Sonos, maker of quality audio kit and some of the best wireless speakers out there, has released a new mobile app for connecting and controlling Sonos devices – but not everyone is happy with the change.
A large number of users are complaining about the new companion app, which was substantially redesigned after years of “extensive user research” and released to iOS and Android users on May 7 alongside a new browser application for desktop. App marketplaces have been flooded with one-star reviews since the new version dropped.
Here’s how Sonos’ social accounts describe the app: “A fresh look. Quicker access to your music. Easier control.” It’s meant to offer a simpler interface that’s more customizable to each user, offering something of a reset from previous versions of the app.
And here’s how a post on the Sonos subreddit with 700 upvotes describes it: “they royally screwed up.”
Sonos has since responded with an official statement to The Verge, from Maxime Bouvat-Merlin, chief product officer. “Redesigning the Sonos app is an ambitious undertaking that represents just how seriously we are committed to invention and re-invention … It takes courage to rebuild a brand’s core product from the ground up, and to do so knowing it may require taking a few steps back to ultimately leap into the future.”
The company has also reached out to members of r/Sonos subreddit, where most of the unhappy discussion has been happening (along with some in the TechRadar email inbox), to explain that feedback is being discussed internally and to solicit more feedback. “These team conversations have been tough, but ultimately very helpful in highlighting the features and functionality that are most important to you,” says community manager KeithFromSonos.
So, if you’re one of the people affected by the missing features (more on these below), be sure to take your opportunity to be heard (hopefully).
Get the hottest deals available in your inbox plus news, reviews, opinion, analysis and more from the TechRadar team.
So, what went wrong? There are many reports of bugs and apps not loading properly, but the most common complaints appear to be about small missing features that people relied on, such as sleep timers, alarms and specific numbers for volume control – with users claiming they’re either well hidden or entirely absent from the app. (For what it’s worth, I couldn’t find them in my Android app. And this is my job.)
Given people use alarms to, you know, wake up on time and get to their jobs, this seems like a risky thing to remove suddenly as a feature in case someone was caught unawares.
The new app also doesn’t allow users to edit their song queue, which is such a core aspect of music streaming today that its absence is a little shocking – even if Sonos intends to add it back in later.
The redesign is certainly sleek, with all those rounded edges beloved of UI designers these days, and there’s a permanent ‘now playing’ menu, which takes up a notable portion of the screen. It’s worth noting that some users are happy, or less affected by certain features having changed, and Sonos’ aim of simplifying the UI, and bringing important information together at a single glance, is clear from the new software.
Releasing a new application is often fraught, and we live in a time when companies are pressured to release fast and improve through successive updates, rather than getting everything out the door in the first instance. However, when you already have a substantial user base who are used to an app and family of devices in a certain way, removing those features is unlikely to ever go down well.
It feels like a beta iteration of the app, with Sonos acknowledging that the limited feature set will be gradually added in the future. In the case of that message, screen reader support is another very significant feature to have left behind.
But the promise of future updates at some point are little consolation for people finding their home audio setup is suddenly dumber than before. We’ve reached out to Sonos for comment on what kind of timelines to expect for features to be added and will update you if more information comes through.
We recommend holding off on the update for now if you’re more than a casual user of your Sonos system, as there’s no way to undo it. (Perhaps Sonos could allow the previous S2 app to become available as a separate download – this would provide a great bridge while things get ironed out.) And if you have updated already, we recommend setting up an alarm somewhere else. However, the app does feature dark mode, so at least it’ll get you in the right frame of mind before bed.
The new iPad Pro and iPad Air models unveiled this week do not include Apple stickers in the box, as a result of Apple’s commitment to removing all plastic from its product packaging, according to an Apple Store memo obtained by 9to5Mac.
If you really want a sticker, the report said you can still ask an employee for one while purchasing a new iPad Pro or iPad Air at an Apple Store.
Apple also does not include stickers with the Vision Pro headset, but the new MacBook Air models released in March do come with them, so it appears that Apple is still in the process of gradually phasing out Apple stickers in the box for its latest products.
Apple previously announced that it aimed to achieve plastic-free packaging by 2025.
Apple today unveiled redesigned iPad Pro models featuring the M4 chip, Ultra Retina XDR OLED displays, a nano-texture display option, and more. The new iPad Pro offers a considerably thinner design and slightly larger 11- and 13-inch display size options. The 11-inch model is 5.3mm thick and weighs less than a pound, while the 13-inch model is just 5.1mm thick and weighs a quarter pound less …
Apple’s “Let Loose” event kicks off today at the unusual time of 7:00 a.m. Pacific Time, and we’re expecting to see an iPad-focused event with new iPad Pro and iPad Air models, updated Apple Pencil and Magic Keyboard accessories, and perhaps some other announcements. Apple is providing a live video stream on its website, on YouTube, and in the company’s TV app across various platforms. We…
Apple today announced that iOS 17.5 will be released to the public “soon,” following over a month of beta testing. While the software update is relatively minor, it does have a few new features and changes, as outlined in the list below. “The new Pride Radiance watch face and iPhone and iPad wallpapers will be available soon with watchOS 10.5, iOS 17.5, and iPadOS 17.5,” said Apple, in its…
Apple at its “Let Loose” event today announced a new Magic Keyboard for the latest iPad Pro models, with a thinner, lighter design. Apple says the Magic Keyboard has been redesigned to be thinner and lighter, while maintaing the same floating design. Two colors are available that match the new iPad Pro. New features include a function row with screen brightness controls, an aluminum…
Apple today held the first event of 2024, debuting new iPad Air and iPad Pro models and accompanying accessories. While the event was faster than normal and took 40 minutes, we’ve condensed it down even further for those who want a quick overview of everything that was announced. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. We’ve also got a full recap of all of the coverage…
While the iPhone 16 series is still months away from launching, an early rumor about an all-new iPhone 17 model has now surfaced. In a research note with investment firm Haitong this week, analyst Jeff Pu said Apple is planning a so-called “iPhone 17 Slim” model that would replace the Plus model in the lineup. Pu said this model will feature around a 6.6-inch display, a slimmer design, an…
If you’ve been holding off for the chance to save a few dollars on a Nintendo Switch Pro Controller, then now is the time to act.
Currently available for just $62.75 (was $69.99) at Walmart, this saving of $7.24 might not look like a lot on paper but it’s worth bearing in mind that this official gamepad hasn’t received many major price cuts in the past. In fact, this modest saving is beating out the lowest-ever Amazon price of $64.
If the Nintendo Pro Controller is still outside of your budget, however, consider the PowerA Enhanced Wireless Controller as a cheaper alternative. It’s available on sale for just $38.53 (was $59.99) at Amazon which, while not the lowest-ever price, is a solid saving.
Nintendo has confirmed that a Nintendo Switch successor will be announced before March 31 next year, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not a good time to pick up some Nintendo Switch accessories.
The latest Nintendo Switch 2 rumors suggest that the upcoming console will support certain peripherals through backwards compatibility. Although this isn’t officially confirmed, it makes this ongoing discount on the Nintendo Switch Pro Controller worth considering.
Today’s best Nintendo Switch Pro Controller deal
We consider the Nintendo Switch Pro Controller to be one of the best Nintendo Switch controllers on the market. It boasts an incredible battery life, which often sees it lasting about 50 hours between charges, and boasts a range of hardware features like an NFC reader and HD Rumble. We awarded the controller a four-and-a-half star rating out of five in our Nintendo Switch Pro Controller review, highlighting its comfortable design and intuitive layout.
The only real downside of the Nintendo Switch Pro Controller is its relatively high asking price. While this discount means that it stings a little less, be sure to browse some of the best prices on a range of Nintendo Switch controllers in your region below.
You’ve probably seen the headlines: battery EV sales are slowing down, and PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicle) sales are hot; the DC fast charging infrastructure isn’t good enough for road trips, so you should drive a PHEV; battery EVs aren’t ready for prime time, but PHEV are the best of both worlds. I’m here to tell you that it’s all nonsense. Battery EVs are better today than ever, while PHEVs are full of compromises.
Before we dive into why PHEVs are generally a bad idea, here’s a quick disclaimer. I’ve been driving battery EVs for six years now (I’ve owned two Tesla Model 3s back-to-back), and as a car journalist, I’ve tested almost every battery EV available in the US over the last decade, plus my fair share of PHEVs. Since 2018, I’ve been doing road trips in battery EVs multiple times a year all over the Western US.
Because I live in an apartment, I have to park on the street, and I can’t charge at home. I’m also a car enthusiast, and I prefer sporty vehicles that perform and handle well. Obviously, I’m not the average consumer. We all have different priorities, different budgets, and different comfort levels around change. And yes, the EV charging infrastructure isn’t evenly distributed yet. But if you’re looking at PHEVs right now, hear me out.
What are PHEVs?
What are PHEVs (plug-in hybrid electric vehicles)? In a nutshell, PHEVs are hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles that can be plugged into a power outlet. Unlike regular hybrids, which require gasoline and are basically ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles outfitted with a small battery and electric motor to improve fuel efficiency, PHEVs usually feature a larger battery, plus a charging port (just like battery EVs).
The inconvenient truth is that at the core, PHEVs are still basically gas cars.
PHEVs typically have an EV-only range of up to 40 miles, after which the ICE kicks in and they behave like regular hybrids – fuel-efficient gasoline vehicles. This means you can plug your PHEV into a power outlet every night and drive up to 40 miles a day on electricity without using a drop of gas. And since the average American drives less than 40 miles per day, a PHEV makes it possible to drive 100% electric every day.
Then, if you need to drive farther – like on a road trip – you can fall back on good ole’ dino juice (gasoline), so you don’t have to deal with finding one of those pesky DC fast charging stations or – god forbid – waiting 20 minutes for a charge every 2-3 hours. Plus, your PHEV probably has a gasoline range of over 400 miles. Suck it, battery EVs! Sounds ideal, right? Unfortunately, it’s not. PHEVs are the worst of both worlds.
PHEVs are still gas vehicles
The exhaust pipe on the Lincoln Corsair PHEV is a dead giveaway. (Image credit: Myriam Joire)
The inconvenient truth is that at the core, PHEVs are still basically gas cars. Sure, they also include a small EV drivetrain, but they are based on the same platform as their hybrid and gasoline twins, with the same packaging and safety compromises. So, unlike most battery EVs, which are built on a bespoke platform, PHEVs don’t have a frunk (front trunk), or a flat floor, or anywhere near the same amount of interior space.
Get the hottest deals available in your inbox plus news, reviews, opinion, analysis and more from the TechRadar team.
With an ICE (internal combustion engine) under the hood, you don’t benefit from the low center of mass, near 50/50 weight distribution, and massive front crumple zone offered by most battery EVs. This makes PHEVs worse in terms of active (handling) and passive (crash) safety. Also, most PHEVs (even AWD ones) are based on a FWD (front-wheel drive) architecture, so driving dynamics are inherently compromised.
Then, there’s maintenance. While battery EVs basically just need new tires, new wiper blades, and wiper fluid refills, PHEVs require the same maintenance as other gas cars – regular fluid changes (oil, coolant, and transmission), plus tune-ups and emissions tests. So, with PHEVs, you don’t benefit from the same maintenance savings as battery EVs – other than reduced brake wear from regenerative braking.
PHEVs are lackluster EVs
As I mentioned above most battery EVs are built from the ground up on a bespoke platform – typically a “skateboard” with the motor(s) and electronics located between the front and rear wheels, and a large battery pack mounted in the floor between the front and rear axles. Thanks to the battery’s low center of mass and the motors’ high torque, the vast majority of battery EVs deliver better handling and acceleration than PHEVs.
When driving on electricity alone, PHEVs are hampered by a smaller battery and electric motor than battery EVs, plus the weight of the unused ICE (internal combustion engine) and other related components. For maximum performance, PHEVs must combine their electric motor and ICE, and thus burn gas. Plus, most PHEVs lack the regenerative braking settings and one-pedal driving modes that make battery EVs such a pleasure to drive.
Thanks to the battery’s low center of mass and the motors’ high torque, the vast majority of battery EVs deliver better handling and acceleration than PHEVs.
To make matters worse, PHEVs are not significantly lighter or more affordable than similar battery EVs. For example, let’s compare a popular PHEV – the Toyota RAV4 Prime – with the world’s best-selling car – the Tesla Model Y. Both are crossovers, and both are about the same size. As of writing, the RAV4 Prime weighs 4,235lbs and costs $43,690, while the Model Y weighs 4,154lbs and costs $42,990. So why even bother with PHEVs?
PHEVs require home charging to make sense
Another important thing to consider is that you must be able to charge PHEVs at home (or at work) to make them worthwhile. If you never (or rarely) plug your PHEV into a power outlet to charge it, you’re just basically driving around in a heavier-than-normal hybrid with worse fuel efficiency than a regular hybrid. While it’s less expensive to charge at home than at most public chargers, it’s not a requirement for battery EVs.
I know plenty of battery EV owners who live in an apartment and can’t charge at home (myself included). Unlike PHEVs, most battery EVs have a range of 250 miles or more, so you don’t need to charge them every day. Plus, DC fast charging is rapidly becoming more plentiful and more reliable now that most EV manufacturers are adding support for Tesla’s vast Supercharger network to their battery EVs.
This evolving EV charging landscape is also why battery EVs are becoming more viable than ever for road trips, making PHEVs even less relevant.
PHEVs aren’t the answer
Ultimately, PHEVs are still ICE vehicles. They must burn gas and pollute the air just like hybrids and gas cars once their 40-mile EV-only range is depleted. Climate change is real. Do you want to continue being a part of the problem? Do you really want to continue spewing toxic gasses – in communities outside of your own, no less – because you can’t give up the comforting glow of gas stations during road trips? Yes, I am judging you.
“But wait” I hear you say “I plan to plug my PHEV into a power outlet every night and drive up to 40 miles a day on electricity without using a drop of gas.” Good for you. But then, why don’t you just buy a battery EV? Even a Nissan Leaf with just 150 miles of range will get the job done, and you won’t be wasting electricity to lug around a heavy ICE (internal combustion engine), gas tank, muffler, and related paraphernalia.
So, forget PHEVs – they aren’t the answer. Battery EVs are viable today, and the sooner we all get on board, the better. It’s time to commit! Go battery EV or go home.
Google has a big change in store for ChromeOS users: a new default font for the operating system, which will replace Roboto as the go-to typeface on all Chrome devices.
The new default font is Google Sans (formerly known as Product Sans), which owners of the best Chromebooks will already be familiar with, even unknowingly; it’s already seeded throughout both the OS and Google’s websites, appearing in the Files app and Quick Settings menu as well as on Google’s own digital storefront.
If font changes are something that worries you (yes, they worry me; yes, I’m a big software interface nerd), then thankfully there’s no need to panic here: Google Sans is a pretty inoffensive font, a far cry from that other Sans font that virtually everyone hates. In fact, it’s very similar to the existing default Roboto, or fonts like San Francisco and Open Sans, to the point where an unaware user might not even notice the change.
Chrome, sans Roboto
Changing the primary font of an entire operating system is no small feat – there was uproar among font fanatics when Microsoft changed the default font of Word from Calibri to Aptos after a 17-year run. I’m personally quite averse to change, and while I approved of the shift away from Times New Roman (ugh) back in the day, I felt that the Calibri-to-Aptos move was unnecessary. After all, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right?
Well, Roboto ain’t broke, but I can appreciate why Google wants to make the change to its own branded typography. Google Sans is a good font; after all, it’s the lettering that the search engine giant has chosen to represent itself with on official public material, so I can reasonably assume there has been a lot of money and many, many hours of work poured into ensuring its perfection. It’s a pleasingly modern typeface, most crucially opting for an open-tail lower-case ‘g’ – none of that hideous loop-tail business here, thank you very much. Yes, I know we use it here on TechRadar, and that you’re looking at it right now. No, I’m not happy about it, but you’ve got to pick your battles.
Product Sans, now Google Sans, was originally introduced in 2015 for Google’s branding and marketing materials (Image credit: Google, Kashmiri)
Considering that Google Sans is already present in many corners of ChromeOS, it’s not likely to be a world-shaking change for most users. My fellow font fiends can relax, though – this isn’t even a big leap for those who pay close attention to lettering, if you ask me.
Roboto won’t be completely ousted from the OS just yet, either – judging by a Chromium Gerrit code commit spotted by 9to5Google, the former default font will stick around for times when Google Sans just won’t quite fit (due to a lack of specific glyph support, for example). We don’t have a concrete date for when the change will be implemented just yet; given that ChromeOS version 124 is already in beta and due to go live imminently, it’ll likely be in version 125 towards the end of May or the beginning of June.
Got a strong opinion about fonts? I know some of you do. Hit me up on X (cough, Twitter, cough) with your absolute worst font takes!
Female animals and women have been ignored or actively excluded in clinical and laboratory-based biomedical research since such research began. This was especially true until the US Congress passed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act in 1993, which directed the NIH to establish guidelines on the inclusion of women and members of under-represented racial and ethnic groups in clinical trials.
By 2009, a review of 10 fields in biology found that more than 60% of studies with human participants reported on both sexes. For studies using non-human animals, however, only 26% included both male and female subjects1.
To try to correct this persistent imbalance, the NIH implemented extra guidelines in 2016 — this time, on the inclusion of sex as a biological variable in all preclinical research2. At least with respect to the inclusion of female individuals in basic research, this funding-agency mandate and others like it have been effective. Another bibliometric analysis found that 49% of 720 studies on animals published in 2019 used both males and females3.
Why it’s essential to study sex and gender, even as tensions rise
Although it is still early days and there is much room for improvement, the inclusion of female participants and animal subjects is already having a revolutionary impact on numerous areas of study — from chronic pain to mental health. Yet we see an impending collision between research policies and societal changes regarding ideas and attitudes around sex and gender that threatens this nascent enterprise. We also see the threat of lobbyists, legislators and others in the United States and elsewhere weaponizing research on sex differences — either to marginalize individuals or groups that they deem to be outside a narrowly defined norm, or to reinforce derogatory ideas about people who identify as divergent4. (In this article, sex refers to differences between females and males caused by biological factors, whereas gender refers to differences caused by social factors, including gender roles, expectations and identity.)
Our concern is that various critiques of research on sex differences from scholars approaching sex and gender from different viewpoints — in combination with valid concerns around the misinterpretation or misuse of findings — could undermine an approach that has proved both practical and powerful. As a counterweight to this possibility, here we argue for the ongoing value of comparing female and male individuals in biomedical research.
Mammalian biology
Several scholars have argued in recent years that an overemphasis on biological sex will distract investigators from the effects of gendered environments and of non-sex-related variables, such as age, ethnicity or socio-economic status, on many traits. Another common criticism is that comparing female and male participants ignores transgender people and other individuals who do not fall within these binary categories, leading to their further marginalization in society5. Others have argued that a focus on the difference between the mean values of male and female individuals distracts researchers from considering the variability around those means — the implication being that variability within a sex is more important than variability between sexes. Some even question whether sex is a viable concept6.
Before addressing these specific complaints, it is worth briefly reviewing the current understanding of mammalian biology as it relates to sex — as well as some of the diverse and surprising findings that have already emerged from research comparing two sexes.
We need more-nuanced approaches to exploring sex and gender in research
Sex has been with us since our species originated as a result of sexual reproduction. The division of humans and other mammals into two sexes, female and male, derives from the fact that each individual is created by the union of a sperm and an egg. On the basis of the type of germ cell (gamete) that reproducing individuals are able to produce, there are only two sex categories in mammals. (Intersex is not a third category with respect to the type of gamete individuals can produce.) Indeed, understanding of how the mammalian genome evolved and how it functions is based on the foundation of sexual reproduction.
In mammals, as in many other taxa, the biological difference between sexes starts with the genetic difference encoded by the sex chromosomes — typically XX and XY in mammals — which are the only features that differ in female and male zygotes at the beginning of life. The salient role of the sex chromosomes is determining whether the embryo will develop ovaries or testes, because this specifies the type of germ cell that will be made, and the level and secretory patterns of testicular or ovarian hormones. Sex-chromosome genes and gonadal hormones influence almost every tissue in the body. The result might be sex differences in tissue development and function, or similar phenotypes based on different underlying mechanisms7.
Sex differences in immune function might have arisen from the need for female organisms to transfer immunity to the next generation.Credit: Klein & Hubert/Nature Picture Library
As in all things in biology, in humans and other mammals there are variations in the number and type of sex chromosomes and in the downstream mechanisms determining the phenotypic features associated with sex. This leads to variability among individuals in diverse sex-related traits, such as genital anatomy, body size and some behaviours. Also, particularly in humans, biological factors that drive sex differences in cells and tissues are confounded by social and environmental factors that also cause differences between individuals.
To serve all individuals equitably — including those who experience an incongruency between the sex they were assigned at birth and their current gender identity, and those who do not find that they align with either the male or female sex category — the medical profession and biomedical community must identify and interrogate these variations in biological attributes and in lived experiences, all of which can influence people’s physiology, risk of developing disease and prognosis8. This includes carefully attending to the distinctions between cisgender, transgender and non-binary individuals when reporting findings.
Yet we maintain that, in humans and other mammals, the comparison of individuals who have XX chromosomes and ovaries with individuals who have XY chromosomes and testes is a necessary component of basic and clinical research that seeks to improve human health.
Rich pickings
Male and female individuals represent most of the mammalian population. And research regarding biological sex differences has focused first on the largest groups, but in a manner that provides insights about variation within and beyond the binary.
For example, investigators have manipulated factors such as gonadal hormones and sex-chromosome genes to test their effects on sexual differentiation and their role in sex differences in disease. These manipulations, which mimic numerous intersex variations, such as the presence of ovarian hormonal secretions in an individual with XY chromosomes, have shed light on the effects of hormones, sex-chromosome genes and other factors in everyone. Studies of people with a variety of naturally occurring hormonal and chromosomal differences, for instance, are consistent with the interpretation that prenatal exposure to androgens, such as testosterone, is an important component of male psychosocial development9.
Nature journals raise the bar on sex and gender reporting in research
Importantly, the study of female and male individuals, as defined here, establishes a baseline measurement against which to compare findings from those who do not fit into a binary categorization scheme.
Understanding the effects of sex also anchors discussions about how different gendered environments intersect with biological differences, to amplify or mitigate their effects. More than half a century of animal research has been key to developing concepts of mammalian sexual differentiation, because in animals, unlike in humans, researchers can manipulate single genes or molecules to observe their effects on phenotypes. Moreover, although numerous environmental or social effects can be manipulated and studied in animals, such as diet, stress and levels of interaction with other individuals, animals provide useful models of the biological effects of sex in the absence of hard-to-control human gendered variables, such as cultural norms and expectations around child care and work.
The power of comparing female and male individuals in biomedical research is demonstrated most convincingly, however, by the data themselves — as illustrated by four examples from our fields of expertise.
Sex chromosomes versus hormones. Until recently, all of the biological hypotheses proposed to explain the significant sex differences in body weight and metabolism found in humans and animals (including birds and other mammals) were centred on the action of hormones. And extensive research during the twentieth century supported the idea that, in mammals, almost all sex differences in tissues other than the gonads (the organs that produce the gametes) result from the effects of ovarian and testicular hormones.
By the early 2000s, researchers studying gonadal development had created mouse models in which the complement of sex chromosomes could be manipulated in individuals with the same type of gonad10. This meant that investigators could assess whether the sex chromosomes cause differences in phenotypes, even when levels of gonadal hormones are similar7. Studies using the modified mice, while confirming the importance of gonadal hormones in influencing body weight and metabolism, uncovered the effects of sex chromosomes11. Comparable studies have also shown that sex chromosomes have much broader effects on physiology and behaviour than was originally thought10.
Accounting for sex and gender makes for better science
The copy number of an X-linked gene called Kdm5c, for example, contributes to a sex difference found in mice in the metabolism of adipose cells12. Mice with XY chromosomes have one copy of Kdm5c. They also have less body fat than do mice with XX chromosomes, which have two copies of the Kdm5c gene.
Over the past two decades, investigators have found that similar sex-chromosome effects contribute to sex differences in many other physiological systems in mice. And these sex differences, in turn, affect individuals’ likelihood of developing autoimmune conditions, cardiovascular diseases, cancer and developmental defects in the neural tube, the embryonic precursor to the central nervous system. The X-linked gene Kdm6a, for instance, increases the severity of autoimmune disease, and protects against bladder cancer and an Alzheimer’s-like disease in XX mice7. Similarly, the Y-linked gene Uty protects against pulmonary hypertension in mice13. Sex-chromosome genes also affect mouse behaviour, from the social behaviour of juveniles to responses to pain, as well as the size of certain brain regions7,10.
All of this work in mice provides investigators with clues about where to look for potential therapeutic targets in the human genome, for diseases that tend to affect women and men differently.
Pain. It is well established that among people with chronic pain, women far outnumber men14. Also, in experimental settings, women tend to be more sensitive than men are to pain — induced, for instance, by the application of heat, cold or pressure.
Pain researchers have proposed various gender-based and sex-based explanations for these differences14, such as that women are more likely than men to go to the doctor, as shown by usage rates for health-care services. However, investigations in male and female mice have suggested that, at least in rodents, different mechanisms are responsible for the processing of persistent pain in females and males.
Why the sexes don’t feel pain the same way
A 2015 study in mice15, for example, and follow-up findings demonstrated that a well-studied mechanism for the processing of persistent pain — involving immune cells called microglia — operates only in male rodents. (It is well studied in males, at least.) In males, the microglia release a factor that causes neurons in the spinal cord to increase their firing, which sustains chronic pain. Although female mice have just as many microglia as male mice do, their microglia don’t seem to be involved in the pain circuit — or, if they are involved, it is in a more complicated way. In fact, in females, T cells might play a similar part to microglia in males.
Whether the microglial or T-cell mechanism for the processing of persistent pain is engaged in any one individual seems to be due to testosterone levels being above or below a certain threshold. This dimorphism suggests that different physiological mechanisms could contribute to some of the differences observed in men and women in relation to chronic pain.
Immune function. Numerous studies that involve comparing immune responses in female and male organisms — whether they are fruit flies, fish, lizards, birds or mammals — have shown that females often generate more robust immune responses to antigens than do their male counterparts16. This suggests that sex differences in immune function are evolutionarily conserved, perhaps because of a common need for female individuals to transfer immunity to the next generation (whether through breast milk or a yolk sac), or because of some other sex-specific selective pressure.
In humans, these immunological stimuli can be self-antigens (proteins made by our own cells), allergens, cancerous cells or pathogenic microbes. Because women have larger immune responses than men, they are more likely to develop autoimmune diseases and allergies, but less likely to be diagnosed with non-reproductive cancers, such as skin or colon cancer17, and certain infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis16 and COVID-1918.
Some studies suggest that women generate a greater immune response to certain vaccines than do men.Credit: Patrick Meinhardt/Bloomberg/Getty
The difference between female and male organisms in the amount of antibodies produced in response to immunological stimuli changes across the life course, being most robust during the reproductive years19. This could explain why females of reproductive age often generate more antibodies in response to vaccines and microbes than males do20, and why female antibody responses are more durable and cross-reactive against diverse variants, such as different strains of influenza virus.
Mouse models have shown that gonadal hormones contribute more to mammalian sex differences in vaccine-induced immunity than do genes linked to sex chromosomes, at least against influenza viruses21. In both mice and humans, concentrations of estradiol (a hormone that is typically produced at higher levels in female organisms) are positively associated with greater antibody responses to influenza vaccines22. In short, a wealth of insights about the benefits (and downsides) of a bolstered immune response have emerged only because researchers have compared immune responses in male and female organisms.
Mental health. Sex and gender differences in the prevalence of mental-health disorders in humans span the life course. Prepubescent boys are significantly more likely than prepubescent girls to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder23. In their late teens or early 20s, men are more likely to be diagnosed with early-life schizophrenia. They are also more likely to experience a brain injury caused by a lack of oxygen at birth, and to have neurological conditions, such as Tourette’s syndrome. After puberty, however, disorders involving depression, anxiety, compulsion and obsession are more frequent in women23.
Sociocultural factors probably contribute to the differences in the prevalence of many of these conditions, including biases around the criteria used to diagnose early-life disorders by clinicians. Similarly, by the time a woman is diagnosed with a mood or affective disorder, she has often lived for decades in a gendered environment, making it hard for researchers to separate the effects of biology during development from those of life experience. Studies conducted over the past two decades in male and female rodents, however, have revealed an integral role for the immune system — specifically microglial cells — in affecting how testosterone acts on the brain and alters the structure and function of certain regions.
The fraught quest to account for sex in biology research
For instance, experiments measuring cellular activity in post-mortem animals have shown that during development, male rodents have a greater number of activated microglia in certain regions of their brains than do female rodents. These activated microglia release more of the signalling molecules that are crucial to forming synapses and controlling cell numbers. Many of the brain regions affected by the selective elimination of cells are also those implicated in mental-health disorders in humans (in both sexes) that originate during development24.
These findings could offer clues as to why messenger RNAs obtained from the cortex of human male fetuses indicate higher expression levels of genes involved in inflammation than do those obtained from human female fetuses. Post-mortem, higher levels of inflammation have even been found in the cortices of men who had been diagnosed with autism than in those of men who had not received a mental-health diagnosis25.
All of this suggests that, in mammals, greater activity of the neuroimmune system is somehow involved in the process of brain masculinization — which means that various mental-health disorders that affect boys more than girls could involve disruptions to immune-system processes.
Early days
Ultimately, we support efforts to interrogate both biological and social determinants of disease. Indeed, having more information is always preferable to having less. It is crucial to consider how biological factors linked to sex interact with each other and with other biological factors, such as age and genetic background, as well as with sociocultural or environmental influences. But whether the variables that have the most impact on physiology and disease are sex-based, gender-based or unrelated to either is a question that must be answered by research.
Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering
Related to this, although there is always a danger of scientists and journalists oversimplifying things — particularly in relation to sex and gender — any rigorous analysis requires the consideration of averages as well as measures of variation. Just as with the importance of sex-related variables compared to other variables, it is an empirical question whether within-sex variation has more or less impact on a trait of interest than between-sex variation does.
When it comes to the threat of people misusing statements about an inherent difference between female and male individuals to rationalize continuing the historical subordination of women, transgender people and others, we agree that this danger is real and urgent. Since September 2023, for instance, health-care providers in Texas have been prohibited from giving gender-transition surgeries, puberty-blocking medication or hormone therapies to people under 18. This was decided on the basis of claims that everyone belongs to one of two groups, and that this reality is settled by science. The solution, however, is not to deny a priori the importance of sex differences, but rather to improve understanding of variation in human populations and how it relates to biological and social factors. Similarly, whereas we recognize the importance of studying intersex, non-binary, transgender and other individuals whose biology or life experiences are not encompassed by a simplistic binary, the neglect of such individuals should not be addressed by abandoning female–male comparisons.
Because female organisms have for so long been left out of investigations in many biomedical fields, researchers are still surprisingly ignorant of their fundamental biology across numerous taxa, and how it does or does not differ from that of males. There is also much room for improvement in research on sex differences — in terms of statistical and reporting practices26, researchers actually splitting their data by sex and analysing those data appropriately3, and journals improving their policies around sex and gender. The highly fruitful approach of comparing female and male organisms should not be abandoned just as investigators are starting to make progress.
The intertidal is a conversation I join whenever the tides allow, negotiating with barnacle-covered rocks and rockweed for permission to enter. As a child, I ran across the beaches of the US central east coast with my grandfather, sand in my afro, marvelling at the tiny sand dollars dotting the shoreline. I could never have dreamed that, decades later, I’d be searching for their ‘cousins’ — sea urchins and starfish (also known as sea stars) — on the rocky beaches of the Pacific Northwest with the same enthusiasm, splaying myself across the rocks almost like I’m playing Twister. My ankles and my ecosystem knowledge grow stronger with every visit.
I’m a marine molecular ecologist, performing biodiversity assessments to help characterize how ecosystems are changing in a warming planet. These are physical endeavours that couple simple tools with complex ecosystem knowledge: location access, tide schedules and species recognition are just the beginning. But with techniques such as environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis, the situation has started to change. My colleagues and I can create site-specific species inventories using high-throughput genetic sequencing to analyse the DNA that every living organism sheds into its environment, using just a small sample of seawater.
How do otters protect salt marshes from erosion? Shellfishly
Such methods provide the almost-instant gratification of hard data. They help us make the intertidal zone accessible to those who haven’t experienced it. But eDNA inventories are only as strong as the — still limited — DNA reference libraries available. They also render moot the reason I’ve worked hard to know the difference between a gunnel and a prickleback, so I can identify fish before they zip out of sight. The more time we spend analysing at the bench, not the beach, the less connected we are to the ecosystems we are trying to protect. In an age of data abundance, I urge myself and other ecologists not to lose touch with the joy of the field.
This sense of connection is personal. As I’m seeing techniques change, I’m also seeing a changing of the guard. The field-hardened scientists — most of whom are male, and white — who taught me, in practice or through literature, are adding ‘emeritus’ to their titles, one by one. With them goes a wealth of knowledge and their history of belonging. I and my younger colleagues must now share our knowledge and foster a new, inclusive sense of belonging.
It is no secret that female scientists, especially those from historically under-represented backgrounds, are the most susceptible to fieldwork exclusion or harassment (A.-J. C. Demery and M. Avery Pipkin Nature Ecol.Evol.5, 5–9; 2021). As one of just 2% of graduate students in Earth, atmospheric and ocean sciences who identify as Black (L. M. Isma et al.Oceanography36, 56–59; 2023), I am used to being the only one, and having to explain and defend my presence in science and in the field. One of the attractions of the field is that my non-human kin don’t question my purpose there.
Creating a more inclusive, joyful feeling of belonging is the motivation behind the Yellow Island Intertidal Monitoring programme, a collaboratively developed project that I lead. It is sponsored by Black In Marine Science — an organization from which I have received mentorship, support and funding, and that I gratefully acknowledge — in partnership with a US non-profit organization, the Nature Conservancy. The programme’s team operates on a tiny islet of the San Juan archipelago in the Salish Sea, between Washington state and British Columbia, Canada, and seeks to understand how the region’s ecosystem is changing. The Yellow Island project comes with a template for an islet-specific species survey. A suite of student papers written in 2004 at the University of Washington Friday Harbor Laboratories under the guidance of Megan Dethier and Kevin Britton-Simmons provides a baseline for how the ecosystem looked two decades ago.
Why citizen scientists are gathering DNA from hundreds of lakes — on the same day
Every summer since 2022, participants have learnt about the islet’s species, completed surveys, obtained boating licences, practised science-communication skills and built a community. Hearing a student’s confidence in identifying organisms or their yelps of excitement when their favourite echinoderm burrows underneath the rock they flipped over (and back) is enough to invoke a sentimental attachment to the place — the bliss of belonging in a community bonded by the ecosystem and the science. I mean, who doesn’t want to touch a starfish?
We don’t ignore technology: the students work with both physical surveys and eDNA data. I’m optimistic that eDNA and the bioinformatic tools behind it can help to extend our community and, hopefully, our joy. It can corroborate the presence of some of the organisms the students physically counted, and add scores more.
Time in the field provides an opportunity to define a space not only for the students, but also for myself. It’s where I stand on the shoulders of my teachers to teach the next generation — where I share my interpretations and myself. This is a space where I can simultaneously be a molecular ecologist, a Black woman and a nerd for chitons: armoured snails that are exquisitely adept at contouring themselves to the shape of the islet’s rocks.
Conversation in the intertidal zone is punctuated with the pop of rockweed when you step on it. It’s full of the salacious secrets of anemones, and the whispers of stealthy mink slinking over the high tide line, looking for limpets to scrape free. This conversation is important to remind us that we are part of the world. Let’s not lose our ear for it.
Samsung sends out updates every month as a matter of routine. These updates are security maintenance releases that fix bugs found in Android and Samsung’s own software.
The April 2024 security update has already been released for many devices, but Samsung also rolled out another update across the European region earlier this week.
This is a critical update that was released for a wide variety of devices, including but not limited to the Galaxy S24, S23, S22, Galaxy Z Fold 5, Z Flip 5, and the Galaxy A54.
It’s likely that this update would be rolling out to more devices soon. Under no circumstance should you skip this latest Samsung update when it arrives on your device.
Update is important for continued access to emergency numbers
Samsung is rolling out this important network update which makes some changes to cellular carrier support. Support for additional bands has been added in some markets to cater to network providers’ requirements.
Samsung has also dropped support for select bands, as some carriers may stop using those bands altogether. For example, many carriers are looking to drop 2G networks, meaning that your device won’t fall back to the legacy network.
The reason why this is a critical update is because you won’t be able to call emergency numbers in those markets if you don’t install the update. It will ensure your device has connectivity on all of the network bands that carriers in the region are using, so that in the event of an emergency, you’re able to call the required emergency services.
Installing this update will also remove TDD 4G network support for devices bought in Germany, meaning those devices won’t connect to these networks in Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, and Switzerland.
Given that the vast majority of carriers in Europe use FDD 4G networks, the removal of TDD 4G network support for users who bought their phones in Germany won’t have much impact when they connect to the 4G networks elsewhere.
As it stands, this appears to be a Europe-specific update so it may not be released in other markets. Those who do get the update in Europe should waste no time in hitting that install button right away.
While the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra may be the latest flagship from the South Korean tech giant, the Galaxy S23 Ultra is still a stellar phone that is well worth your consideration – especially at a discounted price. Right now, you can grab a refurbished Galaxy S23 Ultra for $849 at Best Buy, which shaves a very healthy $530 off the original price of $1,379.
As you’ll see in our Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra review, the phone builds upon its impressive predecessor by offering more power, improved cameras, and better base storage, alongside a myriad of small changes. While Samsung didn’t push the envelope with the phone’s design, it arguably didn’t need to, as the Galaxy S22 Ultra was a slim and neat rectangle with a gently curved screen.
Now, with a big chunk off its launch price, the Galaxy S23 Ultra is a bit of a flagship phone bargain. You’ll not only get more than enough power for pretty much any tasks or game you can throw at the phone, but there’s a quartet of rear cameras, including a 3x and 10x telephoto zoom, that deliver some excellent photos and a glorious 6.8-inch AMOLED 2X display with a refresh rate that goes from 120Hz to 1Hz in order to save on battery life.
Not in the US? Scroll down for the best Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra deals in your region.
Don’t miss this great Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra deal
While the Samsung Galaxy S24 series may have stolen headlines with its Galaxy AI smart features, those abilities are also rolling out to older-generation phones, so you’ll be able to take advantage of them on the S23 Ultra. In short, for this discounted price, the Galaxy S23 Ultra is hard to beat.
Recently a story made headlines concerning a potential seller finding out just how bad Microcenter’s trade-in value is for a Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 graphics card.
The retailer only offered $700 for a card that’s currently priced at nearly $2000 on its own online store, less than half its original value. And keep in mind that this is a current-gen high-end component, easily the best graphics card out there right now, not something from two generations ago.
(Image credit: Wccftech / Mr. Biggie Smallz)
Of course, there are several factors involved in trade-in value, including the condition of the product in question. However, Wccftech reported that this was a simple look-up through Microcenter’s website, meaning that this value is the standard one. Compare this to what Newegg is offering, about $1,500 or over twice as much, and you see quite the discrepancy between the two amounts.
Microcenter is also a brick-and-mortar retailer unlike Newegg, which means its reach extends beyond online shoppers and to more casual shoppers who may not be aware of how terrible that trade-in amount is compared to its competitors. Which is something it shares with another massive chain that buys and sells used products — Gamestop.
Though far from its peak as the most popular chain gaming retailer in the US, Gamestop is still widely known and attracts plenty of customers, including casual shoppers who simply want to buy whatever’s the most popular game or console and are willing to trade in older used products for it.
Gamestop has always been infamous for just how little it offers customers for trade-ins, even becoming an internet meme, and yet despite that still attracts quite a bit of business. At one point, it was estimated that the retailer made nearly $1 billion in profit off the used trade-in market alone. The company earned 48 cents of gross profits from every dollar earned in its pre-owned games and consoles, which it accomplished by reselling purchased used products at a much higher price.
So when I see a large retailer offer such an abysmal trade-in value for a very recent product that it’s guaranteed to resale at a premium, I get flashbacks to a Gamestop employee cheerfully announcing to me that my combined trade-in value of Final Fantasy X and Madden 2005 would be just over $3.
Hopefully, news will spread and it will inform more buyers to shop for better prices rather than take Microcenter’s paltry offer, and maybe even dissuade Microcenter from trying to low-ball its customers like this. This is behavior that needs to be nipped in the bud now, before it poisons the well and makes it that much harder to sell and purchase used components in the future.