Mashable

When you think of the term "Instagram stalking," what kind of scenarios come to mind? Is it vetting an upcoming Hinge date’s profile to ensure they tick all the critical boxes: they have friends, they like to travel and they look the same in their tagged photos as they do the ones on their profile? Is it to suss out whether a couple has broken up? Is it being sucked into a black hole of scrutinising the fashion (and lifestyle) choices of your high school arch nemesis? 

As evidenced above, when we imagine ourselves digital sleuthing, it always involves other people. But look inward, and you might realise that you — yes you — are your own most dedicated viewer. For many on TikTok, it’s common practice: we share an Instagram story – a supposed 24-hour-only glimpse into our lives – and we find ourselves in a deadly cycle of replaying it and monitoring the viewer list. While the latter exists for a reason (allowing us the privilege of knowing if that person who we wanted to see the story, saw it), what is it that drives us to watch our content back? It’s not like we’ll find anything new – we’re the ones who published it, after all. 

This behaviour isn’t limited to stories, either. I’ll admit it: sometimes when I’m feeling down, I’ve found myself looking back over my grid, pausing on holiday photos, snapshots from nights out, birthday celebrations, and sometimes, a selfie where I know I look great. I’m not the only one, either: while some flick through their social media profiles for a morale boost, others, like @xoxotatianaa on TikTok, state the facts: she watches her content repeatedly because she can, and she doesn’t care (and neither do the 667k others than agree with her). 

SEE ALSO: Why some people on dating apps just want to be 'pen pals'

So, why do we do it? Is it because we’re perfectionists, obsessed with our content fitting in with the digital version of ourselves we present to the world? Are we so hyper-aware of being perceived that we try to view ourselves through someone else’s eyes? Or are we just in love with ourselves?

"Say I get some new followers, I like to view my profile from the perspective of what they’re seeing..."

I posed the question to my own Instagram followers (via a story which, yes, I watched back a few times). "Say I get some new followers, I like to view my profile from the perspective of what they’re seeing, even if I know what my profile looks like," one friend, Tom replied. "When someone follows me, I wonder what they’re looking at, so I check through it to see what they see." Another friend, Kat, said: "I pretend I’m someone else because I want to see how other people perceive me and if they’d think I have a cool grid (I just cringed typing that out)."

Seeing ourselves from other people's POV

According to Eloise Skinner, a psychotherapist and author specialising in existential identity, there are several factors as to why we stalk ourselves – one being a desire to see ourselves from an external perspective (think Ariana Grande’s song POV). "The desire to understand how we’re perceived has been present in human instinct for generations," she explains. "As we try to understand ourselves – answering the timeless question of ‘who am I?' – we often draw on the opinions and reflections of others to guide us." She continues that when we don’t have that information handy, we take it upon ourselves to decipher the thoughts and opinions of others by imagining what they might see when they look at our profiles. 

Psychologist Zoe Mallet agrees, and says that evolution has shaped our innate desire for social acceptance and status, ingraining a "deep-seated need for social approval" into our being. "The tendency to present oneself favourably is a direct offshoot of this, online and offline," she says. "It’s a subconscious attempt to enhance our social standing, increase our chances of belonging and create a positive self-image, which is part of our survival coping mechanisms as humans." 

"The desire to understand how we’re perceived has been present in human instinct for generations."

Both Skinner and Mallet note that our attempts to control how we’re perceived existed long before the arrival of Instagram – like how we spend time picking out an outfit for an event, or what we say in a conversation with an acquaintance. Social media, then, has become a digital platform to project this onto – it’s an attempt to reflect the identity we want people to perceive us as embodying. Although it may seem like stalking ourselves is the best way of ensuring that we keep this identity in check, Skinner points out that for some, self-stalking is rooted in perfectionism. 

Take journalist and content creator Mared Perry, for example, who tells me that she watches her stories repeatedly for two reasons. The first is to make sure "content looks slick" in case of potential work opportunities, and secondly "because of the paranoia that other people may find something cringe, or that I’m oversharing". "Self-stalking could stem from a feeling of insecurity about our sense of identity, how we appear to others, or even a critical feeling about what we post and where we should improve," Skinner continues. "There’s a greater awareness of how we compare to others online – in other words, it’s easier to hold up our digital lives against someone else’s, to see what we like or don’t like." 

How am I presenting myself online?

It’s important to remember that not everyone uses social media in the same way. Some use it to maintain relationships and stay connected ("If this is the case, it might seem less important to present in a certain way," Skinner says), whereas for others, like Perry and journalist David Chipakupaku, it’s deeper than that – it’s an extension of who they are. "I want to show all the different facets of who I am on my social media, and I don’t want to be known for just one thing," Chipakupaku tells me. "I’ll share the different sides of myself – I’ll post a meme and I’ll share news posts. It’s about getting the balance right. Am I being too funny? Too serious? Too weird? Too much?"

He says that he’ll check his content over and over again due to a mix of "anxiety and sense-curating". "When someone taps on my story, are they going to come away with a full understanding of who I am? If yes, I’ve done it right. If not, I’ll add something or take it away. It sounds so insidious and weird, but it’s true." Mallet points out that this phenomenon is unique only to social media. "Think about how we show up in real life – there are limits to how many sides of ourselves we can show per situation or experience. We can’t go back and curate it. But online you can, which adds to this mounting pressure of wanting to present as perfect," she says. Skinner adds that while this pressure could be internal (the same impulse that makes us reflect on how we presented ourselves at a work event, for example), it can also be external: "For instance, the demands we put on ourselves to have a certain image, following or level of popularity on social media." 

There’s a host of reasons why we trawl back through our content (so it’s not just because we’re in love with ourselves, which isn’t always a bad thing). But does a distinction exist between this behaviour being normal and unhealthy? As of September 2024, Instagram has 2 billion active users globally, all of whom produce a lot of content. Skinner believes It’s pretty normal, then, that we’d want to look back over our content from time to time, like how we’d flick through a photo album, journal or scrapbook. "Social media can act as a storage unit for older versions of ourselves and our identities, so reflecting with appreciation, nostalgia or thoughtfulness can be a supportive, beneficial activity."

The signs to spot when we might be going too far? Other than if it’s taking focus away from other important parts of our lives, Skinner urges us to be aware of how the act of self-stalking makes us feel, in the moment and afterwards. If we find it motivating or comforting, great. But it also risks making us more critical of ourselves or leaving us wrapped up in the past. "If it makes us more self-conscious, self-absorbed or distracted from whatever we’d like to use social media for, it’s worth rethinking the habit," she advises.

Last year, research from Bournemouth University found that young adults who use social media passively (by browsing the content of others) are more likely to experience mental health problems such as anxiety and depression than those who share their own content (active users). Self-stalking puts a spanner in the works, though: we’ve posted this content ourselves, but we’re now the ones viewing it passively, too. While research into self-stalking doesn’t exist (yet), Mallet urges us to remember that from the start, social media was designed to be addictive. "When we post, we’re validated by the responses we receive and get a hit of dopamine. We want that hit again and again, so of course we’ll head back to the source where we experienced it before," she says. "It’s not that we’re addicted to looking at our own Instagram. We’re addicted to the feeling we get when we do."

Prime Big Deal Days isn't till October 8 and 9 — but many deals are already here. Check out the best book deals at Amazon already live before the sale even officially begins.

Early Prime Day book deals: Best book deal overall 'Atomic Habits' by James Clear $13.79 at Amazon (save $13.21) Get Deal Best book bundle deal Dr. Seuss’s Beginner Book Boxed Set Collection $26.47 at Amazon (save $23.48) Get Deal Best Kindle deal 'Four Thousand Weeks: Time Management for Mortals' $2.99 at Amazon (save $17) Get Deal

Prime Day is here yet again — the bi-annual shopping event (this time known as Prime Big Deal Days) is coming up on October 8 and 9, and Amazon’s already offering discounts on countless products across all categories. One category you probably wouldn’t expect to see a lot of deals on is books, but that's exactly what we're seeing on Amazon's website right now. (Amazon did start as an online bookstore, so it kind of makes sense.)

We’ve found tons of book titles from a wide variety of genres that are currently on sale, from bestselling novels to nonfiction and children's books. Kindle and e-book editions are up to 80% off their typical list prices, while hardcover and paperback books are seeing discounts of up to 50% off. And this is before the official start of Amazon’s Prime Big Deal Days.

Here are just a few of the book deals that’ve caught our eye so far:

Best book deal overall Opens in a new window Credit: Avery Our pick: 'Atomic Habits' by James Clear $13.79 at Amazon
$27.00 Save $13.21 Get Deal Why we like it

If you’re not into self-help books, James Clear’s Atomic Habits might not be on your radar. But this is one of the best nonfiction titles to come out within the past few years, and it's currently 49% off in hardcover.

This book is all about teaching yourself to build good habits, break bad ones, and generally become more focused, productive, and successful in your daily life. And at just $13.79 for the hardcover, it’s a steal.

Best book bundle deal Opens in a new window Credit: Random House Books for Young Readers Our pick: Dr. Seuss’s Beginner Book Boxed Set Collection: 'The Cat in the Hat'; 'One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish'; 'Green Eggs and Ham'; 'Hop on Pop'; 'Fox in Socks' $26.47 at Amazon
$49.95 Save $23.48 Get Deal Why we like it

Whether you have kids or you’re an adult who’s looking to add another classic book series to your collection, the Dr. Seuss’s Beginner Book Boxed Set Collection: The Cat in the Hat; One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish; Green Eggs and Ham; Hop on Pop; Fox in Socks is on sale for just $26.47.

That’s five iconic Dr. Seuss books for less than $30, which is an awesome deal considering each of these books typically sells for around $9 to $12 individually.

This book set is the perfect gift for new parents, birthdays, holidays, or just to add to the family home library.

Best Kindle deal Opens in a new window Credit: Farrar, Straus and Giroux Our pick: 'Four Thousand Weeks: Time Management for Mortals' by Oliver Burkeman $2.99 at Amazon
$19.99 Save $17.00 Get Deal Why we like it

If you’ve ever mumbled that 24 hours just wasn’t enough time in a day, Oliver Burkeman’s Four Thousand Weeks: Time Management for Mortals — currently 84% off the Kindle edition price — might be just the book for you.

This book has a ton of “life hacks” that can help you prioritize your time and figure out what's really worth doing — it's kind of an anti-productivity productivity book. If you're overwhelmed by the constant demands on your time and attention, this e-book promises to help you take back control and get more done.

You can get it for free with a Kindle Unlimited subscription, or pay just $2.99 to own it outright.

More book deals

• The Rule Book: A Novel by Sarah Adams — $12.09 $18 (save $5.91)

• Lessons in Chemistry: A Novel by Bonnie Garmus — $15.37 $29 (save $13.63)

• A Fate Inked in Blood: Book One of the Saga of the Unfated by Danielle L. Jensen — $16.99 $29.99 (save $13)

• The Ministry of Time: A Novel by Kaliane Bradley — $17.89 $28.99 (save $11.10)

• George R. R. Martin's A Game of Thrones 5-Book Boxed Set: Song of Ice and Fire Series — $33.84 $49.95 (save $16.11)

Check out the best Amazon deals of the day as of Sept. 25: OUR TOP PICK Blink Video Doorbell $29.99 at Amazon (save $30) Get Deal BEST TV DEAL LG 48-inch C4 OLED evo 4K TV $1,096.99 at Amazon (save $503) Get Deal BEST ECHO DEAL Amazon Echo Frames (3rd gen) Sunglasses $199.99 at Amazon (save $130) Get Deal

Amazon's Prime Big Deal Days is less than two weeks away and deals are already abundant. We've been keeping our eyes peeled for the best ones to shop ahead of the big event. The early bird gets the worm, as they say. Or, in this case, the early shopper gets to take home great deals before everyone else.

Here are our top picks for the best Amazon deals of the day for Sept. 25, so you can be an early bird. If none of these catch your eye, check out our picks from Sept. 23 and Sept. 24, and keep your eyes peeled for brand-new selections each day this week.

Our top pick Opens in a new window Credit: Blink Blink Video Doorbell $29.99 at Amazon
$59.99 Save $30.00 Get Deal

The Blink Video Doorbell is already down to $29.99 at Amazon, which is 50% off its retail price and matches its Prime Day price from July. There's a chance it could drop even more on Prime Big Deal Days, but this might be the lowest price we'll see. Either way, you can rest assured you're getting an awesome deal if you shop early. This smart doorbell lets you see who's at your door even when you're not home with a 1080p HD live view and two-way audio, plus infrared night vision after the sun goes down. Get it for half price as of Sept. 25.

Opens in a new window Credit: LG LG 48-inch C4 OLED evo 4K TV $1,096.99 at Amazon
$1,599.99 Save $503.00 Get Deal

Bring the magic of cinema home with a high-end TV like LG's C4 OLED evo 4K TV. A newer version of our favorite TV for gaming, the C4 features an updated processor, upgraded software, a 144Hz maximum refresh rate (vs. the previous model's 120Hz), and an even brighter and more dynamic screen. It also features a nearly invisible bezel and the ability to display artwork and photos like Samsung's The Frame TV. Basically, if you want the best possible viewing experience when you're watching and the option for it to blend into your space when you're not watching, the C4 OLED evo is for you. As of Sept. 25, you can even save 31% on the 48-inch model and get it for $1,096.99 at Amazon. That's a $100 drop from its most recent sale price and its lowest price to date.

Opens in a new window Credit: Amazon Amazon Echo Frames Sunglasses (3rd gen) $199.99 at Amazon
$329.99 Save $130.00 Get Deal

If you prefer your tech to be discreetly disguised into everyday glasses, check out the Echo Frames. These babies are equipped with Alexa, so you can use them to control your smart home devices and ask important questions. Plus, you won't have to worry about taking out your phone or popping earbuds in and out to take calls, listen to tunes, or stream podcasts. They'll last you up to 14 hours on a charge and come in five unique styles, depending on the lens type. The sunglasses are currently on sale for just $199.99 at Amazon, which is a 39% price drop from the usual $329.99. Last Prime Day we saw them drop to $169.99, so we'll be keeping an eye out in the coming weeks. In the meantime, this is still a pretty great deal.

None of these deals catching your eye? Check out Amazon's daily deals for even more savings.

An "Apartment 7A" clip features Julia Garner pushed to her breaking point in "Rosemary's Baby" prequel.

In 1986, it was weird that The Legend of Zelda was about a guy named Link. In 1998, Nintendo reinvented the series in 3D, but didn’t mess with the franchise’s fundamental contradiction. In 2017, Zelda was reinvented yet again with Breath of the Wild (and further expanded in 2023 with Tears of the Kingdom), but still, the series' namesake has frustratingly almost always sat in the margins.

As you’ve probably heard by now, Nintendo and developer Grezzo finally addressed the elephant in the room and made a new, mainline 2D Legend of Zelda game where you actually play as Princess Zelda. The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom is a pleasant surprise on a number of fronts; I didn’t expect to see a new Zelda game before Switch 2 launched, I didn’t expect Zelda to actually take the starring role anytime soon, and I certainly didn’t think Nintendo would find a way to successfully marry what Zelda used to be with what Zelda is now.

But it has, and for that we should all be thankful. Echoes of Wisdom is a mostly delightful synthesis of Zelda’s classic puzzle box sensibilities with a more open-ended design ethos, similar to Breath and Tears. It doesn’t close the loop on every idea it has, but that doesn’t stop it from being extremely fun.

Even if it wasn’t those things, it would still be rad just to finally play as Zelda for a full game.

Echoes of Wisdom asks Link to step to the sideline Sorry, little guy. Credit: Nintendo

Almost every Legend of Zelda game up until now has been about Princess Zelda being kidnapped or otherwise vanishing for nefarious reasons, leaving Link to go save her, usually from Ganon or someone adjacent to the series’ famous villain. Nintendo has occasionally veered away from this in the past (Majora’s Mask being the most successful example), but one thing that took me a bit by surprise in Echoes of Wisdom is how straightforward a Zelda story it is.

Mysterious purple rifts have begun opening up around Hyrule, sucking any nearby terrain, buildings, and people into an off-putting place called the Still World. Echoes opens with Link attempting to save Zelda (in this incarnation, the two have never met before), but instead, he gets pulled into a rift and it's up to Zelda to essentially do Link’s job for him.

Aside from the role reversal between Link and Zelda, Echoes of Wisdom plays out pretty much like any other game in the series. You’ll travel from one region of Hyrule to the next, interacting with Gorons, Zoras, Deku Scrubs, and other classic Zelda entities on your journey to save the kingdom. Each area has some underlying problem Zelda needs to solve, which always winds up with Zelda attempting to clear a dungeon of some sort.

Echoes of Wisdom is clearly meant to be more slight in the storytelling department than either of its two most recent predecessors. There is no voice acting, cutscenes are generally pretty quick, and the plot is mostly bereft of huge, shocking twists and turns. It’s humble and respectable, though I wish there was a tiny bit more here. 

It’s hard to explain why without getting into spoiler territory, but I’ll say that the final hour or so of gameplay in Tears of the Kingdom got me feeling teary-eyed and sentimental about Zelda, while Echoes never elicited a similar response in me. It’s frequently charming and funny enough that I’m fine with that, though. 

Echoes of Wisdom bridges old and new Tri is a cool little fella. Credit: Nintendo

Echoes of Wisdom may not be particularly adventurous with its narrative elements, but it more than makes up for that mechanically.

As has been covered by pre-launch marketing and my own hands-on piece a couple of weeks ago, this game is all about makin' stuff out of thin air. Zelda quickly meets a magical floating friend named Tri who gifts Zelda with a staff that can absorb the essences of inanimate objects and monsters. Once you’ve done so, you can spawn copies (or echoes) of that object or monster to your hearts’ content.

Well, almost. Tri has an energy meter that puts a strict limitation on how many (and what kinds of) echoes you can conjure. For example, a powerful Lizalfos monster is so expensive to make that you can only have one out at a time, but basic objects like tables are cheaper, so duplicating those is possible. Tri’s capabilities level up over time, adding to a nice sense of progression that Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom didn’t necessarily have.

I would say the most impressive thing about Echoes of Wisdom is that I believe it has something for every kind of Zelda fan. If you love the improvisational problem-solving of the more recent games, there’s plenty of that here. If you love a smaller, more structured and linear adventure with actual dungeons, that’s also what Echoes of Wisdom is, and it has plenty of those.

Beds are very useful. Credit: Nintendo

Unlike Breath and Tears, you can’t just go wherever you want after the tutorial. There’s a mild illusion of non-linearity in parts of the story, but for the most part, you will go where the designers want you to go. Echoes also mostly lacks survival elements like needing to prepare for extreme temperatures, while totally eschewing the complicated physics engine of the other two Switch games. Sure, some echoes can float on water and some can’t, but generally speaking, everything behaves very predictably. 

By gatekeeping certain regions behind story progress and carefully placing new echoes near places where they might come in handy, Echoes of Wisdom’s designers have adeptly recreated the feeling of finding the hookshot or boomerang in an old Zelda without sacrificing player creativity in the process. Sure, that echo you just found outside the room you’re in might be the way to solve the puzzle, but there’s usually a faster and easier way if you really think about it.

Quickly, I’d also like to acknowledge the incredible addition of lock-on targeting to a 2D Zelda game. It works exactly how you think it should and makes aiming at faraway objects so much easier than it used to be. 

Echoes of Wisdom doesn’t always ask enough of the player The bind/reverse bond system isn't as necessary as it could be. Credit: Nintendo

I would estimate that roughly 80 to 90 percent of the moment-to-moment puzzle solving in Echoes of Wisdom is delightful and clever. There was usually at least one room in a dungeon where, after figuring out the solution, I’d think “oh man, that’s really neat!” to myself. 

Unfortunately, that other 10 to 20 percent is a problem. Echoes of Wisdom actually, at times, has too many ideas going on and doesn’t always know how to best deploy them. The "bind" mechanic is a great example of this. You can use it to telekinetically move objects and monsters around (not unlike Ultrahand in Tears of the Kingdom), which definitely comes in handy all throughout the adventure.

However, there’s another side of "bind" called "reverse bond" that will make Zelda mimic the object or monster’s movements, rather than the other way around, and that’s where Echoes of Wisdom starts to disappoint. This seems really cool in the tutorial, where you use reverse bond to clear gaps by floating underneath moving platforms. Strangely, though, the game almost never requires the player to use this mechanic again. I was able to clear the story and a decent number of side quests without reverse bonding to almost anything unless I forced myself to use it.

Even the echo system isn't without its faults. Over time, I found myself gravitating towards a small handful of very useful echoes for every situation at the expense of the literally dozens of others I’d found. By the second half of the game, I had a massive roster of echoes and regularly used about seven or eight of them. It's not that the opportunities for creativity aren’t there, but the game doesn’t always force you to be creative as much as I’d like.

Combat is another area where an abundance of ideas actually feels a little limiting. Creating echoes of monsters to fight on your behalf is the main method of taking out enemies, and I would say it’s also the most enjoyable. At its best, it feels like they’ve turned Zelda into Pikmin, with the player desperately avoiding enemies while ordering minions to protect them. 

You can change costumes, too. Credit: Nintendo

Sadly, Echoes of Wisdom doesn’t commit all the way to this idea. Not long into the adventure, Zelda unlocks "Swordfighter Form," which basically turns her into a ghostly version of Link with access to a sword. This upgradeable form is limited by an energy meter that becomes easier and easier to refill over time, meaning that by the end of the game, this was the only way I handled any combat encounter.

On top of that, Zelda eventually gets the ability to craft and deploy robotic automatons with powerful and unique combat abilities. This is a cool idea that is nonetheless totally optional and adds next to nothing to the game. Despite very much wanting to use them, I never found a single situation where throwing an automaton out into the field felt necessary. 

I can see how these are tricky problems to solve from a game designers' perspective. The uber-mainstream and family-friendly nature of any big-name Nintendo game is going to necessarily limit the difficulty level. Creating too many puzzles that absolutely require the use of one certain ability, echo, or automaton would be dissonant with the game’s mechanics, too.

But there’s still sometimes a noteworthy disconnect between the number of options you have at your disposal and the simplicity of the problems you need them for. I just never felt like there was a single dungeon or puzzle that brought all of these ideas together at the same time.

That Link’s Awakening art style is still adorable Zoras! Credit: Nintendo

Visually, Echoes of Wisdom uses the same lightly Funko Pop-looking art style as the 2019 Link’s Awakening Switch remake. Characters have big heads, little bodies, and beady little black eyes that are shockingly expressive for how simplistic they look.

It was a charming aesthetic in 2019 and it remains charming now. Most notably, Echoes of Wisdom actually runs a bit better than that Link’s Awakening remake did. The latter rapidly oscillated between 60 frames per second and 30 FPS depending on if you were indoors or outdoors. Echoes of Wisdom is sadly still pretty inconsistent relative to other games (it still varies between those two target frame rates), but it’s not quite as egregious as Link’s Awakening. 

Zelda always brings the noise

Would you be shocked if I told you a Legend of Zelda game has great music?

This is so unsurprising that it barely warrants a mention, but Echoes of Wisdom’s audio presentation is excellent. They gave Zelda her own little overworld theme song that will be stuck in your head for weeks. I also appreciate the occasional incorporation of "Zelda’s Lullaby" from Ocarina of Time, but Nintendo has been doing that for decades, so it’s not really new.

The tunes themselves are catchy and atmospheric, but the sparse instrumentation drives the soundtrack home. These aren’t giant, swelling orchestral productions; songs will usually sound like they could’ve been recorded by just a few people. It fits nicely with the less grandiose nature of the game.

Is The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom worth getting?

There are a couple of areas in which Echoes of Wisdom is a slight disappointment. Its story isn’t quite as ambitious as it could have been given the historic opportunity to make the first Zelda game starring Zelda. Mechanically, it bites off a tiny bit more than it can chew, leaving players with more options than they need or can even realistically use.

But everything else about it rules. Its aesthetic and music are endearing, the echo system creates tons of really clever puzzle solutions, and it harkens back to old Zelda games without abandoning what makes the newer ones special. The total playtime, even if you do a lot of side quests, also tops out at 25 to 30 hours, so it's a fulfilling adventure that doesn't monopolize too much of your free time.

The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom may not be a big Switch 2 blowout launch title, but it is a mostly delectable late-in-life treat for Switch owners.

The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom launches exclusively on Nintendo Switch on Sept. 26.

"Daily Show" host Desi Lydic has responded to Trump's attempts to win back women voters during a recent rally in Pennsylvania.

"Heartstopper" Season 3: Joe Locke and Kit Connor discuss teenage vulnerability, eating disorders, and the art of saying "hi!"

For the first time since CEO Elon Musk's takeover of X (formerly Twitter), the social media platform is taking the public behind the scenes of its increasingly opaque reporting and moderation practices. Sort of.

Released today, the 15-page Global Transparency Report is the first public report on internal enforcement data beyond Dec. 2021 (Musk took over Twitter in Oct. 2022). It covers the first six months of 2024, and attempts to paint a picture of the platform's new enforcement ethos. According to the data, X received more than 224 million user reports, suspended more than 5 million users, and took down more than 10 million posts between January and June.

Previously, Twitter issued twice-yearly reports on its enforcement mechanisms via its Transparency Center. The practice began in 2012, and didn't stop until new ownership took hold over the platform's reigns. At the time, Musk spoke openly about fighting the government's "bullying" of social media platforms and tech leaders, which included shutting out researchers from internal data like transparency reports.

SEE ALSO: Blocking users will soon be banned on X

Now, the platform has changed its tune. "Our policies and enforcement principles are grounded in human rights, and we have been taking an extensive and holistic approach towards freedom of expression by investing in developing a broader range of remediations, with a particular focus on education, rehabilitation, and deterrence," the report reads. "These beliefs are the foundation of 'Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Reach'— our enforcement philosophy, which means we restrict the reach of posts, only where appropriate, to make the content less discoverable as an alternative to removal."

The report is notably more scarce than previous iterations. It features a brief run down of user reporting and corresponding company action, covering a variety of policy areas, including child safety, abuse and harassment, platform manipulation, and suicide and self-harm. It depicts a hybrid machine-learning and human moderation process, featuring an "international, cross-functional team with 24-hour coverage," making enforcement decisions.

What "rehabilitation" looks like is not explained — although previous reinstatements of some of the platform's worst offenders, and the focus on account suspensions in the report, suggest X is moving away from outright banning.

X sent 370,588 reports of child exploitation, required by law, to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)'s CyberTipline in the first half of the year. The platform says it also suspended more than 2 million accounts actively engaging with child sexual abuse media (CSAM). In 2021, X/Twitter reported 86,000 cases to NCMEC. The number increased to 98,000 in 2022, and then saw a massive jump to 870,000 in 2023.

An X spokesperson explained the jump in numbers in a statement to Mashable. "In 2023, X updated its enforcement guidelines to also suspend users who engaged with actioned CSAM content (Like, Reply, Share, Bookmark, etc.) and added additional proactive defenses. We saw a spike in enforcements after these changes (catching and cleaning up an existing problem), and we believe that those changes have been effective at discouraging users from either sharing CSAM or looking for it (the actions trending down over time, even though we continue to improve defenses)."

The report also offers (limited) information on government data requests and removals, formerly a major focus of Twitter's reporting as it then championed for a more "open" internet. At the time of the 2021 report, X/Twitter said it had fielded 11,460 requests for information from 67 countries, complying with 40.2 percent of them. In 2024, the platform reported more than 18,000 requests for information and 72,000 requests for content removal from an undisclosed amount of countries. X reportedly disclosed information in 52 percent of cases and complied with 70 percent of removal requests.

The report drops as the platform is subtly revamping itself and its generative AI offerings pre-election. In previous months, X has quietly reinvested in its safety and security teams, with Musk simultaneously redefining the notion of site wide "transparency" and supporting content moderation tools. The CEO also announced this week that the company will soon shutter the site's block feature.

For those of us TV fans who cut the cable cord ages ago, it's time again to cut... something. I don't honestly know what we're cutting this time exactly. But it's time to cancel all your streaming services. To use the industry term, churn out every month, and don't churn back in unless a particular service has something you just can't miss.

That's right: go cancel them all.

After all, how many of these ever-increasing monthly fees are you already tolerating? The average is reportedly four, and depending on whether or not you pay for the ad-free options, that could set you back about $75 per month. And four services isn't enough to keep you in the loop about everything buzzy on TV. If you just pay for four of the most popular ones — perhaps Netflix, Max, Amazon Prime, and Disney+ — you missed awards juggernaut Shōgun on Hulu (the ad-free version of which now costs an eye-watering $18.99 per month). And how have you survived 2024 without the Olympics on Peacock? Oh, and you're on track to miss out on Severance season 2 if you're not an Apple TV+ subscriber.

Tweet may have been deleted

The sneaky price spiral just goes on and on until you're paying more than the cost of cable — and there's a good chance you are.

Then again, you probably don't just watch your favorite shows. If you're like a lot of people, you often fire up a streaming service app, browse to whatever you've seen talked about online, and give it a try. And what's your reward for such open-mindedness? Perhaps you watched streaming services dump some of your favorite characters into festering swamps like they did in Secret Invasion, or Velma. Maybe you tuned into The Circle season 6, which featured the unwatchably try-hard plot twist of an "AI" contestant. Maybe you checked out The Idol, or Deep Fake Love, which you'd heard were so bad they're good, but they turned out to be so bad that you just want those precious hours of your life back.

Millions of Americans are already quitting in 2024. In response to password-sharing crackdowns, rising costs, and the proliferation of ads on streamers like Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime — which one day decided to turn ads on for you by default — consumers in 2024 are cancelling streaming services in record numbers. 

But don't just make a mental note to cancel when the offerings on one service or another feel exceptionally dire; go cold turkey right now. The best part of streaming à la carte instead of paying all the time is the newfound freedom you'll feel not to watch the next big thing if you don't really want to. You'll soon notice that other, cheaper, better ways of consuming TV and movies have just become strangely attractive.

SEE ALSO: Netflix is axing its cheapest ad-free tier How streaming arrived at its cut-the-cord moment so fast

Cord cutting the first time around was a no-brainer because it felt like everyone agreed that cable was a drag. Watching TV in the '90s sometimes meant clicking around the upper channels of your cable package, waiting for something — anything remotely interesting, please — to come back from an epic commercial marathon. It certainly wasn't what you wanted as a paying consumer, but it was obviously the experience the pay TV industry wanted you to have. 

For millions of cord cutters (not to mention "cord nevers") that experience is gone forever, but the feeling of time and money flushed down the toilet, supposedly in the name of "entertainment," is back with a vengeance. 

A decade ago, it felt like the Silicon Valley disruptors had arrived to fix the entertainment industry. House of Cards showed up on Netflix in 2013 like a precision-guided missile of politically charged melodrama straight to the cerebral cortexes of "discerning" viewers like myself. (It turned out we weren't all that discerning; we were just TV gluttons at our first all-you-can-eat buffet). Netflix's addictive grand slam during its first at-bat was astonishing. The networks could never. HBO could sometimes, but who can remember what HBO's first-ever drama even was? (Answer: Philip Marlowe, Private Eye. Yeah, me neither). 

Netflix was defying the very laws of entertainment industry physics. The stream-and-binge TV era had begun, and it felt like nothing would ever be the same. The Big Data guru Rick Smolan told the New York Times' David Carr in 2013, "Programmers have been wandering out and shooting a shotgun into the night sky and hoping they hit something, and I end up paying $150 for channels full of nothing I want to watch. These guys know what they are aiming at." 

But the TV industry has fully reverted to its old ways in the decade since that House of Cards moment. The business is once again all about getting people to overpay for tons and tons of ad-saturated mediocrity. Dan Goman, CEO of the video software company Ateliere Creative Solutions, told Forbes earlier this year that, "For many years, streaming services offered subscriptions at rates that were enticingly low," but that, "We’re now seeing the industry gravitating toward familiar models — ads and bundles."

You already know the highlights here: One after another, streaming services are hiking their prices, in a series of moves designed to push consumers to cheaper ad-supported tiers which generate more revenue than the premium ones. Meanwhile, the services themselves kill programming users expect to be there in an effort to cut their spending on library content, all while degrading cherished brands, abandoning quality in favor of quantity, and — perhaps oddest and most irksome of all — cutting corners on audio, making it hard to literally hear the content we're paying our hard-earned money for. 

The term "enshittification" is overused these days, but this sort of thing is exactly what its coiner, Cory Doctorow, had in mind when he came up with it. As Doctorow wrote last year:

Why is Netflix putting the screws to its customers? It’s part of the enshittification cycle, where platform companies first allocate surpluses to their customers, luring them in and using them as bait for business customers. Once they turn up, the companies reallocate surpluses to businesses, lavishing them with low commissions and lots of revenue opportunities. And once they’re locked in, the company starts to claw back the surpluses for itself.

Do streaming services deserve your passive, monthly dollars?

Regardless of how you feel about the overall degradation of the streaming experience, maybe you just like knowing the content you love is available anytime you want, and that makes keeping your subscriptions worthwhile. But time and again, you've opened up a streaming service hoping to see something you could have sworn was there, and it was just... gone. It's not your imagination. On top of everything else, Streamland has become a messy place where it's never clear how to find what you want, and what you can count on today might be gone tomorrow.

Think the trashy reality show that binds your friend group together will always have a home on Peacock? Think your Disney+ subscription is a parenting must-have because it houses the whole Disney and Marvel animated universes? Think the long-awaited streaming service Venu (assuming it's ever allowed to exist) has the makings of the mythical stable home for sports programming that all sports fans have been dreaming of? 

Think again. Fire up any given streaming service, and what you'll see is the confusing result of behind the scenes wheeling-and-dealing, with no apparent thought given to reliability or viewer convenience.

As an illustration of this convenience problem, look at Sex and the City. The intuitive place to watch all things Sex and the City is Max, the service formerly known as HBO Max, but Sex and the City's availability on Max may well be in danger. Yes, SATC is safe on Max for now, but starting this past April, it became available on Netflix too. A bit confusing, but as soon as the dollars and cents penciled out, Max's parent company gave up exclusivity and let Netflix in on the action. If you can keep track of all this in your head, no big deal, but it gets worse: you'd better believe that one day soon, Max may very well stop streaming Sex and the City. If that sounds implausible, it shouldn't. You already can't watch the movie Sex and the City 2 on Max.

Max, like all streaming services, will unceremoniously dump its most treasured content if it feels like it. I cannot watch my personal favorite COVID-era movie, An American Pickle, on Max — nor on literally any streaming service whatsoever — even though it was an HBO Max exclusive when it debuted. And remember HBO's hit show Westworld? You already can't watch it at all on Max even though it bagged Emmys and was by some measures HBO's biggest hit of all time. Want to stream Westworld on a monthly service? As far as I can tell, there is one streaming service with exclusive streaming rights to Westworld: DIRECTTV's "Premier" streaming package, which will set you back — are you sitting down? — $149.99 per month.

This brand of chaos is the most reliable attribute in the streaming universe. Not even bundling Hulu and Disney+ together guarantees access to all things Marvel. To wit: Marvel's Runaways, a Hulu original is now exclusive to Apple TV+. The Office — a longtime NBC hit which achieved cultural critical mass only when it became a Netflix staple, is no longer on Netflix. For that you have to go to Peacock, the NBCUniversal streaming service, which is making itself a major destination by becoming the only place to stream the likes of Yellowstone, the biggest hit on the Paramount Network, but which doesn't stream on Paramount+. So you might assume you need the all-powerful Peacock for that other NBC mega-hit, Friends, right? Not so much. Friends is only available on... Netflix? Nope, for heaven only knows what reason (money), Friends is only available on Max. Netflix is no longer your destination for legendary NBC shows. Oh, except Seinfeld. For the next two years. And after that who knows? 

The promise of streaming in the first place was instant gratification, and subscribing to upwards of eight streaming services doesn't guarantee any gratification at all. What's a content addict to do?

Watch whatever you want. You're free.

After you cancel them all, you'll find that in a manner of speaking, you have more access to the programming you want, not less.

In the barbaric bygone days of content consumption, everyone tolerated something called "video rental." Before Netflix came along and started mailing people discs in paper sleeves (yes, that was once the entire Netflix business model), this way of consuming movies and TV involved the very real hassle of physically getting off your duff and going to a store. It also meant an even worse hassle that seems totally alien now: late fees. But in terms of content-for-money, this terrible system was vastly superior to what we have today. The viewing possibilities felt truly limitless. If your local chain video store didn’t have what you were looking for, you could hunt for it elsewhere in town, or — if it was really obscure — fork over the extra money and buy it, even if that meant importing a disc from another country.

That feeling of boundless possibility is partly why some people — mostly nostalgic film buffs — are still video store partisans. But you don't have to take on any such affectation to get the benefits of the pre-streaming lifestyle (and none of the drawbacks) thanks to this one weird trick: just watch TV and movies à la carte. À la carte video rental is admittedly a form of streaming, but without the subscription. And it couldn't be easier to get started: You can just Google the exact movie or TV show you want to watch, find a site that lets you rent or "buy" that piece of content for viewing on your preferred device or smart TV, and enjoy your truly personalized entertainment experience. 

Forking over these small amounts can feel like a splurge or even a defeat if you already pay the standard American $75 per month to access "unlimited" streaming content on a bunch of streaming services, but if you cut ties with those monthly fees, you'll instantly have a nice à la carte budget. Most movies will set you back somewhere between $2 and $5 (fresh-from-theaters new releases like Blink Twice can set you back $19.99, but that sort of extravagance isn't really part of the à la carte equation), and watching a single TV show episode can look like a $0.99 rental or a rather steep $2.99 "purchase" with no option to rent.

And à la carte is, in fact, essentially the only way to watch some of those favorites I mentioned earlier, like Westworld and An American Pickle. The freedom of being a streaming service cord cutter, then, means you're in a charmed position in which you can just not sweat the shrinking archives at the streaming services at all.

Not relying on streaming services changes how you watch, but only a little Tweet may have been deleted

Canceling your streaming services and getting yourself used to à la carte streaming are just two steps on the path to maximizing your entertainment dollar. While you're at it, an antenna and a blu-ray/DVD player are good investments that will pay for themselves in a hurry. What's more, your local library has discs you can bring home for free, and if you're honest with yourself, you probably have some movies and box sets collecting dust around the house that you could watch instead of chasing a new shiny object on one of the streamers. 

Now that you're free, you can make a bucket list of every movie and TV show you've ever hoped to watch, and just work your way through it.

As for me, I've started thinking about TV somewhat differently, but I don't feel nearly as cut off as one might think. I subscribed to Max recently so I could watch Curb Your Enthusiasm's final season, and while I had that subscription, I scratched a couple movies from the Max archive off my watchlist before canceling. When White Lotus season 3 comes out, this cycle will begin again.

Sports were a problem when I had streaming services, and it's certainly still a problem now that I don't, but I have an antenna for in-market games, and I watch baseball in bars — where other fans are — instead of at home.

But the best way to summarize my new TV outlook is my attitude toward the Star Wars franchise. I've completely avoided all the Star Wars shows, and I have no regrets, but I'm considering watching Andor. I might, and I might not. As a streaming cord cutter, I still enjoy taking risks on new streaming shows from time to time like White Lotus and The Curse, but I mostly prefer bucket list classics, or shows where I'm more or less guaranteed to get what I want, like Law & Order: Organized Crime (available for free with my trusty antenna). In short, I rarely involve myself in shows with those deliciously intriguing opening episodes, which might turn out to be genius, but let's face it, usually turn out to be the TV equivalent of low-effort clickbait.

So if the second and final season of Andor jumps the shark, I'll have dodged a bullet. If it gets the same rapturous response as the first season, then I'll know it's a good bet. I'll subscribe to ad-free Disney+ for exactly one month, and I'll watch the whole thing at my own pace. 

Jimmy Kimmel and his wife Molly McNearney have hit back at Trump after he called Kimmel "one of the dumbest human beings ever."

Cybersecurity firm Kaspersky has uninstalled its popular antivirus software from U.S. users' computers, automatically replacing it with a completely different program from completely different company UltraAV. Kaspersky customers are not happy.

Rolled out in an update on Sept. 19, Kaspersky's unilateral swapping of users to UltraAV quickly garnered many confused and upset reactions online. Numerous people took to social media to complain about UltraAV being automatically installed on their computer without their consent, as well as express dissatisfaction at how the transition was handled. Some even voiced suspicion regarding the unfamiliar antivirus software, speculating that it was malware and demanding to know how to uninstall it.

SEE ALSO: FCC flags Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky as risk to national security

Yet despite customers' complaints, Kaspersky's handoff to UltraAV didn't come entirely out of the blue. 

Kaspersky had already announced plans to pull out of the U.S. earlier this year after the Russian cybersecurity company was banned from continuing to operate in the country. As such, Kaspersky informed U.S. customers at the beginning of the month that while they would still receive cybersecurity protection under their paid subscription, these services would now be provided by its U.S.-based partner UltraAV. 

"In the coming days, you will be receiving communications from UltraAV with instructions on how to activate your new account," wrote Kaspersky in messages that began rolling out on Sept. 5. "We're confident that you'll enjoy the enhanced protection and features UltraAV offers."

Unfortunately, at least some customers claim they never received this notification or weren't provided with the promised follow-up instructions.  

Reddit Reddit Reddit

Responding to the uproar on Saturday, Kaspersky and UltraAV issued a joint statement explaining that their aim had been to make the transition "as seamless as possible."

"Kaspersky and UltraAV worked closely to ensure customers would maintain the standards of security and privacy users have come to expect from their service," read the statement. "This update ensured that users would not experience a gap in protection upon Kaspersky’s exit from the market."

Even so, UltraAV isn't a perfect one-to-one substitute for Kaspersky. UltraAV does have a few added features that Kaspersky didn't offer, such as notifying you when your social security number is used, monitoring "high-risk transactions" such as password resets, and up to $1 million in identity theft insurance. However, unlike Kaspersky, UltraAV does not provide webcam or online payment protection, features many customers will no doubt miss.

Credit: UltraAV Why is Kaspersky uninstalling antivirus software from U.S. computers?

Kaspersky is being forced to exit the U.S. market after the government banned it from providing its services to anyone within the country, citing national security concerns about the Russian cybersecurity giant. Though announced in June, the ban is set to take effect from Sept. 29 to allow customers time to find alternative antivirus solutions. 

In a press release at the time, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) claimed that Kaspersky posed a risk to national security "due to the Russian Government’s offensive cyber capabilities and capacity to influence or direct Kaspersky’s operations."

"[This risk] could not be addressed through mitigation measures short of a total prohibition," the BIS wrote.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission had previously labelled Kaspersky an "unacceptable risk to national security" in 2022, while federal agencies were banned from using its antivirus software in 2017.

Kaspersky has consistently argued that its U.S. ban is unconstitutional and politically motivated, claiming that there is no evidence it is a national security threat. Nonetheless, it began winding down its U.S. operations on July 20, including dismissing employees based in America.

"To respond to the U.S. authorities’ concerns, the company has proposed a comprehensive assessment framework providing for the verification of its solutions, database updates, [and] threat detection rules by an independent trusted reviewer," Kaspersky wrote in a July statement regarding the ban.

"Therefore, Kaspersky maintains that the U.S. Department of Commerce decision was based on the geopolitical climate rather than on the evaluation of the integrity of the company’s solutions and deprives U.S. users and companies of best in class protection."

Kaspersky's arguments are similar to those TikTok has mounted in the face of its own U.S. ban. The U.S. government has also accused TikTok of posing a threat to national security, claiming that the popular video sharing app is controlled by a "foreign adversary" due to its Chinese parent company ByteDance. TikTok is currently fighting its high-profile ban in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, where it's no doubt hoping for a better outcome than Kaspersky.

Elon Musk's social media platform X is losing users in two of its most important markets: the U.S. and UK.

According to a new report from the Financial Times, Musk's X has lost nearly one-fifth of its daily active user base in the U.S. and a whopping one-third in the UK. 

Tweet may have been deleted

The data, collected by third-party analytics company SimilarWeb, compares X's daily active user numbers from May 2023 to September 2024.

It's important to note that as a third-party data firm, SimilarWeb does not have direct access to X's internal user stats. The company collects data based on web traffic stats. While SimilarWeb's data includes traffic from mobile devices to mobile websites, SimilarWeb cannot account for activity within X's official apps on platforms like iOS and Android.

SEE ALSO: Elon Musk reportedly surrenders to Brazil in battle over X ban

However, some of X's own internal user numbers are public information – at least as it pertains to the EU. Thanks to EU regulations known as the Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires social media platforms to make this information available, we know that the SimilarWeb data showing a decline in X's users is largely accurate across the board.

X itself has recently reported a decline in users in the EU.

X's downward usage trends

X most recently shared its latest usage data, as required by EU law, last month. 

As Social Media Today points out, Musk's company reported a decline in monthly active users over the last year.

In X's EU user base report consisting of data from February to July 2023, Musk's social media platform had 112.2 million monthly active users in the EU. In the following six month period from August 2023 to January 2024, that number dropped to 111.4 million users. 

X's most recent report, covering February to July 2024, showed that its user base in the EU fell once more to 105.9 million.

In addition to its woes in the U.S., UK, and EU, X has been banned in another major market, Brazil, over the past month. Musk has since acquiesced to Brazil's Supreme Court's orders and access to the social media site will likely soon be reinstated. However, as of publishing time, X is still unavailable in Brazil. 

Furthermore, as Mashable previously reported in September of last year, CEO Linda Yaccarino had also shared X's internal worldwide user numbers, seemingly inadvertently showcasing how the company had shed millions of users since Musk's takeover of the former Twitter just less than a year earlier.

While traffic stats and user numbers can ebb and flow due to many factors, it's clear that any real movement in X's user base is heading down and not upward. A previous report in July 2024 noted that while X hadn't declined in global users from a year ago, its growth was stagnant – registering just a 1.6 percent in users over the past 12 months.

Musk's leadership has taken center stage on the platform and has likely contributed to the decline of users. In fact, the Financial Times mentioned in its report that X's user base decline in the UK picked up after Musk commented that "civil war is inevitable" in response to an X post about riots in the country.

X will likely enjoy a boost in user activity over these next few weeks thanks to the U.S. election season. But Musk is playing an active role in U.S. politics this year including endorsing former president Donald Trump. Assuming another politics-based user bump is ongoing, Musk's ongoing commentary and involvement in the U.S. election, like his earlier UK social unrest comments, could further affect X's user numbers if that bump subsides.

Mashable reached out to X for comment, and will update this if we hear back.

With tech industry players rolling out shiny new AI investments on the banks of the Hudson River, international leaders gathered across Manhattan on the East River, coalescing for September's annual UN General Assembly session — a global forum on big issues like sustainable development, ending armed conflict, and, amid it all, artificial intelligence. 

Neil Sahota, CEO of AI research firm ACSILabs, was present too, a longstanding UN AI advisor and early AI R&D specialist. Twenty years ago, Sahota found himself in the midst of a "business intelligence" investment boom, eventually brought on to IBM's secret team behind its Jeopardy!-playing AI, Watson. He's a founder of the UN's AI for Good initiative, observing the rise of global AI tools and accompanying concerns in real time, even shepherding them on. And for almost a decade, Sahota has been on call with the international body as it devised a "tactical" response to AI. 

"It was a bit of a brave new world," said Sahota. Since then, the UN has invested in hundreds of AI projects and programs, with different bodies taking a stab at AI guidance that reflects the needs of the global population. But with the acceleration of national AI investments, one unanswered question has loomed: How should it be regulated?

SEE ALSO: Parents have no idea how teens are using AI, survey finds

Despite its complexity, advocates like Sahota believe the international body is the world's best bet at guarding the impact of AI. "The UN is one, if not the only, globally-trusted organization that has the credibility to actually lead this effort," he explained. "It can become a leader, to help member nations — help the people, help the industry — understand and create a new mindset around AI." 

But it might be too late. "People are realizing that we're running out of time, or maybe we've already run out of time, to figure these things out," Sahota told Mashable. "We live in a time of hyper change, experiencing 100 years worth of change in the next 10 years. We don't have time to react to things anymore."

The UN steps into the AI arms race 

Globally, nation states are rushing into AI investment at an increasingly high pace, attempting to beat each other to the technological punch. It's what the AI Now Insitutite refers to as the "AI arms race." The race has fostered the rise of what experts have coined "AI nationalism," or the transformation of AI into a core industrial concern and national industrial resource, the institute explains. The claim for technological sovereignty among nation states leading the charge (mainly the U.S. and China) has grown alongside it. 

Other governments and international bodies have spent the last few years formulating responses to the increasingly political nature of AI development. The UN has discussed the impact of AI in regulatory conversations since at least 2017. In March, the General Assembly adopted a resolution on "steering AI use for global good" amid "existential" concerns. U.S. representatives introduced the landmark statement of intent, saying the international community must "govern this technology rather than have it govern us."

The UN's current working group, the high-level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence, was formed in 2023, after several years of suggestions from advisors like Sahota.

Birthed from this year's convening is a new "Governing AI for Humanity" report, which at times reads as a sobering list of risks and at others an optimistic guide to co-investment, amid AI's burgeoning "opportunity envelope." It recommends the creation of a new, independent scientific panel to survey AI "capabilities, opportunities, risks, and uncertainties"; it encourages "AI standards sharing" and sets out plans for a kind of AI governance network; and it pushes for a Global AI fund to foster more "equitable" investment.

"Fast, opaque and autonomous AI systems challenge traditional regulatory systems, while ever-more-powerful systems could upend the world of work. Autonomous weapons and public security uses of AI raise serious legal, security, and humanitarian questions," the report warns. "There is, today, a global governance deficit with respect to AI. Despite much discussion of ethics and principles, the patchwork of norms and institutions is still nascent and full of gaps. Accountability is often notable for its absence, including for deploying non-explainable AI systems that impact others. Compliance often rests on voluntarism; practice belies rhetoric."

Sahota provided input on the report, but didn't sit on the committee. He explained that the report was in development for years — at one point, the possible culmination of the body's AI for Good summit — but it needed unanimous input from all 192 member nations for it to have any credence. 

Having observed the political give and take of formalizing an AI report of this size, Sahota noted the expected "mellowing out" of certain regulatory suggestions and the "beefing up" of other suggestions. Sahota has championed a separate UN arm dedicated to AI and technological oversight for years, and the new report recommends the creation of an "independent international scientific panel" and an AI office in the UN Secretariat. But there's a long journey ahead before that body has any kind of formal influence. 

An office of that kind, Sahota argues, is crucial, acting as a focal point to coalesce working groups, committees, projects, and to provide visibility to international regulation efforts. 

The report notes a surfeit of "documents and dialogues" that have been adopted by governments, companies, consortiums, and international organizations that focus on AI governance. But, the UN argues, "none of them can be truly global in reach and comprehensive in coverage. This leads to problems of representation, coordination, and implementation." The less-than-ideal future of AI governance involves "disconnected and incompatible AI governance regimes," the UN says, prompting the need for coordination. 

The call seems urgent, but it's long overdue. 

"In the digital age, there are no boundaries," said Sahota. "Someone develops an AI technology, or any kind of technology, and there's really no way to stop its spread or use anywhere in the world." The omnipresence of AI has worried many, and its impact on the global majority, on formerly colonized nations, is an issue that will warrant international collaboration. In many ways, it bears the same complicated questions as the worsening climate crisis. And national policy is already making similar concessions. 

AI sneaks past the long arm of the law

A variety of regulatory and standards-building efforts have been proffered by nations and political blocs. In May, the European Union signed into law a first-of-its-kind AI Act, intended to protect its citizens from "high-risk" AI. Canada also has a legally enforceable regulatory standard, known as the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act. 

But for the most part, AI's regulatory oversight has been piecemeal, reliant on soft law principles. UNESCO has led a widespread international effort to create a human rights framework around AI, including its AI Ethics Recommendations, a Global AI Ethics and Governance Observatory, and an AI "RAM," designed to help member states assess readiness for implementation of AI. "In no other field is the ethical compass more relevant than in artificial intelligence," writes Gabriela Ramos, UNESCO assistant director-general for Social and Human Sciences. 

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, is a huge player, too, establishing international frameworks for possible intergovernmental cooperation and creating methodologies for ethical evaluation. The OECD Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence, the first set of intergovernmental principles for trustworthy AI, emphasized "interoperability" AI policy. Notably, OECD's biggest players — the nations signing onto their work — are wealthier, "industrialized" countries: Japan's Hiroshima AI Process Friends Group, the US's Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI), the UK's Bletchley Declaration, and China's Interim Measures on generative AI, for example. 

The U.S. has introduced dozens of AI regulation bills, with states focusing on the regulation of synthetic digital forgeries, or deepfakes.  

But the slow legislative efforts of nation states has allowed for a proliferation of bad use cases for generative AI, and the growth of private interests in its development and implementation. 

The UN's report suggests that, if extreme risk arose with the development of AI, the tech could be treated along the lines of a biological weapon or even nuclear energy — science that has been limited and regulated by participating member nations for the greater good of humanity. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), for example, drew lines around nuclear science for the purposes of energy and medicine and bans on further weaponization. (The irony that nuclear energy may be the next path forward for AI's demands on the energy grid, is not lost.)  

But the analogy is limited. "Nuclear energy involves a well-defined set of processes related to specific materials that are unevenly distributed, and much of the materials and infrastructure needed to create nuclear capability are controlled by nation states," the report outlines. "AI is an amorphous term; its applications are extremely wide and its most powerful capabilities span industry and states." 

The UN's 'lead by example' strategy 

The diffuse nature of AI means collaboration and forethought is key. "One of my concerns is that we're working on things that we don't fully understand. As technologists, we build towards the outcome — we just need to measure the outcome we're looking for," Sahota explained. "We don't think about other uses or misuses. We're not thinking about these other ancillary impacts, these indirect impacts, the ripple effects." 

Even with the international body's history, and the ongoing issue of cooperation-avoidant nation states, Sahota doesn't believe there's a better international forum for regulating AI. "We have to define what right and ethical use means. There's just no way around that. And who is going to lead that? It's tailor made for a body like the UN."

Could it be, then, that AI's existence as a broad, cross-sector tech — one that countries are eagerly seeking and which isn't, on the surface, pegged to historically contentious issues — offers the first opportunity for unilateral agreement?

The UN, Sahota argues, can act as an international standards-setting body that nation states look to as a foundation for AI investment and regulation. Rather than just planning for the potential negative impacts, Sahota says, the UN should model the appropriate use cases of AI technology. "Policy and regulation shouldn't just be to clean up the guardrails and limit negative risk or legal liability, there's also a possibility to create good." 

That might be the only path forward too, as the UN's recent AI governance recommendations are less of a regulatory framework, and more of a plan for co-investment. They require buy-in from international powers at large, those who will agree to things like a shared data trust, a global AI investment fund, or a "development network" to convene experts and resources. While the UN's new report makes a similar ethical argument to Sahota, he says the lack of member state backing — proving there are many who are already on board with the "lead-by-example" plan — is a misstep. 

"This AI fund could be a way to create that nudge, to create incentives for people to think about the impact these [technologies] may have," he explained. "But it would have been nice to see the next steps laid out, to be able to see at least some of the buy-in, and for it to be a motivator or to lend credibility. It would show that this can be more than just talking heads. It's more than pieces of paper that collect dust." 

The publication of the UN's report, and the fact the high level meetings are devoting time to ethical AI discussions, is a monumental feat amid rising AI nationalism. But technology moves faster than people and processes, Sahota explained, and political bodies need to speed things up. "There are more and more people that see that this window is rapidly closing," said Sahota. "It is now a people challenge. Can you imagine if everyone became a proactive thinker? How profound of a change that would be? You can tell people that there's a couple years to figure this out, and they think that is a long time. Two weeks can feel like an eternity, but we only have as much time as we think we do."

On Mars, some 120 million miles away in space right now, anything that isn't another version of dusty red stands out like a sore thumb. 

That's how the Perseverance rover, a lab on wheels about the size of a Mini Cooper, spotted an unusual rock with black and white zebra stripes two weeks ago. Scientists back on Earth named the oddball "Freya Castle" after a landmark in the United States' Grand Canyon. 

Because it's a loose stone that is different from the bedrock underneath it, scientists suspect it rolled downhill at some point in the planet's history. 

"This possibility has us excited," wrote Athanasios Klidaras, a Purdue University doctoral student, for NASA. "We hope that as we continue to drive uphill, Perseverance will encounter an outcrop of this new rock type so that more detailed measurements can be acquired."

SEE ALSO: NASA's Mars rovers had a gangbusters summer of rocks Perseverance poses for a selfie with Cheyava Falls, a leopard-spotted rock it recently discovered on Mars that could have evidence of ancient microbial life. Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / MSSS

The latest finding follows the highly productive summer the rover and its twin Curiosity enjoyed, discovering several rocks that reveal Mars as having been a more geologically diverse planet than once thought. In a span of seven weeks, Perseverance and Curiosity found pure sulfur, a likely anorthosite boulder that could be a part of the planet's original crust, and a spotted rock with the most compelling signs of ancient Martian life yet, though a sample would need to be shipped back to Earth for confirmation.

For about a month, Perseverance has been crawling up the steep slopes of Jezero Crater, a site where scientists believe a river once emptied into a body of water. The rover is attempting to reach the crater's rim, which rises about 1,000 feet above the basin floor, on a quest to find a larger variety of rocks. The journey has been slow, but the rover is making better progress now that it has reached a flatter stretch of land.

After seeing the unusual Freya Castle from afar on Sept. 13, scientists took higher-resolution photos to get a better look before the rover drove away. The closeups show that the rock, about eight inches wide, has a rather unusual texture — different from anything seen on Mars before. Though the team doesn't know much about its chemical makeup yet, scientists believe its zebra stripes could be the result of igneous or metamorphic processes. 

Igneous rocks form when magma from within the planet crystallizes and solidifies. Metamorphic rocks started out as something else but were significantly altered from their original state after exposure to high heat and pressure. 

The stark linear pattern of light and dark minerals found makes Freya Castle unique, Katie Stack Morgan, deputy project scientist for the Perseverance's mission, told Mashable. A reasonable guess is that this rock is igneous and composed of feldspar, the lighter-colored minerals, and pyroxene or amphibole, the darker minerals.

"Since this block was sitting alone on the surface without any context, we don’t know where it came from or how it found its way into the crater," Stack Morgan wrote in an email. "Perseverance may find the source of a block like this during its upcoming crater rim exploration."

The reason scientists want the rover to explore the rim in the first place is for its potential to be littered with ancient Martian bedrock rubble. Jezero Crater formed when something substantial smacked into Mars billions of years ago. The impact could have churned up and tossed deep materials to the surface.  

A blue marker shows the location of the rover in mid-August, before it began its climb up Jezero Crater's slopes. Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / University of Arizona / ESA

"Crater rims act as keepers of ancient Martian history, uplifting and exposing the stratigraphy of these impacted materials," NASA has previously explained. "Additionally, extreme heat from the impact can encourage the circulation of fluids through fractures similar to hydrothermal vents, which have implications for early habitability and may be preserved in the exposed rim bedrock."

The recent rock discoveries have only mounted pressure on NASA to solve the problems facing its proposed Mars Sample Return mission, an expensive and technologically complex plan to fly bits of rock, dust, and air collected by Perseverance back to Earth. 

The mission has been in limbo since a review found it would cost upward of $11 billion and take nearly two decades to achieve. NASA has since engaged the greater aerospace industry for input on how to wrangle in spending and development. Seven companies have suggested a variety of ideas, which Mashable has reported, including repurposing Artemis moon landers and rethinking the last leg of the journey. NASA hasn't yet announced its path forward. 

As its 50th anniversary nears, Saturday Night Live is unquestionably an institution, not only in comedy or in late-night TV but in American pop culture itself. It has launched countless comedians, cemented the arrival of up-and-coming musical acts, spawned iconic characters, and even influenced politics, through its much-covered casting and guest stars.

With his new movie Saturday Night, co-writer/director Jason Reitman — whose films range from the superb coming-of-age comedy Juno and the provocative mid-life dramedy Tully to the the horrid reboot Ghostbusters: Afterlife — wants you to remember back when SNL was a scrappy sketch show stocked with counterculture comedians, signifying a major risk for NBC and the show's creator, Lorne Michaels.  

SEE ALSO: 'Ghostbusters: Afterlife' is a soulless ode to nepotism

With Saturday Night (a nod to the the show's original title, NBC's Saturday Night), Reitman and screenwriter Gil Kenan (Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire co-writer/director) dug through the Saturday Night Live archives for anecdotes, fun facts, and Easter eggs to reimagine that first landmark night. Set over the course of the 90 minutes leading up to showtime, this film aims to capture the manic mayhem, creative conflicts, soul-crushing obstacles, and larger-than-life personalities that contributed to Saturday Night Live's birth. And it fails. 

Concentrating the massiveness of SNL into one film about its premiere is a boldly ambitious project. At the film's premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, Reitman noted in his curtain speech that the movie contains over 80 speaking parts. One might admire the filmmaker's passion, but that's also the problem. Reitman, who spent a week as a guest writer on Saturday Night Live in 2008, is a devotee of the church of SNL. As such, Saturday Night is so stuffed with impressions and nostalgic callbacks that it's not much of a movie at all.

Saturday Night throws down a ticking clock that doesn't work.  Ella Hunt as Gllda Radner goof off on set of "Saturday Night." Credit: Hopper Stone / Sony Pictures Entertainment

Beginning on the sidewalk in front of NBC's Manhattan studios, Saturday Night shows Lorne Michaels (The Fabelmans' Gabriel LaBelle) fretting to an NBC page (Stranger Things' Finn Wolfhard), who is trying unsuccessfully to lure an audience into this free, live comedy show. From there, the film will follow Lorne almost constantly as he dips into the set still under construction, stressful meet-and-greets with network execs, literally explosive rehearsals, an intense control room, and a fateful dive bar, all before the metaphorical curtain rises on his show. 

To enhance the tension, Reitman injects title cards that announce the time, counting down until the live show kicks off — or fails to launch entirely. But there's a prequel-like problem here in that we all know how this ends. Occasionally, this works as a visual gag, like when the camera cuts to the time just after a particularly anxiety-ridden moment as a mocking reminder. But as the film drags on with less story and more and more SNL fluff, this device turns on the viewer, reminding us how much of this movie we still have to sit through.

Saturday Night delivers a cavalcade of impressions.  Nicholas Braun as Andy Kaufman in "Saturday Night." Credit: Hopper Stone / Sony Pictures Entertainment

As teased in the film's first trailer, Saturday Night throws a bunch of young Hollywood stars into the shoes of SNL's earliest icons, like Gilda Radner (Ella Hunt), Chevy Chase (May December standout Cory Michael Smith), Garrett Morris (Lamorne Morris), John Belushi (Matt Wood), Dan Aykroyd (Dylan O'Brien), and Jane Curtin (Kim Matula). Also in the mix are the likes of Billy Crystal (Nicholas Podany), George Carlin (Matthew Rhys), Jim Henson, and Andy Kaufman (the last two both played by Cat Person's Nicholas Braun). 

To Reitman's credit, his cast ably captures the dynamic energy of the Not Ready For Prime Time Players. Hunt has Radner's childlike verve. Wood captures Belushi's wounded ego and belligerent brand of physical comedy. O'Brien nails the macho arrogance of Aykroyd, along with his signature Canadian cadence. Recent Emmy–winner Lamorne Morris brings a sophisticated smoothness to Garrett Morris, who calls out anti-Black racism on set and lights a cigarette on a flaming piece of fallen lighting equipment with equal swagger.

Lamorne Morris as Garrett Morris in "Saturday Night." Credit: Hopper Stone / Sony Pictures Entertainment

Podany as Crystal is so dead-on in pitch that the comedian is recognizable from voice alone. Rhys harnesses Carlin's wrath; Matula nails Curtin's crisp comedic timing. In his dual role, Braun capably shifts from the soft-voiced pleading of Henson to the high-pitched buffoonery of Kaufman doing his "thank you very much" shtick. The standout in this group, however, is Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, and that's probably because he's the one who gets the closest thing to a character arc. Cocky, caustic, yet undeniably charismatic, Chase acts like he owns 30 Rock as soon as he enters frame. Smith owns the stride, smirk, and silliness that was Chase's signature. But sparks fly when he comes face-to-face with a bigger star with an even bigger ego. 

Saturday Night finds a great villain in J.K. Simmons as Milton Berle.  J.K. Simmons as Milton Berle in "Saturday Night." Credit: Hopper Stone / Sony Pictures Entertainment

Reitman and Kenan's script hinges on the conflict between the Golden Age of comedy versus the new revolutionaries. As such, Lorne faces off against snarling NBC executive David Tebet (Willem Dafoe), and takes a call from a derisive Johnny Carson (an uncredited role that's also the worst impersonation in the film). But most menacing of all is Berle, a well-established comedian who has his own variety show on NBC, which the movie regards as flashy hackery.

Berle prowls Lorne's studio like a predator searching for easy prey, riling the talent and brazenly hitting on Chevy's fiancée, Jacqueline Carlin (Kaia Gerber). This leads to the film's most exciting exchange, where two equal forces of braggadocio face off with a battle of wits that is absolutely crass and cunning. Incredibly, it's Berle who gets the movie's best punchline, involving a bit of wordplay about a choice "comeback" and Chevy's mom. Perhaps that wasn't what Reitman intended, and Simmons just delivered the hell out of that line. Perhaps this moment — which leaves even Chevy Chase speechless — is meant to reflect the uphill battle SNL had ahead of them. Regardless, it's bizarre when a non-SNL figure gets the biggest laugh in your SNL movie.

Rachel Sennott shines, despite an underwritten role. Rachel Sennott, Kim Matula, and Emily Fairn treated as set dressing in "Saturday Night" scene with Gabriel LaBelle and Matt Wood. Credit: Hopper Stone / Sony Pictures Entertainment

Sennott, who has awed critics and audiences in such heralded comedies as Shiva Baby, Bodies Bodies Bodies, and Bottoms, unsurprisingly delivers one of the best performances in Saturday Night, despite her part being horrifically written. 

Sennott plays Rosie Shuster, an Emmy–winning comedy writer whose stint on Saturday Night Live ran from 1975 to 1988; she had a hand in bringing together the cast that would be in the show's first season, as well as many now-classic characters and sketches. She was also married to Lorne Michael from 1967 to 1980, and Saturday Night is much more focused on this latter bit. It's not just that Reitman and Kenan's script treats her like Lorne's sidekick, someone who can dole out advice or a pep talk with equal readiness. It's that the longest bit of dialogue she's given in this movie is doggedly explaining exactly who she is to Lorne, detailing their courtship, relationship, and sex life to Dan Aykroyd in a tedious walk-and-talk.

Reitman overloads the film with such cinematic devices. Far from bringing the excitement or tension of The West Wing to Saturday Night, repeated walk-and-talks reveal little new information visually and make overlong sequences impossible to cut down. A perfect example of Reitman's reliance on this technique is a drug trip experienced by a tertiary character who winds about in mounting panic; it's a detour that tries our patience with no escape. This is true of much of Saturday Night, which is overloaded with tidbits that are potentially fun or nostalgic, but with so little cohesion that this love letter feels more like a rant.  It's left to the talented ensemble cast to keep things together, narratively speaking. While Sennott is beguiling with her trademark crooked grin and skill for biting banter, the role of Rosie is regressive, existing chiefly to inform the audience about Lorne. 

This is especially dismaying when you look back at Reitman's filmography. Juno, Young Adult, and Tully all had complex female characters who were funny and fleshed out! Notably, Reitman directed but didn't write any of those movies; Diablo Cody wrote them. Without her, it seems Reitman loses track of women's autonomy. But here, he loses track of much, much more.

Saturday Night fails to thrill or be all that funny.  John Belushi (Matt Wood) gets violent on "Saturday Night," while Lorne (Gabriel LaBelle) looks on. Credit: Hopper Stone / Sony Pictures Entertainment

In writing the script, Reitman and Kenan made some liberal changes from the facts of the matter. They include sketches and behind-the-scenes anecdotes that weren't a part of that first episode, and even cut an entire cast member from the story because his presence would have put the lie to their generational conflict. (Sorry to George Coe!) Such changes could be excused as poetic license in pursuit of good storytelling — if it actually added up to good storytelling.

Like Saturday Night Live, this movie is a frenzied collection of scenes. Some work, but many don't, primarily because of how this script chips away at others in service of Lorne. While weaving around sets and silliness, Saturday Night above all else paints Lorne Michaels as a creative genius. His main flaw is that he can't communicate his vision to basically anyone, which creates a domino effect of fighting, screaming, and violence. But far from recognizing these as consequences of Lorne's mercurial leadership, Saturday Night is infuriatingly conventional, excusing the shitty behavior of a famous man because he makes something that is popular.

The film treats Lorne as an underdog, put upon by powerful forces that refuse to acknowledge his (yet to be remotely proven) greatness. It's a tiresome, thin argument as it ever was. And in holding him up, Saturday Night reduces the female characters around Lorne to hasty sketches of the women they represent. The well-documented, damaging sexism on that set is addressed only by a tongue-in-cheek rehearsal of a famous sketch, where the female players turn the male gaze on a womanizing Aykroyd, to the amusement of the crew. Essentially, the actual sexism of early SNL is laughed off. 

It's not that any movie could be expected to capture the complexity of early Saturday Night Live. But in capturing that first night, Reitman reduces Gilda Radner to a smile, Jane Curtin to a smirk, Laraine Newman (Emily Fairn) to a running gag about quick changes, and Rosie Shuster to a sidekick.

Further confounding, Reitman spends a gratuitous amount of time building the film's finale, literally brick by brick in a tedious metaphor. Then, he fumbles the turning point that brings this motley crew of chaotic individuals together into an ensemble. What saves the day is not a group scene. It's not a collaboration. It's the re-creation of a solo bit that's not even from an SNL cast member, and which didn't air until later in the season.

In the end, Saturday Night is not an ode to Saturday Night Live. It's a fawning portrait of the men of Saturday Night Live, who are granted punchlines, complexity, and character arcs, while their female counterparts are left with scraps. Longtime lovers of the show may find reason enough to soldier through Reitman's aggravating fanboying over Lorne and the guys. But assembling such a promising cast, looking back on such a pivotal moment in American entertainment, and offering this? It's a punchline that doesn't land. 

Saturday Night was reviewed out of its Canadian Premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival. The movie has since shown at Fantastic Fest as a secret screening. Saturday Night opens in select theaters on Sept. 27 and expands nationwide on Oct. 11.

TL;DR: Gain lifetime access to 15 CompTIA certification courses on sale for just $49.99. Get 15 courses and over 260 hours of IT training covering key certifications like A+, Network+, Security+, and more.

Opens in a new window Credit: IDUNOVA The Complete 2024 CompTIA Course Super Bundle by IDUNOVA $49.99
$585.00 Save $535.01 Get Deal What does this CompTIA course bundle include?

It includes 15 CompTIA exam prep courses with over 260 hours of content, covering certifications such as A+, Network+, Security+, and Cloud+. Whether you're starting from scratch or looking to upgrade your skills, this bundle has you covered.

Who should consider taking these courses?

This bundle is ideal for anyone looking to break into the IT field or professionals aiming to expand their expertise. Roles like IT support specialist, network administrator, and security analyst are some potential career paths.

How long will you have access to the courses?

You’ll get lifetime access to all 15 courses, so you can learn at your own pace. Plus, you can revisit any lessons or materials whenever you need a refresher.

Can you use this bundle to prepare for an entry-level IT role?

Absolutely. Courses like CompTIA IT Fundamentals+ and A+ are designed for beginners and cover essential skills like hardware setup, basic troubleshooting, and network configuration.

What can you do with the knowledge in this bundle?

The certifications will equip you to manage IT systems, troubleshoot networks, set up secure servers, and even conduct penetration testing. You’ll be more prepared for roles in IT support, security, and network administration.

Do you need any previous experience to take these courses?

While some courses are designed for beginners, like the IT Fundamentals+, others like Security+ and PenTest+ are more advanced and may require foundational IT knowledge.

Get lifetime access to this comprehensive CompTIA course bundle for $49.99 and kickstart your IT career today.

StackSocial prices subject to change.

TL;DR: Get a 15-month Microsoft 365 Family subscription for $85.97 through September 29, including 6 users and 1TB of OneDrive cloud storage.

• Microsoft 365 for up to six users, each with their own personalized accounts and settings

• Powerful suite of apps: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Defender, OneDrive, Outlook, Editor, Clipchamp, and OneNote, on up to five devices per user — PC, Mac, iOS, or Android

• 1TB of OneDrive cloud storage per user, providing a secure space for photos, files, and videos with file recovery options

• Manage your family’s digital security with Microsoft Defender, offering identity theft monitoring and protection from malware

• Securely manage multiple email accounts with Outlook, featuring built-in security and no ads

• Create and edit professional-quality videos using Clipchamp’s tools and stock library for content creation

• Latest Microsoft 365 features, tools, and security updates as they’re released

• 24/7 technical support for both Microsoft 365 and Windows 11 through chat or phone

Grab a 15-month Microsoft 365 Family subscription for just $85.97 until September 29 and get all the tools and storage your family needs.

StackSocial prices subject to change.

Opens in a new window Credit: Retail King Microsoft 365 Family: 15-Month Subscription [6TB OneDrive Cloud Storage for 6 People, PC/Mac] $85.97
$99.99 Save $14.02 Get Deal

TL;DR: Score the CASA HUB 360 on sale for $99.99 (reg. $129) and make multitasking a breeze with this sleek, 8-in-1 foldable laptop stand.

Opens in a new window Credit: Adam Elements CASA HUB 360 8-in-1 Aluminum Foldable USB-C Hub Stand $99.99
$129.00 Save $29.01 Get Deal

Ever tried working from your kitchen counter or that cozy coffee shop, only to feel like you’re in a tech juggling act? Laptops crammed into odd angles, USB drives spilling from your bag, cables everywhere — it’s a nightmare we’ve all faced. What if one sleek tool could tidy up your space, connect all your gadgets, and even give your laptop a boost?

Enter the Casa Hub 360, an 8-in-1 foldable hub and stand that’s ready to handle your workspace chaos with style. For a limited time, you can get it on sale for $99.99 (reg. $129). That's 22% off.

This isn’t just a laptop riser — it’s a complete multitasking machine. With an impressive range of ports, including HDMI for crisp 4K video, USB-C for fast charging and data transfer, two USB-A ports, and both SD and microSD slots, it covers all your connection needs in one go. No more searching for multiple adapters or untangling cables; everything is organized and within reach. Plus, it includes a Gigabit Ethernet port, so you can count on a reliable internet connection when WiFi is acting up.

The stand is foldable and portable, and raises your laptop to an ergonomic angle, reducing strain on your neck and wrists during those long workdays. Its sturdy aluminum frame not only looks sleek but is built to last. It also folds neatly into a compact, travel-friendly size that’s easy to toss into your bag.

Streamline your setup without sacrificing style with the CASA HUB 360 8-in-1 Aluminum Foldable USB-C Laptop Stand for $99.99 (reg. $129).

StackSocial prices subject to change.

TL;DR: Charge all your devices at once, fast and efficiently with this seven-port power station for $32.99.

What makes this charging station different from others?

This 220W GaN charging station features seven ports, allowing you to charge multiple devices at once. It’s designed with Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology, which means faster charging in a compact form factor.

How many devices can you charge at the same time?

You can charge up to seven devices at once with its combination of USB-C and USB-A ports. Whether it’s phones, tablets, laptops, or other gadgets, this charger has the ports to handle them all. The charger is highly compatible with a wide range of devices, including iPhones, Android phones, laptops, tablets, smartwatches, and more. If it charges via USB-C or USB-A, you’re good to go.

How fast can it charge your devices?

With its 220W output, this charger delivers fast charging for multiple devices at the same time. Your phone, laptop, and other gadgets will get powered up quickly without slowing down.

Why is GaN technology important in a charger?

GaN technology allows for more efficient charging while keeping the charger compact and lightweight. It generates less heat, which means your devices charge faster and more safely.

Is it safe to charge multiple devices at once?

This charging station is built with safety features like over-current, over-voltage, and short-circuit protection, ensuring your devices are powered safely and efficiently.

Power up your entire setup with this 220W GaN USB-C seven-port charging station for just $32.99 (reg. $39) — charge everything, all at once.

StackSocial prices subject to change.

Opens in a new window Credit: UGR Tech 220W GaN USB-C 7-Port Charging Station $32.99
$39.99 Save $7.00 Get Deal

If you like playing daily word games like Wordle, then Hurdle is a great game to add to your routine.

There are five rounds to the game. The first round sees you trying to guess the word, with correct, misplaced, and incorrect letters shown in each guess. If you guess the correct answer, it'll take you to the next hurdle, providing the answer to the last hurdle as your first guess. This can give you several clues or none, depending on the words. For the final hurdle, every correct answer from previous hurdles is shown, with correct and misplaced letters clearly shown.

An important note is that the number of times a letter is highlighted from previous guesses does necessarily indicate the number of times that letter appears in the final hurdle.

If you find yourself stuck at any step of today's Hurdle, don't worry! We have you covered.

SEE ALSO: Hurdle: Everything you need to know to find the answers Hurdle Word 1 hint

Anything that is this would fail the white-glove test.

SEE ALSO: NYT's The Mini crossword answers for September 25 Hurdle Word 1 answer

DUSTY

Hurdle Word 2 hint

The rarest kind is common.

SEE ALSO: Wordle today: Here's the answer hints for September 25 Hurdle Word 2 Answer

SENSE

Hurdle Word 3 hint

Keeps the weather off you.

SEE ALSO: NYT Connections today: See hints and answers for September 25 Hurdle Word 3 answer

PARKA

Hurdle Word 4 hint

To initiate something.

SEE ALSO: NYT Strands hints, answers for September 25 Hurdle Word 4 answer

ENACT

Final Hurdle hint

To have courage or to endure something.

SEE ALSO: Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more: Games available on Mashable Hurdle Word 5 answer

BRAVE

If you're looking for more puzzles, Mashable's got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.