Tech
How Much Melatonin Should You Be Taking? And Should You Be Taking It at All?
Two things I always watch for with supplements, even with guidance from my doctor: Does it have a CGMP certification, and is there any data to back up the marketing claims? CGMP stands for “Current Good Manufacturing Process,” which are FDA guidelines put in place for a product’s safety. This includes where and how it was made, as well as what it was made of. But even with this kind of baseline, it’s hard to tell what additives are used in a supplement and how that can counteract its effects or react with your body chemistry.
So, Can I Take Melatonin or Not?
I tell you these things out of an abundance of caution. If your doctor gives you the go-ahead to use melatonin, follow their advice. Kuhlmann says he advises his patients to start at 3 milligrams but to never take more than 10 milligrams. For kids, he also urges speaking to a pediatrician and/or a sleep medical professional.
Melatonin also can’t do all the heavy lifting, and timing is crucial. As part of maintaining good bedtime habits, he also emphasizes the importance of taking it on time, at the same time, nightly. This will help establish the wind-down routine your brain follows via its circadian rhythm; as we established earlier, melatonin is supposed to lead this process.
If you’re keen on keeping melatonin in your bedtime routine, WIRED reviewer Molly Higgins tested and recommends Onnit’s Instant Melatonin Spray, which comes in two flavors: mint and lavender. (She tested the latter.) The standard serving size—six oral sprays—equals 3 milligrams of melatonin, which she found immediately made her sleepy. She did find she needed to increase her dosage over time to attain the same result, but, as we established above, it’s best to stay within the 10 milligram threshold.
For those of you who are just researching options, consider these alternatives. Diet and exercise, as tired as you may be of hearing that, really are essential to getting good, quality sleep. Case in point: You took a CrossFit class for the first time and are ready to conk out right after you manage to get dinner and a shower. Something else to consider: Perhaps relying on melatonin or a sleep supplement is treating a symptom you’re dealing with, as opposed to the actual issue impacting your sleep.
Bedtime Habits
It’s hard to overstate the importance of sleep hygiene and bedtime routine habits—a sleep supplement won’t be the end-all and be-all. Also, no caffeine after a certain time of day—you know your body best, but I’d say early afternoon at the very latest. Also, I’m sorry to my fellow readers and late-night scrollers, but devices need to be put away an hour or more before bedtime. Blue light that radiates from devices’ screens mimics that of sunlight, and your brain can’t discern the difference. All it knows is there’s still “daylight” that you need to be awake for, and that prolongs the falling-asleep process.
Other alternatives to supplements in the pursuit of better sleep can include sound machines (my favorite is above), where various frequencies of noise lull you to sleep. We’ve also tested sleep gadgets pretty extensively to not only get us to sleep, but also maintain deep sleep.
And maybe melatonin is a different sort of band-aid over the reality of your sleep situation, meaning that your mattress may need to be replaced. We have plenty of mattresses we’ve tested for every kind of sleeper, along with the best sheets and pillows. Supplements may not be the answer, after all, but more of a sleep space upgrade—all things to consider!
Tech
New Year, New You With the Best Plant-Based Meal Kits We’ve Tested (and Tasted)
Compare Our Picks
Others Tested
Courtesy of Sakara Life
Sakara Life; starts at $141 per week; up to $465 for specialty programs: This plant-based, gluten-free meal kit reminds me of what most people think when they think of “crunchy” vegan food—raw vegetables with an earthy taste. Nearly all meals in Sakara’s lineup are uncooked and preprepared—items like veggie burgers are without buns, lasagnas are “deconstructed.” For example, a “Lavender Quesadilla” has broccoli pesto and cashew “cheese” with hibiscus salsa … you get the idea. The menu is curated each week, and meals come in single servings. Sakara also has health supplements (which can be scientifically dubious), like a metabolism booster and fulvic acid cell reset. Sakara’s signature nutrition program meal plan is designed to replace all meals and is delivered twice weekly. If you buy one week of five days, three meals a day, it’s $465 per week; weekly subscriptions of five days, three meals a day, is $395 per week; prices go down to $141 per week with a 12-week subscription for three days at two meals per day. There’s also a “Level II: Detox” program, starting at $465 per week. This meal kit seems fit for Gwyneth Paltrow or WAGs (wife or girlfriend of professional athletes) everywhere, but it wasn’t the right fit for my budget and taste preferences.
NutriFit
NutriFit for $10 to $45 per meal: NutriFit is more like a personal chef than a meal-kit delivery service, specializing in nutrient-dense, fully prepared meals with a huge range of fare, with gluten- and dairy-free and vegetarian and vegan options. The company ships to the lower 48 states, and most meals hovered around $20. NutriFit has customized, chef-curated meal plans that are tailored for the eater and include specifics like health goals and dietary restrictions, where the customer can select their own meals on the Premium plan or have the curated meals from the 13-week rotating menu, starting at $19 per day. There are also à la carte options, which I tested, which range from $10 to $45 per meal. These don’t require a subscription or a minimum, and come in meals that serve three to four people or in individual size Fit for ONE meals that feed one, where you choose from “Always Available Favorites” and rotating new specials. A lentil chickpea salad, cold udon noodles, hearty roasted tomato soup, and crispy vegan tacos were standouts. But I wasn’t a huge fan of most of the chef-curated specials, and the food started to wilt or get mushy if not eaten within the first few days. The user interface of the service isn’t the best or easiest to navigate, either.
Photograph: Molly Higgins
Fresh! Meal Plan from $11 to $14 per meal: You can choose from 6, 10, or 14 meals per week, or order à la carte (which is a minimum of eight meals), ranging from $11 to $14 per meal, with the price lowering the more you order. It’s got choices for keto, paleo, high-protein, dairy- and gluten-free, and vegan and vegetarian meals, and everything is preprepared and just needs to be microwaved (or air fried) for about three minutes. There were six vegan meals and four vegetarian meals at the time of writing, with a menu filter to easily see choices. The vegetarian coconut chia breakfast pudding and margherita breakfast pizza were standouts, the vegan crab cakes had a mushy consistency and almost cinnamon-like flavor, and the vegan blackened “chickn” and Cajun pasta was rubbery and lacked spice. Since testing several months ago, none of the plant-based meal choices has changed, so this may be best as a supplemental meal kit for plant-based eaters.
Not Recommended
Photograph: Molly Higgins
Eat Clean for $9 to $13 per meal: This vegan meal delivery service would be best for someone who loves the taste and convenience of TV dinners. Eat Clean has a dozen plant-based heat-’n’-eat meals available, with availability to order six to 20 meals per week, ranging from six meals for $13 each to 20 meals at $9 each. Each meal comes in a plastic container and needs to be microwaved or heated for around three minutes. Many of the meals have very similar flavors—the tomato sauce base for the chili, spaghetti, and lasagna all tasted the same. The meals with sides often felt random: zucchini with mac and cheese and nuggets; a cornbread on the side of chili that tasted exactly like a cinnamon coffee cake (the flavors didn’t go well together on that one). Like TV dinners, flavors were often one-note, and I opted to air fry to enhance mushy textures. This meal kit is nearly the same price as most I’ve tested, and the picks above are a whole lot tastier.
Are Meal Kit Services Worth It?
The answer really depends on what you value, whether that’s time, convenience, cost, or something else altogether, like finding new recipes or eating healthier. For me as a vegan, I find it a bit harder to find new recipes or where I can find the ingredients needed when I do find them. Cheaper meal-kit service plans hover around $13 per serving, with more expensive plans like Sakara at $400 for a full week of meals. For the cheaper meal plans like Green Chef at $12 with generous portions, the meal prices seem comparable to the cost of buying plant-based (often organic) groceries. WIRED reviewer Matthew Korfhage did a deep dive to find out: Are Meal Kits Cheaper Than Groceries in 2025? and the results surprised me.
I ate and prepared at least three days’ worth of meals or four meals minimum from each brand over the course of a week. If the brand had both frozen, microwavable meals and meal kits that needed to be prepared, I tested both. When I could, I let the brand curate the meals for me, going with what the algorithm chose rather than personal taste to get an unbiased look at the choices offered.
For plant-based meal kits, I prepared them as indicated in the directions and didn’t add any extra food items or seasoning, so I could taste them exactly as they were meant to be.
Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.
Tech
Why AI job loss headlines miss the bigger story | Computer Weekly
Layoff headlines are everywhere, and it’s easy to feel uneasy. Are these stories a sign of what many fear is becoming the new normal – AI has finally come for our jobs?
It may seem that every company is preparing for workforce reductions driven by automation. But that’s not the full picture. What we’re really witnessing is the dawn of something far more profound. We’re entering the AI economy. The real question isn’t whether AI agents can take over certain workflows once done by people, but whether companies will stop at efficiency or move boldly toward ingenuity and reinvention.
Efficiency Gains Are Just the Beginning
Here’s what the headlines miss: agentic efficiency gains are a quick win for some corporate executives focused on short-term results. Automate routine tasks, reduce headcount, and capture the cost savings. These are tangible improvements. But what happens after you’ve optimized existing processes? You hit a ceiling. You’ve made workflows faster with fewer people without reimagining what’s possible when people and AI agents work in entirely new ways.
AI agents can optimize some processes better than one or more people can. AI can handle high-volume, end-to-end activities with speed and consistency that humans simply can’t match. It can analyze massive datasets, automate workflows, surface insights in real-time, and execute repeatable tasks without fatigue and without being constantly prompted. If you’re not using AI agents to optimize processes in 2025, you will fall behind.
That’s not a threat – it’s just reality. But here’s where the layoff headlines end and business wisdom begins. Growing a company requires passion, creativity, good ideas, talent, taking risks, collaboration, communication, teamwork, and customer empathy – things that people will always be able to do better than AI. That’s why the future of business growth is reimagining what people and AI agents can and should be doing.
People and AI Do Different Jobs and Work Together
While there’s plenty of room in a growing business for people and agents to do different jobs, there are also plenty of opportunities to define how people and AI work together. One excellent example is the emergence of specialized AI agents in industry verticals.
In the AI economy, the most valuable AI agents aren’t only trained on vast amounts of general knowledge. They’re trained on the unique institutional knowledge a business has accumulated. Think about financial services versus manufacturing versus public sector; the domain knowledge is fundamentally different. And the work that people and AI do is different too.
Human workers and AI agents need to be trained specifically on an industry and a company’s unique ways of working, governing, selling, marketing, servicing, and so on. Otherwise, people with industry domain expertise and experience can’t use AI agents effectively and they just become expensive tools for doing commodity work better than people can.
These aren’t only efficiency plays. They’re new types of workflows where people and AI agents operate with their own unique domain expertise. There are efficiency gains, yes, and also gains from exponential growth and new ways of doing business.
The AI Economy Is Moving at Unprecedented Speed
According to a study by Morgan Stanley, for example, it took 12 years for 50% of households to adopt the Internet, and AI is on track to hit that adoption rate four times faster. Based on a recent study with 564 global executives, 86% of business leaders believe AI agents will play a critical role in their transformation over the next two years and a lot of them are already heavily investing into agentic capabilities.
Here’s how I think about the speed at which executives need to move to adopt autonomous agents: the window for AI adoption and your company’s investment in the AI economy isn’t closing, and that’s because it was never a window to begin with. It’s more like a fire escape. If you don’t escape your current business model and reimagine your work as soon as possible, you’ll be stuck in a business that’s burning through growth opportunities. Your headcounts go down while your competitors’ earnings go up because they saw the potential for industry-specific AI agents to work with them and for them.
The AI economy isn’t just about deploying a technology, it’s about fundamentally rethinking how work gets done, who does it, and where value gets created. The headlines about job losses are real, but they’re marking the beginning of a major transformation, not the end of a story. And the companies that get this right will define what competitive advantage looks like for the next decade.
Tech
Behold the Manifold, the Concept that Changed How Mathematicians View Space
The original version of this story appeared in Quanta Magazine.
Standing in the middle of a field, we can easily forget that we live on a round planet. We’re so small in comparison to the Earth that from our point of view, it looks flat.
The world is full of such shapes—ones that look flat to an ant living on them, even though they might have a more complicated global structure. Mathematicians call these shapes manifolds. Introduced by Bernhard Riemann in the mid-19th century, manifolds transformed how mathematicians think about space. It was no longer just a physical setting for other mathematical objects, but rather an abstract, well-defined object worth studying in its own right.
This new perspective allowed mathematicians to rigorously explore higher-dimensional spaces—leading to the birth of modern topology, a field dedicated to the study of mathematical spaces like manifolds. Manifolds have also come to occupy a central role in fields such as geometry, dynamical systems, data analysis, and physics.
Today, they give mathematicians a common vocabulary for solving all sorts of problems. They’re as fundamental to mathematics as the alphabet is to language. “If I know Cyrillic, do I know Russian?” said Fabrizio Bianchi, a mathematician at the University of Pisa in Italy. “No. But try to learn Russian without learning Cyrillic.”
So what are manifolds, and what kind of vocabulary do they provide?
Ideas Taking Shape
For millennia, geometry meant the study of objects in Euclidean space, the flat space we see around us. “Until the 1800s, ‘space’ meant ‘physical space,’” said José Ferreirós, a philosopher of science at the University of Seville in Spain—the analogue of a line in one dimension, or a flat plane in two dimensions.
In Euclidean space, things behave as expected: The shortest distance between any two points is a straight line. A triangle’s angles add up to 180 degrees. The tools of calculus are reliable and well defined.
But by the early 19th century, some mathematicians had started exploring other kinds of geometric spaces—ones that aren’t flat but rather curved like a sphere or saddle. In these spaces, parallel lines might eventually intersect. A triangle’s angles might add up to more or less than 180 degrees. And doing calculus can become a lot less straightforward.
The mathematical community struggled to accept (or even understand) this shift in geometric thinking.
But some mathematicians wanted to push these ideas even further. One of them was Bernhard Riemann, a shy young man who had originally planned to study theology—his father was a pastor—before being drawn to mathematics. In 1849, he decided to pursue his doctorate under the tutelage of Carl Friedrich Gauss, who had been studying the intrinsic properties of curves and surfaces, independent of the space surrounding them.
-
Sports1 week ago
Alabama turned Oklahoma’s College Football Playoff dream into a nightmare
-
Entertainment1 week agoRare look inside the secret LEGO Museum reveals the system behind a toy giant’s remarkable longevity
-
Business1 week agoGold prices in Pakistan Today – December 20, 2025 | The Express Tribune
-
Business1 week agoRome: Tourists to face €2 fee to get near Trevi Fountain
-
Entertainment1 week agoZoe Kravitz teases fans with ring in wedding finger
-
Entertainment1 week agoIndia drops Shubman Gill from T20 World Cup squad
-
Tech1 week agoWe Tried and Tested the Best Gifts for Plant Lovers With Our Own Green Thumbs
-
Fashion1 week agoColumbia launches star-studded US Curling team uniforms for 2026






