Mobile technology is always advancing, bringing new features that make our devices more engaging and easier to use. Android is a leader in terms of updates. It offers improvements like better user interfaces and advanced hardware capabilities. These changes not only make devices look and work better but also meet increasing needs for strong security and smooth connections with other smart devices. As we look at the latest updates, it’s clear that Android is working to expand what mobile tech can do, focusing on more personalized and secure experiences.
Enhanced User Experience
With the launch of Android 14, Google introduced significant enhancements aimed at improving how apps operate across different types of devices. This new version places a strong emphasis on helping developers create applications that adapt smoothly to various screen sizes. Android 14 strives to offer a consistent and intuitive user experience no matter the device.
Google is also making strides in health and fitness management with the introduction of the Health Connect app. This app, automatically installed on all Android 14 devices, serves as a central hub for users to collect, view, and manage their health data across multiple applications.
Advanced Privacy Features
Privacy is a paramount concern for smartphone users today, and Android has stepped up to address these worries with enhanced security features. Recent updates have significantly increased transparency and user control over personal data.
Advertisement
The introduction of the Privacy Dashboard allows users to see exactly how applications interact with their data. Additionally, new indicator icons alert users whenever apps activate the microphone or camera, adding an extra layer of security.
Innovations in Mobile Payments
Mobile payments are reshaping transaction management with continuous advancements making the process smoother and more secure. Google Pay, Android’s flagship payment service, is at the forefront of these innovations.
It has integrated digital cards, streamlined peer-to-peer money transfers, and even enabled the storage of digital tickets and boarding passes. These features make Google Pay a versatile tool for managing a wide range of payment activities.
Particularly, casino mobil platforms have benefited from these advancements in payment systems. With the introduction of easier deposit methods and shortened withdrawal times, more users are participating in online casino games and tournaments.
Advertisement
Integration with Smart Devices
The expansion of Android’s ecosystem is reshaping how we interact with technology on a daily basis. This integration encompasses a diverse array of smart devices, including home automation systems, wearable technology, and even automotive interfaces.
With Android’s compatibility with platforms like Google Home, users gain unprecedented control over their living environments. Simple voice commands now allow for the management of lighting systems, home security, thermostats, and other connected appliances.
The Rise of Foldable Phones
Foldable phones have transitioned from futuristic novelty to a practical reality, with significant advancements seen in models like Samsung’s Galaxy Z series. These devices feature larger screens that can be folded to fit compactly in users’ pockets. Android has tailored its interface to support these unique display dynamics, ensuring that applications run smoothly and are adapted to the changing screen configurations.
U.S. crude oil prices are on pace for a third monthly loss in a row in September as rising supplies from OPEC+ and weak demand in China haunt the market.
The U.S. benchmark has declined more than 7% for the month, while global benchmark Brent has fallen about 9%.
“Oil markets are experiencing a panic attack,” Amarpreet Singh, energy analyst at Barclays, told clients in a Friday note. “Balances are set to loosen next year, but concerns are likely overdone.”
Advertisement
Barclays expects Brent to average $85 in 2025.
Here are Monday’s energy prices:
West Texas Intermediate November contract: $68.23, up 5 cents, or 0.07%. Year to date, U.S. crude oil has fallen nearly 5%.
Brent November contract: $71.69 per barrel, down 29 cents, or 0.4%. Year to date, the global benchmark has declined nearly 7%.
RBOB Gasoline October contract: $1.954 per gallon, up 0.05%. Year to date, gasoline has pulled back about 7%.
Natural Gas November contract: $2.896 per thousand cubic feet, down 0.21%. Year to date, gas has gained about 16%.
Oil prices remain under pressure in part because OPEC+ plans to begin increasing production in December, and as demand in China, the world’s largest crude importer, remains soft.
Prices are finding little support from red hot tensions in the Middle East even after Israel killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in an airstrike in Beirut on Friday. The Netanyahu government is pummeling the Iran-backed militia group, with concerns growing that Israel might launch a ground operation in Lebanon.
“We believe that this price action reflects that the geopolitical risk premium remains limited [amid] market expectations of potentially higher oil supply” from Libya and Saudi Arabia, Daan Struyven, head oil analyst at Goldman Sachs, told clients in a Sunday note.
Check out our channel for more tech videos! http://www.youtube.com/newegg
and for all other newegg products, check out our second channel at http://www.youtube.com/neweggproducts
The US Department of Justice has announced criminal charges for three Iranian hackers involved in a ‘wide ranging hacking campaign’ primarily targeting former President Trump’s campaign documents, which were then leaked to the press.
Court documents outlined that hackers used spear phishing and social engineering techniques in order to compromise accounts belonging to members of the media, US government officials, and campaign staffers.
The individuals accused were named as Masoud Jalili, Seyyed Ali Aghamiri, and Yasar Balaghi, each facing charges for identity theft, conspiracy to provide material to support a terrorist organization, and more. The DOJ’s indictment attributes the hack to a wider vow for revenge from the Iranian government after the Trump administration killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in 2020.
Election interference
The 2024 US election cycle has been the target of repeated attempts by foreign actors to influence voters and spread divisive rhetoric, with both Chinese and Russian state actors found to be spreading online propaganda.
Advertisement
The DOJ says this Iranian campaign is no different, with Attorney General Merrick Garland noting, “we know that Iran is continuing its brazen efforts to stoke discord, erode confidence in the U.S. electoral process, and advance its malign activities to the IRGC, a designated foreign terrorist organization.”
“The American people and the American people alone will decide the outcome of our country’s elections.”
It was recently revealed that although multiple news organizations were sent the leaked materials from the campaign, all chose not to publish the details. The Biden campaign team was also sent the files, but ignored them.
Sign up to the TechRadar Pro newsletter to get all the top news, opinion, features and guidance your business needs to succeed!
Advertisement
The State Department offered a $10 million reward for information on the three Iranian men involved, who are yet to be apprehended by US officials.
Smartphones have worked their way deep into our lives and have become indispensable for work and socialising.
Unsurprisingly, many children want them too, but here we are much less sure of the benefits they bring. Many parents worry they are addictive and expose children to inappropriate and harmful content. A growing number think stronger restrictions are needed.
Others suggest some of the risks are overblown. They argue phones provide good opportunities for child development, including socialising, and that the evidence of harm is neither as convincing nor as conclusive as critics suggest.
I hosted a debate on WhatsApp between an academic and a campaigner, focusing on whether there’s a case to be made for stronger restrictions on children’s use of smartphones. What follows is an edited version of their conversation.
Meet the participants
Advertisement
To ban or not to ban?
Daisy Greenwell from Smartphone Free Childhood, a grassroots campaign group against big tech, let’s start with you.
What kind of ban or restrictions do you want and why?
Hi Chris.
Firstly, we think banning is unhelpful framing. We’re not calling for an outright ban on smartphones.
Parents have been put in an impossible position by the tech companies – we either give our kids access to a harmful product (ie a smartphone with unrestricted access to the internet and social media) or go against the cultural grain and risk alienating them from their peer group.
Governments need to do better to help parents and protect young people.
We believe there should be default age-appropriate set up of smartphones. Age-verification technology exists – how can it be implemented at a device and content level to ensure children can only access services that are appropriate for them?
Despite the 13+ minimum age requirement for social media, 51% of British children under 13 use it. They should not be on these platforms as they are not safe, so we need to find a way of enforcing that as soon as possible.
We also believe the government should implement a mandatory ban on smartphones in schools, given that only 11% of schools currently have an effective ban, and all the the research proves that they are hugely disruptive for learning, behaviour and lead to serious safeguarding issues.
Sonia Livingstone, you’re a social psychologist specialising in how tech affects children’s lives. Does the evidence support what Daisy is saying about the risks?
Hi Daisy.
I think there are several points we could agree on, especially about avoiding the word ‘ban’…
Advertisement
Some points are trickier, though, including the application of age assurance, which is important for high-risk services but care is needed as it has privacy implications for the entire population.
On the question of evidence, it’s a mixed picture. There’s a little evidence supporting restrictions on smartphones in schools. For the rest of children’s lives, we need to consider the positives as well as the negatives of phone use.
Of course I agree and am aware of potential positives of smartphones for children. Wouldn’t it be great if all children could benefit from the upsides of this technology without any of the harms?
Unfortunately we’re a million miles away from that utopia at the moment.
That’s why something needs to change urgently.
Advertisement
Sonia, do you think it’s a mistake for schools to introduce bans?
We’re just reviewing the research now. It’s pretty clear that parents, teachers and students would like clear and effective restrictions on use of phones in class.
The trouble is that we have had a policy of ‘bring your own device’ and of incorporating digital technologies into the classroom for educational purposes.
So I suggest it’s time to review our edtech policy more broadly. This hasn’t been updated since the pandemic, and is currently benefiting big tech and data brokers more than children, according to the evidence.
When we consult children, they agree with some of the risks and problems that Daisy points to.
But they also value their phones, precisely as a way of staying in touch with friends… Our society has cut many of the ways in which children have long been able to play or socialise outside the home.
Advertisement
The network effects of this technology and the sophistication of their addictive design means parents and young people are fighting an impossible battle.
Who should regulate children’s mobile phone use?
Daisy – it’s hard for a child to buy a phone, and if they have one it’s probably come from mum or dad. Why not just leave it to parents to decide?
It’s totally unfair to put the onus on the parents.
I agree that the burden should be shifted to companies. Not only are they amplifying the harms, but also they refuse to provide more age-appropriate services and a wider diversity of products.
Sonia – are the risks as grave as Daisy suggests? Does the evidence support that?
There’s a case to be made for both risks and benefits; and both appear to be greater for more vulnerable children.
So yes, children need better protections, for sure, and yes, the present situation is problematic for many and dangerous for some.
The entire business model of social media giants is predicated on harvesting as much attention as possible. Smartphones and addictive social media apps have lured children away from the activities that are indispensable to healthy development – outdoor play, face-to-face conversations, sleep.
The question is how to achieve the balance that the public wants between regulation vs education, individual choice vs limits for all.
If we ask: are smartphones bad for children, the evidence suggests yes in some ways, no in others, and it depends on the child and the circumstances.
Yes it’s complicated. You can always find two sides to any academic debate, but we think we need to take a step back and question the societal norm, which is to give children smartphones when they’re younger and younger… Do they need them?
Now it sounds like you are putting the blame on parents, Daisy?
No – we’re saying this is a huge societal issue that needs imagination and bold action.
Moreover, if we ask what the causes of child wellbeing or poor mental health are, technology use is one among many factors – let’s start with poverty, family stress, lack of play and community resource, anxiety about the future…
Are children addicted to smartphones?
Advertisement
Sonia – some researchers have disputed the idea that they are addictive, is there good scientific evidence of that?
I think Daisy has in mind the dark patterns and attention-grabbing incentives built into social media and game design; these certainly have adverse effects.
Clinicians are just careful about ‘addiction’ because alcoholism, drug addiction etc are rather different.
Still, they agree that some 1-3% of the child population meets the threshold for clinical addiction to tech.
What about behavioural addiction?
We all know what addiction to our smartphones feels like… it seems ludicrous to question whether they’re addictive or suggest only 1-3% are.
We know that children are spending four to nine-plus hours a day on these devices.
Advertisement
I’m trying not to be ludicrous, and am happy to offer citations to clinical research.
Daisy – what needs to change, would you increase the age limits on social media for example?
We believe that until social media platforms can prove they are safe for children, children shouldn’t be on them. We’re very interested in what the Australian government is exploring.
All interesting proposals, and as ever, the devil is in the detail. Three questions from me:
1. Is the British public ready for mandatory age verification? They will have to get used to giving up their personal information to companies. Can we trust those companies with such sensitive information?
2. Yes, let’s enforce age limits. But first, let’s debate the right one – 13 is pretty much an accident of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, not a thought-through child-protection policy.
3. How safe should platforms be? As safe as roads? Or swimming pools? And how can we balance risks with opportunities?
On your first question, the public is crying out for something to change. It’s not up to us to figure out the workings of age-verification technology, but we shouldn’t give up because it’s complicated.
To your second question, totally agree, we don’t think 13 is the right age – it’s based on 25-year-old US data law, not child wellbeing – but it is the age at the moment so it should be enforced.
Yes, the public wants change, and rightly so. But sadly, unless we can propose workable solutions, we may find our calls unheeded.
This sounds defeatist – it shouldn’t be on parents to come up with all the policy solutions in what is an incredibly complicated space.
I don’t think it is all on parents. Academics, regulators, civil society, children’s charities, lawyers and technologists are all actively seeking ways forward.
How young is too young to be on social media, Sonia?
I’m afraid I consider that the wrong question. We may need another debate.
Why? It seems a question that nobody wants to answer
OK, let me give it a try.
1. The right age for one child is not right for another.
Advertisement
2. It depends what the child wants to do online.
3. It depends if the child is vulnerable or supported.
4. It depends what digital product or service you are talking about.
Would you apply the same logic to the age of consent?!
That’s yet another debate – am not refusing to answer, but it will take time. Perhaps you have quick answers to big problems, but I like to weigh the evidence.
Daisy – what about Sonia’s third question. We do let children take risks where we think there are rewards too in sport etc.
It’s interesting framing – it certainly shouldn’t be driving kids to suicide, eating disorders, anxiety, depression, etc.
Do children benefit from having smartphones?
Do you accept, Daisy, that there are benefits to owning these devices and is it right to cut children off from those benefits that adults enjoy?
The upsides of technology are clear… Smartphones are incredibly useful. We carry around all-powerful supercomputers in our pockets that know everything and are connected to everyone, everywhere… They’ve transformed the way we live.
But at what cost? We need to question the assumption that all technological advancement is social progress.
Advertisement
Kids don’t actually need to be connected to the internet 24/7. They don’t need phones for work or to organise diaries etc.
A brick phone can keep them connected to family and friends.
But don’t children need to learn how to use these tools that many adults find essential?
A five-year-old can learn how to use Instagram in about four minutes – that’s really not a valid argument.
Do children need to learn how to have sex before they’re 16, or drive before they’re 17? Both things that will be important to their adult lives.
Also we aren’t saying don’t use tech – just don’t have unrestricted access to the internet in your pocket 24/7.
The thing is, society has involved the internet – typically accessed via a smartphone – in most domains…
So it’s hard to know where to start. One place might be the recent Good Childhood Report. It gives a decent measure of what’s going wrong.
Advertisement
Why shouldn’t children have healthy, intentional, non-addictive relationships with technology that enhances their lives?
We would say the solution starts with people power, not more academic quarrels.
We’re going to wrap up now. Thank you both – it’s been a lively debate.
This debate has demonstrated that even people who agree that tech firms need to do more can disagree passionately over how far we should restrict children’s smartphone use.
The UK government says it has no plans to introduce a smartphone ban for under 16s, and there may be no consensus over how much change is needed, but change is happening nonetheless: tech firms are rolling out new child-safety features, schools are adopting new policies and the technology itself continues to evolve, creating more opportunities and risks.
Disagreement over how we keep children safe online will likely be with us for some time.
BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think – you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has seen so many landmines deployed across the country that clearing them would take 700 years, say researchers. To make the task more manageable, Ukrainian scientists are turning to artificial intelligence to identify which regions are a priority for de-mining, though they expect some may simply have to be left as a permanent “scar” on the country.
Russia’s minelaying and Ukrainian efforts to remove the explosives began with the initial invasion of Crimea in 2014, which saw a few hundred square kilometres of land contaminated. Now, two years after Russia’s…
You must be logged in to post a comment Login