×
Do your digital due diligence this EOFY

Do your digital due diligence this EOFY

Tech-news

The End Of the Financial Year (EOFY) is almost upon us. For many, it conjures images of sorting through receipts, fumbling through tax terminology, and the sweet relief of a tax return. But while you’re busy wrangling your finances, have you considered another crucial aspect of your fiscal year? Your digital well-being.

Just as you meticulously track your expenses and investments, now is the perfect time to also take stock of your online security. Whether you’ve got a family at home or you’re running a small business, our devices are the gateways of communication, commerce, and connection. And as so, it needs robust protection. This EOFY presents a perfect time to conduct a thorough assessment of your digital security.

So read up on our tips, and have a think about whether or not you’re currently doing your digital due diligence!

Essential digital security for families

Modern households with multiple connected devices are big potential targets for cyber threats. Diverse online activities such as social media, education, gaming,entertainment, and financial transactions necessitate a comprehensive approach to digital safety.

  • Secure Your Devices: Each connected device in your home network can be a gateway for cyberattacks. Ensure all devices, including laptops, tablets, smartphones, and gaming consoles, have updated operating systems and security software installed. Regularly review the security settings on each device.

  • Parental Controls: The internet offers numerous benefits for children but also exposes them to risks. Utilise parental control features available on your operating systems, routers, or third-party software to filter inappropriate content, manage screen time, and monitor online activity. Most importantly, educate kids about safe online practices.

  • Backup Important Data: Irreplaceable digital assets like family photos and important documents should be backed up regularly to a separate, secure location. Consider using a combination of local external drives and cloud-based backup services to protect against data loss from hardware failure or cyberattacks.

Essential digital security for small businesses

A secure digital environment is crucial for business continuity and the protection of sensitive data for small businesses. You need to get ahead of things, proactive security measures are vital.

  • Strong Authentication: Protect access to your business systems and data by using strong, unique passwords for all accounts. Enable multi-factor authentication (MFA) wherever possible, adding an extra layer of security beyond just a password.

  • Secure Your Network Infrastructure: Ensure your business Wi-Fi network is secured with a strong password and the latest encryption protocols (e.g., WPA3). Consider segmenting your network to isolate sensitive data and limit the impact of a potential breach. Regularly update your router’s firmware.

  • Educate Employees on Cybersecurity: Human error is a significant factor in many security incidents. Conduct regular training for employees on topics such as identifying phishing emails, creating strong passwords, handling sensitive data, and recognising social engineering attempts.

  • Develop an Incident Response Plan: Prepare for the possibility of a security incident by creating a plan outlining the steps to take in case of a breach. This plan should include procedures for identifying, containing, eradicating, and recovering from an attack.

General tips for digital due diligence this EOFY

Regardless of whether you are a family or a small business, consider these general tips as part of your EOFY digital check-up:

  • Review Software and App Permissions: Take some time to review the permissions granted to the software and apps installed on your devices. Revoke access that seems unnecessary or suspicious.

  • Update Everything: Ensure all operating systems, software applications, and firmware on your devices are up to date. Updates often include critical security patches that address known vulnerabilities.

  • Be Vigilant Against Phishing: Exercise caution when opening emails, clicking on links, or downloading attachments from unknown or suspicious sources. Phishing attacks are a common method used by cybercriminals to steal sensitive information.

  • Consider a Security Solution: Evaluate the benefits of a comprehensive internet security solution that provides features such as antivirus protection, firewall, anti-phishing, and potentially a VPN for enhanced privacy. For most everyday uses, can recommend Bitdefender Total Security.

Our pick: Bitdefender

Bitdefender offers a range of security products tailored to different budgets and needs:

  • Bitdefender Total Security: A comprehensive solution providing cross-platform protection for multiple devices. Includes limited VPN traffic (200 MB/day/device) for basic privacy enhancement.

  • Bitdefender Premium Security: Builds upon Total Security with the inclusion of unlimited VPN traffic and Scamio Copilot, an integrated tool designed to identify and mitigate scam attempts.

  • Bitdefender Ultimate Security: The most comprehensive offering, encompassing all features of Premium Security, along with Digital Identity Protection, Dark Web Monitoring, and Real-Time Breach Notifications for proactive management of personal information security.

Digital safety is a year-round job

So, as you’re finishing up your tax stuff this EOFY, don’t forget to do your digital due diligence. Make sure your family and your business are protected by a reliable security solution, and take advantage of both EOFY deals, and timing around your refund. Bitdefender offers the comprehensive protection you need to navigate the online world with confidence. It’s an investment that certainly pays off in peace of mind and keeping your important digital stuff safe. Put it on your EOFY to-do list this year, and your future self will thank you for it.

Source link
#digital #due #diligence #EOFY

Related Posts

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) intends to renew its contract with a subsidiary of data broker giant Thomson Reuters at a rate of up to $25 million per year for up to five years in order to accommodate an urgent, “multiplied” demand for data that can identify “unaccompanied minors” as well as anyone involved with “any type of fraud of government funds,” according to a document published in a federal contract register on Tuesday.

“Due to ICE’s re-prioritized mission,” the document reads, “there is a need for the data to be readily accessible to support the presidential mandate of the identification of Voters fraud, Immigration Fraud, and National Security.”

The document does not explain why ICE would need to identify unaccompanied minors, which is typically the remit of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or how Thomson Reuters’ data would be used to combat voter fraud or immigration fraud. When reached for comment, Thomson Reuters spokesperson Kat Hanley tells WIRED that its identification work for ICE may include “vetting the sponsors of children entering the country” to ensure the children’s “welfare and safety.”

The annual payment of $25 million marks a dramatic increase in the value of Thomson Reuters’ work with ICE. The previous equivalent contract was worth $24 million total over a five-year period.

Though ICE has been buying data from Thomson Reuters since 2008, the contract justification indicates that the Trump administration hopes to expand the scope of how Thomson Reuters data is used by federal immigration officials. It is yet another indicator of the ever-expanding reach of President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims in the document that Thomson Reuters Special Services (TRSS) is “the only contractor” that can provide “continuous monitoring of up to one million individuals and entities” with “event-driven monitoring,” “real-time alerts,” and “model-based risk scoring.” The document did not provide examples of said events or risks.

The contract would maintain ICE’s access to several proprietary Thomson Reuters databases, the document says. One of these databases is the Consolidated Lead Evaluation and Reporting (CLEAR), which provides access to public records and “license plate reader data,” which is sourced from on-road-based surveillance cameras that can read license plates. Since 2017, Thomson Reuters has sourced this data from Vigilant Solutions, an automated license plate reader company that is now owned by Motorola.

Another Thomson Reuters database named in the document is the Continuous Alerting Batch Solution (CABS), which ICE says pulls records about individuals who were recently incarcerated or came into contact with law enforcement, including “real-time alerting on last known location data.”

The contract would also maintain ICE’s access to Westlaw, Thomson Reuters’s court records database. ICE will also have access to Real Time Incarceration and Arrest Records (RTIA and Thomson Reuters Special Services Entity Authority (TEA), which feeds into a “risk intelligence” platform called RAPID, according to Thomson Reuters’s website.

The software bundle that Thomson Reuters sells to ICE, the document claims, enables the agency to conduct “continuous monitoring,” “court document retrieval,” “risk assessments,” and “academic risk flagging.” The document does not explain what constitutes an academic risk.

Representatives for ICE, DHS, and HHS did not respond to requests for comment. A White House spokesperson referred WIRED to DHS and ICE.

Unaccompanied minors, children who arrive in the US alone, are not the purview of ICE. Care for these children is overseen by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is under the umbrella of HHS and operates independently from immigration enforcement. However, in February last year, ICE agents were granted further access to the database that ORR uses to track unaccompanied minors.

#ICE #Data #Broker #Tools #Identify #Unaccompanied #Minors #Fraudimmigration and customs enforcement,department of homeland security,privacy,politics,donald trump,data,data brokers">ICE Is Using Data Broker Tools to ‘Identify Unaccompanied Minors’ and ‘Fraud’Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) intends to renew its contract with a subsidiary of data broker giant Thomson Reuters at a rate of up to million per year for up to five years in order to accommodate an urgent, “multiplied” demand for data that can identify “unaccompanied minors” as well as anyone involved with “any type of fraud of government funds,” according to a document published in a federal contract register on Tuesday.“Due to ICE’s re-prioritized mission,” the document reads, “there is a need for the data to be readily accessible to support the presidential mandate of the identification of Voters fraud, Immigration Fraud, and National Security.”The document does not explain why ICE would need to identify unaccompanied minors, which is typically the remit of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or how Thomson Reuters’ data would be used to combat voter fraud or immigration fraud. When reached for comment, Thomson Reuters spokesperson Kat Hanley tells WIRED that its identification work for ICE may include “vetting the sponsors of children entering the country” to ensure the children’s “welfare and safety.”The annual payment of million marks a dramatic increase in the value of Thomson Reuters’ work with ICE. The previous equivalent contract was worth million total over a five-year period.Though ICE has been buying data from Thomson Reuters since 2008, the contract justification indicates that the Trump administration hopes to expand the scope of how Thomson Reuters data is used by federal immigration officials. It is yet another indicator of the ever-expanding reach of President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims in the document that Thomson Reuters Special Services (TRSS) is “the only contractor” that can provide “continuous monitoring of up to one million individuals and entities” with “event-driven monitoring,” “real-time alerts,” and “model-based risk scoring.” The document did not provide examples of said events or risks.The contract would maintain ICE’s access to several proprietary Thomson Reuters databases, the document says. One of these databases is the Consolidated Lead Evaluation and Reporting (CLEAR), which provides access to public records and “license plate reader data,” which is sourced from on-road-based surveillance cameras that can read license plates. Since 2017, Thomson Reuters has sourced this data from Vigilant Solutions, an automated license plate reader company that is now owned by Motorola.Another Thomson Reuters database named in the document is the Continuous Alerting Batch Solution (CABS), which ICE says pulls records about individuals who were recently incarcerated or came into contact with law enforcement, including “real-time alerting on last known location data.”The contract would also maintain ICE’s access to Westlaw, Thomson Reuters’s court records database. ICE will also have access to Real Time Incarceration and Arrest Records (RTIA and Thomson Reuters Special Services Entity Authority (TEA), which feeds into a “risk intelligence” platform called RAPID, according to Thomson Reuters’s website.The software bundle that Thomson Reuters sells to ICE, the document claims, enables the agency to conduct “continuous monitoring,” “court document retrieval,” “risk assessments,” and “academic risk flagging.” The document does not explain what constitutes an academic risk.Representatives for ICE, DHS, and HHS did not respond to requests for comment. A White House spokesperson referred WIRED to DHS and ICE.Unaccompanied minors, children who arrive in the US alone, are not the purview of ICE. Care for these children is overseen by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is under the umbrella of HHS and operates independently from immigration enforcement. However, in February last year, ICE agents were granted further access to the database that ORR uses to track unaccompanied minors.#ICE #Data #Broker #Tools #Identify #Unaccompanied #Minors #Fraudimmigration and customs enforcement,department of homeland security,privacy,politics,donald trump,data,data brokers

data broker giant Thomson Reuters at a rate of up to $25 million per year for up to five years in order to accommodate an urgent, “multiplied” demand for data that can identify “unaccompanied minors” as well as anyone involved with “any type of fraud of government funds,” according to a document published in a federal contract register on Tuesday.

“Due to ICE’s re-prioritized mission,” the document reads, “there is a need for the data to be readily accessible to support the presidential mandate of the identification of Voters fraud, Immigration Fraud, and National Security.”

The document does not explain why ICE would need to identify unaccompanied minors, which is typically the remit of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or how Thomson Reuters’ data would be used to combat voter fraud or immigration fraud. When reached for comment, Thomson Reuters spokesperson Kat Hanley tells WIRED that its identification work for ICE may include “vetting the sponsors of children entering the country” to ensure the children’s “welfare and safety.”

The annual payment of $25 million marks a dramatic increase in the value of Thomson Reuters’ work with ICE. The previous equivalent contract was worth $24 million total over a five-year period.

Though ICE has been buying data from Thomson Reuters since 2008, the contract justification indicates that the Trump administration hopes to expand the scope of how Thomson Reuters data is used by federal immigration officials. It is yet another indicator of the ever-expanding reach of President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims in the document that Thomson Reuters Special Services (TRSS) is “the only contractor” that can provide “continuous monitoring of up to one million individuals and entities” with “event-driven monitoring,” “real-time alerts,” and “model-based risk scoring.” The document did not provide examples of said events or risks.

The contract would maintain ICE’s access to several proprietary Thomson Reuters databases, the document says. One of these databases is the Consolidated Lead Evaluation and Reporting (CLEAR), which provides access to public records and “license plate reader data,” which is sourced from on-road-based surveillance cameras that can read license plates. Since 2017, Thomson Reuters has sourced this data from Vigilant Solutions, an automated license plate reader company that is now owned by Motorola.

Another Thomson Reuters database named in the document is the Continuous Alerting Batch Solution (CABS), which ICE says pulls records about individuals who were recently incarcerated or came into contact with law enforcement, including “real-time alerting on last known location data.”

The contract would also maintain ICE’s access to Westlaw, Thomson Reuters’s court records database. ICE will also have access to Real Time Incarceration and Arrest Records (RTIA and Thomson Reuters Special Services Entity Authority (TEA), which feeds into a “risk intelligence” platform called RAPID, according to Thomson Reuters’s website.

The software bundle that Thomson Reuters sells to ICE, the document claims, enables the agency to conduct “continuous monitoring,” “court document retrieval,” “risk assessments,” and “academic risk flagging.” The document does not explain what constitutes an academic risk.

Representatives for ICE, DHS, and HHS did not respond to requests for comment. A White House spokesperson referred WIRED to DHS and ICE.

Unaccompanied minors, children who arrive in the US alone, are not the purview of ICE. Care for these children is overseen by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is under the umbrella of HHS and operates independently from immigration enforcement. However, in February last year, ICE agents were granted further access to the database that ORR uses to track unaccompanied minors.

#ICE #Data #Broker #Tools #Identify #Unaccompanied #Minors #Fraudimmigration and customs enforcement,department of homeland security,privacy,politics,donald trump,data,data brokers">ICE Is Using Data Broker Tools to ‘Identify Unaccompanied Minors’ and ‘Fraud’

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) intends to renew its contract with a subsidiary of data broker giant Thomson Reuters at a rate of up to $25 million per year for up to five years in order to accommodate an urgent, “multiplied” demand for data that can identify “unaccompanied minors” as well as anyone involved with “any type of fraud of government funds,” according to a document published in a federal contract register on Tuesday.

“Due to ICE’s re-prioritized mission,” the document reads, “there is a need for the data to be readily accessible to support the presidential mandate of the identification of Voters fraud, Immigration Fraud, and National Security.”

The document does not explain why ICE would need to identify unaccompanied minors, which is typically the remit of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or how Thomson Reuters’ data would be used to combat voter fraud or immigration fraud. When reached for comment, Thomson Reuters spokesperson Kat Hanley tells WIRED that its identification work for ICE may include “vetting the sponsors of children entering the country” to ensure the children’s “welfare and safety.”

The annual payment of $25 million marks a dramatic increase in the value of Thomson Reuters’ work with ICE. The previous equivalent contract was worth $24 million total over a five-year period.

Though ICE has been buying data from Thomson Reuters since 2008, the contract justification indicates that the Trump administration hopes to expand the scope of how Thomson Reuters data is used by federal immigration officials. It is yet another indicator of the ever-expanding reach of President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims in the document that Thomson Reuters Special Services (TRSS) is “the only contractor” that can provide “continuous monitoring of up to one million individuals and entities” with “event-driven monitoring,” “real-time alerts,” and “model-based risk scoring.” The document did not provide examples of said events or risks.

The contract would maintain ICE’s access to several proprietary Thomson Reuters databases, the document says. One of these databases is the Consolidated Lead Evaluation and Reporting (CLEAR), which provides access to public records and “license plate reader data,” which is sourced from on-road-based surveillance cameras that can read license plates. Since 2017, Thomson Reuters has sourced this data from Vigilant Solutions, an automated license plate reader company that is now owned by Motorola.

Another Thomson Reuters database named in the document is the Continuous Alerting Batch Solution (CABS), which ICE says pulls records about individuals who were recently incarcerated or came into contact with law enforcement, including “real-time alerting on last known location data.”

The contract would also maintain ICE’s access to Westlaw, Thomson Reuters’s court records database. ICE will also have access to Real Time Incarceration and Arrest Records (RTIA and Thomson Reuters Special Services Entity Authority (TEA), which feeds into a “risk intelligence” platform called RAPID, according to Thomson Reuters’s website.

The software bundle that Thomson Reuters sells to ICE, the document claims, enables the agency to conduct “continuous monitoring,” “court document retrieval,” “risk assessments,” and “academic risk flagging.” The document does not explain what constitutes an academic risk.

Representatives for ICE, DHS, and HHS did not respond to requests for comment. A White House spokesperson referred WIRED to DHS and ICE.

Unaccompanied minors, children who arrive in the US alone, are not the purview of ICE. Care for these children is overseen by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is under the umbrella of HHS and operates independently from immigration enforcement. However, in February last year, ICE agents were granted further access to the database that ORR uses to track unaccompanied minors.

#ICE #Data #Broker #Tools #Identify #Unaccompanied #Minors #Fraudimmigration and customs enforcement,department of homeland security,privacy,politics,donald trump,data,data brokers

SAVE $700: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.

$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon">Robot lawn mower deal: This coupon knocks 0 off the Hookii Neomow X at Amazon SAVE 0: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just ,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or 0 off its list price of ,199. ,499 at Amazon ,199 Save 0 *with on-page coupon* If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks 0 off the Hookii Neomow X. As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just ,499 from its usual ,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool. Mashable Deals By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation. Mashable Deals By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s 0 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price. #Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon

Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.

$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon">Robot lawn mower deal: This coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X at Amazon

SAVE $700: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.

$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon

The Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space">The war on ‘woke science’ comes for space researchThe Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary SocietyFor more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”— Casey DreierThis is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Georgina TorbetCloseGeorgina TorbetPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Georgina TorbetNewsCloseNewsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All NewsPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyPoliticsClosePoliticsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PoliticsScienceCloseSciencePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ScienceSpaceCloseSpacePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Space#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space

culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space">The war on ‘woke science’ comes for space research

The Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space

Post Comment