Connect with us

Tech

This M5 MacBook Air Discount Has Renewed My Faith in Cheap Laptops for 2026

Published

on

This M5 MacBook Air Discount Has Renewed My Faith in Cheap Laptops for 2026


In a time when almost everything is getting more expensive, this deal on the M5 MacBook Air has me hopeful about how laptop pricing will play out the rest of the year. The M5 MacBook Air has dropped back down to $949, which is $150 off its retail price. It’s only been at this price one other time since the product launched in early March and has more consistently sold for $1,049. As someone who’s reviewed every available MacBook and their strongest competitors, I can unequivocally say that this MacBook Air is one of the very best laptop deals right now.

Apple

MacBook Air (M5, 2026)

Take the Surface Laptop 7th Edition, for example, which has been one of my favorite alternatives to the MacBook Air through all of 2025. It had been at competitive prices with the M4 MacBook Air all along, with both laptops sometimes dropping to as low as $799 during sales events like Prime Day throughout the year. But now, the Surface Laptop has gotten an official price hike due to the RAM shortage and is currently sitting at $1,200. It’s still a laptop I like quite a lot, but at $350 more than a similarly configured M5 MacBook Air, it’s very difficult to recommend.

Or consider the MacBook Neo, Apple’s new budget laptop that also launched in March. While it’s much cheaper overall, it’s only ever been sold for $10 off its full price. At this reduced price for the M5 MacBook Air of $949, that leaves only a dangerously small $260 gap between the Neo and the Air. It’s almost embarrassing how much better the Air is by comparison—in every way imaginable. If you’re curious how these two laptops stack up, I’ve done a comprehensive comparison between them that’s worth checking out. But to put it simply, despite all the excitement (and controversy) around the much cheaper MacBook Neo, the MacBook Air still has the most price flexibility in terms of deals.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tech

A Brain Implant for Depression Is About to Be Tested in Humans

Published

on

A Brain Implant for Depression Is About to Be Tested in Humans


The latest brain-computer interface could help people recover from severe depression. Motif Neurotech announced Monday that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved a human study to trial the company’s blueberry-sized brain implant that sits in the skull and delivers electrical stimulation to treat depression.

The Houston-based startup, founded in 2022, is part of a budding industry pursuing technology to read and interpret brain signals. While other companies exploring similar technology, like Elon Musk’s Neuralink, Paradromics, and Synchron, are developing devices to enable paralyzed people to communicate and use computers, Motif is aiming to ease depression in people who have not benefited from medication.

The company’s device is implanted in the skull just above the dura, the brain’s protective membrane. It targets the central executive network, a part of the brain that is responsible for high-level cognitive functions and is underactive in major depressive disorder. The implant emits specific patterns of stimulation to turn “on” this network.

Motif’s device would allow patients to receive therapeutic brain stimulation at home. “Through frequent electrical stimulation, we think we can drive that neuroplasticity that creates stronger connectivity within the central executive network for patients with depression, so that they can get out of bed in the morning, call their friends, go to the gym,” says Jacob Robinson, Motif’s cofounder and CEO.

Courtesy of Motif

Electrical stimulation has been used for decades to treat depression, and Motif’s approach is just the latest iteration. Electroconvulsive or “shock” therapy began in the 1930s and is still used today in cases where patients don’t benefit from antidepressants. Deep brain stimulation, which involves surgically implanting electrodes into the brain, is occasionally used experimentally but is not FDA approved. A much milder form of stimulation known as transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS, was approved in 2008. While it can be highly effective, it typically requires a lengthy treatment regimen of five treatments a week for six weeks.

A study from 2021 found that during a 12-month period in the United States, nearly 9 million adults were undergoing treatment for major depressive disorder, and of those, almost 3 million were considered to have treatment-resistant depression, when symptoms do not improve after at least two, and often more, antidepressant medications.

Motif’s device can be implanted in a 20-minute outpatient procedure without the need for brain surgery. It’s powered by wireless magnetoelectric technology that Robinson developed while at Rice University and is charged with a baseball cap that patients will wear when receiving the stimulation.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

The Man Behind AlphaGo Thinks AI Is Taking the Wrong Path

Published

on

The Man Behind AlphaGo Thinks AI Is Taking the Wrong Path


David Silver gave the world its very first glimpse of superintelligence.

In 2016, an AI program he developed at Google DeepMind, AlphaGo, taught itself to play the famously difficult game of Go with a kind of mastery that went far beyond mimicry.

Silver has since founded his own company, Ineffable Intelligence, that aims to build more general forms of AI superintelligence. The company will do this, Silver says, by focusing on reinforcement learning, which involves AI models learning new capabilities through trial and error. The vision is to create “superlearners” that go beyond human intelligence in many domains.

This approach stands in contrast to how most AI companies plan to build superintelligence, by exploiting the coding and research capabilities of large-language models.

Silver, speaking to WIRED from his office in London, says he thinks this approach will fail. As amazing as LLMs are, they learn from human intelligence—rather than building their own.

“Human data is like a kind of fossil fuel that has provided an amazing shortcut,” Silver says. “You can think of systems that learn for themselves as a renewable fuel—something that can just learn and learn and learn forever, without limit,” he says.

I’ve met Silver a few times and—despite this proclamation—he’s always struck me as one of the more humble people in AI. Sometimes, when talking about ideas he considers silly, he flashes a puckish grin. Right now, though, he’s deadly serious.

“I think of our mission as making first contact with superintelligence,” he says. “By superintelligence I really mean something incredible. It should discover new forms of science or technology or government or economics for itself.”

Five years ago, such a mission might have seemed ridiculous. But tech CEOs now routinely talk about machines outpacing human intelligence and replacing entire categories of workers. The idea that some new technical twist might unlock superhuman AI capabilities has recently spawned a raft of billion-dollar startups.

Ineffable Intelligence has so far raised $1.1 billion in seed funding at a valuation of $5.1 billion—an enormous sum by European AI standards. Silver has also recruited top AI researchers from Google DeepMind and other frontier labs to join his endeavor.

Silver says he will give all of the money he makes from equity in Effable Intelligence—a sum that could amount to billions if he is successful—away to charity.

“It’s a huge responsibility to build a company focusing on superintelligence,” he tells me. “I think this is something that has to be done for the benefit of humanity, and any money that I make from Ineffable will will go to high-impact charities that save as many lives as possible.”

Total Focus

Silver met Demis Hassabis, the CEO of Google DeepMind, at a chess tournament when they were kids, and the pair later became lifelong friends and collaborators.

They remained close after Silver left Google DeepMind, which he did only because he wanted to chart a completely new path. “I feel it’s really important that there is an elite AI lab that actually focuses a hundred percent on this approach,” he says. “That it’s not just a corner of another place dedicated to LLMs.”

The limits of the LLM-based approach can be seen, Silver says, with a simple thought experiment. Imagine going back in time and releasing a large language model in a world that believed the world was flat. Without being able to interact with the real world, the system, he says, would remain an avid flat-earther, even if it continued to improve its own code.

An AI system that can learn about the world for itself, however, could make its own scientific discoveries.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Are tech leaders risking a cyber resourcing crisis? | Computer Weekly

Published

on

Are tech leaders risking a cyber resourcing crisis? | Computer Weekly


If you ask any technology leader, they will tell you that cybersecurity has become a higher priority than ever, with sophisticated cyberattacks causing high-profile incidents around the world. According to data from the World Economic Forum, the global cost of cybercrime is forecast to reach USD $12.2 trillion by 2031, placing the scale of cybercriminal operations on a par with some of the world’s largest economies.

But are tech leaders risking a cyber resourcing crisis by not sufficiently rewarding their security teams?

 Cyber professionals showing signs of discontent

 New research in Harvey Nash’s Tech Talent & Salary Report 2026, taking in the views of over 3,600 tech professionals from around the world, should be a wake-up call. A run-down of the findings in relation to cybersecurity makes sobering reading: 

  • Cybersecurity professionals are the least likely in the whole tech workforce to have received a pay rise in the last year – only 29% have done so, only around half the proportion of those working in DevOps (56%) and Product Management (51%)
  • Cybersecurity professionals are amongst the unhappiest in the tech workforce – just behind those working in QA/Testing and Infrastructure/Support
  • Those working in cyber are less confident than the average that they will get a pay rise in the coming year – only 40% expecting this compared to 44%
  • Almost half (49%) of cyber security professionals are looking to move jobs in the next twelve months, well above the global average across roles (39%) and the fourth highest amongst all job roles

 All of this is despite the fact that cyber skills are the third most in-demand tech skillset across the world. Leaders know that cybersecurity is crucial but appear to be running a gauntlet of losing disillusioned team members looking to transition into other roles.

 The risks of under-reward

 What seems clear from these findings is that businesses are frequently asking cybersecurity teams to stand on the front line of business risk, yet too often they are not matching that responsibility with the reward, progression and operating environment that keeps people in the profession. When pay lags the market, workload keeps rising and the role is seen as a blocker rather than an enabler, it’s no surprise that attrition starts to look like the path of least resistance.

 A useful way to frame this challenge is through the lens of “risk debt”. Like technical debt, it accumulates quietly over time when organisations underinvest in people, capability and tooling, even as the threat surface expands. Under‑rewarded teams, persistent vacancies, rising alert volumes and outdated operating models all defer risk rather than remove it. The balance sheet looks fine in the short term, but the liability compounds beneath the surface. When an incident eventually occurs, the cost is rarely limited to remediation alone; it shows up in slower response times, greater operational disruption, regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage. Cyber risk debt is therefore not an abstract concept – it is the delayed cost of treating security as an overhead rather than a strategic investment.

 Investing in cyber teams

 What solutions are there to this problem? Compensation matters of course – particularly for scarce skills – so evidently tech leaders need to ensure that cyber teams are being appropriately rewarded as far as it’s in their remit (and budget) to do so.

 But pay is rarely the only lever. CIOs, CISOs and other leaders need to ensure they are investing in sustainable cyber operating models: clear career pathways from analyst to engineer to architect, funded time for training and certification, and modern tooling and automation that reduce burnout and let teams focus on high-value work. Just as importantly, security has to be embedded into product and engineering ways of working, so teams spend less time firefighting late-stage issues and more time shaping secure-by-design outcomes.

 Opportunities created by AI

 At the same time, the situation is not all negative: in fact, I believe that the greenfield of AI is opening up significant opportunities for cyber professionals. AI and the agentic approach are strategically key to businesses across sectors now – and who better than cyber professionals to take a lead role in responsible AI and governance? Ensuring that there are robust controls and guardrails in place so that agents don’t ‘go rogue’ is both operationally and reputationally critical.

 Traditionally, technology teams are split into two halves: operational technology (including cyber) on one side and IT (doing the more ‘creative’ and value adding work like engineering and development) on the other. But in my view, AI is beginning to narrow the gap between OT and IT. Certainly, I believe that it should do: OT needs to be right at the table when assessing the potential threats (and solutions) created by AI. In this way, AI can open up new career paths. Cyber professionals can take advantage of this and in doing so increase their job satisfaction and reward.

 Keeping cyber in the boardroom

 Ultimately, cyber resourcing is a resilience question. If organisations want to reduce exposure and respond faster when incidents happen, they need to treat cyber talent as a strategic capability: valued, visible and supported by leadership. There is also an onus on CISOs (and CIOs) to make sure that they are fully communicating the value of the work being done by the cyber team to the Board – expressing this in business language the Board understands rather than just technical terms. It is one of the challenges of working in a domain like cyber that much of the value delivered goes unseen: all of the threats blocked and the risks mitigated may not be fully appreciated in the boardroom for the very reason that they have been successfully headed off. Communicating this value will build the business case for appropriate reward and recognition.

The organisations that get this right won’t just retain their best people – they’ll build trust with customers, regulators and their own boards. Cybersecurity is too important to be taken for granted, especially when the threats are rapidly escalating due to new AI-based attack tools. Let’s not leave it to chance: the industry needs to properly value its cyber professionals and ensure that security remains a rewarding and fulfilling technology career path.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending