it is more expensive. The Marshall Stockwell III has a price of £199.99 / $249.99 / €229.99 with availability in August (you can register interest in the speaker now). Colours are a choice of Black and Brass, and Cream.
This story is part of a series commemorating the five-year anniversary of the Voices of Change fellowship. Avery Thrush, a former Voice of Change fellow, is currently a LEE Fellow at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Reading my articles from the fellowship feels like reading diary entries. They’re raw, honest and they reflect how much I was struggling with teaching at the time. Overwhelm is apparent. So is frustration. As a teacher who was impacted by COVID-19 and the year of fully remote learning for students, the Voices of Change fellowship gave me the space to reflect and name the questions that had brought me to teaching in the first place. Since leaving the classroom almost two years ago, I’ve returned to writing frequently to work through the questions teaching left me with.
Having attended Title I public schools myself, I entered the classroom seeking a lens through which to understand my school experiences. As I became more interested in education as an engine of social mobility, I wanted to understand why some kids learned to read and some did not. I wanted to understand why some schools had more resources than others. I wanted to understand why some kids went to college, and some did not. Teaching felt like a way to move closer to those answers.
The process of learning these answers was swift and painful. The stark reality was playing out in front of me every day as I taught at a public charter school during the day and then drove to the suburbs in the evenings to tutor for extra cash. I quickly saw how rarely student success is the product of a single school or teacher, but rather an aligned system of supports that begins at birth.
Advertisement
So here’s what I learned: some kids can read because their schools taught phonics and screened for reading disabilities in kindergarten. Some schools have more resources because housing policy and decades of segregation shaped property values and neighborhood composition. Some kids go to college because they benefited from networks of financial and familial stability, giving them resilience through challenges like the SAT, the Common App and FAFSA. The questions I began with spun out into winding tangles of policy choices, zip codes, race and class.
I’ve come to understand that the grief I felt at leaving the classroom was more than being overwhelmed and overworked — it was the undoing of my belief that education was society’s great equalizer. It was also the realization that I had been lucky; my graduation from high school and matriculation to a four-year college was as much a function of my family’s assumption from birth that I would go to college as it was my academic performance or the opportunities my schools offered.
Achieving academically was easy because I had stable housing, good health care and a network of loving and supportive adults. Had I experienced any learning challenges, they would have been swiftly addressed by my white-collar parents, who are comfortable speaking with educated professionals. Students spend the vast majority of their lives before the age of 18 outside of school. Teaching revealed how profoundly the promise of education depends on systems beyond the classroom.
That isn’t to say that schools and teachers cannot move the needle for students. Teachers grow their students every day in ways that feel nothing short of miraculous. You’d be hard-pressed to find an adult who cannot name a teacher who made a difference in their life. But the biggest gains for students occur when the systems around schools align to support the work teachers are doing — when children arrive at school healthier, safer and more secure in their lives outside the classroom.
Advertisement
On this front, there are two movements I’ve been paying attention to, one that brings me hope and one that makes me nervous. In graduate school, I learned about place-based partnerships, initiatives that bring stakeholders in health care, housing, education, youth services, local government and philanthropy into alignment around shared goals for supporting children and families. The most famous example is the Harlem Children’s Zone, but the model has spread widely. Organizations like StriveTogether now support networks of communities working toward cradle-to-career outcomes. Partners for Rural Impact is helping rural communities coordinate services for children across schools and social supports. Here in Boston, the Boston Children’s Council is bringing together city agencies, nonprofits and schools to think more holistically about the conditions shaping children’s lives.
What gives me hope about these efforts is that they acknowledge something teachers already know: students do not arrive at school as blank slates each morning. They arrive carrying the cumulative effects of housing stability, health-care access, nutrition, family income and community safety. Place-based partnerships represent a policy approach that supports teachers by strengthening the ecosystems around them rather than asking schools to solve poverty alone.
NEWSLETTERS
STAY AHEAD IN EDUCATION.
Sign up for EdSurge newsletters for timely news, insights and analysis.
Advertisement
What makes me more uneasy is the direction some of the frustration with public education has taken. If we spent decades telling ourselves that schools were the great equalizer, then the persistence of large racial and economic achievement gaps, especially in the wake of COVID frustrations, can feel like a failure of the institution itself.
In my home state of West Virginia, that frustration has helped fuel support for the Hope Scholarship, the nation’s only universal education savings account program, which has deleterious impacts on the public education system most students rely on. Policies like this are often framed as empowering families with choice, but I worry they also reflect a disillusionment with the project of public schools as engines of democracy. It is my belief that many of the inequities in public education were never fully within schools’ control to address.
My experience as a teacher, and now as a policy practitioner, has convinced me that the path forward is not to abandon public schools, but to surround them with stronger systems of support for children and families. The question I find myself paying closest attention to now is how policy can help build those systems: partnerships that allow teachers to do what they already do best, while ensuring the conditions outside the classroom make their work possible.
This story is part of an EdSurge series chronicling diverse educator experiences. These stories are made publicly available with support from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. EdSurge maintains editorial control over all content. (Read our ethics statement here.) This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Advertisement
Avery Thrush is a West Virginia native and former educator.
Apple’s iPadOS 27 update is shaping up to be less about one headline feature and more about pulling the whole system closer together with Apple Intelligence is running through the middle of it.
The biggest shift is Siri, which is getting a major upgrade into what Apple is now calling “Siri AI”. Instead of short, scripted requests, Siri AI can now handle natural conversations and follow-up questions.
Additionally, it can tap into personal context on the device. That means it can surface old emails, find specific photos from years ago, or pull up notes without users having to remember exact file names or locations. Apple is also pushing this further with actions inside apps. For example, Siri can do things like edit a recently sent message, add music to a playlist, or help manage reminders based on what you’re currently doing.
There’s also a new dedicated Siri app, which acts as a kind of hub for conversations across Apple devices. You can start a request on iPhone and pick it up on iPad without losing context. This feels like Apple trying to make Siri less of a one-off interaction and more of an ongoing assistant.
The system-wide push continues in Messages and Mail, where Apple Intelligence suggests quick actions based on context. For instance, it can add events to your calendar or pull up relevant photos. There’s also a new Image Playground tool for generating and modifying images from simple prompts. This fits into Apple’s broader move toward description-based input across the system.
Shortcuts is another big beneficiary. Instead of building automations step by step, users can now just describe what they want. Then iPadOS will assemble the shortcut automatically. It’s the same idea Apple is pushing everywhere else: you say what you want, and the system figures out the structure behind it.
Advertisement
Visually, iPadOS 27 also brings refinements to the Liquid Glass design, improving contrast and readability. At the same time, users can adjust how translucent or tinted the interface looks. It’s not a dramatic redesign. Still, it does tighten up the overall feel of the system, especially on larger displays.
There are more practical upgrades too. Passwords can now flag weak or compromised credentials and update them automatically, while Safari and file transfers are noticeably faster. Apple also says performance improvements extend to app launches and AirDrop, making the system feel more responsive in day-to-day use.
On the safety side, Apple is expanding parental controls with more granular setup options, website approval requests through Ask to Browse, and clearer visibility into how children are using their devices. Communication Safety is also being extended to better handle harmful content in shared media.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Expect the software to arrive later this year, and there’s a developer beta available now.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login