Alongside the new Pixel 9 series, Google rolled out its redesigned Pixel Weather app, which aims to please pluviophiles and minimalists alike. Google has a penchant for creating copies of apps it already has, especially since it only recently updated the older weather app. However, Pixel Weather will eventually trickle down to older Pixel models.

Beyond the visual changes, the app also introduces Gemini-powered summaries that reduce the swathe of weather factors and figures into a sentence or two that anyone can understand. The idea is to make checking a forecast as easy as possible without combing through numbers and icons across multiple hours.

That all sounds great, but what do our readers think of the Pixel Weather app?

Yes, the frog is gone

For the most part, the app’s reception has been positive. In a poll visited by over 2,600 readers, 45.4% of respondents like the look of the new app, despite the changes. However, the doubters follow close behind. 38.5% of readers don’t like the app, which once again highlights how divisive app design can be. The remaining 16% of readers are “indifferent.”

The vote is on a knife-edge, but the comments explain why that might be the case. Those in the positive camp are happy with the inclusion of some metrics, like the air quality index (AQI), while others were won over by the “simple looks.” Others were more reductive: “I like it,” writes one reader.

On the other hand, those who dislike the app seem to focus on two absent features. “Noooo, let me keep my frog, please,” cries one reader, while another writes, “I demand for the frog to stay.” Unfortunately, Google’s fan-favorite frog has been relocated from the simplified design, and so has its cutesy, animated, weather-related habitat.

Others lament the lack of a weather radar, which would allow them to view conditions in real-time throughout the day. “As a person who works outside, I just need an easy-to-access radar section. I hate the Weather Channel, but I’m forced to use it because it has the best radar I’ve seen,” notes one user.

My biggest bugbear with the app is its lack of granular information. Yes, it offers plenty of immediate and long-term forecast information, but it lacks extended wind, rain, and pressure visualizations. The movable widgets are also an odd choice. They don’t display as much information as the cards on the outgoing app and take up far too much real estate on screen. If minimalism was the goal, these elements suggest otherwise.

This is a new app, so expect Google to implement updates and tweaks throughout its lifetime. It will be interesting to see which elements the company focuses on going forward.

It’s worth noting that those running Android 14 devices can also snag the APK and experience the app for themselves. I’ve installed it on a foldable, and the hourly and 10-day forecasts are surprisingly serviceable on larger displays. However, owing to the issues I raised in the previous paragraph, I don’t think I’d trade this app for my favorite weather apps anytime soon. It seems many readers feel this way, too.

Budgeting for a smartphone is an expensive undertaking. Do you fork out and grab one of the best phones around, or do you opt for something more affordable? There’s a lot to weigh up, but something that isn’t always considered alongside new hardware is the carrier plan. Whether you’re paying off your handset monthly or leaning on those voice minutes or high-speed 5G data, every modern user and handset needs a plan.

We’re spoiled for choice of phone plans in 2024, but one thing’s certain: no one wants to spend more than they really need. With that in mind, we want to know how much you spend monthly on your personal phone plan. We’re only interested in personal plans for a single user, not those covering multiple users or families. How much do you spend per month? Be sure to let us know by voting in our poll below.

We’re well aware that many of the feature-filled plans are priced above the $15 mark. Limited data and other cons often hamstring those paying less. After all, not all of us can afford unlimited plans. Moving to a postpaid plan is often a more attractive arrangement, especially if you don’t require a new handset. There are several plans at or below this price point worth your consideration, as detailed in our best prepaid deals for $15 or less guide.

When we last ran this poll in 2022, most users were paying $40 or more, with the $10 to $19.99 mark also proving quite popular. Importantly, we didn’t exclude family plans from that particular poll, but it’ll be interesting to see how inflation and other financial trends have changed users’ willingness or ability to spend.

Of course, our comments are always open. Be sure to include more details about your particular plan in the comments, including carrier, data, and other limits, and how it has treated you.

Every new device has its teething issues, and smartwatches are no exception. A few days after its release, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 7‘s battery life became the subject of users’ ire. Many new buyers took to forums and our comments sections to highlight their issues with their wearable’s longevity, with many failing to make it through a day on one charge.

Around a week later, at the beginning of August, Samsung issued a new update that addresses the device’s “battery stability.” That’s pretty vague, but it suggested that the company knew of the issue and implemented a fix — or so it believed. So, did the update improve the situation?

Yes, the update works (for most of you)

We polled readers about their experience post-update, and well, it’s a mixed bag.

The majority of users (56.1%) believed that the update had improved their device’s battery life to a varying degree. 30.6% were adamant that they’re now enjoying “solidly improved battery life,” while a quarter claimed that battery life is better, but not anything to write home about.

Curiously, just under 9% of readers note that their experience is worse now, while 35% claim that the update did not remedy the problem. These users are in the minority, but more than a third of users claiming that the fix hasn’t actually worked is fairly substantial.

Several readers in the comments section noted that they hadn’t received the update when this poll was published, while others voted only to view the immediate results. This somewhat skews the data. However, some are reaping the benefits of the patch.

“Fixed mine. USA, Watch 7. Was getting about 12 hours of battery life before update. Just got 25 hours with latest,” wrote one user. “I started experiencing the update on my Galaxy Watch 7 after I’d had it about 5 days. Was having to charge it multiple times a day. Charged up before bed, and down to 50% by morning. Finally got the update yesterday morning (Aug 1), and it has absolutely solved the issue. I was able to go all day without a charge. Charged before bed and was still at 91% this morning when I got up.”

Others who have received the patch see no difference. “Got the update and it didn’t make to much of a difference. With only tap to wake up on, I get a solid 2 days on a charge,” wrote another reader.

Remember that the Galaxy Watch 7 effectively comprises four models: two dial sizes and LTE and Bluetooth-only options. Each configuration offers a different battery life. We found that the smallest Galaxy Watch model offers subpar endurance compared to the larger device. While the update might work for one, it may not yield similar results for another.

Nevertheless, the update should be available to all users at the time of this writing, so be sure to let us know your latest experience in the comments section below. If you’re still struggling with your Galaxy Watch 7’s longevity, you might find some joy by following our troubleshooter to remedy your smartwatch problems.

Even the very best smartphones have their pros and cons. As consumers, we take great joy in outlining the positives and enjoying the improvements or novel smarts an updated model brings. However, it’s the negatives that ultimately make or break a device.

A phone could offer the best-in-class performance, but if limited battery life or overheating tampers the experience, it rather negates the feat. Similarly, there’s no point in boasting a crazy quintuple camera array if all five are ordinary. Some manufacturers nerf some features to cut costs or elevate other models in the lineup.

What is your smartphone dealbreaker?

While some users can live with mediocre cameras or battery life if that means a large display or performant base, each one of us will have a different dealbreaker. So, what is yours? We’d love some consumer input from our readers, so vote in our poll below.

We’ve touched on this topic a few times before. In 2017, two of our primary dealbreakers were the lack of a headphone jack and no water resistance — how times have changed. We also polled readers in 2021, with the majority outing poor battery life and a lack of software updates as their bugbears — two problems that still rear their heads. A low-quality display was also among our readers’ top annoyances, but the issue is largely extinct in 2024.

My biggest dealbreaker is battery life, followed by camera performance and durability. If I forget to charge my phone, I want to ensure it’ll still wake me up in the morning. I’m still clinging onto my older phone because it’s built like a shiny tank, and the camera remains impressive. These might be small details, but they matter to me.

Unfortunately, the poll above allows you to pick only one dealbreaker. Ensure that you really give the topic some thought. However, be sure to leave a comment detailing your choice, or tertiary dealbreakers if you are so inclined.

Smart lights are an essential part of anyone’s smart home ecosystem. They illuminate on demand and fill your abode with ambiance and color. More importantly, they can lean on your existing smart home ecosystem and devices, making them infinitely useful as a part of larger routines.

Perhaps the biggest problem with smart lighting is choosing a brand. There are a dizzying array of options across the segment. While choice is great for a consumer, making the right choice also becomes more important.

That said, if you use smart lights in your home, which brand do you use? We also want to know how you made your decision, so be sure to vote in our poll below and let us know your reasons in the comments.

Some more common brands include Philips Hue, LIFX, and Nanoleaf, but there are a slew of other options that produce great results. Notably, many brands’ products now support Matter, so if you have a product that includes that particular protocol, be sure to cast your vote in that particular poll, too.

Personally, I have one smart light in my entire apartment, which is used mainly as an accent light, although I really should consider grabbing smart grow lights for my indoor plants. In this case, I wouldn’t need to remember to switch them on.

Of course, remember to mention details relating to your setup in the comments section, too; we’re intrigued by your particular arrangement.

Kamala Harris is now beating Donald Trump in seven national polls, reports Newsweek, with the vice president ahead of the ex-president by up to 4 points.

Harris' biggest lead shows her at 49% to Trump's 45% in a poll that was conducted from July 27 to July 30 by Kos Media's Civiqs. — Read the rest

The post Kamala Harris surges ahead — now beating Donald Trump in 7 national polls appeared first on Boing Boing.

More than half of Americans believe the First Amendment can go too far in the rights it guarantees, according to a new survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment–focused nonprofit.

The survey, released on Thursday, asked 1,000 American adults a range of questions about the First Amendment, free speech, and the security of those rights. Fifty-three percent of respondents agreed with the statement "The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees" to at least some degree, with 28 percent reporting that it "mostly" or "completely" describes their thoughts.

Americans were further divided along partisan lines. Over 60 percent of Democrats thought the First Amendment could go too far, compared to 52 percent of Republicans.

"Evidently, one out of every two Americans wishes they had fewer civil liberties," Sean Stevens, FIRE's chief research adviser, said on Thursday. "Many of them reject the right to assemble, to have a free press, and to petition the government. This is a dictator's fantasy."

Further, 1 in 5 respondents said they were "somewhat" or "very" worried about losing their job if someone complains about something they said. Eighty-three percent reported self-censoring in the past month, with 23 percent doing so "fairly" or "very" often.

Just 22 percent of respondents said they believed the right to free speech was "very" or "completely" secure. But despite these concerns, over a third said they trusted the government "somewhat," "very much," or "completely" to make fair decisions about what speech is deemed "intimidating," "threatening," "harassing," and "indecent," among other labels.

In all, almost 7 out of every 10 respondents agreed that America is going in the wrong direction when it comes to free speech—though it's not clear whether respondents think our culture and government are becoming too tolerant, or not tolerant enough, of controversial speech.

This latest survey indicates that many Americans are concerned about the security of free speech rights, yet also eager to censor speech they personally find distasteful.

"Americans have little tolerance for certain forms of protected speech and a lot of tolerance for unprotected conduct, when it should be the other way around," Stevens said. "This poll reveals that the state of free speech in America is dire."

The post More Than Half of Americans Think the First Amendment Provides Too Many Rights appeared first on Reason.com.

National polls show slight shift toward Joe Biden: In the roughly week and a half since former president (and presumptive Republican presidential nominee) Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felonies related to falsifying records to hide hush-money payments to a porn star, numerous national polls have indicated that voters have moved slightly toward incumbent president (and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee) Joe Biden.

A HarrisX/Forbes poll found Biden and Trump each getting a one-point bump after the verdict. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found a one-point bump for Biden, with Trump losing a point. A Morning Consult poll found a one-point bump for Biden, with Trump neither gaining nor losing any ground. And an Echelon Insights poll found a two-point Biden bump, with Trump support staying flat. (All poll results can be found in a chart here.)

The New York Times recontacted some 2,000 respondents they had polled this spring and found that "the group favored Mr. Trump by three points when originally interviewed in April and May, but this week they backed him by only one point."

A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 25 percent of independents and 10 percent of Republicans are less likely to vote for Trump following his conviction. The poll "also found that 56% of Republican registered voters said the case would have no effect on their vote and 35% said they were more likely to support Trump, who has claimed the charges against him are politically motivated and has vowed to appeal," Reuters reports. "The potential loss of a tenth of his party's voters is more significant for Trump than the stronger backing of more than a third of Republicans, since many of the latter would be likely to vote for him regardless of the conviction."

"The verdict has not overhauled the 2024 race nearly as much as Democrats hoped it would," writes The Washington Post's Aaron Blake. "But the totality of the evidence suggests it has dinged Trump a little."

Some of this perceived shift, ABC adds, could be the result of "differential partisan nonresponse bias"—basically, Republicans may be less keen to respond to polls right now given the bad news they've just been dealt in the form of a Trump conviction, while Democrats might be more excited to respond. And none of these shifts are massive; these changes are within the margin of error. Time will tell.

Scenes from D.C.: I present to you the most D.C. thing that I have ever seen, in honor of the fact that I spent a chunk of last week there. (Out of respect for my D.C.-based colleagues, I will not say anything unkind about this, uh, "city.")

Possibly the most DC parade float ever pic.twitter.com/RIlcXEoOCI

— Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) June 9, 2024

QUICK HITS

• "If the footage of [Noa] Argamani being kidnapped on the back of a motorcycle on October 7 became a darkly iconic representation of that day's horror," writes Oliver Wiseman, "the footage of her reunion with her father represented will be remembered as an all too rare showing of hope."
• "What if the U.S. cuts off aid to Israel?" asks Reason's Matt Welch.
• Today, Donald Trump—now a convicted felon—will sit for his probation interview.
• Colorado's weed market comedown.
• Really good Odd Lots episode on the widely reviled practice of "personalized pricing."
• Legitimately into this theory: Arranged marriage isn't dead, it's just in essence mediated by social media apps.

lots of normal people in middle america get into dating app marriages that look a lot like arranged marriages. meet someone with aligned values and comparable social status, full send to marriage within a couple months pic.twitter.com/ChhmKvHVJt

— cold ???? (@coldhealing) June 9, 2024

The post The Conviction Effect appeared first on Reason.com.

Yesterday, T-Mobile announced its plans to acquire most of US Cellular’s wireless operations and select spectrum assets for $4.4 billion. T-Mobile’s move is the latest business transaction that further consolidates the US market, leaving consumers with no option but to majorly bank on the big three carriers for their telephony needs. This consolidation may be good for the carrier and will also be marketed as good for the consumer. However, as consumers, we will get the short end of the stick sooner or later.

Consumers in the US have largely stuck to four carriers: AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. Some outliers have flocked to smaller carriers like Dish Wireless and US Cellular, and a few consumers also prefer MVNOs based on the top carriers.

However, with T-Mobile’s acquisition of Sprint in 2018, the top four carriers consolidated into the top three. With T-Mobile’s acquisition of US Cellular, the original top six carriers in the US are down to just the top four. The carriers are also on a spree to acquire MVNOs, like T-Mobile’s acquisition of Mint Mobile in 2023 and Verizon’s acquisition of TracFone Wireless in 2020, which have shrunk the available options to American consumers.

If you are in the market for a new phone line right now, chances are that your choices are limited to AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile only or on MVNOs based on them.

The carriers are aware of this oligopoly and have also begun resorting to price increases, even on legacy plans. We’re also seeing changes to price lock promises, watering them down from an actual price lock to a less effective walk-out clause with waivers. If you have a grandfathered plan, you should be mentally prepared to be no longer honored for it.

Needless to say, this is terrible news for consumers. A competitive telecom market is necessary for spurring innovation and keeping prices affordable and realistic. The recent wave of consolidation is moving the telecom market in the opposite direction.

An oligopoly, where only a couple of providers exist to serve millions of customers, is detrimental to consumer interest, especially if the carriers reach an unwritten understanding of keeping prices high for the perpetual benefit of their bottom line. When more consolidation goes through, the dominant carriers can make absurd promises and not follow through, and they wouldn’t have competitors left in the market that would react to such absurdity. Carriers in an oligopoly can raise prices of plans citing higher operational costs, and then two weeks later, announce another acquisition (yes, that does sound familiar).

So, are you happy with the state of the US telecom market right now? Are you pleased with the current choices of AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon? What do you like, or what do you dislike the most? Are you satisfied with your carrier’s coverage, speed, and plans? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!

Donald Trump's presidential campaign famously promises to "Make America Great Again." As a rule, no one should think too hard about the meaning of bumper sticker political slogans. But ever since Trump rolled it out nine years ago, his slogan has quietly asked some seemingly unanswerable questions: When was America great before? And when did that greatness vanish, thus necessitating its recovery?

The answer, it turns out, isn't a year. It's an age.

And that age is roughly when you were between 11 and 16 years old—regardless of when you were born. Across generations, Americans seem to believe that the best music, the best television, the top sporting events, and the strongest communities are the ones they experienced in their adolescence and early teen years. That's the conclusion drawn by the data crunchers at The Washington Post, who distilled some fascinating recent polling data from YouGov's survey of Americans' views about different decades.

"The good old days when America was 'great' aren't the 1950s," writes the Post's Andrew Van Dan. "They're whatever decade you were 11, your parents knew the correct answer to any question, and you'd never heard of war crimes tribunals, microplastics, or improvised explosive devices. Or when you were 15 and athletes and musicians still played hard and hadn't sold out."

The charts in the Post's analysis are striking: Across music, movies, fashion, and other social measures, Americans seem to believe that culture peaked roughly one to two decades after they were born and has declined since. The Post and YouGov polling data fits with what other researchers have found: that humans have the strongest sense of nostalgia for the culture we experienced between the ages of 17 and 23.

It's not difficult to deduce why. Those are our formative years, rich with new experiences and potential, in which most of us had few serious responsibilities and got to enjoy the safety of having others provide for our basic needs.

On its own, there is nothing wrong with having golden-tinged memories of those years. Do I still love a lot of music from the late 90s and early 2000s simply because I was born in 1987, even though I can admit that some of it is objectively pretty terrible? Damn right, I do.

But letting nostalgia get mixed up in politics is not a great idea, in part because it's obviously a false promise. Sorry, but no matter how hard you vote, you're never going to be 15 again.

Unfortunately, personal disillusionment is not the most serious problem created by nostalgia politics. As former Reason editor in chief Virginia Postrel explained in The Future and Its Enemies, many of the clashes that erupt in modern politics and culture are the result of a conflict between the forces of "stasis" and "dynamism." Her book remains a powerful argument in favor of letting messy markets work and embracing the improvements that will come from an unknown future—and I'm not just saying that because it came out in 1998.

It seems like nostalgia-influenced politics plays into the hands of the former group, which would prefer a world more strictly controlled, with less creativity and change. That shows up most obviously in Trump's slogan, of course, but also in many other policies pushed by both major parties these days: limiting immigration, restricting development, protecting domestic industries from foreign competition, and so on. It is unfortunately a quick jump from "I wish the world would be more like how I remember it when I was younger" to giving the state more power over your freedom and the freedom of others.

By all means, re-watch those old television shows for the hundredth time. Buy tickets to go see those washed-up rock stars on tour this summer. Just keep your sense of nostalgia out of the voting booth and the public square.

You'll never be 15 again, but please don't ruin the future for the people who aren't 15 yet.

The post Americans Aren't Nostalgic for the Past. They Are Nostalgic for Being 15. appeared first on Reason.com.

The first real-life images of the Pixel 9 Pro gave us a good look at the upcoming flagship, but many of us were also sticker-shocked by the paltry 128GB storage on offer. The mention of 16GB RAM added insult to injury, making it an even more confusing combination as Google seemingly decided to upgrade the RAM capacity without upgrading the internal storage.

With Android flagships becoming more powerful and feature-packed than ever, 128GB of internal storage feels stifling, even for the base variant. While it technically lowers the phone’s price and makes it accessible for more people, storage upgrades are cheaper than what the OEM usually charges the customer.

While the smartwatch market is not as populated as the Android phone market, users still have a good variety of smartwatches to choose from. The options thin out a bit when you consider OS compatibility with your smartphone, but there are still plenty of decent options across OEMs.

That being said, all of us have our favorites. Smartwatches have been around for years, and most of us have already used them to form an informed opinion on what we like and dislike about them. Many of us have used multiple smartwatches, perhaps successors from the same OEM or jumping around OEMs and even OS options. We’re bound to have biases based on our likes and dislikes from our experiences, and that’s okay, as smartwatches are inherently personal products that serve both form and functional needs.

So my question to all of you is, which is your favorite smartwatch brand? Why do you like the brand so much? Which smartwatches have you used, and which ones did you like and dislike? Have you had bad experiences with any watches? Have you avoided certain smartwatch brands based on principles? Vote in the poll and let us know more in the comments below!

Apple

Apple isn’t the first to the smartwatch game, but it certainly is the most recognizable brand offering the most recognizable smartwatches, the Apple Watch and Apple Watch Ultra. Apple is also widely respected for offering the most fluid smartwatch experience. However, the caveat here is that the Apple Watch is only compatible with iPhones. If you don’t have an iPhone, you can’t use an Apple Watch, which is a shame.

Samsung

Samsung has been around with its Tizen smartwatches for over a decade now. The company ditched its homebrewed solution to revive Wear OS, and we are forever grateful for it. The Galaxy Watch series continues to be a top choice for Android smartphone users, though it also works the best specifically with Galaxy smartphones. Samsung has offered a lot of innovative hardware and software features over the years in this space, so it’s easy to love it as a brand.

Google

Despite being the company that handles Android and Wear OS, Google entered the smartwatch hardware game pretty late with the Pixel Watch. The first generation wasn’t that impressive, but the second iteration fixed many shortcomings while retaining the same identity.

OnePlus

OnePlus’s entry into the smartwatch got off on the wrong foot with the OnePlus Watch. However, with the OnePlus Watch 2, the company has achieved redemption.

Garmin

Garmin makes some excellent smartwatches, though they are on the pricier side of the spectrum. This is often because these watches target more niche use cases and have specialized features to help athletes and serious enthusiasts. They also have excellent battery life. As a brand, there is a lot to like about Garmin.

Which is your favorite smartwatch brand? Let us know!

We are approaching the 2024 Upfronts when the broadcast networks and several of the major streaming services announce their lineups for the upcoming season. There have already been quite a number of renewal and cancellation announcements over the last few weeks, and I expect plenty more as we head to mid-May when the biggest Upfront presentations occur. Following are the dates for several of the major players:

May 13, 9:00 AM – NBCUniversal

May 13, 3:00 PM – Fox Television

May 14, 9:00 AM – Amazon

May 14, 3:00 PM – Walt Disney

May 15, 9:00 AM – Warner Bros. Discovery

May 15, 1:00 PM – Netflix (Day 1)

May 15, 5:00 PM – YouTube

May 16, 1:00 PM – Netflix (Day 2)

(CBS/Paramount currently has no Upfront planned for 2024, though they should still unveil a preliminary 2024-25 schedule around that time.)

Not all cancellations and renewals will be announced by the time these providers have their presentations, but expect to hear the fate of many shows by that point. And this is where fans can make some noise and let these venues know by the time of the Upfronts what sci fi and fantasy shows should continue.

Below is a list of genre shows that have been cancelled or have ended this season along with all of the current shows that have not received a renewal or cancellation announcement yet. (You can see a rundown of all the cancelled, ending, and bubble shows from the 2023-24 season at this link.) This also includes some shows from the past season that have been cancelled but are still airing (Star Trek: Prodigy) as well as some heading into their final seasons next year (Star Trek: Lower Decks). And this includes shows that will be premiering/returning over the next month. Cast your vote for up to five shows that you believe should continue to another season.

The poll results will be shared with the networks and streaming services, and we have seen cases in the past where shows have been saved by fan support (Lucifer, The Expanse, Manifest). In addition, fans should make a Call to Action on the social networks to help support the shows that they believe should stick around for additional seasons. You can see the status of all the current sci fi and fantasy television shows at our Cancellation Watch Page, and be sure to stay tuned to this site and the Cancelled Sci Fi Twitter Site for breaking news and updates.

Note that shows like Shadow and Bone, Lockwood & Co., Warrior Nun, Fate: The Winx Saga, and Legends of Tomorrow are not included here because they are cancelled shows from past seasons.  Those and more will be appearing in the “Cancelled All-Stars” poll that will go up in June.  The Orville and Star Trek: Prodigy are included here because the former has not been officially cancelled yet and the latter could continue to a third season on Netflix.  This poll will close on May 15th at 11 PM EST.

For the weekly schedule of sci fi and fantasy shows along with news and the latest trailers, follow our Sci Fi TV Highlights posts.

Be sure to follow the Cancelled Sci Fi Twitter Site  for breaking news and updates. And for the latest news and discussions on sci fi and fantasy television, follow r/SciFiTV

Follow our Sci Fi TV Schedule for all the currently airing and upcoming sci fi and fantasy television shows, and you can see the premieres for all the upcoming genre entries at this link.

The post Vote to Save Superman & Lois, Quantum Leap, Scavengers Reign, Star Trek: Lower Decks, The Orville, and More appeared first on Cancelled Sci Fi.

While the smartwatch market is not as populated as the Android phone market, users still have a good variety of smartwatches to choose from. The options thin out a bit when you consider OS compatibility with your smartphone, but there are still plenty of decent options across OEMs.

That being said, all of us have our favorites. Smartwatches have been around for years, and most of us have already used them to form an informed opinion on what we like and dislike about them. Many of us have used multiple smartwatches, perhaps successors from the same OEM or jumping around OEMs and even OS options. We’re bound to have biases based on our likes and dislikes from our experiences, and that’s okay, as smartwatches are inherently personal products that serve both form and functional needs.

Every year, Google launches two flagship Pixel phones and they’re never made equal. However, there’s even more reason to be disappointed about the differences between the Pixel 8 and Pixel 8 Pro — Google’s current crop of premium Android handsets.

Just yesterday, we were told that the vanilla Pixel 8 model would not be getting one of the biggest attractions of the Pixel 8 Pro — the Gemini Nano AI model. It appears that Google will skip adding the on-device AI to the base Pixel 8 owing to some “hardware limitations.”

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) goes into effect in the European Union (EU) this week, forcing various big tech companies to adapt their platforms and services. Apple is one such company, and it’s been forced to make a number of changes to its iPhones in particular.

iPhones in the EU will need to offer alternative app stores, allow users to change their default web browser, and offer alternative billing solutions. These are the biggest tweaks to iOS we’ve seen in years. Unfortunately, these changes are limited to the EU.

A large majority of Americans—70 percent, according to the latest Gallup poll—support marijuana legalization, and that sentiment is especially strong among younger voters. Gallup found that 79 percent of 18-to-34-year-olds thought marijuana should be legal, compared to 64 percent of adults 55 or older. Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey found that support for legalization was inversely correlated with age. It therefore makes sense that President Joe Biden, who has generated little enthusiasm among Americans of any age group, would try to motivate young voters by touting his support for "marijuana reform."

The problem for Biden, a longtime drug warrior who is now presenting himself as a reformer, is that his position on marijuana falls far short of repealing federal prohibition, which is what most Americans say they want. His outreach attempts have clumsily obfuscated that point, as illustrated by a video that Vice President Kamala Harris posted on X (formerly Twitter) earlier this month.

"In 2020," Harris writes in her introduction, "young voters turned out in record numbers to make a difference. Let's do it again in 2024." The video highlights "the largest investment in climate action in history," cancellation of "$132 billion in student debt," "the first major gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years," and $7 billion in subsidies for historically black colleges and universities. Then Harris says this: "We changed federal marijuana policy, because nobody should have to go to jail just for smoking weed." That gloss is misleading in several ways.

Biden has not actually "changed federal marijuana policy." His two big moves in this area were a mass pardon for people convicted of simple possession under federal law and a directive that may soon result in moving marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, a category supposedly reserved for drugs with a high abuse potential and no recognized medical use that cannot be used safely even under a doctor's supervision, to Schedule III, which includes prescription drugs such as ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids.

Although Harris, echoing Biden, says "nobody should have to go to jail just for smoking weed," that rarely happens. Biden's pardons, which excluded people convicted of growing or distributing marijuana, did not free a single prisoner, and they applied to a tiny fraction of possession cases, which are typically prosecuted under state law.

When he announced the pardons in October 2022, Biden noted that "criminal records for marijuana possession" create "needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities." But his pardons do not remove those barriers. They do not entail expungement of marijuana records, which is currently not possible under federal law. The certificates that pardon recipients can obtain might carry weight with landlords or employers, but there is no guarantee of that.

Biden's pardons also did not change federal law, which still treats simple marijuana possession as a misdemeanor punishable by a minimum $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail. So people can still be arrested for marijuana possession under federal law, even if they are unlikely to serve time for that offense (which would be true with or without Biden's pardons). The pardons that Biden announced on October 6, 2022, applied only to offenses committed "on or before the date of this proclamation." When he expanded those pardons on December 22, 2023, that became the new cutoff.

Marijuana use still can disqualify people from federal housing and food assistance. Under immigration law, marijuana convictions are still a bar to admission, legal residence, and citizenship. And cannabis consumers, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana, are still prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 USC 922(g)(3), which applies to any "unlawful user" of a "controlled substance."

The Biden administration has stubbornly defended that last policy against Second Amendment challenges in federal court, where government lawyers have likened cannabis consumers to dangerous criminals and "lunatics." Worse, Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022, which increased the maximum prison sentence for marijuana users who own guns from 10 years to 15 years and created a new potential charge against them, which likewise can be punished by up to 15 years behind bars. This is the very same law that Harris touts as "the first major gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years."

Biden, in short, has neither "decriminalize[d] the use of marijuana" nor "automatically expunge[d] all marijuana use convictions," as Harris promised on the campaign trail. Both of those steps would require congressional action that Biden has done little to promote.

What about rescheduling? A recent poll commissioned by the Coalition for Cannabis Scheduling Reform, Marijuana Moment reports, found that "voters' impression of the president jumped a net 11 points" after they were informed about "the implications of the rescheduling review that the president initiated." That included "an 11-point favorability swing among young voters 18-25," who "will be critical to his reelection bid."

But let's not get too excited. Since rescheduling has not happened yet, it is not true that Biden "changed federal marijuana policy" in this area either. And assuming that the Drug Enforcement Administration moves marijuana to Schedule III, as the Department of Health and Human Services recommended last August in response to Biden's directive, the practical impact would be limited. Rescheduling would facilitate medical research, and it would allow state-licensed marijuana suppliers to deduct business expenses when they file their federal tax returns, which is currently prohibited under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code.

Even after rescheduling, however, marijuana businesses would remain criminal enterprises under federal law, which makes it hard for them to obtain financial services and exposes them to the risk of prosecution and asset forfeiture. For businesses that serve recreational consumers, prosecutorial discretion is the only protection against that risk. Cannabis consumers would still have no legally recognized right to own guns, and people who work in the cannabis industry would still face other disabilities under federal law, including life-disrupting consequences for immigrants. Rescheduling would not even make marijuana legally available as a prescription medicine, which would require approval of specific products by the Food and Drug Administration.

In response to overwhelming public support for marijuana legalization, in other words, Biden has made modest moves that leave federal prohibition essentially untouched. While he does not have the authority to unilaterally deschedule marijuana, he cannot even bring himself to support legislation that would do that. Why not?

During the 2020 campaign, Biden echoed seven decades of anti-pot propaganda, saying he was worried that marijuana might be a "gateway" to other, more dangerous drugs. "The truth of the matter is, there's not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug," he said. "It's a debate, and I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally. I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it….It is not irrational to do more scientific investigation to determine, which we have not done significantly enough, whether or not there are any things that relate to whether it's a gateway drug or not."

After Biden took office, his press secretary confirmed that his thinking had not changed. "He spoke about this on the campaign," she said. "He believes in decriminalizing the use of marijuana, but his position has not changed."

Biden's rationale for opposing legalization is the same line of argument that Harry J. Anslinger, who headed the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962, began pushing in the early 1950s after retreating from his oft-reiterated claim that marijuana causes murderous madness. "Over 50 percent of those young [heroin] addicts started on marijuana smoking," he told a congressional committee in 1951. "They started there and graduated to heroin; they took the needle when the thrill of marijuana was gone."

Anslinger reiterated that point four years later, when he testified in favor of stricter penalties for marijuana offenses. "While we are discussing marijuana," a senator said, "the real danger there is that the use of marijuana leads many people eventually to the use of heroin." Anslinger agreed: "That is the great problem and our great concern about the use of marijuana, that eventually if used over a long period, it does lead to heroin addiction."

Since then, a great deal of research has examined this issue, which is complicated by confounding variables that make the distinction between correlation and causation elusive. Biden nevertheless thinks "more scientific investigation" will reach a definitive conclusion. If he won't support legalization until we know for sure whether marijuana is a "gateway drug," he will never support legalization.

The supposedly reformed drug warrior's intransigence on this issue poses an obvious challenge for Harris, a belated legalization supporter who is trying to persuade voters who take the same view that Biden is simpatico. Marijuana Moment reports that Harris' staff recently has been reaching out to marijuana pardon recipients, "seeking assurance that the Justice Department certification process is going smoothly and engaging in broader discussions about cannabis policy reform."

According to Chris Goldstein, a marijuana activist who was pardoned for a 2014 possession conviction, the vice president's people get it. Goldstein was "surprised by how up to speed and nice everybody was," he told Marijuana Moment. "Her staff really did know the difference between rescheduling [and] descheduling, and they were interested to talk about it."

No doubt Biden also understands the difference. The problem is that he supports the former but not the latter, which he rejects for Anslinger-esque reasons. Cheery campaign videos cannot disguise that reality.

The post Biden Is Trying To Motivate Voters Who Oppose Pot Prohibition. Maybe He Should Stop Supporting It. appeared first on Reason.com.