My life has changed so much since my time as a Voices of Change fellow during the 2023 school year. As I wrote in my final essay of the fellowship, the beautiful, imperfect school I loved and helped build had closed. With the support of my fellowship editor, Cobretti Williams, I applied and was admitted to the Creative Writing Workshop at the University of New Orleans, where I am taking graduate classes and teaching a freshman English composition course.
In deciding what to write as a reflection on my time since the fellowship, I started three different essays and hated all of them. I did a lot of cursing, went on a couple of brooding walks and wondered why I agreed to write this in the first place. During the similarly maddening process of designing the syllabus for the first college course I taught, I took a break to write my students a letter. Here is an excerpt:
Before we start this course together, it’s important for me to name something foundational to how I approach teaching it: Writing is hard for everyone. I love writing and I believe that, if I keep practicing, I can become great at it… and I still hate doing it a lot of the time. This is why writing is so important. Almost everything we want is on the other side of making ourselves do things we don’t want to do. When we sit down to write, whether we want to or not, and we keep writing when we hit that initial point where we want to stop, and continue when those moments arise again and again like waves, we are getting vital practice. This skill, ignoring the complacent you, the you that would rather do the thing tomorrow, or tomorrow’s tomorrow, and doing the thing now instead is an act of becoming the you that has the things you want. Like anything else, this becomes easier the more you do it.
This excerpt reminds me that writing is much more difficult than most of the things we do in a world that commodifies ease and comfort, upholds them as desirable and makes us feel we are entitled to them while simultaneously less and less able to tolerate their lack.
There is a common misconception that my students come to me with that manifests most often in the statement “I don’t know what to write.” They think this means they are not ready to begin, because they believe that writing is putting what you already know onto paper. I understand why this misconception exists. So often in life, we only see finished products. The published novel, the final cut, the social media post depicting the outcome and not the process and the struggle. It’s easy to think that everyone else has things figured out, that what you see is how something was from the beginning. This can trick us into believing that if something isn’t good right away, we should abandon it. Drafting insists that we try before we feel sure, finish something even if it is not yet “good.” Revision insists that what we have can be something different, something better, and teaches us to hold multiple things in our heads at the same time. Throughout this process, we gain clarity.
Advertisement
Each time we give or receive feedback and assess whether it moves us closer to or further from our vision, we get better at articulating what we want and closer to achieving it. When teachers and students do this work together and commit to improvement, even when we both have moments of uncertainty about what to do next, we are practicing true collaboration. We both grow. What a way to become more skillful at building the world we want.
It is a strange time to be devoting so much of my life to writing, to be telling students that they should care about writing too. Just this week, an article came out detailing pervasive, undisclosed AI use to grade and give feedback to student writing in some New Orleans schools. A study conducted in May of 2025 showed that 84 percent of high school students used generative AI to complete their school work. I understand intimately the overwhelm of educators and students, and the temporary relief that cognitive offloading with AI can provide.
However, what we lose in the long term by not engaging deeply in the writing process, the practice of giving and receiving feedback, of watching revision unfold, is so much greater than the gains we feel in accepting AI’s “help” in our moments of overwhelm. What world are we building when we delegate the human work of communication through writing to machines? We would do better to engage in a process of re-evaluating our priorities, taking on fewer assignments for longer and working collaboratively as educators and administrators to redesign curricula and systems so that teachers have the capacity to get to know their students through repeated contact with their written work.
Sometimes, it feels like we are already living in a completely different world from the one in which I grew up and was educated. Luckily, these times, despite how often folks like to say they are not, are precedented. In these times, I have been turning to Black women writers like Toni Morrison, Toni Cade Bambara, Audre Lorde and June Jordan for guidance, and they all insist writing only becomes more urgent the more dire the times. In facing what Toni Morrison described in 2004 as “a burgeoning ménage a trois of political interests, corporate interests and military interests” working to “literally annihilate an inhabitable, humane future,” I have been especially steeled by Audre Lorde’s words, “In this way alone we can survive, by taking part in a process of life that is creative and continuing, that is growth.”
Advertisement
In the face of a world that would automate us right out of existence, I intend for us to survive, and so I insist we write.
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.
katie wills evans is a poet, writer, educator, and graduate student at the University of New Orleans.
L3Harris supplies system that can down incoming drones with laser-guided rockets
The US Army has awarded a contract to defense biz L3Harris for its Vampire counter-drone system to support an urgent requirement to protect against hostile airborne threats.
As drones continue to be a danger to ground forces, the Army’s order, worth up to $106 million, will form part of its layered defense approach against remotely operated and autonomous aerial vehicles.
Advertisement
The Vampire system is described by the firm as a completely self-contained platform that delivers a precision strike capability against drones and remotely piloted aircraft.
It can be fitted to vehicles, such as mounting on the back of a truck, and combines a telescopic mast with an electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) stabilized targeting system. It also has a launcher for a variety of what the military likes to call effectors – projectiles or missiles that typically go bang.
In the case of Vampire, this will often be the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS), comprising US-made Hydra 70 2.75-inch (70 mm) rockets with an added laser homing capability.
This seems to have become the (relatively) low-cost weapon of choice for downing certain types of drones, and is now being fitted to British Typhoon fighter jets deployed to the middle east, for example.
Advertisement
However, L3Harris says that Vampire has a modular plug-in design that allows for the rapid addition of other sensors, effectors, and radio management systems.
The system can engage aerial targets up to six kilometers (3.8 miles) away. Its laser designator can highlight targets, while also coordinating with other platforms, allowing for a distributed approach to target engagement.
“We’ve worked with the Army to understand their needs for new counter-UxS systems that can be quickly assembled, delivered, set-up and fired,” said L3Harris president, for Targeting & Sensor Systems, Tom Kirkland.
“Vampire is effective at hunting and engaging drone threats affordably, which enables US armed forces to sustain reliable defense of its personnel and infrastructure.”
Advertisement
We asked L3Harris how many systems the US Army will be getting for its $106 million.
The company says it developed Vampire at the beginning of the war in Ukraine to provide a low-cost solution to help eliminate Russian drone threats. It has since ramped up production at a new production line in Huntsville, Alabama, in a response to the growing need it sees from the US and allies to counter the drone threat.
L3Harris says the system has so far logged more than 350,000 operational hours in support of European combat operations since 2023. ®
A recall has just been announced for a large number of Honda and Acura trucks and SUVs. According to documents from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), upwards of 880,514 cars are impacted. As of now, the 2017 to 2023 Honda Ridgeline, the 2016-2022 Honda Pilot, the 2019 to 2023 Honda Passport, and 2014 to 2020 Acura MDX.
Reportedly, there are issues with the rear suspension assembly failing prematurely due to corrosion from de-icing agents on roadways. The paperwork states: “improper coating specifications may result in insufficient paint adhesion and premature paint peeling near the arm bracket weld area. In regions where de-icing salt is heavily used, the exposed area may corrode prematurely. As the corrosion progresses, material thinning and driving vibrations could cause the mounting area to fracture and fail.”
Advertisement
As such, the NHTSA notes that the recall is specific to states perform use de-icing procedures on the road. Those states are: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington D.C., and Wisconsin.
Advertisement
Honda’s recall is linked to premature corrosion from road salt
Fortunately, there is already a fix in place as reported by a Honda service bulletin. If your car is affected by the recall (you can check through the NHTSA’s tool or directly with Honda), you can schedule an appointment to get your car worked on where Honda will install a rear subframe reinforcement kit. In another stroke of good news, no newer Honda vehicles seem to be affected and no injuries or crashed have been reported. As with all safety-related recalls, the fix is free.
If you live in a state where where roads are salted, or you bought a car (not just a Honda) from a state where that takes place, it’s always worth taking an extra look at suspension components that might get covered in road salt, leading to premature corrosion. It will be worth it in the long run to keep your car nice and clean after the snow and salt are gone.
I work from home, so I typically listen to audio through headphones or AirPods. But I’ve always wanted a desk speaker that doesn’t take up too much space, which made the new Sonos Play a fitting first Sonos product to review.
The Play, launched in March, is Sonos’s first new device in more than a year. The $299 speaker is a hybrid: part home speaker, part portable. It sits on your desk in a pill-shaped dock, but at 1.3 kilograms, with a “utility loop” on the back, it’s easy to carry around the house or take outside.
Image Credits: SonosImage Credits:Sonos
While testing it, I often started a podcast at my desk and carried the Play to the kitchen while I cooked or made coffee. The advantage over wearing AirPods is that you remain aware of your surroundings — no more missing what someone across the room is saying. And you don’t need to rely on voice commands to control playback; the Sonos Assistant and Alexa are both built in.
Physical controls are another advantage. Skipping tracks or adjusting volume with greasy hands is awkward on AirPods; the Play’s buttons are more forgiving. That said, the controls themselves are easy to miss — they’re the same color as the silicone top and barely raised above the surface. After a few days I had memorized their positions, but the learning curve is a minor frustration that better contrast or more tactile buttons could have avoided.
Image credits: Ivan MehtaImage Credits:Ivan Mehta
The speaker is sturdy and IP67-rated, meaning it can handle rain and brief submersion — I ran it under a tap without issue. It can also charge your phone in a pinch, doubling as a power bank, which is a welcome feature for outdoor use.
For sound, the Play relies on dual-angled tweeters, a mid-woofer, and three digital amplifiers, with two passive radiators to reinforce bass outdoors. The result is balanced and detailed at moderate volumes — instrument separation is particularly good. The soundstage is narrow, though, meaning the music can feel somewhat contained rather than expansive, and at higher volumes the mix loses some of its clarity.
Advertisement
The Play is well-suited to a desk or a patio; it isn’t trying to fill a room. For that, Sonos’s Era 100 SL — which launched alongside the Play — is the better choice. Two Play units can be paired into a stereo configuration, either through the app or, more cleverly, by holding the play/pause button on both speakers simultaneously. It’s a useful feature that makes a noticeable difference for music, though less so for television audio — which these speakers aren’t really designed for anyway.
Image Credits:Sonos
Sonos has also built in Trueplay, which uses the speaker’s microphones to automatically calibrate sound based on the room. Earlier versions of this feature required waving your phone around the space to tune the audio — an awkward workaround that would have made little sense on a portable speaker. The new implementation handles it automatically.
Sonos has had well-publicized struggles with its app — disappearing speakers, glitchy volume controls — and while the company has made meaningful improvements, a few rough edges remain. Sync between the Play and my MacBook was occasionally laggy, for example, and playing or pausing audio on YouTube sometimes produced a noticeable delay before the speaker responded.
Switching audio between speakers worked reliably through AirPlay but failed repeatedly in the Sonos app until I installed the Apple Music integration — and even then, the process is more cumbersome than it should be.
The “Apply” button in the Sonos app, required to confirm speaker changes, feels like an unnecessary extra step. AirPlay handles the same action with a single tap.
Advertisement
Pocket Casts integration has a resuming bug: podcasts restart from the beginning rather than picking up where you left off.
Overall, the Sonos Play is a solid speaker that largely delivers on its premise. The app issues are real but not dealbreakers, and Sonos has shown it is willing to iterate. If portability isn’t a priority, the Era 100 ($219) or Era 100 SL ($189) offer more volume for less money. If you want something more rugged and truly portable, the Sonos Roam 2 or JBL Charge 6 are worth considering. But if you want a speaker that works equally well on a desk and a back porch, the Play makes a convincing case for itself.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
Computed Axial Lithographic printing gets even closer to the Star Trek replicator fantasy than any other 3D printer we’ve seen: there’s a machine, it glows with a mysterious bluish light, and an object appears. OK, the object is appearing inside a spinning vat of photochemical ooze, not in thin air, but that’s a detail. It’s still very cool tech, and now it’s open source enough to replicate with full documentation and a GitHub repository.
This project is descended from the same Berkeley research that we featured last year, but at that point, they were inviting everyone to join their Discord server, and that was about it. At the time, we put on our old man outfit to yell at clouds and say, “A Discord shouldn’t count as open source!” For once, it looks like those geriatric grumblings were heeded. There is still a corporate-hosted chat server named for a malignant goddess, and you’re still invited, but now there’s also actual, searchable documentation!
As with all CAL, there’s still the spinning vat of specially viscous photopolymer resin, and the light is provided by a NexiGo Nova Mini projector. There’s no FEP to worry about, and no stops and starts: the vat spins, the projector exposes the resin, and a part appears almost faster than can be believed, with spatial resolution like an older SLA
The instructions for putting that projector-based printer together look good; there are even instructions for mixing the special resin, though pay attention to the safety warnings in the “Don’t Try This At Home” banner. Apparently, they’re going to have FormLabs mix resin for those who cannot do it themselves, which seems like a valuable partnership for people who want to limit exposure to toxic ooze. Of course, that’s what a fume hood is for.
Rumor mill: Intel is preparing to extend the life of its Raptor Lake platform, and the signal is not coming from a formal announcement, but from conversations happening around the supply chain. The company is planning a new wave of processors under the name Raptor Lake Next with a launch expected in the first half of 2027. The chips would arrive after Intel introduces its next-generation Nova Lake CPUs, which the company intends to unveil at CES next year.
That sequencing would put an older architecture alongside a newer one in the market at the same time, a decision that seems driven as much by platform and component realities as by standard product cycles.
Details about Raptor Lake Next are still thin. The name has surfaced through sources cited by Tom’s Hardware, but Intel has not disclosed specifications or confirmed how the chips will be positioned. It is also unclear whether this will involve deeper architectural changes or mostly be a continuation of existing silicon under a new label.
What is clearer is the environment shaping the decision. At least two motherboard vendors said they are increasing production of DDR4-compatible boards for both AM4 and LGA 1700, citing stronger demand for the last-generation memory. The vendors did not directly reference Raptor Lake Next, but the overlap in timing raises the possibility that the two developments are related.
Advertisement
That demand shift appears tied to ongoing volatility in memory pricing and availability. DDR5 has not fully displaced DDR4 in all segments, particularly where cost sensitivity or upgrade paths matter. Keeping a DDR4-compatible platform alive gives Intel a way to serve that part of the market without forcing a transition to newer, and often more expensive, components.
Raptor Lake, first introduced with Intel’s 13th-generation processors, already has a long runway behind it. Even so, it continues to hold ground in certain performance categories. In gaming, Raptor Lake Refresh still includes Intel’s best gaming chip, and the newer Core Ultra 7 270K Plus trails the Core i9-14900K only narrowly.
There are also indications from Intel’s own product stack that the underlying architecture is not going away. The company recently introduced Bartlett Lake processors for embedded and industrial use, built on Raptor Cove cores and the Intel 7 process.
These chips are compatible with the LGA 1700 socket used by Raptor Lake, even if they are not officially supported on consumer motherboards. But some enthusiasts have managed to run those processors on 600- and 700-series boards.
Advertisement
That continuity makes a refresh like Raptor Lake Next easier to execute. That lets Intel keep using a mature process, support hardware that is already in the field, and tweak performance or pricing without forcing a full platform change.
The strategy may also mirror what AMD has done in response to similar market conditions. Faced with memory constraints, Team Red recently brought back a prior-generation DDR4-based chip, an example of how older platforms can stay relevant when pricing and supply line up.
It’s still worth remembering that, as with any roadmap detail emerging from vendor conversations, plans could change.
I know there is a rather large price difference between the Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2 and the Sennheiser HDB 630. The Px8 S2 sits at $799, while the HDB 630 lands at $499. That $300 gap is not nothing. It is the difference between my $250 seat for The Wizard of Oz at the Sphere and the $450 first-level ticket that promised the full wraparound experience, flying monkeys included.
So why compare them?
Because the two are surprisingly close in a few areas that matter, and the gap is not as ridiculous as it looks on paper. Some readers will throw eggs. Probably the same bitter Rush fans still pretending Anika Nilles has not been killing it behind the kit on the Fifty Something tour because accepting reality would apparently violate the sacred scrolls of 2112. Someone get poor Geddy a glass of tea and a throat lozenge. He still remembers every word, but a few of those notes are landing somewhere near the corner of Bathurst and Wilson.
Could I have used the Bowers & Wilkins Px7 S3 instead? Sure. That would have made the pricing cleaner. It also would have required having a pair around, and this is what I had in front of me. Reviewing is not fantasy football. You work with the gear on the desk, the train, the airplane, the hotel room, and occasionally the Wawa-adjacent dog walk.
Advertisement
So here we are: a $799 British luxury wireless flagship versus a $499 German wireless headphone with a very useful USB-C dongle and enough sonic discipline to make the comparison less silly than it sounds.
Can der kleine David from Wedemark make the British Goliath blink?
Let’s find out.
This comparison is based on our full reviews of both models, which are linked below for readers who want the deeper individual breakdowns.
Advertisement
Related Reviews:
Why This Comparison Makes More Sense Than It Should
The Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2 and Sennheiser HDB 630 are not aimed at identical buyers, but they do overlap in one very important way: Both are built for listeners who care more about sound quality than ANC trickery, app gimmicks, or whether their headphones match the color of their laptop. Which, for most of us, is a yes.
The Px8 S2 is the more luxurious headphone. Nappa leather, exposed cable detailing, a slimmer frame, stronger passive isolation, physical buttons, Bluetooth 5.3, aptX Lossless, aptX Adaptive, aptX HD, USB-C playback, 3.5mm wired playback, and a more powerful low-end presentation all reinforce its flagship position.
The HDB 630 is the more practical and more value-driven headphone. It offers 24-bit/96kHz playback via USB-C, Bluetooth 5.2 with aptX Adaptive and aptX HD, and the included BTD 700 USB-C dongle, which makes higher-quality Bluetooth easier to access from more phones, tablets, and laptops. Add in the better app, parametric EQ, crossfeed, bass boost, longer battery life, and more spacious midrange-focused presentation, and the Sennheiser starts looking like the more sensible troublemaker.
Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
Advertisement
One is wearing a tailored British overcoat. The other shows up with German paperwork, better battery life, and a dongle that actually solves a problem.
Design & Build Quality
Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2
The Px8 S2 wins the materials contest.
One area where the Px8 S2 clearly pulls ahead is visibility. The Bowers & Wilkins branding, materials, and overall look stand out in a way the Sennheiser does not.
That became obvious during my usual coffee shop testing. My Asbury Park routine has become slightly more complicated lately, so I have been spending more time at a different local spot where the coffee is better, Hebrew is not uncommon, and the parking lot looks like a Range Rover, BMW, and Tesla owner’s support group.
This is also a crowd that includes some of my children’s former classmates, parents, soccer coaches, and baseball coaches, all of whom know I am the guy who rolls up in large Toyota SUVs with 150,000 to 200,000 miles on them and considers that “nicely broken in.”
Advertisement
They noticed the Px8 S2. More than once. The Sennheiser HDB 630 drew less attention, which may be a positive depending on your personality, wardrobe, or tolerance for conversations before caffeine. But in terms of brand presence and visual appeal, the Bowers made the stronger impression.
The HDB 630 is more understated. It borrows from the MOMENTUM 4 & 5 platform but feels more substantial than most Sony or Bose competitors. The travel case is practical, the accessories are well organized, and the included USB-C cable, 3.5mm analog cable, airline adapter, and BTD 700 dongle make the package feel complete.
Winner: Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2
Comfort & Fit
Sennheiser HDB 630
On paper, these two are almost identical in weight. The Px8 S2 weighs 310 grams. The HDB 630 weighs 311 grams. On the head, they feel different.
The Px8 S2 has a firmer clamp. That helps with passive isolation and keeps the headphones planted while walking, commuting, or pushing through public transit crowds with the usual mixture of resignation and mild rage. The padding is comfortable, and the slimmer frame makes the Px8 S2 easier to wear for long stretches than the original Px8.
Advertisement
The HDB 630 has a lighter clamp and softer Japanese Protein Leatherette ear cushions. It feels less locked-in than the Bowers models, which some listeners will prefer. The pads can get warm during longer sessions, especially on trains or in warmer spaces, but the overall comfort is strong.
If you want a firmer, more secure fit, the Px8 S2 is better. If you want a lighter clamp and less pressure, the HDB 630 makes more sense.
Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
Winner: Tie, depending on fit preference
Advertisement
Battery Life
Sennheiser HDB 630
This one is not close.
The Px8 S2 delivers roughly 28 to 30 hours in real-world use with ANC. That is perfectly respectable.A 15-minute quick charge adds about seven hours, which is useful if you forgot to charge them before a flight or a long NJ Transit day. With the World Cup landing at MetLife Stadium this weekend, seven hours may only get you through the first cheerful lie about how smoothly NJ Transit is handling the crowds.
The HDB 630 averaged roughly 53 to 54 hours in real-world use, with around 51 to 52 hours when ANC was engaged all the time at above-average listening levels. A 10-minute charge also delivers about seven hours of playback.
That is almost a full week of commuting from a single charge. Sennheiser wins this category before the Bowers even finishes lacing its shoes.
Winner: Sennheiser HDB 630
Advertisement
Connectivity & Hi-Res Support
Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2
The Px8 S2 has the stronger native Bluetooth spec. It supports Bluetooth 5.3 with aptX Lossless, aptX Adaptive, aptX HD, aptX Classic, AAC, and SBC, along with multipoint connectivity. It also supports wired playback via USB-C and 3.5mm, and both cables are included in the case.
For Android users with compatible hardware, that gives the Bowers & Wilkins a very complete wireless toolkit. For Apple users, the usual aptX problem remains. iPhones, iPads, and Macs do not support aptX Adaptive or aptX Lossless natively, so the Px8 S2’s best Bluetooth performance still depends on using the right source device.
The HDB 630 is more limited on the headphone side. It supports Bluetooth 5.2 with SBC, AAC, aptX, aptX HD, and aptX Adaptive. It does not support LDAC, Bluetooth LE Audio, or aptX Lossless. That gives the Px8 S2 the clear advantage on the spec sheet.
Where Sennheiser fights back is with the included BTD 700 USB-C dongle. The dongle gives Android, iOS, Windows, and macOS users a more reliable path to aptX Adaptive or aptX HD from devices that might otherwise be limited to AAC or basic Bluetooth codec support. That matters because a lot of phones, tablets, and laptops still handle Bluetooth audio with all the grace of a vending machine rejecting a perfectly good dollar bill.
The important distinction is that the BTD 700 improves the source side of the chain, but the HDB 630 headphones are still limited to the codecs they can actually receive: SBC, AAC, aptX, aptX HD, and aptX Adaptive. So no, the HDB 630 does not magically become an aptX Lossless headphone because the dongle knows a few extra tricks.
Advertisement
Winner: Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2 for native Bluetooth support.
Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
Real-world compatibility winner: Sennheiser HDB 630, because the included BTD 700 dongle makes aptX Adaptive and aptX HD easier to access across more source devices, including Apple hardware.
Controls & App Experience
The Px8 S2 has the better physical controls. Real buttons still matter. Volume, playback, power, and Quick Action controls are easy to use without poking blindly at the side of your head like you are trying to reboot a router in the dark.
The Bowers & Wilkins Music app is clean and simple. It gives you ANC controls, wear sensor adjustment, battery status, Quick Action customization, and a basic EQ. It works. It also does not give you much room to shape the sound.
Advertisement
The Sennheiser Smart Control Plus app is far more useful. Parametric EQ, crossfeed, bass boost, ANC customization, and on-head detection controls make it the better tool for listeners who actually want to tune the headphone.
The downside? Touch controls. They work, but they are not as satisfying or consistent as physical buttons. I will take buttons every time. I am old enough to remember when pressing something meant something happened.
The Px8 S2 provides better passive isolation and stronger ANC. Penn Station, airports, Rutt’s Hutt, Kosher Square Pizza, and Rook Coffee in Oakhurst are not exactly anechoic chambers with better parking. In all of them, the Bowers did a better job lowering the outside world.
The passive isolation is so strong that there were times when ANC felt less necessary. That is a good problem to have. The issue is that ANC and Transparency mode do affect the sound. Clarity, low-end definition, and soundstage depth can shift depending on the source and the mode.
Advertisement
The HDB 630’s Hybrid Adaptive ANC is effective, but not as strong as the Bowers & Wilkins. Voices and sharper environmental sounds remain more noticeable. Passive isolation is also not quite at the same level.
The upside is that Sennheiser’s ANC does less damage to the sound. It tightens the presentation slightly and can shave off a bit of openness, but it does not flatten the music or make everything feel like it was run through cheesecloth.
If isolation is the priority, buy the Bowers. If preserving the music matters more than muting the entire planet, Sennheiser has a stronger argument.
Winner for isolation: Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2 Winner for sonic consistency with ANC engaged: Sennheiser HDB 630
Advertisement
Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
Sound Quality: Bass
The Px8 S2 has the stronger low end. Sub-bass and mid-bass hit with more authority, more speed, and more physical impact. These are not neutral headphones, and they do not need to apologize for that.
The important part is that the bass does not smear the midrange. The Px8 S2 adds weight and drive without turning everything into wireless sludge. Rock, pop, electronic music, and modern recordings benefit from that extra punch.
The HDB 630 is leaner. Bass is present, controlled, and well integrated, but it does not hit with the same force or definition as the Px8 S2. Bass heads will probably prefer the Bowers. That is not a character flaw. Some people like their low end with a chair and a name tag.
Advertisement
Sennheiser’s choice is different: less skull pressure, more clarity, more space, and better midrange detail.
The Sennheiser has the stronger midrange focus. Vocals are more present, instruments have more breathing room, and the presentation feels cleaner through the center of the mix. Acoustic music, jazz, piano, and vocal-driven recordings benefit from that approach.
Advertisement
The Px8 S2 is clear and detailed, but male vocals sit slightly farther back than the instruments. Sam Cooke’s “Lost and Lookin’” was clean and crisp, but some of the warmth and texture I expect from that recording were pulled back. Nick Cave’s “Into My Arms” had the full, heavy piano weight the track demands, but his voice lost some of the growl and chest-shaking presence that give the song its emotional gravity.
That does not make the Px8 S2 weak through the midrange. It just tells you where Bowers & Wilkins made its choices. Compared with the HDB 630’s more midrange-forward balance, the Px8 S2 puts more emphasis on bass impact, speed, detail, and top-end air than on vocal intimacy.
Female vocals can vary by recording. Amy Winehouse comes through with the attitude intact. Aretha Franklin sounded clearer than lush, with a touch less body than expected.
Winner: Sennheiser HDB 630
Advertisement
Sound Quality: Treble and Detail
The Px8 S2 has more top-end energy. In my review, I noted that its top end had more air and sparkle, giving the sound a greater sense of openness and a slightly brighter character. The important part is that it does not turn hard or fatiguing with poor recordings, and with better tracks, the extra bite and presence are obvious.
Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
Amy Winehouse’s “Valerie” is a useful example. That track can grate with the wrong gear, but the Px8 S2 kept the guitar notes sharp, her vocals clean and crisp, and never pushed things into hardness. Dolly Parton’s “Jolene” and “I Will Always Love You” also showed that the Bowers does not round off the top end or soften the edges just to make everything easier to digest.
The HDB 630 is smoother through the top end. On Gotye’s “Somebody That I Used to Know,” the Sennheiser stayed clean and controlled, with no splashy treble tantrums. On Amy Winehouse’s “Valerie,” it avoided turning a bright recording into dental work, which is always appreciated before lunch.
Advertisement
So the Px8 S2 sounds more vivid and energetic up top, while the HDB 630 sounds smoother and more controlled. If you want more bite, air, and sparkle, Bowers wins this round. If you want a calmer treble balance that still preserves detail and space, Sennheiser makes the better case.
Winner: Tie, depending on taste
Soundstage & Imaging
The HDB 630 is the more spacious headphone. For a closed-back wireless design, it creates an unusually open presentation with strong imaging and a real sense of air. No, it is not an open-back headphone. Let’s not start selling magic beans. But it gets closer than most wireless ANC models have any right to.
The Px8 S2 has a precise and stable soundstage. Width, depth, and height are solid, and instruments are placed accurately. It sounds organized and controlled, but not as expansive as the HDB 630.
Advertisement
The Bowers gives you solidity and impact. The Sennheiser gives you space and separation.
Winner: Sennheiser HDB 630
Which One Sounds Better?
The Px8 S2 sounds bigger, punchier, and more dynamic. It has stronger low-end authority, a livelier top end, better passive isolation, and a more premium feel. It is the headphone I would pick for travel, louder environments, rock, electronic music, pop, and situations where I want more physical engagement from a wireless headphone.
The HDB 630 sounds cleaner, more spacious, and more balanced through the midrange. It gives up some bass weight and luxury finish, but gains clarity, app flexibility, battery life, and a more open presentation. It is the headphone I would pick for long listening sessions, vocal music, jazz, acoustic recordings, and anyone who wants less lifestyle theater and more actual listening substance.
Advertisement
The Px8 S2 is more fun in the visceral sense. The HDB 630 is more honest in the musical sense. The Sennheiser is the better fit for the audiophile purist who puts neutrality, midrange clarity, and tonal discipline ahead of bass weight, luxury finish, and the understandable desire to look slightly more important at the coffee shop.
Which One Is the Better Value?
Sennheiser HDB 630 Wireless Headphones with Travel Case
The Sennheiser HDB 630 is the better value.
Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
At $499, it delivers excellent clarity, long battery life, a useful app, USB-C hi-res playback, aptX Adaptive, strong comfort, and the included BTD 700 dongle. That dongle is not just filler in the box. It solves a real problem for people using phones, tablets, and laptops that do not always support the best Bluetooth performance natively.
The Px8 S2 justifies some of its higher price through better materials, stronger isolation, more authoritative sound, physical controls, broader codec support, and a more luxurious design. It feels like a flagship.
Advertisement
But $799 is still $799. At that price, the Px8 S2 has to be judged as a luxury wireless headphone, not just a better-sounding alternative. It clears that bar in many ways, but not every listener needs what it does best.
Value winner: Sennheiser HDB 630Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2 Wireless Headphones in Warm Stone and Black
The Bottom Line
The Px8 S2 is the more premium, more physical, and more visually distinctive headphone. It has stronger bass, better passive isolation, more effective ANC, physical controls, and the kind of build quality that makes the price easier to understand, if not exactly painless.
The HDB 630 is the smarter value play. It gives you better battery life, a more useful app, stronger tuning flexibility, a more spacious presentation, and a cleaner midrange balance for considerably less money.
Advertisement
Can the German David slay the British Goliath?
Not quite. But he lands enough clean shots that Bowers & Wilkins should keep both gloves up.
Which One Should You Buy?
Buy the Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2 if you want the more premium, more visually distinctive, and more physically engaging headphone. It delivers stronger bass, better passive isolation, more effective ANC, physical controls, and a more energetic presentation. It is the better choice for travel, commuting, louder environments, and listeners who want their wireless headphones to feel like a flagship product.
Skip the Px8 S2 if you want the best value, the longest battery life, the most flexible app, or the most neutral midrange. It is also not ideal if you dislike a more bass-forward tuning or expect ANC and Transparency mode to leave the sound completely untouched.
Advertisement
Buy the Sennheiser HDB 630 if you care more about clarity, neutrality, midrange balance, battery life, app control, and practical hi-res support than luxury materials or coffee-shop visibility. It is the better choice for long listening sessions, vocal music, jazz, acoustic recordings, and listeners who want a more spacious presentation for considerably less money.
Skip the HDB 630 if you want maximum bass punch, the strongest ANC, the most luxurious build, physical controls, or aptX Lossless support built into the headphones themselves.
Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
The Px8 S2 wins on luxury, isolation, bass impact, and flagship presence. The HDB 630 wins on value, battery life, app control, midrange clarity, and everyday flexibility.
In a coordinated effort, the FBI, working with Google and Black Lotus Labs, has dismantled a massive Chinese phishing-as-a-service operation called Outsider Enterprise with thousands of phishing websites used to steal credit card data and passwords.
The cybercrime operation used AI and distributed phishing kits for campaigns impersonating various trusted brands in texts sent through AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
Outsider Enterprise has been active since at least 2023 and operated at a massive scale, with Google linking to it 9,000 fake websites and more than a million fraudulent URLs.
Authorities believe that phishing campaigns powered by Outsider Enterprise led to stealing more than 3.8 million credit card records, causing an estimated $1.9 billion in losses.
[subtitle]
Advertisement
The action against Outsider Enterprise has technical and legal components and is part of the FBI’s larger Operation Riptide that targets cybercrime activity and infrastructure.
During the technical takedown, the FBI and partners seized multiple administration servers, a Shopify e-commerce storefront, and an account the threat actor used to test the phishing service.
The agency also seized around $100,000 USDT from Outsider payment wallets. Thousands of phishing domains that the threat actor registered at U.S. providers are now redirecting to an FBI splash page.
FBI seizes site used by Outside Enterprise phishing-as-a-service source: FBI
The agency also took over a Telegram bot linked to Outsider Enterprise that contained information on customers of the phishing service.
According to Google, the AI-assisted phishing operation has impacted hundreds of thousands of users worldwide.
Advertisement
The tech giant has filed a civil lawsuit targeting the operation’s infrastructure, and is coordinating with telecommunications service providers AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon to block fraudulent messages before they reach to subscribers.
“Our civil lawsuit targets an organized cybercrime operation known as the ‘Outsider Enterprise’. Based in China and coordinating through Telegram, this network distributes “phishing kits” that allow criminals to blast out fake text campaigns that look like they’re from Google and other trusted brands,” Google says.
Over a two-week period in May, Google says that a total of 2.5 million SMS messages were sent to Android users from the Outsider Enterprise infrastructure. Android users flagged 55,000 of them as fraudulent.
The company estimates that hundreds of thousands of victims lost millions to these scams.
Advertisement
Google is using this opportunity “to combine aggressive legal action and collaboration with federal and state governments” and is advocating for seven bipartisan U.S. anti-scam bills, including the Stop SCAMS Act, to strengthen legal protections against AI-enabled fraud.
The Stop SCAMS Act would require the FBI to lead a coordinated national anti-scam strategy, bringing together federal agencies, law enforcement, and private companies to better track, disrupt, and prevent fraud and scam operations.
In the meantime, Google underlined that Android users are protected from these threats by AI-powered defenses.
Fable 5 topped GPT 5.5 on every major benchmark but was pulled by the US government after three days, making GPT 5.5 the top model you can actually use.
The result is a strange moment in AI. The model that demonstrably outperforms everything else on the market is the one you cannot use. GPT 5.5, which OpenAI launched in late April under the internal codename “Spud,” is now the strongest model available to developers and consumers, not because it improved but because its only real competitor was removed.
The benchmark gap between the two is not close. On SWE-Bench Pro, which measures a model’s ability to resolve real software engineering issues across open-source codebases, Fable 5 scored 80.3% to GPT 5.5’s 58.6%, a 22-point difference. On SWE-Bench Verified, a curated subset of the same benchmark, Fable 5 reached 95.0%.
The coding benchmarks tell a similar story. Fable 5 leads the Code Arena by 98 Elo points, scoring 1,665 to GPT 5.5’s 1,501. On FrontierCode Diamond, a benchmark designed to test the most difficult programming tasks, Fable 5 scored 29.3% while GPT 5.5 managed 5.7%, and on the broader Chatbot Arena leaderboard Fable 5 sits at number one with GPT 5.5 in fourth.
Advertisement
GPT 5.5 does have one area of strength. On Terminal-Bench 2.0, which evaluates interactive terminal-based coding tasks rather than codebase-level issue resolution, GPT 5.5 scored 82.7% compared to Fable 5’s approximately 88.0%. The gap is narrower there, and the benchmark tests a different skill, executing commands and debugging in real time rather than reading and patching large repositories.
Pricing also favours OpenAI. GPT 5.5 costs $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens, half the price of Fable 5’s $10 and $50 respectively. For developers running high-volume applications where the performance difference is less critical than cost, GPT 5.5 is the more practical choice even when both models are available.
Fable 5 launched on June 9 as Anthropic’s first Mythos-class model made available to the general public. It offered a one-million-token context window and 128,000 output tokens. Anthropic made it available at no extra cost to Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise subscribers until June 22, a promotional window that the government directive cut short after just three days.
The shutdown came via an export control directive issued on June 12. The government cited a jailbreak vulnerability as the reason for pulling both Fable 5 and the broader Mythos 5 model family. Anthropic has disputed the severity of the finding, saying the vulnerabilities identified are minor, publicly known, and achievable by GPT 5.5 without any bypass techniques, while reports indicate that Amazon CEO Andy Jassy played a role in triggering the government’s review.
Advertisement
The practical consequence is that developers and researchers who were evaluating Fable 5 for production use have had to revert to GPT 5.5 or Anthropic’s earlier Opus models. For coding-heavy workflows, the downgrade is significant. The 22-point gap on SWE-Bench Pro represents the difference between a model that can resolve four out of five real-world software issues and one that handles roughly three out of five.
Whether Fable 5 returns depends on Anthropic’s negotiations with the government over the export control classification. The company has publicly argued that the directive is disproportionate and that the cited vulnerabilities do not justify pulling the model entirely. Until that dispute is resolved, GPT 5.5 holds the top spot by default, the best model available not because it is the best model that exists.
A little over a decade ago, schools were swept into what many described as a movement to prepare students for the future of work. That work was coding — “Hello, world!”
Districts introduced new courses, nonprofits expanded access to computer science education and a growing ecosystem of programs promised to teach students the skills needed to enter the tech workforce. For many, it felt like a necessary correction to a rapidly digitizing world. But over time, a more complicated picture emerged.
While access to computer science education expanded, the relationship between early coding exposure and long-term workforce outcomes became uneven. The “learn to code” movement raised an important question that still lingers today: Which skills actually endure when technologies change? That question has resurfaced in a new form.
Advertisement
Today, generative AI is driving a similar wave of urgency. Schools are once again being encouraged to adapt quickly, often with the same underlying rationale that teachers must prepare students for a future shaped by emerging technologies.
But if the instructional role of AI remains unclear, and if the tools themselves are likely to evolve rapidly, the more persistent challenge may lie elsewhere.
After conducting a two-year research project alongside teachers, who are adapting and are open to integrating AI, we found that uptake is still minimal. Most of our participants, including those who are engineering or computer science teachers, still struggle to identify a clear or universal instructional use case for widespread AI integration.
So, what should students learn to help them adapt to whatever comes next?
Advertisement
A growing body of research suggests that the answer may lie not in teaching students how to use a particular AI system, but in helping them understand the computational ideas that make those systems possible.
NEWSLETTERS
STAY AHEAD IN EDUCATION.
Sign up for EdSurge newsletters for timely news, insights and analysis.
The Limits of Teaching the Tool
In recent years, many discussions about AI education have centered on teaching students how to use generative tools effectively. Prompt engineering, for example, has become a common topic in professional development workshops and online tutorials.
Advertisement
Yet, focusing heavily on tool-specific skills can create a familiar educational problem, because technology changes faster than curricula.
Teaching students how to interact with a specific interface risks becoming the equivalent of teaching to standardized tests, rather than teaching students important lessons that don’t appear on state exams.
The history of computing education offers a useful example. In the early 2010s, a wave of coding initiatives encouraged schools to teach programming skills broadly. While many of those programs expanded access to computer science education, subsequent analysis showed that workforce pipelines in technology remained uneven, and many students learned tool-specific skills without developing deeper computational reasoning abilities.
That experience offers a cautionary lesson for the current AI moment. If the goal of integrating AI into education is long-term preparation for technological change, focusing narrowly on how to use today’s tools may not be the most durable strategy.
Computational thinking refers to a set of problem-solving practices used in computer science and other analytical disciplines. These include:
breaking complex problems into smaller components
recognizing patterns
designing step-by-step processes
evaluating the outputs of automated systems
These skills apply not only to programming but also to fields ranging from engineering to public policy.
Importantly, they also help students understand how algorithmic systems operate.
Advertisement
When students learn computational thinking, they gain the ability to analyze how technologies like AI produce results rather than simply accepting those results as authoritative.
In this sense, computational thinking provides a conceptual bridge between traditional academic skills and emerging digital systems.
What Teachers Are Already Doing
Many teachers in our study were already moving in this direction, often without using the term computational thinking.
When teachers asked students to analyze chatbot errors, they were encouraging students to examine how algorithmic systems produce outputs. When they designed exercises comparing training data and algorithms to everyday processes, they were helping students reason about how automated systems work.
Advertisement
These approaches do not require students to rely heavily on AI tools themselves. Instead, they position AI as a case study for examining how technology shapes information.
That framing aligns with longstanding educational goals around critical thinking, media literacy and problem-solving.
Implications for Educators
If the instructional use case for generative AI remains uncertain, educators may benefit from focusing on skills that remain valuable regardless of which tools dominate in the future.
Several practical approaches are already emerging in classrooms. Teachers can use AI systems as objects of analysis, asking students to evaluate outputs, identify errors and investigate how models generate responses.
Advertisement
Lessons can connect AI to broader topics such as data quality, algorithmic bias and information reliability.
Assignments that emphasize reasoning, structured problem solving and evidence evaluation continue to support the kinds of cognitive work that remain central to learning.
These approaches allow students to engage with AI without allowing the technology to replace the thinking process itself.
Implications for EdTech Developers
The experiences teachers described also highlight an opportunity for edtech companies.
Advertisement
Many current AI tools were developed as general-purpose language systems and later introduced into education contexts. As a result, teachers are often left to determine whether and how those tools align with classroom learning goals. Future products may benefit from deeper collaboration with educators during the design process.
Teachers in our conversations were already experimenting with small classroom applications, designing AI literacy lessons and building course-specific chatbots.
These experiments resemble early-stage product development.
Partnerships between educators, edtech developers and product managers could help identify instructional problems that AI systems could realistically address.
Advertisement
The Next Phase of the Research
The conversations described in this series represent an early attempt to document how teachers are navigating the arrival of generative AI.
As schools continue experimenting with these tools, the next challenge will be to develop governance frameworks that help educators evaluate when and how AI should be used in learning environments.
Our research team is beginning the next phase of this work by partnering with school districts to develop guidance for AI governance and inviting edtech companies interested in exploring these questions collaboratively.
Rather than assuming that AI will inevitably transform classrooms, this phase of the project will focus on identifying the conditions under which AI tools actually support teaching and learning and how to reduce harm when they don’t.
Until the answer becomes clearer, many teachers will likely continue doing what professionals in any field do when new technologies appear: experimenting cautiously, adopting what works and relying on their judgment to decide where or if the tool belongs.
If your school, district, organization, or edtech company is interested in learning more about joining our next project on AI governance, contact our research team at research@edsurge.com.
The pace represents a structural shift, not a spike. The total number and value of projects disrupted in Q1 roughly matched the full-year total for 2025, according to the report. The number of active anti-data center groups more than doubled from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by March, spread across 49 states, with Maryland, Ohio, and Texas hosting the most.
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!
Legislative momentum is building alongside the grassroots resistance. Data Center Watch counted 14 statewide measures introduced in Q1 2026, and a separate analysis by MultiState identified moratorium bills across 11 states with proposed pauses ranging from three months to four years. More than 300 data-center-related bills were introduced in statehouses in just the first six weeks of the year.
None of the statewide moratoriums have passed yet, but they are getting close. Maine’s legislature passed one in April that would have paused permitting for facilities drawing 20 megawatts or more, the first of its kind in the country. Governor Janet Mills vetoed it but said she would have signed it if the bill had exempted a specific project in Jay, Maine that had strong local support, and she separately signed a law barring data centers from state tax incentives.
Advertisement
A Heatmap Pro poll found that a majority of Americans would “strongly” oppose a data center being built near their home, a shift from a survey nine months earlier that showed the public roughly evenly divided. Gallup data puts the figure at 70% opposed. The speed of the opinion shift suggests the issue is crossing from local planning disputes into broader political territory.
The industry is spending as though the opposition will not hold. US utilities plan to spend $1.4 trillion by 2030 on grid infrastructure driven largely by data centre demand, and hyperscaler capital expenditure is projected to exceed $690 billion in 2026 alone. The gap between what the industry wants to build and what communities are willing to accept is widening faster than either side expected.
In some cases, opposition is now mobilising before any project is officially filed. The mere rumour of a data center has been enough to trigger organised resistance, according to the report. That pre-emptive organising makes siting decisions harder even in states without formal moratoriums, because local permitting bodies face political pressure before a single application lands on their desk.
The Atlantic published a contrarian essay on Friday arguing that the backlash is overblown and that data centers can bring real economic benefits to host communities. The piece acknowledged that opposing data centers is good politics but argued it is not always good policy. Whether that argument gains traction will depend on whether the industry can demonstrate tangible local benefits beyond tax revenue, something most communities have not yet seen.
Advertisement
The report paints a picture of an industry that assumed it could build its way through local opposition with money and speed, and a country that is deciding otherwise, one zoning board at a time.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login