## The World Is Moving to Ban Kids From Social Media — But Will It Actually Help?

A wave of legislation is sweeping across the globe, and it all points in the same direction: keep children under 16 off social media. The United Kingdom recently announced sweeping plans to block minors from platforms like TikTok and Facebook, while Canada is pushing its own version of the legislation through parliament at pace. Both countries are drawing heavily from Australia's playbook — the first nation in the world to implement such a ban — which officially took effect in December.

Governments from Paris to Jakarta are watching Australia's experiment closely, and many are racing to replicate it. The shared logic is straightforward: if social media is harming young people, restricting their access is the most direct remedy. But whether that logic holds up in practice is a very different question.

## Australia's Bold Experiment Under the Microscope

Australia's Online Safety Amendment stands as the world's toughest child-focused digital law to date. It requires online platforms to prevent users under 16 from creating accounts, with fines reaching up to AUD 49.5 million — roughly $34.7 million — per violation.

The legislation was built on a compelling foundation. A growing body of research connects heavy social media use among young people to mental health struggles, negative body image, cyberbullying, and disrupted sleep. Politicians argued that removing kids from these platforms was the most decisive action available.

Six months later, however, the picture is more complicated. Australia's own eSafety Commissioner has conceded that teens are already finding workarounds. Researchers monitoring the rollout have observed young people turning to VPNs, borrowing devices from others, and migrating to lesser-known platforms that don't enforce age verification at all.

## Canada Pushes Ahead Despite Warning Signs

Canada is watching Australia's experience unfold — and pressing forward regardless. Bill C-34, known as the Safe and Secure Digital Services Act, would restrict access to social platforms, AI chatbots, and similar digital services for anyone under 16. It would also establish direct safety obligations for platform operators and create a brand-new Digital Safety Commission to oversee enforcement.

Not everyone is convinced the bill will deliver on its promises. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, believes the ban is likely to fail — and to generate unintended consequences along the way.

"The experience elsewhere suggests that bans can be easily circumvented and that kids gravitate to riskier, less regulated platforms," Geist explains. "And because verifying who is under 16 means verifying everyone, this is effectively a population-wide ID mandate. The real solution lies in addressing the harms from social media for all users."

Geist is also skeptical about handing enforcement powers to a newly created regulator rather than Canada's established telecom watchdog, the CRTC. He describes the proposed Digital Safety Commission as a "super-regulator" with sweeping authority — one that writes its own rules, enforces them, and can conduct hearings in secret, all while claiming to advocate for the very users it polices.

## Platform Design Is the Real Problem, Some Argue

Catherine Warren, president of digital consultancy Fan Trust, takes a sharply different view on where the focus should land. For Warren, the danger isn't that children are online — it's that the platforms themselves are deliberately engineered to be addictive, using infinite scrolling and AI-driven features that have proven difficult to regulate.

"Let's be clear-eyed: children are being harmed online, and families are grieving," Warren says. "That's exactly why the Canadian response has to work — not just feel decisive."

She draws a pointed analogy: "When we wanted children safe in the water, we didn't drain the pool. We fenced it, taught them to swim and posted a lifeguard."

Warren also raises concerns about social inequality embedded in blanket bans. Wealthier families, she notes, have far easier access to VPNs and other tools to bypass restrictions — meaning the ban could end up functioning as a class filter, shutting out the most vulnerable children while leaving the system wide open for those with resources.

"A ban that some children can trick with a VPN isn't child safety," she says. "The families with the most beat the system, while the kids with the least — and perhaps the greatest need for online connection and education — are cut off."

## European Experts Sound Similar Alarms

Across the Atlantic, researchers are voicing comparable doubts. Stephan Dreyer, senior researcher at the Leibniz Institute for Media Studies, argues that blanket bans carry more legal and practical risks than they resolve.

"We still don't have studies that actually demonstrate a social media ban leads to improved mental health," Dreyer says. He adds that when young people are surveyed about what genuinely worries them, social media content rarely tops the list — concerns about climate change, family illness, and migration rank far higher. Social media may amplify these anxieties, he notes, but it isn't their root cause.

Dreyer also warns that pushing children off mainstream platforms tends to send them toward less regulated corners of the internet, potentially exposing them to greater risks.

## Europe's Patchwork of Rules — and a Legal Minefield

Despite these reservations, several European nations are developing Australian-style legislation of their own. The approaches vary considerably: France has set its age threshold at 15, Austria at 14, and both Greece and Spain at 16.

But Dreyer points to a deeper legal complication that has received surprisingly little public attention. The European Union's Digital Services Act already sets out rules governing how platforms must protect minors — and under EU law, it takes precedence over conflicting national regulations. This means many member states may be crafting bans that are legally unenforceable the moment they conflict with the DSA.

"The DSA actually blocks national rules from member states, and most haven't accounted for that in their plans," Dreyer explains.

France, for instance, has avoided naming platforms as the party responsible for enforcing its under-15 ban — precisely because doing so would create a direct conflict with EU law.

The European Commission, meanwhile, is attempting to demonstrate that the DSA has real teeth. TikTok is facing scrutiny for alleged violations related to addictive design features, while Meta is under pressure over its handling of cyberbullying and grooming on Facebook and Instagram. If found in serious breach of the DSA, platforms can face fines of up to 6 percent of their total global annual revenue. Even so, many European politicians and parents feel enforcement is moving far too slowly.

"Member states have grown impatient with how the DSA is being enforced," Dreyer says, suggesting that the flurry of national bans may be as much about pressuring Brussels into action as protecting children directly.

## The Real Question Is Whether Governments Are Targeting the Right Problem

The broader lesson emerging from Australia and Europe, according to researchers like Dreyer, isn't that regulation should be abandoned — it's that governments may be aiming at the wrong target. Restricting young users from established platforms without addressing the addictive architecture driving the harm, or the unregulated platforms waiting in the wings, may produce little more than the appearance of action.

As the global race to legislate accelerates, the critical question isn't just whether these bans can be passed — it's whether they can actually protect the children they're designed to serve.

The UK, Canada, and Australia are banning under-16s from social media. But experts warn these laws may be easy to evade and hard to enforce. Here's why.

Global Social Media Bans for Kids: Will They Work?

large_GettyImages-2198590463.jpg

medium_GettyImages-2198590463.jpg

small_GettyImages-2198590463.jpg

thumbnail_GettyImages-2198590463.jpg

GettyImages-2198590463.jpg

Should Kids Be Banned From Social Media? The Global Debate Heating Up

## The U.S. Government Just Banned Anthropic's Most Powerful AI Models — Here's Why History Says It Won't Stick

For more than 30 years, governments around the world have attempted to bottle up dangerous cybersecurity software using export controls. The results have been, at best, mixed. Now the United States is applying that same playbook to artificial intelligence — specifically to Anthropic's advanced cybersecurity model, Mythos — and history offers little reason for optimism.

Last Friday, the White House directed Anthropic to immediately halt exports of two of its flagship AI models, Fable and Mythos, citing vague national security concerns. The directive extended to foreign nationals residing inside the U.S. as well. Within roughly 90 minutes of being notified, Anthropic pulled both models offline, leaving them inaccessible to everyone for over a week.

This marks the first genuine test of whether Washington can leverage export restrictions to rein in frontier AI — a question whose answer will not only determine Anthropic's future in global markets but also set a precedent that every other major AI lab will need to factor into its business strategy.

## What Made Mythos So Controversial in the First Place

When Anthropic launched Mythos in April, it was never a product for the general public. The company positioned it as an extraordinarily powerful cybersecurity tool — one capable of identifying and exploiting software vulnerabilities at a scale that made even its creators cautious. Before any government ban, access was already limited to roughly 150 carefully vetted companies and government agencies. The idea was to put the technology in the hands of defenders so they could shore up their systems before malicious actors could develop equivalent capabilities independently.

So what pushed federal officials over the edge? Two events, reportedly. First, Anthropic extended Mythos access to a South Korean telecommunications company through its limited partner program. U.S. officials became alarmed when they identified the firm — widely reported to be SK Telecom — as a company they believed had ties to China. SK Telecom has flatly denied any such connection.

The second trigger came from an unlikely source: Amazon CEO Andy Jassy reportedly alerted the administration after Amazon's own researchers claimed they had found a way to bypass the safety guardrails of Fable 5, another Anthropic model. Anthropic pushed back on that characterization, describing the issue as a narrow, already-patched edge case rather than a fundamental security failure.

Regardless of who was right, the Commerce Department issued an export control directive, and Anthropic was forced to act almost immediately.

## A Decades-Long Track Record of Failure

The uncomfortable truth is that export controls on cybersecurity technology have a poor track record. The most glaring example dates back to the early 1990s, when the U.S. government attempted to suppress a piece of encryption software called Pretty Good Privacy, or PGP.

Developed by programmer Phil Zimmermann, PGP allowed users to encrypt their digital communications so effectively that even intercepted messages were virtually impossible to decode. Federal authorities worried the tool would blind intelligence agencies trying to monitor communications and responded by opening a criminal investigation against Zimmermann under arms export control laws.

Zimmermann's countermove was both clever and defiant: he published PGP's source code as a physical printed book, making it legally protected speech under the First Amendment. The move ignited the so-called "Crypto Wars," a prolonged standoff between technologists and governments over the right to use strong encryption. Zimmermann ultimately prevailed — the investigation was dropped — and the encryption algorithms that emerged from that era now secure the private messages of billions of people on platforms like Signal and WhatsApp.

## Spyware and the Limits of the Wassenaar Arrangement

The next major chapter in cyber export control came in the early 2010s, when security researchers began uncovering surveillance software built by Western companies deployed against journalists, dissidents, and activists across the Middle East and beyond. Governments responded by expanding the Wassenaar Arrangement, an existing international treaty designed to regulate dual-use technologies — those with both civilian and military applications.

The goal was to require spyware makers to obtain export licenses before selling their products to foreign governments. In theory, this would create a paper trail and a gatekeeping mechanism. In practice, the arrangement was riddled with structural weaknesses.

### Two Core Problems That Undermined the Approach

First, not every country signed on. Israel, home to some of the world's most prolific spyware developers, has never been a party to the Wassenaar Arrangement. Second, even among signatory nations, enforcement was left entirely to each government's discretion — and many were remarkably permissive.

Italy, for instance, allowed its homegrown spyware firm Hacking Team to export its surveillance tools globally for years, even as evidence mounted that the company's clients included authoritarian governments using the software to target human rights defenders and members of the free press. Europe more broadly has been repeatedly criticized for allowing spyware companies to operate with minimal accountability. Critics of the European Union's most recent efforts to address the problem say the new measures still "do not go far enough."

Some companies simply relocated to countries with looser regulations when heat from authorities became too intense. Intellexa, a sanctioned spyware consortium, restructured its operations across multiple jurisdictions to stay a step ahead of enforcement. Others reportedly explored moving to Saudi Arabia for similar reasons.

There have been isolated victories. German prosecutors successfully shut down spyware company FinFisher in 2022 after a years-long investigation into the firm's alleged sale of surveillance tools to Turkey without a proper export license — tools that had been found on the phones of Turkish government critics. But such outcomes are the exception, not the rule.

## What Happens Next with Anthropic and Mythos

As of now, the standoff between Anthropic and the Trump administration remains unresolved. Two plausible outcomes loom. The administration could walk back the restriction, effectively acknowledging that AI capabilities similar to Mythos will inevitably emerge in other countries — including China — regardless of what American regulators do. Alternatively, the government could formalize a system requiring AI companies to seek approval before serving international customers, a compliance burden that would add cost, complexity, and competitive disadvantage for U.S. firms.

Neither path is clean. And given what the past three decades have demonstrated about the limits of software export controls — whether applied to encryption tools or commercial spyware — there is little evidence that government-mandated restrictions alone can reliably prevent sophisticated technology from reaching the wrong hands.

The Mythos ban may ultimately be remembered less as an effective security measure and more as the moment the AI industry confronted a question the cybersecurity world has been wrestling with for a generation: can any government truly contain powerful dual-use technology once it exists?

The U.S. ban on Anthropic's Mythos AI model echoes decades of failed cyber export controls. Here's what history tells us about what comes next.

Why Anthropic's Mythos AI Export Ban Will Likely Fail

large_donald-trump-open-mouth.jpg

medium_donald-trump-open-mouth.jpg

small_donald-trump-open-mouth.jpg

thumbnail_donald-trump-open-mouth.jpg

donald-trump-open-mouth.jpg

Why U.S. Cyber Export Controls Keep Failing — And What Anthropic's Mythos Ban Tells Us

## Major Errors Discovered in Al Gore's Climate TRACE Emissions Database

A groundbreaking study from Northern Arizona University (NAU) is casting serious doubt on the accuracy of one of the world's most prominent greenhouse gas tracking tools. Researchers have concluded that the Climate TRACE database — developed by a consortium co-founded by former Vice President Al Gore — is significantly underreporting carbon dioxide emissions produced by vehicles in American cities, sometimes missing the mark by more than 90%.

The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal *Environmental Research Letters*, reveal that across 260 U.S. cities, the Climate TRACE database underestimates vehicle-related CO2 emissions by an average of **70%**. The implications for climate policy and emissions reduction strategies could be substantial.

## What the Research Found

The study was led by Kevin Gurney, a professor in NAU's School of Informatics, Computing, and Cyber Systems (SICCS). His team specifically examined how Climate TRACE reports carbon dioxide output from cars and trucks in urban environments — a critical category of fossil fuel emissions that plays an outsized role in city-level climate planning.

To benchmark the Climate TRACE figures, researchers cross-referenced them with data from **Vulcan**, an independent onroad emissions database developed by Gurney's own laboratory. The Vulcan system draws on verified traffic records and official energy consumption data to generate reliable emissions estimates, carrying an uncertainty margin of roughly 14%.

The contrast between the two datasets was stark.

"The Climate TRACE CO2 emissions were, on average, 70% lower than those same emissions in the Vulcan onroad CO2 emissions database," said Bilal Aslam, a SICCS postdoctoral researcher and co-investigator on the study.

### Some Cities Showed Gaps Exceeding 90%

The discrepancies weren't uniform. Certain cities revealed dramatically larger gaps between the two data sources. According to Pawlok Dass, a research associate at SICCS, cities like **Indianapolis and Nashville** showed Climate TRACE figures that fell more than 90% below what Vulcan recorded — a difference so large it raises fundamental questions about the database's methodology.

The research team also believes these inaccuracies are unlikely to be limited to the United States. They suspect similar underestimates may exist in Climate TRACE data for cities around the world, potentially undermining global climate accountability efforts.

## A Pattern of Concern

This is not the first time Climate TRACE's accuracy has been questioned by NAU researchers. An earlier study from the same team identified comparable problems in how Climate TRACE estimates emissions from **power plants**, another major source of fossil fuel-based CO2.

Taken together, Gurney says the two studies suggest that Climate TRACE may be significantly underreporting more than half of U.S. fossil fuel CO2 emissions in urban settings — a troubling pattern for a tool used to inform climate decisions at the highest levels.

"Given the importance of vehicle CO2 emissions in cities, we carefully examined the Climate TRACE data which relied on promising new artificial intelligence-based approaches," Gurney explained. "Our results suggest that the Climate TRACE data significantly underestimate over half of U.S. fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions in cities."

## AI Promise vs. Scientific Rigor

Climate TRACE employs artificial intelligence to monitor and estimate greenhouse gas emissions globally — an innovative approach that researchers acknowledge holds genuine promise for environmental tracking. However, the NAU team argues that technological ambition must be paired with rigorous scientific standards.

In their view, transparency, independent expert review, and methodological integrity are non-negotiable when producing data that feeds directly into climate legislation and public policy. Without these safeguards, even well-intentioned tools can mislead the decision-makers who rely on them.

The published study includes a set of concrete recommendations designed to help Climate TRACE improve its accuracy, providing a constructive path forward for the consortium's ongoing work.

"We will never estimate emissions with perfect accuracy, but we must ensure that the data shared with policymakers and the public is unbiased and meets best practices and the most rigorous scientific standards available," Gurney stated. "Without this, we mislead decision makers and potentially lose public trust in our ability to tackle climate change."

## About the Lead Researcher

Kevin Gurney brings more than two decades of expertise to this field, working at the intersection of atmospheric science, ecology, and public policy. His federally supported **Vulcan and Hestia projects** map greenhouse gas emissions at extraordinary resolution — from individual roadways and power plants down to neighborhood-level detail — helping identify emissions hotspots across the country.

With over 180 published scientific papers and more than 20,000 citations to his name, Gurney is a recognized authority in the field. He has participated in United Nations climate negotiations for over 25 years and serves as a lead author for the **Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)**. His work also contributed to a recent U.S. National Academy report titled *Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Decisionmaking*.

A new NAU study finds Climate TRACE, co-founded by Al Gore, underestimates urban vehicle CO2 emissions by 70% on average across 260 U.S. cities.

Climate TRACE Database Undercounts Vehicle CO2 by 70%

large_coal-power-plant-in-china.webp

medium_coal-power-plant-in-china.webp

small_coal-power-plant-in-china.webp

thumbnail_coal-power-plant-in-china.webp

coal-power-plant-in-china.webp

Climate TRACE Emissions Database Undercounts Vehicle CO2 by 70%, Study Warns

## The Summer Screen Time Surge Is Real — And It's Getting Worse

Just as Disney and Pixar's highly anticipated *Toy Story 5* dramatizes the battle between beloved playthings and irresistible digital devices, millions of real-world families are facing the same struggle every single summer. When school bells stop ringing and structured routines disappear, children reach for their tablets and smartphones — and the numbers tell a striking story.

According to a comprehensive report by Aura, an online safety company that analyzed data from nearly 30,000 devices, children between the ages of 7 and 12 spend roughly **30% more time on screens during summer** compared to the school year. That translates to approximately four additional hours of screen time per week.

The report also revealed that **75% of children aged 7 to 11 would rather watch videos than play with physical toys** — a statistic that forms the very foundation of *Toy Story 5*'s storyline, where 8-year-old Bonnie abandons her cherished toys after receiving a shiny new tablet called a "Lilypad."

## Why Summer Makes Kids More Vulnerable to Screen Overuse

Pediatrician and researcher Dr. Jason Nagata of the University of California, San Francisco, explains that summer represents a uniquely high-risk window for excessive screen use. Without the natural structure and accountability of school days, children and teenagers naturally default to their devices when boredom sets in.

"Time that is generally spent on screens is often displacing sleep, physical activity, or outdoor time," says Dr. Nagata — all of which are critical pillars of a child's mental and physical health.

The Aura data adds important detail to this picture:

- **Teens experience a 15% increase** in screen time during summer compared to the school year
- **Nearly 70% of children** are already on their devices by mid-afternoon
- **1 in 10 children** remain active on devices as late as midnight
- Nighttime messaging rates more than **double across all age groups** compared to fall

Younger children tend to gravitate toward YouTube videos and gaming platforms like Roblox, while teenagers migrate toward social media apps. The *Toy Story 5* film captures this dynamic authentically — depicting young Bonnie staying up late scrolling her tablet and reaching for it the moment she wakes up.

### The Health Consequences Are Hard to Ignore

As summer progresses, the health toll becomes measurable. Aura's Digital Wellbeing Index — which correlates children's digital habits with health markers including sleep quality, emotional regulation, mood, and social isolation — found that **one in three children score poorly** on the index as summer wears on.

The good news? Kids aren't oblivious to the problem. More than half of children and teens surveyed acknowledged that excessive screen time isn't healthy. When asked to rank their preferred summer activities, **36% chose spending time with friends**, **24% chose going outside**, and only **20% chose using a tablet**.

"Many children and teens themselves report that they actually don't want to be glued to their phones over the summer," says Dr. Nagata. "It's just that, oftentimes, they're a little bit bored."

And apps are specifically engineered to exploit that boredom — using constant notifications and algorithmic hooks to keep users engaged far longer than intended.

## 4 Practical Ways Parents Can Keep Tech in Check This Summer

### 1. Create Physical Barriers to Screen Time

Rather than simply imposing time limits — which can feel punitive and ineffective without appealing alternatives — Dr. Nagata encourages parents to plan activities that make device use physically impossible.

Swimming is one of his top recommendations. "I take my daughter swimming every weekend over the summer, and the pool has become our special father-daughter place," he says. "And it's also screen-free. You cannot physically bring phones or devices into the pool."

The combination of physical activity, outdoor exposure, and quality bonding time makes swimming — and similar water-based activities — an ideal summer staple for families.

### 2. Enroll Kids in Summer Camp

Summer camps offer a structured, immersive environment that naturally limits screen access. A 2023 survey by the American Camp Association found that **90% of summer camps ban cell phones and tablets entirely**.

Dr. Nagata notes that camps emphasizing physical activity, outdoor exploration, and meaningful peer relationships deliver the greatest developmental benefits. But not every child thrives in a sports-heavy environment — and that's perfectly fine.

Niki Cordell, who runs **Junior Chefs Kitchen**, a culinary summer camp in Chicago, offers an inspiring alternative. Children cook two recipes daily, spend time at local parks, and visit restaurants around the city once a week. "Not all kids are super sporty, so this gives them the ability to build confidence and life skills in a different setting," Cordell explains. Many campers return home eager to recreate what they've learned in their own kitchens.

Art, music, and STEM camps are equally valuable options for children who don't gravitate toward athletics.

### 3. Build Structure Around Community Resources

For families working with tighter budgets, community resources can provide meaningful structure without a steep price tag. Regular trips to the **public library**, afternoon outings to local parks, and programs through organizations like the **Boys & Girls Clubs of America** all help anchor summer days with purpose and connection.

These low-cost touchpoints give children something to look forward to and reduce the idle downtime that so often leads to excessive screen use.

### 4. Involve Your Kids in the Planning Process

Merve Lapus, Vice President of Education, Outreach and Engagement at **Common Sense Media**, emphasizes the importance of making children active participants in managing their own screen habits.

"It's really important to just have that discussion with the kids and recognize that it's very easy to get lost in screens, but we want to be in agreement that this is something we're going to try and do together," says Lapus.

When children help plan their own screen-free or screen-limited days, they develop a sense of ownership and autonomy over their choices — making them far more likely to follow through. Parents who join in the activities, rather than simply issuing mandates from the sidelines, reinforce that digital boundaries are a family value, not a punishment.

## The Bottom Line

The themes at the heart of *Toy Story 5* — connection, presence, and the things we risk losing when we disappear into our screens — are more relevant than ever. The research is clear: summers without structure invite screen overuse, and the health consequences are real. But with thoughtful planning, open communication, and a few well-chosen alternatives, parents can help their children spend this summer building memories rather than scrolling through them.

Kids spend 30% more time on screens during summer. Inspired by Toy Story 5, here are 4 expert-backed strategies to help your children unplug and thrive.

4 Expert Tips to Reduce Kids' Screen Time This Summer

large_jpeg

medium_jpeg

small_jpeg

thumbnail_jpeg

jpeg

Toys vs. Tech: How to Help Your Kids Unplug and Thrive This Summer

## FDA Committee Gives Unanimous Green Light to Moderna's mRNA Flu Vaccine

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Food and Drug Administration's premier vaccine advisory body has recommended approval of Moderna's mRNA-based influenza vaccine, known as mFlusiva, for adults aged 50 and older. The vote marks the first time the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) has reviewed a new vaccine application since May 2023 — a gap of more than three years.

## A Breakthrough Amid Political Headwinds

The recommendation carries significant weight given the current political climate surrounding vaccines. Under the second Trump administration, both President Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have been vocal critics of vaccine programs, particularly those utilizing mRNA technology. Kennedy previously pulled back nearly $500 million in federal contracts earmarked for mRNA vaccine development.

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a former FDA advisory panel member, called the vote a welcome relief. "It's such a breath of fresh air, considering what we've gone through with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.," he said.

The path to this vote was not without obstacles. The FDA initially declined to review Moderna's application earlier this year, only to reverse that decision within two weeks following widespread criticism from the public health community.

## How the mRNA Flu Vaccine Works

Moderna's mFlusiva uses the same messenger-RNA technology that underpinned the development of COVID-19 vaccines. Rather than introducing weakened or inactivated flu particles into the body, mRNA instructs human cells to produce flu antigens, prompting the immune system to build defenses. The vaccine covers three to four influenza strains and delivers an amount of mRNA so minuscule it is comparable in weight to the trace left by a fingerprint on a mirror.

Importantly, Moderna confirmed that the vaccine "does not enter the cellular nucleus, does not interact with the genome, and does not persist in the body" — directly addressing widespread misinformation that has fueled public skepticism.

## Why Experts Are Excited About mRNA Flu Technology

Beyond the immediate health benefits, public health specialists are enthusiastic about mRNA flu vaccines for practical reasons. Traditional flu vaccines can take up to six months to manufacture and distribute once a new strain is identified. The mRNA platform could slash that timeline to just two to three months — the same compressed schedule demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic — dramatically improving the vaccine's relevance when a novel or mismatched flu strain emerges.

Dr. Evan Anderson, vice president of epidemiology at Moderna, highlighted the problem of strain mismatch in existing flu vaccines and emphasized that the faster production window of mRNA technology could significantly boost vaccine accuracy and effectiveness each season.

### Stronger, Longer-Lasting Protection

Research published in both the New England Journal of Medicine and Nature Immunology provided compelling evidence for the vaccine's superiority over standard flu shots. Hanover Matz, a postdoctoral researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, and his team analyzed immune responses from 75 trial participants, focusing not just on the quantity of antibodies produced but on their quality and breadth.

"It's not something that is typically evaluated when anybody looks at vaccine research," Matz noted. Their findings revealed that the mRNA vaccine generated a more durable immune response and antibodies capable of recognizing a broader range of flu strains — a potential explanation for why it may outperform conventional flu vaccines.

Dr. Anna Durbin, director of the Center for Immunization Research at Johns Hopkins University and a VRBPAC member, emphasized the rigor of Moderna's clinical program. "There were no shortcuts taken. There was a full efficacy evaluation done per standard FDA guidance — phase 3 efficacy studies conducted in tens of thousands of individuals," she told NPR.

## Safety Profile Deemed Highly Favorable

Despite lingering public concerns about mRNA vaccines, Thursday's six-and-a-half-hour review found no major safety issues. Dr. Gauri Raval, a medical officer in the FDA's Division of Clinical and Toxicology Review, stated that the Moderna mRNA flu vaccine "may offer greater efficacy than the standard dose comparator in preventing more severe influenza-associated illnesses," with no significant safety deficiencies identified.

Dr. Jesse Goodman, former director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, acknowledged the heavy politicization of mRNA vaccines but was firm in his assessment. Claims that mRNA vaccines cause cancer or alter DNA are "not possible and disproven," he said. Dr. Durbin reinforced this, pointing to the more than 6 billion mRNA vaccine doses administered globally since 2020, describing their safety record as "incredibly strong" with no evidence of DNA integration.

"The mRNA platform has really been a game changer for vaccines, and it's an incredibly important advancement in medical science," Durbin said. "We have to do a much better job of educating the public around that, but I have the highest confidence in the vaccine."

## The Flu Burden: Why This Matters Now

The urgency of this recommendation is underscored by the scale of influenza's impact. Dr. Lisa Grohskopf of the CDC presented data showing that the 2025-2026 flu season alone has resulted in at least 32 million cases, 390,000 hospitalizations, and 24,000 deaths in the United States. Compounding the crisis, approximately 85% of those eligible for flu vaccination remain inadequately protected.

## Calls for Greater FDA Advisory Activity

The meeting also prompted broader calls for the FDA to convene its advisory committees more frequently. Michael Abrams, a senior researcher at the nonprofit Public Citizen, urged the agency to make fuller use of expert panels that have been underutilized since January 2025. Historically, between 2000 and 2019, the VRBPAC reviewed approximately one new vaccine application per year — a pace that has slowed dramatically in recent years.

Dr. Durbin noted that a routine spring flu meeting that typically takes place annually was skipped entirely in 2025. She expressed even greater concern about the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which she described as having a different but equally critical role. "ACIP has a different purpose than VRBPAC — they will determine how these vaccines are used," she explained.

Dr. Goodman expressed cautious optimism about the day's proceedings. "I'm encouraged that this is happening, and in what appears to be a balanced way that's paying attention to the feedback of FDA vaccine experts and outside experts who really wanted to see this vaccine reviewed in the light of day."

## What Comes Next

Thursday's committee vote is a recommendation, not a final approval — the FDA will make its ultimate decision independently. However, the agency typically follows the guidance of its advisory panels, meaning mFlusiva may be on the verge of becoming the first vaccine approved under the current administration. If cleared, it could represent a turning point not only for flu prevention but for the broader future of mRNA-based medicine in the United States.

The FDA's VRBPAC unanimously voted to recommend Moderna's mRNA flu vaccine mFlusiva for adults 50+, marking a major milestone in vaccine development.

FDA Panel Unanimously Recommends Moderna mRNA Flu Vaccine

FDA Advisory Panel Unanimously Backs Moderna's mRNA Flu Vaccine for Adults 50 and Older

## UK Privacy Watchdog Investigates Bedroom Surveillance Technology in Mental Health Wards

Britain's information commissioner has formally launched an investigation into a contentious bedroom monitoring system deployed across 40% of NHS mental health trusts, following growing concerns over data privacy, patient consent, and the system's potential impact on vulnerable individuals.

The system in question, known as Oxevision and developed by a company now rebranded as LIO (formerly Oxehealth), uses infrared sensors and cameras to remotely monitor patients around the clock. While the company maintains that the technology improves patient safety and reduces pressure on NHS staff, critics — including bereaved families, patient advocates, and legal experts — argue it is intrusive, potentially unlawful, and may cause more harm than good.

## Legal Challenge Triggers Official Investigation

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) confirmed it had opened a formal inquiry into Oxehealth after lawyers from Bindmans, representing the campaign group Stop Oxevision, formally requested scrutiny of how the system collects, stores, and processes sensitive patient data, including video footage captured inside hospital bedrooms.

Rachel Harger, a partner at Bindmans, emphasised the importance of privacy in clinical settings: "A patient's bedroom in hospital should, as far as possible, remain a sanctuary for care and treatment, where privacy is respected. Organisations must be able to point to a clear lawful basis for this collection and processing of patient-derived data. Where they rely on consent, it must be properly obtained, freely given, and capable of being withdrawn."

The ICO declined to provide further comment beyond confirming the investigation was underway.

## Tragedy Puts Spotlight on the Technology

The investigation comes amid heightened scrutiny of the technology through the ongoing Lampard inquiry, which is examining thousands of deaths involving mental health patients in Essex.

One of those cases involves Sophie Alderman, a 27-year-old woman with a history of serious mental illness and self-harm, who died by suicide in August 2022 at Rochford Hospital in Essex while being monitored by the Oxevision system. Her mother, Tammy Smith, has spoken out powerfully about the system's failings and its effect on her daughter's mental state.

Giving evidence to the inquiry in October, Smith said: "I think her paranoia would have been increased 100%. She's always been uncomfortable with cameras. She always felt under a microscope… it was obvious that Sophie was distressed by the presence of the camera in her room but, worst of all, the system did not even keep her safe."

She added a stark warning about the limits of technology in mental health care: "You cannot replace staff in that situation with technology. It's not fit for purpose."

## Patients Describe Surveillance as 'Creepy' and Invasive

Beyond individual cases, patients more broadly have described the experience of being monitored by Oxevision as unsettling and dehumanising, with some characterising it as a form of spying. The system films patients continuously throughout the day and night inside their bedrooms — a reality that Laura Cozens, head of patient safety at LIO, acknowledged constitutes "a very significant invasion of privacy" when she addressed the Lampard inquiry.

Cozens did note that video recordings are accessible only upon formal request and are subject to strict governance protocols. She also conceded that the technology may not be appropriate for all patients.

## Campaigners and Legal Experts Call for Urgent Action

Selen Cavcav from the charity Inquest, who served as a caseworker for Sophie Alderman's family, argued that surveillance-based approaches are fundamentally at odds with good mental health care.

"People in mental health settings need care — not isolation and surveillance," she said. "The use of intrusive technologies like Oxevision can exacerbate emotional distress and existing issues in mental health settings, such as the coercive nature of treatment and the lack of privacy. Instead of systems which allow private companies to put profit over people, we need to imagine and resource genuine alternatives which centre people's dignity and autonomy."

Nina Ali, a solicitor at Hodge Jones & Allen representing over 150 families at the Lampard inquiry, raised concerns that the technology may actually be contributing to preventable deaths by encouraging staff to rely on automated alerts rather than conducting face-to-face observations.

"As things stand, the use of Oxevision in Essex is unsafe, intrusive and potentially unlawful, and urgent recommendations are needed to protect patients," Ali said. "We have seen multiple cases where staff relied on assistive technology instead of carrying out proper in-person observations, including in cases where deaths occurred as system alerts were muted, ignored or misunderstood. There is no place for any kind of surveillance of that sort for patients with mental health issues in their bedrooms."

## Company Defends the Technology's Role in Saving Lives

Oxehealth has pushed back firmly against what it describes as a misleading narrative around its product. In a statement, a spokesperson said the company is engaging constructively with the ICO and rejected the idea that unmonitored bedrooms are inherently safer environments for acutely unwell psychiatric patients.

The company pointed to clinical data submitted to the Lampard inquiry, stating that on Essex Partnership University NHS Trust (EPUT) wards alone, the platform had flagged 935 ligature incidents and 436 self-harm events, enabling staff to intervene in time-critical situations.

The spokesperson also cited EPUT representatives who told the inquiry: "The use of Oxevision has assisted EPUT to make more timely interventions when required and therefore assisted in preserving life."

## What Happens Next

The Lampard inquiry is scheduled to hear further evidence next month specifically relating to the use of Oxevision on EPUT mental health wards. Stop Oxevision welcomed the ICO's decision to investigate, calling independent scrutiny "both necessary and overdue" and urging that the probe be treated as a matter of urgent priority for all those affected.

The outcome of the investigation could have significant implications for how the NHS deploys monitoring technology in sensitive clinical environments and what safeguards must be in place to protect patient rights.

---

*If you or someone you know is struggling, support is available. In the UK and Ireland, contact Samaritans on freephone 116 123. In the US, call or text 988 to reach the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. In Australia, Lifeline can be reached on 13 11 14. International resources are available at befrienders.org.*

The UK's ICO has launched a formal probe into Oxevision, a bedroom camera system used in 40% of NHS mental health trusts, over privacy and safety concerns.

ICO Investigates Bedroom Cameras in NHS Mental Health Wards

large_1536.jpg

medium_1536.jpg

small_1536.jpg

thumbnail_1536.jpg

1536.jpg

UK Privacy Watchdog Launches Probe Into Bedroom Camera Surveillance of Mental Health Patients

## Prime Day 2026 Is Already Delivering Big Savings on Espresso Machines

If you've been thinking about ditching your daily Starbucks habit and brewing café-quality espresso at home, Amazon's early Prime Day 2026 deals just gave you the perfect excuse. Two standout semiautomatic espresso machines — the Breville Barista Express and the Ninja Luxe Cafe Pro — are currently discounted at some of the lowest prices seen in years. Coincidentally, these happen to be the very machines most commonly recommended to espresso newcomers ready to stop spending $7 per drink.

## Breville Barista Express: A Decade-Proven Crowd Favorite

### What Makes It Special

The Breville Barista Express has held its position as the top-selling semiautomatic espresso machine for so long it's practically an institution. Unlike basic espresso makers, this all-in-one machine comes equipped with a built-in grinder and steaming wand, giving you everything you need to craft rich, milk-frothed beverages without sourcing separate equipment.

For roughly ten years, WIRED has consistently featured the Barista Express among its top espresso machine picks, praising its winning combination of value, reliability, precision, and user-friendly design. The current Prime Day 2026 promotion slashes $200 off its regular price — a discount significant enough to warrant a double-take.

### Why So Many People Love It

The Barista Express succeeds by striking the right balance. It's priced accessibly, operates intuitively, and is backed by Breville's well-regarded customer support and warranty service — a critical factor for a machine you're hoping to use for many years. While its built-in grinder doesn't quite match the performance of Breville's premium Oracle Jet model, it consistently delivers full-bodied, well-extracted espresso from medium and dark roasts.

Longevity is another strong selling point. WIRED's own senior gear editor Julian Chokkattu has been using his Barista Express for seven years, and the machine continues to perform without issue — a real-world testament to its durability.

## Ninja Luxe Cafe Pro: The Impressive New Challenger

### An Unexpected Contender

When Ninja announced its entry into the semiautomatic espresso machine market back in 2024, industry observers were cautious. The brand was better known for blenders and air fryers than precision coffee brewing. However, the Ninja Luxe Cafe Pro has since proven those doubts largely unfounded.

For Prime Day 2026, the Luxe Cafe Pro is $150 off, matching the lowest price it has ever been offered at — making now an ideal time to consider picking one up.

### Where the Ninja Shines

The Pro model stands out from its sibling, the Luxe Cafe Premium, thanks to several practical upgrades. It features a bean assist function that helps users dial in their coffee beans for optimal flavor extraction — an uncommon perk at this price tier. It also includes a manual tamping lever and a hot water spout, both of which are absent from the lower-end model.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the Ninja Luxe Cafe Pro is its milk frother. Powered by a magnetic metal whisk positioned at the base of the milk carafe, it produces some of the most consistently smooth, well-integrated frothed milk available from any automatic frother on the market. For latte lovers in particular, this feature alone could make the Ninja the preferred choice.

### A Few Caveats

The Ninja doesn't carry the same years of field-tested reliability as the Breville, which is worth noting for those prioritizing long-term dependability. Additionally, the built-in drip coffee function is widely considered underwhelming and is best avoided. But as a dedicated espresso and latte machine, the Luxe Cafe Pro punches well above its weight.

## Which One Should You Buy?

Both machines offer exceptional value during Prime Day 2026. The **Breville Barista Express** is the safer, more proven choice — ideal for those who prioritize track record, consistent espresso quality, and strong customer support. The **Ninja Luxe Cafe Pro** is the better pick for milk-drink enthusiasts who want a cutting-edge frothing system and are comfortable with a newer brand in the espresso space.

Either way, both deals represent some of the strongest early Prime Day savings of 2026 and won't last forever.

Shop the best early Prime Day 2026 espresso machine deals. Breville Barista Express and Ninja Luxe Cafe Pro are both at record-low prices right now.

Best Prime Day 2026 Espresso Machine Deals: Breville & Ninja

large_Amazon%E2%80%99s-2-Best-Selling-Espresso-Machines-Are-Up-to-$200-Off.jpg

medium_Amazon%E2%80%99s-2-Best-Selling-Espresso-Machines-Are-Up-to-$200-Off.jpg

small_Amazon%E2%80%99s-2-Best-Selling-Espresso-Machines-Are-Up-to-$200-Off.jpg

thumbnail_Amazon%E2%80%99s-2-Best-Selling-Espresso-Machines-Are-Up-to-$200-Off.jpg

Amazon%E2%80%99s-2-Best-Selling-Espresso-Machines-Are-Up-to-$200-Off.jpg

Best Early Prime Day 2026 Deals: Top Espresso Machines From Breville and Ninja

## Rivian Hit With Class Action Suit Over Broken Autonomous Driving Promises

Electric vehicle manufacturer Rivian is now facing a class action lawsuit that accuses the company of deliberately misleading consumers about the self-driving capabilities of its flagship R1T pickup truck and R1S SUV. The complaint, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, centers on first-generation versions of both vehicles and paints a picture of a company that made grand promises it allegedly never intended to keep.

## What the Lawsuit Claims

According to the plaintiffs, Rivian spent approximately five years running a nationwide marketing campaign in which it allegedly assured buyers that its Driver+ system would bring hands-free, eyes-off driving to every vehicle it produced. This type of capability falls under what the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) classifies as Level 3 autonomy — a standard that allows a vehicle to independently manage steering, acceleration, and braking under specific conditions, such as highway driving or low-speed travel, without requiring constant driver input. It is important to note that Level 3 autonomy does not mean the vehicle operates without any human oversight; drivers must remain alert and ready to intervene when the situation demands it.

The legal complaint pulls no punches in its characterization of Rivian's conduct. It states that no software update, regardless of its sophistication, will ever enable first-generation R1 vehicles to perform as advertised. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Rivian was fully aware its Gen 1 vehicles could never achieve Level 3 autonomy or genuine hands-free driving, yet continued promoting these supposed capabilities to drive consumer purchases.

Among the specific incidents highlighted in the suit is Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe's appearance at TechCrunch Disrupt 2022, during which he reportedly made statements regarding the company's autonomous driving ambitions.

## Legal Representation and Claims

Three named plaintiffs are included in the lawsuit, which is being handled by law firms Coleman Law and Tycko & Zavareei. The legal team has formally requested a jury trial. The complaint lodges several serious allegations against Rivian, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

Rivian has chosen not to publicly address the lawsuit, citing the ongoing nature of the litigation as its reason for declining comment.

## Rivian's Legal History and the Gen 2 Divide

This is not the first time Rivian has found itself in legal hot water. The company previously settled a class action lawsuit brought by shareholders for $250 million following a controversial price hike on its R1 models back in 2022.

What makes the current dispute particularly pointed is the contrast between Rivian's first- and second-generation vehicles. First-generation R1T and R1S models do not offer hands-free driving in any form. However, when Rivian overhauled its R1 lineup in 2024, the second-generation models received a comprehensive internal upgrade — including a redesigned battery pack, updated suspension, revamped electrical architecture, new interior seating, and an enhanced sensor array.

### Second-Generation Capabilities

The second-gen vehicles were outfitted with what Rivian calls its "Rivian Autonomy Platform," a system that comes standard and includes 11 cameras, five radar sensors, and a central computer boasting ten times the processing power of the previous generation. These vehicles initially launched with adaptive cruise control and a highway assist feature capable of automated steering, braking, and acceleration on select highway routes.

Later, Rivian pushed out a software update introducing "Universal Hands-Free" driving to second-generation vehicles. This feature enables drivers to remove their hands from the steering wheel across more than 3.5 million miles of roadway throughout the United States and Canada — covering a blend of highways and surface streets — provided visible lane markings are present.

First-generation owners, however, receive none of these upgrades, which forms the crux of the lawsuit.

## A Broader Industry Problem

Rivian is hardly alone in facing legal and regulatory scrutiny over autonomous driving claims. Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk have been making bold assertions about full vehicle autonomy for the better part of a decade through the company's Full Self-Driving software. A number of Tesla owners have pursued legal action over the company's failure to deliver on those promises.

Regulators have also stepped in. The California Department of Motor Vehicles filed formal accusations alleging Tesla violated state law by misleading consumers about the capabilities of both its Autopilot system and its more advanced Full Self-Driving software. A judge ultimately sided with the DMV. However, the agency chose in February not to impose a 30-day suspension of Tesla's California sales and manufacturing licenses — a penalty it waived after the automaker agreed to stop using the term "Autopilot" in its California-based marketing materials.

As the EV industry continues to mature and competition intensifies, the gap between marketing language and real-world capability is increasingly becoming a legal battleground — one that automakers are learning can carry significant financial and reputational consequences.

Rivian faces a class action lawsuit alleging the EV maker falsely promised hands-free Level 3 autonomous driving for its first-generation R1T and R1S vehicles.

Rivian Sued Over False Self-Driving Feature Promises

large_rivian-yellow-truck.jpg

medium_rivian-yellow-truck.jpg

small_rivian-yellow-truck.jpg

thumbnail_rivian-yellow-truck.jpg

rivian-yellow-truck.jpg

Rivian Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Self-Driving Feature Deception

## Apple Customers Brace for Higher Prices Amid Global Memory Chip Crisis

Artificial intelligence is proving to be a double-edged sword for Apple. While the tech giant races to integrate AI capabilities across its product lineup, the same technology is driving up hardware costs in ways that could soon hit consumers directly in the wallet.

## The 'RAMageddon' Effect on Apple Products

The phenomenon now being referred to as "RAMageddon" — a sweeping global shortage of memory chips fueled by AI's relentless appetite for hardware — is putting serious pressure on Apple's pricing structure. Outgoing CEO Tim Cook has confirmed what many industry analysts feared: price increases on future Apple devices, including the iPhone, Mac, and iPad, are effectively unavoidable.

In a candid interview with The Wall Street Journal, Cook described the current situation as "unsustainable," noting that memory and storage chip costs have surged fourfold compared to the previous year. Despite Apple's efforts to absorb these rising costs internally, the company says it can no longer shield consumers from the financial impact.

## Which Apple Products Could Get More Expensive?

Cook stopped short of identifying specific products or announcing exact timelines for price adjustments. However, memory supply industry experts speaking to the Financial Times suggested that the iPhone is almost certain to be among the first products affected. With Apple traditionally unveiling its new iPhone lineup in September, that launch window presents a natural opportunity to introduce revised pricing.

Beyond the iPhone, virtually every Apple product incorporates DRAM memory or NAND storage chips — including the Apple Watch, iPad, Mac computers, and the Apple Vision Pro headset. All of these devices could potentially see price increases as chip costs continue to climb.

### How Much More Could the Next iPhone Cost?

Research firm TechInsights offered a sobering estimate to the WSJ, suggesting Apple would need to add approximately **$270** to the price of the next iPhone Pro model just to maintain its current profit margins. Given that the iPhone 17 Pro already starts at $1,099, that would push the entry price for a Pro model close to $1,370 — a significant jump that would test consumer loyalty.

Incoming Apple CEO John Ternus echoed these concerns back in April, reinforcing that chip cost pressures are a serious operational challenge the company is actively monitoring.

## AI's Rocky Relationship With Apple

The memory chip crisis arrives at an already difficult moment for Apple on the artificial intelligence front. The company has faced substantial criticism for its slow and uncertain AI strategy, and earlier this year it agreed to pay a **$250 million settlement** to resolve a false advertising lawsuit. The lawsuit stemmed from Apple's failure to deliver AI-powered Siri features it had publicly promised nearly two years prior.

Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference, held earlier this month, offered some reassurance — showcasing meaningful progress on its AI roadmap, including a significant overhaul of the Siri voice assistant. However, more sophisticated on-device AI processing inherently requires more memory, meaning the very features designed to make Apple devices smarter could further accelerate the demand for the chips now in short supply.

## What This Means for Consumers

For everyday Apple users, the takeaway is straightforward: the next generation of Apple products may come with notably higher price tags. The convergence of AI-driven chip demand, global supply constraints, and Apple's own AI ambitions appears to be setting the stage for a new — and more expensive — chapter in consumer electronics pricing.

Whether Apple can soften the blow through supply chain adjustments or strategic partnerships remains to be seen. For now, consumers eyeing an upgrade this fall may want to plan their budgets accordingly.

Apple CEO Tim Cook warns iPhone and Mac prices may rise significantly as AI drives a global memory chip shortage, potentially adding $270 to the next iPhone Pro

Apple Warns of Price Hikes Amid AI Memory Chip Shortage

large_GettyImages-2234130980.jpg

medium_GettyImages-2234130980.jpg

small_GettyImages-2234130980.jpg

thumbnail_GettyImages-2234130980.jpg

GettyImages-2234130980.jpg

Apple Warns of Inevitable Price Hikes as AI Fuels Global Memory Chip Shortage

# Dell Coupon Codes & Deals: Save Up to 20% in 2026

Whether you're upgrading your home office setup, hunting for a powerful gaming rig, or shopping for a college-ready laptop, Dell offers a surprisingly wide range of ways to save. From promo codes and loyalty rewards to exclusive discounts for students and seniors, here's everything you need to know to get the best value on Dell products.

## Get 10% Off as a New Dell Customer

First-time Dell shoppers have a compelling reason to make the switch. New customers who sign up for Dell's email newsletter receive 10% off their first purchase, along with access to exclusive inbox offers and invitations to limited-time flash sale events throughout the year.

Additionally, shoppers can apply Dell promo code **AFFBUNDLE10** to receive an extra 10% off when bundling select PCs with compatible accessories. For those looking to stretch their tech budget even further, Dell's clearance section regularly features discounted inventory at reduced prices.

## 20% Off: Shop the Dell Outlet for Refurbished Savings

One of the smartest ways to save on Dell technology is by shopping the **Dell Outlet**, which stocks certified refurbished devices in like-new condition at significantly reduced prices. For example, the **Dell 14 Premium** is available refurbished for just $1,036 — a savings of $259 compared to buying new.

This model comes equipped with Intel Arc 140T Graphics and an FHD RGB + IR Camera with built-in microphone, making it a strong performer at a lower price point. The Dell Outlet inventory rotates frequently, so regular visits are worthwhile for anyone tracking a specific product.

## Save $520 on the Dell 14 Plus With a College Email

The **Dell 14 Plus** earned strong praise when reviewed for its fast processing speed, impressive battery life, quality IPS display, and comfortable keyboard. Students with a verified college email address can purchase this laptop for just $860 — a savings of $520 off the standard retail price.

The configuration includes an Intel Core Ultra 7 256V processor with eight cores, Windows 11 Home, Intel Arc Graphics, 16 GB of RAM, and 1 TB of SSD storage — a well-rounded package for academic and everyday use.

## Up to $450 Off Alienware Gaming Laptops and Monitors

Gaming enthusiasts and remote workers alike will find compelling deals across Dell's premium Alienware lineup during major sale events. Current highlights include:

- **$400 off** the Alienware 16X Aurora gaming laptop
- **$450 off** the Alienware 18 Area-51
- **$1,200 off** the Alienware Area-51 desktop, featuring 50% more processing power
- **$100 off** the Alienware 4K QD-OLED gaming monitor
- **$120 off** the Alienware 27 Gaming Monitor
- **30% off** a Dell 24-inch monitor with any qualifying laptop or desktop purchase
- Dell Rewards members can also earn up to **3x points (9% back)** on select Alienware monitors

Additional deals include $160 off Bose QuietComfort headphones (now $199), $350 off the Dell 14 Plus Laptop, $200 off the Dell 15, and $500 off the Dell 16 Plus. Software bundles are also available at 50% off when purchased alongside a new PC.

Dell's rotating weekly deals feature standout offers like Dell 27 Plus 4K monitors starting at $129, $400 off QD-OLED curved gaming monitors, $350 off Alienware Aurora desktops, and $200 off Tower Plus desktop computers.

## 10% Discount for Students, Military, and Healthcare Workers

Dell extends meaningful discounts to several key communities:

### Student Discount
College students can receive **10% off** products like Dell XPS laptops and Alienware systems. To claim this discount, create a Dell account, enroll in Dell Rewards, and verify your .edu email address through the membership tab in your account settings.

### Heroes Discount
Military members, veterans, government employees, and qualifying business customers can access an additional **5% Heroes discount**. Verification is handled quickly through GovX or VCS, and approved members gain early access to exclusive sale events.

## Dell's Ultimate College Offer: $500+ in Free Extras

For students preparing for college, Dell's **Ultimate College Offer** goes beyond a standard discount. Eligible students save an extra 10% on select PCs and receive the Microsoft College Bundle at no additional cost — a package valued at over $500 that includes:

- One year of **Microsoft 365**
- **Xbox Game Pass** membership
- A customizable **Xbox controller**

This limited-time offer is designed to support both academic productivity and personal downtime.

## Exclusive Senior Discounts at Dell

Dell is committed to making technology accessible for older adults by offering dedicated **senior discounts**. After creating a Dell account and enrolling in the Dell Rewards program, seniors can verify their status to unlock exclusive pricing on laptops and computing devices. Discounts are automatically applied at checkout once verification is complete.

## Earn Up to 6% Back With Dell Rewards

The **Dell Rewards program** is one of the most consistent ways to save across every purchase. Current members earn double points — equivalent to **6% back** — on nearly all products. Combine that with email sign-up benefits and select XPS or Dell Premium system discounts for a triple-stacked savings opportunity.

For new credit account holders, opening a **Dell Pay Credit Account** earns $100 (10,000 points) in Dell Rewards dollars upon enrollment. Standard Rewards members earn **3% back** on Dell.com purchases, with points typically credited to the account within 30 days of shipment. Members also gain access to exclusive perks, deal previews, and member-only promotions.

As a current bonus, Dell Rewards Members can earn an **extra $50 back** on any XPS PC purchase through July 1.

## Dell Price Match Guarantee

Dell's **Price Match Policy** stands out from competitors by covering both pre- and post-purchase scenarios. If you find an identical product — whether from Dell, HP, Apple, or Lenovo — at a lower price, simply share the link with a Dell representative via live chat or phone to receive the matched price.

Already made a purchase? If you spot a lower price on Dell's website or a competitor's site within **30 days** of your order, submit the link through the Order Support portal and Dell will refund the difference.

## Save Up to 57% on Dell Certified Refurbished Products

Dell's **refurbished deals page** is updated regularly with deep discounts on a wide range of products, from gaming equipment to home office essentials. Promo codes are listed directly on the page, making it easy to apply savings without additional searching.

A standout current offer includes **57% off** the OptiPlex All-In-One Desktop, now priced at just **$299** — no coupon code required. Keep in mind that sale items are excluded from additional coupons, codes cannot be stacked, and all coupon discounts apply to online orders only.

Find the latest Dell coupon codes for 2026. Save up to 20% on laptops, gaming gear, and more with student, senior, and rewards discounts.

Best Dell Coupon Codes & Deals: Save Up to 20% in 2026

large_WIRED-Coupons-16.jpg

medium_WIRED-Coupons-16.jpg

small_WIRED-Coupons-16.jpg

thumbnail_WIRED-Coupons-16.jpg

WIRED-Coupons-16.jpg

Dell Coupon Codes & Deals: Save Up to 20% in 2026

## Anthropic Makes History by Joining Frontier's Carbon Removal Initiative

Anthropic has officially become the first AI-focused startup to join Frontier, the prominent carbon removal coalition, as part of a landmark $915 million funding round that nearly doubles the organization's total pledges to an impressive $1.8 billion.

## A Milestone for AI Companies and Climate Action

While tech giants like Google have been founding members of Frontier since its inception, Anthropic's arrival marks a significant shift — it is the first company whose core business is purely artificial intelligence to step into the coalition. This move is especially notable given that AI companies have recently been on an aggressive energy acquisition spree, raising widespread concerns about their overall environmental impact.

To date, Frontier has secured contracts worth nearly $700 million across more than 50 individual projects, collectively aimed at removing 1.8 million metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere. Member companies typically use Frontier's carbon removal credits to offset their publicly reported carbon footprints, much like applying a financial credit against a debt.

## Anthropic's First Step Toward Climate Accountability

This partnership represents Anthropic's inaugural foray into climate-related commitments. The company has not yet published a sustainability report and has publicly favored an "all of the above" energy strategy — a phrase that often signals reliance on polluting power sources. However, joining Frontier may indicate a gradual shift in the company's environmental priorities.

### Why Carbon Removal Credits Matter

Carbon removal credits function as a practical tool for companies that cannot eliminate every source of emissions immediately. Unavoidable activities such as business air travel continue to generate pollution, and carbon credits allow organizations to balance those emissions against verified removal efforts. Frontier plays a critical role by rigorously vetting carbon removal projects before issuing contracts, effectively serving as a trusted, shared resource for member companies.

## Frontier Raises the Bar for Future Projects

Alongside the new funding announcement, Frontier revealed it will apply a higher standard of scrutiny to future investments. Rather than spreading resources across numerous smaller projects, the coalition intends to concentrate on fewer, higher-impact initiatives — specifically those with a credible pathway to removing one gigaton, or one billion metric tons, of CO₂ annually. New contracts will span approximately eight to ten years.

This strategic pivot mirrors a similar transition observed at Microsoft, currently the largest single buyer of carbon removal credits, which has also begun consolidating its investments into fewer but more impactful projects.

### Technologies Frontier Has Supported

Since its founding in 2022, Frontier has backed a diverse portfolio of carbon removal technologies, including:

- **Direct air capture** — machines that pull CO₂ directly from the atmosphere
- **Enhanced rock weathering** — accelerating natural geological processes to absorb carbon
- **Bio-oil** — converting biomass into stable carbon-rich liquid
- **Ocean antacids** — reducing ocean acidity to enhance natural carbon absorption
- **Bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS)** — combining bioenergy production with carbon storage

## The Road Ahead: Government Must Eventually Step In

Frontier was originally established by Stripe, Google, Shopify, and other forward-thinking tech companies as a mechanism to help fulfill ambitious climate pledges. Many of these firms are targeting net-zero emissions within the next decade or two, yet certain emissions remain stubbornly difficult to eliminate today.

However, private industry has made it clear it does not intend to fund carbon removal indefinitely. Frontier now requires that any company entering a new contract must demonstrate a viable path toward government subsidies or public support. The organization has confirmed it will sign contracts extending as far out as 2040, with the implicit expectation that governments will assume greater responsibility for carbon removal funding by then.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has emphasized that carbon dioxide removal technology will be essential for the world to achieve net-zero emissions. Yet meaningful government investment in this area remains limited. As global temperatures continue to rise, the urgency for public-sector engagement in carbon removal has never been greater.

Anthropic becomes the first AI startup to join Frontier's carbon removal coalition, contributing to a $915M funding round that brings total pledges to $1.8B.

Anthropic Joins Frontier Carbon Removal Coalition

large_GettyImages-2278736523.jpeg

medium_GettyImages-2278736523.jpeg

small_GettyImages-2278736523.jpeg

thumbnail_GettyImages-2278736523.jpeg

GettyImages-2278736523.jpeg

Anthropic Becomes the First AI Startup to Join the Frontier Carbon Removal Coalition

## Global AI Dependence Meets a Hard Political Reality

The question that has quietly haunted international technology policy finally broke into the open at the G7 Summit this week: What happens when the country that builds the world's most powerful AI decides to shut the door?

French President Emmanuel Macron and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi both raised pointed concerns during the summit, warning fellow G7 leaders and top American AI executives that Washington holds an uncomfortable amount of leverage over the rest of the world's digital future. Their fears were not hypothetical — they were rooted in something that had just happened.

## The Anthropic Ban That Changed the Conversation

Days before the summit, the Trump administration moved to block Anthropic from exporting its latest Mythos 5 and Fable 5 AI models, citing national security concerns. The decision followed a tip from Amazon to the White House suggesting that certain safety guardrails built into the models could be circumvented.

Cybersecurity professionals have since pushed back on that rationale, pointing out that comparable capabilities exist in other AI systems — including models from OpenAI — that remain freely available internationally. Despite those objections, Anthropic's models remain under restriction with no clear timeline for resolution.

The episode crystallized a risk that international businesses and governments have long tried to avoid confronting directly: any organization that builds its operations on American AI infrastructure is now exposed to the possibility that access could be revoked without warning, and potentially without explanation.

## Macron's Warning to Washington

Speaking over lunch with G7 leaders and AI executives — a group that included Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and President Donald Trump — Macron delivered a blunt message. If the United States can "from one day to the next turn off the switch," he warned, the damage would extend far beyond the customers left stranded. It would ultimately hurt the American AI companies themselves, undermining the global trust they depend on to grow.

The argument was as much commercial as it was political. No government, no enterprise, and no startup will build critical systems on a foundation they cannot rely on.

## Modi Calls for Unfettered Access Among Democracies

Prime Minister Modi echoed those concerns, according to reporting from the Financial Times. He argued that democratic nations must have guaranteed, uninterrupted access to leading AI models, particularly when it comes to protecting critical national infrastructure. The Anthropic export restriction, in his view, set a troubling precedent for allied nations.

## The Case for Digital Sovereignty Grows Louder

The reaction from the broader technology industry was equally pointed. Aidan Gomez, co-founder and CEO of Cohere — a Canadian enterprise AI company — released a statement that framed the issue in stark terms.

"The recent restriction on access to Anthropic's models confirms what we at Cohere have known all along: that companies and democratic nations remaining dependent on a small handful of big tech companies is dangerous to resilience," Gomez said. "Digital sovereignty is not just about market competition or any one company or nation. It's about who controls the foundational technology that will shape our economic security and national sovereignty for decades to come."

## A 'Trusted Partners' Framework Takes Shape

In response to the growing unease, G7 leaders discussed the outlines of a potential "trusted partners" arrangement — a mechanism that would grant non-U.S. nations access to advanced AI systems from companies like Anthropic and OpenAI, even in cases where broader export restrictions apply.

Under the proposed framework, both countries and companies could qualify as trusted partners, provided they use the technology to strengthen their defenses against adversarial actors, with China named as the primary concern. The goal would be to maintain an open AI trade network that operates within — but is not entirely subject to — U.S. export controls.

Macron suggested that Washington itself has a strong incentive to support such a scheme. Broad adoption of American AI is only possible if buyers believe their access is secure. The moment that confidence erodes, the market for U.S. AI shrinks.

## The Limits of Sovereignty in a U.S.-Dominated Market

Yet significant questions remain about how far any trusted partner framework would actually reach. It is unclear whether such protections would extend to a small startup in Paris or Bangalore that woke up one morning to find its AI-powered product no longer functional — with no official explanation provided.

The tension is compounded by the fact that American AI models continue to outpace their international competitors. European and other non-U.S. governments have been pushing for AI sovereignty for years, but that argument becomes harder to sustain when opting out of American AI means falling behind. The world wants what the U.S. is building — it just wants assurances that what it buys cannot be taken back.

G7 leaders including Macron and Modi raised alarms at the summit over U.S. power to cut AI access, following the Trump administration's Anthropic export ban.

#tech