Microfiber cloths are an eco-friendly and versatile cleaning tool that many of us keep around the house. They serve a multitude of purposes, from wiping down your countertops and polishing your eyeglasses to cleaning your electronics and detailing your car. They’re a great choice when you want to polish a surface without scratching it, and many people use them to hand wash their cars. But what’s the best way to clean them after you use them, or even after they’ve simply hit the ground?
Microfiber cloths, as the name implies, are made up countless synthetic fibers that carry an electrostatic charge. It’s this charge that attracts dirt so well; maintaining that charge means washing them in ways that don’t limit the cloth’s abilities. Thankfully, you don’t need to wash those microfiber cloths by hand — your washing machine will do the job. However, if the microfiber towels are extremely dirty, you may want to give them a rinse in the sink beforehand. That being said, you should wash them on their own and not with other clothing or towels, especially anything that’s cotton or wool, as this can make it harder for all those synthetic fibers to keep attracting dust and dirt.
Once you toss those microfiber cloths safely into the washing machine, set the water to warm, which will help loosen the dirt and clean them more thoroughly. Use gentle detergent and avoid fabric softeners and bleach, which can also damage the fibers. Stick to the gentle or normal cycle to minimize wear and tear caused by heavy agitation. If you want to ensure that the cloths are clean, you can add an extra rinse to the cycle. Once the microfiber cloths come out of the washer, you can either allow them to air dry or throw them in the dryer on low heat. Once they’re clean and dry, they should be ready for another round!
Advertisement
How and why to use microfiber to clean your car
MBLifestyle/Shutterstock
Visit the car detailing aisle at your local big box store and you’ll be greeted with a multitude of sponges, washing mittens, and towels. However, the pros often choose microfiber because it’s both soft and dense, and all those small fibers it’s made of easily pick up tiny dirt particles without being abrasive. They’re also very absorbent and don’t tend to leave behind streaks or lint, making them a better choice for washing your vehicle than sponges or an old rag. They’re also cost-effective, as you can use them again and again as long as you clean them properly.
To avoid cross-contamination and the potential for scratches, use a separate microfiber cloth for each section of your car when you wash it, including the tires, the body, and the windows. Glass-specific microfiber cloths for your windshield can be particularly helpful in keeping it free of streaks. Never use the cloth on dry paint; always rinse your vehicle first to remove loose dirt and reduce the risk of scratches. You may want to use one bucket for soapy water and another with clean water to rinse the cloth as you wash. Instead of using a circular motion, wipe in straight lines when using a microfiber cloth, as this helps reduce any marks that may be left over when you’re done.
Advertisement
To dry your vehicle, use another clean cloth. Instead of wiping, gently pat with the cloth, which again will help you avoid scratches, smudges, and streaks. Finally, never reuse a microfiber cloth without washing them — even if they look clean, dirt trapped in the cloth may lead to scratched paint the next time around.
In 2026, one of Europe’s most ambitious scientific ventures, Horizon Europe, a seven-year, roughly €93 billion framework dedicated to research and innovation, underwent a quiet but significant transformation.
What had once been an open invitation to researchers across the globe now carries a more guarded tenor.
This change is neither arbitrary nor purely technical. It reflects the culmination of years of negotiation and strategic signalling in Brussels.
Advertisement
According to the European Commission’s own international cooperation guidance, cooperation with third countries like China has always been conditional; Chinese researchers may contribute, but they are required to enter as Associated Partners and often must bring their own funding where EU funding does not automatically apply.
The 💜 of EU tech
The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!
Yet the updated participation rules go further.
Advertisement
In late 2025, the Commission codified conditions that essentially block Chinese institutions from receiving core Horizon Europe grants in sensitive clusters of research and innovation.
In policy terms, the threshold for inclusion has shifted: European partners must now demonstrate that their collaborators are not owned or controlled by Chinese entities, creating de facto barriers for significant portions of bilateral work in cutting-edge fields.
While cooperation is not extinguished outright, joint work continues in areas like climate science and agriculture under bilateral road-map mechanisms; this recalibration is telling.
It amounts to Europe drawing boundaries around where it will share its most prized scientific infrastructure and intellectual capital and where it will withhold it.
Advertisement
The official justifications, as framed by Commission texts, lean heavily on concerns about research security, intellectual property protection, and the perceived risk of unintended transfers of strategic technology where civil and military boundaries blur.
Viewed in isolation, these adjustments might read as bureaucratic fine-tuning. But in the broader context of EU policy, which straddles an ambition for open scientific cooperation and an emergent emphasis on strategic autonomy, they underscore a fundamental tension.
Europe still champions collaborative discovery across borders, yet it acknowledges nowadays research ecosystem is intertwined with global power dynamics in once unimaginable ways.
Beyond the sharp edges of eligibility rules lies a deeper question: why does this particular rebalancing matter in practice?
Advertisement
Over the past decade, China has become increasingly visible in global scientific networks. Its researchers regularly co-authored papers with European counterparts, and its rapidly expanding domestic science base, often supported through state mechanisms, moved from peripheral to central positions in disciplines ranging from materials science to computational biology.
Yet in the architecture of Horizon Europe that emerges in 2026, participation is no longer synonymous with access to EU funds.
Chinese entities still can contribute to research proposals, but they do so as Associated Partners and typically must bring their own financing, a distinction that subtly but fundamentally changes the incentives and power dynamics of collaboration.
In practical terms, the new rules change how research consortia form and operate. European institutions seeking to work at the frontier of emerging technologies must now factor in eligibility constraints when structuring partnerships.
Advertisement
Where once multinational consortia could mix researchers from across continents with minimal procedural friction, they now must design collaborations that either exclude certain partners from funding streams or justify their presence through alternative mechanisms.
This places a renewed premium on legal expertise, consortium management, and alignment with EU strategic priorities, an additional administrative layer that did not exist to the same degree in earlier cooperation frameworks.
These restrictions could have unintended intellectual or scientific consequences. When large research systems are pushed to the margins, there is a risk that parallel ecosystems evolve, with reduced interoperability between them. In the long term, this could alter citation networks, collaborative norms, and research mobility patterns.
It could also prompt other powerful actors to adopt similar measures, reshaping the landscape of global science into distinct blocs defined by policy fences rather than open inquiry.
Advertisement
It’s important to emphasise that the EU has not abandoned bilateral scientific engagement outright.
Mechanisms outside Horizon Europe, including mobility schemes and targeted co-funding instruments designed to support researcher exchanges, continue to exist, and cooperation on transnational challenges such as climate change and biodiversity remains active.
What has changed is the weight of strategic calculation in decisions about where and how to invest EU funding. As a result, science policy in Europe now sits at the intersection of research excellence, economic sovereignty, and geopolitical strategy.
For Europe’s research community, this presents a complex set of questions. Does tighter control over strategic collaborations strengthen the European innovation base? Or does it risk isolating European science from talent and knowledge flows?
Advertisement
The answer is unlikely to be binary.
What is clear, however, is that Horizon Europe, once known chiefly as a vehicle for excellence and discovery, is now also a mirror of shifting geopolitical realities, showing how science policy has become part of broader efforts to navigate uncertainty in a multipolar world.
In the end, the EU’s decision to redraw the terms of research partnership with China feels less like a closing door and more like a recalibration of Europe’s compass. It acknowledges a world in which scientific discovery and geopolitical currents are no longer parallel tracks but deeply intertwined.
The Horizon Europe programme, once the grand symbol of open scientific cooperation, now also stands as a marker of strategic foresight, a space where Europe seeks to balance openness with caution, curiosity with control.
Advertisement
This turning point doesn’t signal a retreat from global engagement.
What it does reflect is a modern realpolitik of research: where funding decisions are informed not only by scientific merit but by questions of security, reciprocity, and long-term technological sovereignty.
In a scenery defined by rising competition over frontier technologies, Europe is choosing to hedge its bets, opening some doors wider, while tightening others. The future of scientific collaboration may be neither total isolation nor full openness but a nuanced choreography between cooperation and strategic self-interest.
Russian hacker brute-forced FortiGate firewalls using weak credentials
AI-generated scripts enabled data parsing, reconnaissance, and lateral movement
The campaign targeted Veeam servers; attacker abandoned hardened systems
A Russian hacker was recently seen brute-forcing their way into hundreds of firewalls – but what makes this campaign really stand out is the fact that the seemingly low-skilled threat actor was able to pull off the attacks with the help of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI).
In a new analysis, Amazon Integrated Security CISO CJ Moses explained how researchers observed a threat actor “systematically” scanning for exposed FortiGate management interfaces across ports 443, 8443, 10443, and 4443.
After finding a potential target, they brute-forced their way in, trying countless combinations of commonly used and weak credentials, until one worked.
A little rough around the edges
Once inside, the hacker extracted full device configuration files (SSL-VPN user credentials with recoverable passwords, administrative credentials, firewall policies and internal network architecture, and more) and parsed, decrypted, and organized them using AI-generated Python scripts.
They then used the recovered VPN credentials to connect to internal networks, deploying custom AI-generated reconnaissance tools (written in Go and Python) and moving to Active Directory.
“Analysis of the source code reveals clear indicators of AI-assisted development: redundant comments that merely restate function names, simplistic architecture with disproportionate investment in formatting over functionality, naive JSON parsing via string matching rather than proper deserialization, and compatibility shims for language built-ins with empty documentation stubs,” Moses said.
Advertisement
“While functional for the threat actor’s specific use case, the tooling lacks robustness and fails under edge cases—characteristics typical of AI-generated code used without significant refinement.”
Sign up to the TechRadar Pro newsletter to get all the top news, opinion, features and guidance your business needs to succeed!
The attacker also specifically targeted Veeam Backup & Replication servers, deploying credential extraction tools and attempting exploitation of known Veeam vulnerabilities.
All of this was done in a span of just a few weeks, between January 11 and February 18, 2026, leading the researchers to believe the attacker is rather unskilled – as throughout their operations, they tried exploiting various CVEs but largely failed when targets were patched or hardened. They frequently abandoned well-protected environments and moved on to easier targets.
The design replaces the complex, flammable chemistry of lithium-ion batteries with an electrolyte that’s as safe as saltwater. In lab tests, the prototype endured more than 120,000 charge cycles, an endurance record that far exceeds today’s commercial standards. Typical electric-vehicle batteries degrade after just a few thousand cycles – even… Read Entire Article Source link
Mountain Hardware’s Ghost Whisperer UL hoodie has been a popular pick among ultralight backpackers since it was introduced a few years ago. It remains the best puffer jacket for anyone trying to shave every last ounce off their pack weight. It weighs just 6.7 ounces for a men’s medium (7.3 ounces for the men’s large I tested), packs down to a tiny little thing (stuffing into its own pocket), and the 1,000-fill-power goose down offers one of the best warmth-to-weight ratios on the market. The very lightweight shell material is a mix of 5D and 7D ripstop nylon, which is a bit more fragile than heavier jackets, but it has held up well so far in my testing. I can safely say that the Ghost Whisper UL is everything I ever wanted in an ultralight down puffer and then some.
What sets it apart from some other very nice puffers out there are the little details. First there’s the 1.9 ounces of 1,000-fill-power down, which is as high a fill power as you’ll find in a jacket of this class, meaning you’re getting the maximum warmth and loft that you can for the least amount of weight. My only caveat for this jacket would be, if you are the type of person who gets cold easily, you might want something with a bit more fill. The classic Ghost Whisperer Down Hoody (not the ultralight) has 3 ounces of 800 fill power and is slightly warmer in most scenarios, the trade-off being it’s heavier as well (about 9 ounces for a men’s medium). Also check out the Katabatic Gear puffer below, which is considerably warmer. I do not get cold easily, and I have found the Ghost Whisperer UL works well for me as a warm layer to throw on in camp at high elevation is summer, a mid-layer for hiking in cold conditions, and a mid-layer under the Rab Glaceon Pro in extreme cold.
Other details that make the Ghost Whisperer UL our top pick for ultralight hiking include two very nice zippered hand pockets with a good amount of space to stash little stuff like a three-season hat and some gloves, along with an adjustable drawstring at the waist to keep drafts out. I also love how small this thing packs down, well under the size of a 1L bottle (see photo). It packs into its own left pocket with a reversible zipper, although it will stuff down even smaller if you get a separate stuff sack.
My only gripe about this jacket is that there’s no drawstrings. The hood, cuffs, and waist hem are all elastic. This works fine for the cuffs and hood, but I wish there were a drawstring for the waist. For this reason, if I am expecting temps below 40, I bring a heavier puffer. The rest of the time, this is what you’ll find in my backpack. Note that I found the fit to be a little small. According to the fit guide on the Mountain Hardware website, I am right between medium and large. I tried both and found the large fit much better.
AI has driven an explosion of new number formats—the ways in which numbers are represented digitally. Engineers are looking at every possible way to save computation time and energy, including shortening the number of bits used to represent data. But what works for AI doesn’t necessarily work for scientific computing, be it for computational physics, biology, fluid dynamics, or engineering simulations. IEEE Spectrum spoke with Laslo Hunhold, who recently joined Barcelona-based Openchip as an AI engineer, about his efforts to develop a bespoke number format for scientific computing.
LASLO HUNHOLD
Laslo Hunhold is a senior AI accelerator engineer at Barcelona-based startup Openchip. He recently completed a Ph.D. in computer science from the University of Cologne, in Germany.
What makes number formats interesting to you?
Advertisement
Laslo Hunhold: I don’t know another example of a field that so few are interested in but has such a high impact. If you make a number format that’s 10 percent more [energy] efficient, it can translate to all applications being 10 percent more efficient, and you can save a lot of energy.
Why are there so many new number formats?
Hunhold: For decades, computer users had it really easy. They could just buy new systems every few years, and they would have performance benefits for free. But this hasn’t been the case for the last 10 years. In computers, you have a certain number of bits used to represent a single number, and for years the default was 64 bits. And for AI, companies noticed that they don’t need 64 bits for each number. So they had a strong incentive to go down to 16, 8, or even 2 bits [to save energy]. The problem is, the dominating standard for representing numbers in 64 bits is not well designed for lower bit counts. So in the AI field, they came up with new formats which are more tailored toward AI.
Why does AI need different number formats than scientific computing?
Advertisement
Hunhold: Scientific computing needs high dynamic range: You need very large numbers, or very small numbers, and very high accuracy in both cases. The 64-bit standard has an excessive dynamic range, and it is many more bits than you need most of the time. It’s different with AI. The numbers usually follow a specific distribution, and you don’t need as much accuracy.
What makes a number format “good”?
Hunhold: You have infinite numbers but only finite bit representations. So you need to decide how you assign numbers. The most important part is to represent numbers that you’re actually going to use. Because if you represent a number that you don’t use, you’ve wasted a representation. The simplest thing to look at is the dynamic range. The next is distribution: How do you assign your bits to certain values? Do you have a uniform distribution, or something else? There are infinite possibilities.
What motivated you to introduce the takum number format?
Advertisement
Hunhold: Takums are based on posits. In posits, the numbers that get used more frequently can be represented with more density. But posits don’t work for scientific computing, and this is a huge issue. They have a high density for [numbers close to one], which is great for AI, but the density falls off sharply once you look at larger or smaller values. People have been proposing dozens of number formats in the last few years, but takums are the only number format that’s actually tailored for scientific computing. I found the dynamic range of values you use in scientific computations, if you look at all the fields, and designed takums such that when you take away bits, you don’t reduce that dynamic range
This article appears in the March 2026 print issue as “Laslo Hunhold.”
Purchasing a new car is hardly an easy task, even if you’re shopping in the more budget-friendly quarters of the market. But the process can no doubt be even more daunting for folks shopping in the luxury vehicle category, as there tends to be more money at stake up front. If you are eyeing a new ride in that corner of the market, there’s a likelihood that vehicles from BMW and Toyota’s luxury shingle, Lexus, are on your radar.
Those vaunted auto brands have essentially become permanent fixtures on yearly lists, amassing the best-selling luxury brands. If you’ve been comparing those automotive brands yourself, you likely noticed that, at least at the point of purchase, BMW models will likely cost you a few more Benjamins than their Lexus counterparts. But in the luxury automobile sector, maintenance should also factor heavily in your decision-making process, as it can be expensive to keep those vehicles looking and running the way any owner would expect from a high-priced ride.
Advertisement
It can, however, be difficult to properly determine maintenance costs on your own. As such, consumer ratings factions like Consumer Reports (CR) can be invaluable in helping you crunch the numbers. And according to CR, in the long run, the estimated cost of maintaining a BMW may be considerably more than that of a Lexus. For the record, several other factions — including SoFi and CarEdge — also rank Lexus well ahead of BMW in this category, even as there may be more to the numbers to consider.
Advertisement
The maintenance numbers are tricky between Lexus and BMW
Given Lexus’s ties to the Toyota brand, it’s not entirely shocking that the brand is cheaper to maintain. Save for a few recent issues, Toyota is well-known in the automobile arena for reliable vehicles that don’t cost much to properly maintain. To that end, both SoFi and CarEdge rank Lexus as one of the best luxury options on the market in terms of maintenance costs.
Though numbers vary, Consumer Reports estimates tell the same story. But the numbers aren’t as cut and dry as you might think. In fact, per CR’s estimates, over the first five years of ownership, a Lexus might cost more to properly maintain at a potential cost of $1,800 to BMW’s $1,700. It’s in years six through 10 that things shift dramatically, however, with CR estimating it may cost $9,300 to maintain a BMW and $5,600 for a Lexus. Consumer Reports’ 10-year estimates break down to $11,000 for BMW and $7,400 for Lexus. While the other noted survey factions claim that cost could run closer to $16,000 or more for the German brand, the overall Lexus numbers are more in-line CR’s estimate.
There is one caveat to consider regarding these numbers, in that CR reportedly only accounts for costs that are paid directly by the vehicle’s owner, effectively ignoring services covered by the manufacturer in complimentary maintenance plans. That may account for variances in the cited estimates. And with new BMWs getting three years of complimentary service from the manufacturer in comparison to Lexus’s one-year plan, the overall numbers could see a notable shift.
But at the annual show, I also saw a decent amount of kit that wasn’t so wallet-shredding. I enjoyed listening to plenty of headphones and speakers which you and I could even end up buying — I mean, if my landlady decided I could be exempt from rent for a month or two.
None of the following gadgets will be eligible for our best cheap headphones or speakers lists; they’re all still far from the ‘budget’ border which we patrol for those round-ups. But they’re still within the budgets of some audiophiles, as long as they’re OK with saving for a little while — and I think that means something.
Advertisement
1. Dali Sonik series
(Image credit: Future)
I wandered into the Dali suite as Kraftwerk was blasting out of the Sonik 9, though for this ‘budget’ list, I’ll refrain from mentioning that £2,199, $4,500, AU$4,099 model again.
Sonik is the new flagship series for Danish audio brand Dali, and while the 9 is the top-end model, there’s also a 1, 3, 5 and 7, as well as On-Wall and Cinema. We covered these models, and their differences, when they were announced.
Advertisement
I was most drawn in by the smaller Sonik 1 (pictured above), for £449, $900, AU$849, and the Cinema model, for the exact same price. The latter is a pseudo-soundbar that can also be used as one part of a multi-device suite, though it wasn’t being tested when I was poking my head around.
The Sonik 1, though, seem to offer all the audio chops of the pricey models, but for a lesser fee. These stereo speakers have the same 29mm soft dome tweeter along with a 5 1/4 woofer, and maintain the versatile placement of previous Dali speakers. Sure, this model is the weakest of the bunch, but it’s not exactly a crime to fall short of a floor-standing monolith like the Sonik 9. (Oops: I mentioned it again!)
Sign up for breaking news, reviews, opinion, top tech deals, and more.
Advertisement
2. Sennheiser HDB 630
(Image credit: Future)
Bristol Hi-Fi isn’t as much a show for headphones as it is for home Hi-Fi kit, but Sennheiser reminded me that wireless cans can keep up, if they’re done right. I was ready to wax lyrical about their prowess until I realized that TechRadar published a Sennheiser HDB 630 review at the tail end of 2025.
Oh well; I tested them at the show, and I liked them. I’d even go so far as to call them the best headphones I listened to at the big event, though they’re also among the only headphones I listened to (other than pairs for testing DAPs). They offer fantastically-detailed, spacious, and nuanced sound, and the iPad Sennheiser had paired with the cans was full of music — the brand was clearly confident that I’d get great audio, whatever genre or song I picked.
Beyond audio, the feature list looks better than I’d expect for audiophile headphones, with a long-lasting battery and range of connection options. Our reviewer praised the ANC and companion app too, so they’re clearly great all-rounders. All that for $499 / £399 / AU$999: they’re not exactly cheap as headphones go, but a far cry from the four-figure premium options you can find.
3. Mitchell uStream 2025 family
(Image credit: Future)
The Mitchell Acoustics room was bedecked in so many speakers it was hard to tell where the music was coming from — or where it wasn’t coming from. This is from its range of uStream speakers, coming in a variety of models and were all refreshed in 2025.
There’s the uStream Cube for £349 (around $470, AU$670), uStream One for £499 (roughly $670, AU$950), Ustream Two for £799 (about $1,080 AU$1,500) and Ustream Three for £1,199 ($1,600, AU$2,300), all bumping up the specs and power the more you pay. Obviously those don’t all count as budget picks, but the Cube and One in particular seem to offer great value for money.
These devices seemed designed to act as jack of all trade models, delivering high-quality wireless audio to your home, and working with TVs as much as your music player. They can apparently be positioned independently, with their own power outlet (so they don’t need to be placed too close to one another), and can sync up with Alexa or Google Assistant to run multiple rooms’ sound at once. It seems like a large bevy of features for some solid-sounding speakers.
Advertisement
Also catching my eye was the uStream Groove, which you can see at the top of this article. It combines the brand’s TT1 turntable with two uStream Cube speakers, all for £499 (about $670, AU$950), which seems a good deal as an all-in-one package for new vinyl converts.
4. FiiO M33 R2R
(Image credit: Future)
FiiO had a healthy roster of new gadgets on display at Bristol Hi-Fi, including the top-end M27 audio player, DM15 R2R CD player and EH11 headphones, but a busy room and certain technical limitations meant I only managed to test out one device. This is the M33 R2R, a successor to the FiiO M23 which costs £449 / $600 (around AU$900).
As a regular phones reviewer, I recognize plenty of the M33’s specs from budget phones a few years ago: a Snapdragon 680 chip, 8GB RAM, 128GB storage, Android 13, 5.5-inch screen, 14-hour battery life. But obviously it’s a music player, so let’s ignore those specs. The M33 offers hi-res music up to 24-bit/384kHz, with an R2R DAC, built-in amplifier, 2200mW power output and two headphone ports. It doesn’t look too different from the previous model, and it’s under the hood that some improvements have been made.
Advertisement
5. WiiM Sound
(Image credit: Future)
Well, here’s another product I liked at Bristol, only to discover that we’d already written a WiiM Sound review (and heard it soon after its release, at the Paris Audio Show). So not brand-new, per se, but only a few months old. This smart speaker sells for £299 (around $400, AU$570), though there’s a slightly cheaper version in the Sound Lite for £229 (about $310, AU$440).
The WiiM Sound units come with double tweeters and woofers, outputting at 100W. They have 2-way architecture so can be placed in the center of rooms, with an open design to ensure spacious sound – they also have a room analyzer feature to tune your music for the space. The difference between the models is that the Sound has a 1.8-inch screen while the Lite doesn’t.
When I stepped into the WiiM room (or the RooM, as I’m sure they’d like to call it), I heard one of each playing together, using a feature which lets you double up the speakers to fill a larger space, and they really did conquer the room in away that smaller speakers often don’t. There was also a WiiM Sub Pro thrown into the mix, which actually costs more than either speaker.
Advertisement
Our tester really liked them too, especially the sound quality and how handy the Sound’s touch screen was, though wasn’t a fan of the lack of Apple AirPlay. As I’m not an Apple user, that’s no problem for me.
6. Kanto UKI
(Image credit: Future)
Kanto had a few speakers on show at Bristol. When I visited the test room a harried employee was frantically switching around inputs so move the music between them, all at the behest of a demanding (presumed) potential customer who wanted to hear the difference. The one that caught my eye (and ear) was the smallest of the bunch: the UKI, which was announced a year ago and put on sale towards the end of 2025.
These cute little desktop speakers, which were displayed in green but also come in five different hues, are compact but secretly pretty powerful. The ¾-inch silk dome tweeter and 3-inch paper cone woofer output at 100W, more than you’d expect for creatures their size, with a sound quality I’d definitely enjoy for my home PC. There’s a pretty solid range of inputs (Bluetooth, USB-C, RCA) and outputs (sub-out, 3.5mm) compared to some alternatives I’ve heard.
Advertisement
The Kanto UKI is entry-level Hi-Fi kit – a brochure I picked up says they’re good for “those new to Hi-Fi”, and the price matches. They go for £199 / $269.99 / AU$379, and seem just as appropriate as bookshelf speakers as desktop ones.
And of course, you can also follow TechRadar on YouTube and TikTok for news, reviews, unboxings in video form, and get regular updates from us on WhatsApp too.
Modern smart TVs have a fatal flaw: the software ages significantly faster than the hardware. A beautiful 4K panel can easily last a decade, but the built-in operating system will become a laggy, ad-filled, bloated mess within three years. Add in the privacy concerns of viewing data collection and unskippable interface ads, and it is easy to see why tech enthusiasts are pivoting back to “dumb” screens.
The new power-user move is to buy a display that does nothing but show a picture, and pair it with a dedicated, high-power streaming box (like an Apple TV 4K or Nvidia Shield) that you can easily replace when it inevitably gets slow.
Here are the best ways to get a high-quality “dumb” screen in 2026.
You don’t have to be a business owner to buy a commercial display. Screens like the Samsung Business Pro series are designed to be mounted in sports bars or menu boards, meaning they are engineered to run 16 hours a day without failing. They offer crisp 4K UHD resolution and high dynamic range, but lack the consumer-facing bloatware and complex smart menus.
Price: $648.00 (Discounted from $720.00)
Why it works: It is a heavy-duty, reliable panel that exists simply to take an HDMI input and display it brightly.
Sceptre is one of the last brands actively producing true, non-smart TVs for the consumer market. There is no Ethernet port, no Wi-Fi antenna, and no user agreements to sign when you turn it on. It is an incredibly affordable, barebones LED panel with multiple HDMI ports that just works right out of the box.
Price: $232.07
Why it works: It isn’t going to win any awards for HDR brightness, but if you just want a reliable 4K screen for a guest room or garage that will never ask you to perform a software update, this is the one.
You can’t buy a flagship, top-tier consumer TV that doesn’t have a smart OS baked in. However, you can bypass it. The Sony A95L is arguably the best-looking TV on the market. Because it runs on the Google TV platform, you are given a choice during the initial setup: “Google TV” or “Basic TV.” Choosing Basic Mode strips away all the smart features, apps, and internet connectivity, turning this masterpiece into a glorious, high-end input switcher.
Price: $4,499.99 (Discounted from $4999.99)
Why it works: You get the absolute pinnacle of current television technology (QD-OLED, unmatched color accuracy) without the privacy invasions or home screen advertisements.
The bottom line
If you want to keep costs low and avoid the internet entirely, the Sceptre 50-inch is the most straightforward option. If you want longevity and commercial-grade reliability, the Samsung Pro TV is a brilliant workaround. But if you want a true cinematic experience without the smart-TV lag, the Sony Bravia XR A95L OLED (running in Basic Mode) is the ultimate 2026 living room setup.
The team, based at MIT’s Microsystems Technology Laboratories, demonstrated the system by printing an electric linear motor – the type that generates straight-line motion instead of spinning a shaft. Read Entire Article Source link
Michael Cawley discusses the crucial and unexpected skills he applies in his day-to-day role at Abbott.
A controls engineer at pharmaceutical Abbott, Michael Cawley, who is based in Donegal, works on the production of FreeStyle Libre continuous monitors.
“A device I also use myself as I have T1 diabetes,” Cawley told SiliconRepublic.com. “I enjoy solving problems and helping improve the technology that supports people living with diabetes.”
If there is such a thing, can you describe a typical day on the job?
My day usually starts at 8am on-site in Abbott’s Diabetes Care division in Donegal, where I work in the Sensor Print Line department as a controls engineer. This is the first step in the process that produces sensors that are vital for diabetes care, so keeping the line running smoothly is critical. At 8:15am, we have a short but focused engineering and operations meeting where we align on priorities and assign tasks. It’s a great way to keep everyone on the same page and ensure critical actions are tackled first.
Advertisement
From there, no two days are the same. I might be troubleshooting equipment, programming PLCs, fine-tuning vision or motor control systems for IQA qualifications, or collaborating on process improvements. Managing workload is a balance of structured planning and reactive problem-solving. I keep a prioritised task list and stay flexible for unexpected issues. The ultimate goal? Keep the line running smoothly and safely while driving continuous improvement, because every sensor we produce plays a role in improving lives.
What types of projects do you work on?
I work on a variety of projects, from troubleshooting to optimising existing systems to commissioning new production lines. We’re also implementing new approaches to accommodate upcoming products, which adds an exciting layer of innovation. Working alongside experienced controls engineering colleagues and addressing day-to-day issues has developed my experience. These projects are critical because they help guarantee the required supply of devices that make a real difference to diabetes care worldwide.
What skills do you use on a daily basis?
Every day, I rely on a mix of technical and soft skills. On the technical side, PLC programming, motor control, and vision system configuration are core to my work. I also use diagnostic tools like JMP to monitor performance and troubleshoot issues quickly. Beyond that, problem-solving and adaptability are essential because production environments can change in an instant. My previous experience in multiple roles – as an operator, process lead, and validation engineer – has been invaluable. It gave me a deep understanding of manufacturing processes, quality standards, and team dynamics, which I draw on regularly.
What surprised me most was how much I’d need skills beyond engineering. Project management, stakeholder communication, and balancing priorities under pressure have become part of my day-to-day. I also didn’t expect to spend so much time analysing data, but this is a crucial skill for driving improvements and ensuring alignment across teams.
Advertisement
What are the hardest parts of your working day and how do you navigate them?
Debugging a PLC program or analysing data in JMP requires focus, but unexpected issues on the line can come up at any moment and need immediate attention. Switching between structured tasks and reactive problem-solving can be demanding. To manage this, I block time for critical work where possible. Another challenge is maintaining concentration during commissioning phases, which often involve long hours and tight deadlines. Clear communication with the team and setting realistic expectations helps keep things on track.
Do you have any productivity tips that help you through the day?
One of my biggest productivity tips is to document everything in OneNote. In controls engineering, there are multiple types of coding which means you may be tracking issues over several software platforms. Good documentation is essential as it provides clear information to colleagues who may need to work on the same issues later. For data analysis and troubleshooting, I rely on JMP to quickly identify trends and root causes, which speeds up decision-making. Another tip is to block time for deep work when possible, especially during programming or diagnostics, so I can maintain focus and deliver high quality results.
What skills and tools are you using to communicate daily with your colleagues?
Most of my communication happens through Microsoft Teams for quick updates, video calls and coordinating tasks. For formal updates, including communication with vendors, email is still widely used. Face-to-face communication on the production floor is also vital, you can solve problems faster and make sure you have strong alignment between engineering and operations teams. One of the most important communication skills in my role is explaining complex controls issues or software updates to colleagues who may not have a technical background. I focus on breaking down the information clearly and concisely without sounding condescending. This helps maintain trust and ensures everyone understands the impact of changes on production and quality.
How has this role changed as this sector has grown and evolved?
I’ve only been in this role for three years, so I haven’t seen all the long-term changes as I’m still gaining experience. However, it’s clear how quickly hardware and software versions change with advances in technology. Even in a short time, I’ve seen components and platforms needing updates to keep up with new standards and features.
Advertisement
What do you enjoy most about the job?
I love problem solving. There’s a real sense of satisfaction in diagnosing or resolving an issue, implementing a solution, and seeing the production line run smoothly again. I also enjoy the variety and complexity of the work. As a user of the FreeStyle Libre 2 Plus sensor we manufacture in Donegal, knowing that the systems I help to maintain contribute to producing devices that improve the lives of people with diabetes, makes my job even more meaningful.
Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.
