Little Street Puppy Runs Up To Traveler And Completely Steals His Heart

He decided to call her Chica. That night, when he was back at his hotel, Kalmbach scoured the internet to find an animal rescue group that might be able to help him and Chica. He came across Unidos Para Los Animales.

Kalmbach contacted the rescue’s founder, Linda Green, who agreed right away to get Chica some vet care, immunizations and paperwork to fly home to Kalmbach in California if Kalmbach could find her again. After all, the rescue regularly flies dogs to California to find homes each year. It was meant to be.

With a plan in place, the next step was to track Chica down. He searched and searched the village with no luck — so he asked a group of children for help. The kids seemed to instantly recognize Chica’s picture and guided Kalmbach around, street after street. After two hours of walking, they led him into the town dump.

Wildlife Officer Says He’ll Save Baby Coyote — Then Does The Cruelest Thing

“They said they typically don’t handle the coyotes,” McChesney said. “And I said, ‘OK. Well, what am I supposed to do?’ And they said, ‘Can you just shoo it outside?’ I said, ‘Sure, but he’s in the neighborhood. He’s going to get hit by a car or go into someone else’s house. This is not a coyote area. This will just be someone else’s problem.’”

The WDFW official even suggested that McChesney shoot the coyote, but McChesney balked at the thought.

“That wasn’t even close to an option,” McChesney said. “I wouldn’t even consider that.”

With the help of the Kennewick Police Department, McChesney finally got in touch with Don Caraway, a state-authorized wildlife control officer, who arrived at McChesney’s home with a metal cage.

Video Shows Circus Bears Wracked With Terror During Performance

The bears are owned by Rosaire’s Bears, a company that trains wild animals for entertainment and moves them around the country to perform at different locations. This performance, which was captured in a video, took place in April at the Shrine Circus in Bangor, Maine.

“This is run-of-the-mill for circus acts,” Debbie Metzler, a captive wildlife specialist for the PETA Foundation, told The Dodo. “The two bears, believed to be Indian and Chopper, were almost constantly slapped, poked and jabbed. They were pulled hard by leads, and coerced to walk and sit like humans, push carts and climb ladders, which are all things that can lead to muscle and joint pain, injury and even chronic psychological distress.”

Dogs Try To Befriend Porcupine And Things Don’t Go As Planned

It depends on the severity, but the quill removal can take several hours. Sometimes all the quills can’t be safely removed, and a doctor will have to monitor the dog afterwards to watch for signs of infection.

While most porcupine-related injuries are not life-threatening, waiting too long to treat the situation can have unfortunate consequences.

“Since quills carry bacteria, infection and abscesses are a serious risk,” Gorman says. “Quills can also get stuck in various dangerous locations around the body, including the pet’s eyes, joints or organs. Depending on the nature of the injury, it can result in serious complications, which is why it’s important to have your dog treated as soon as possible.”

This Rescue Cat Looks Like He Has Two Noses And He’s Perfect

“I had stayed in touch to send her photos of my two polydactyl bobtail sisters that were adopted through [the ]rescue about a year before,” Jeanne, Doby’s new mom, told The Dodo. “I saw his little bat face and that was it. We didn’t know a lot about him at first, so we did our research on cerebellar hypoplasia and cleft palates to make sure our home was safe and accessible for him.”

Since Doby was small for his age and had some special needs, he had to be fostered for a few months before he could be adopted, but once he was finally declared healthy, his new parents welcomed him into their home with open arms. His foster family did a great job of helping him come out of his shell, and by the time he came to his forever family, he had grown into a spunky, playful little cat.

“His foster mom is the absolute best and we are so thankful that she took a scared and anxious little kitten and taught him to love and trust people,” Jeanne said.

Little Fox Decides To Try Out Family’s Trampoline But Things Don’t Go As Planned

A woman was looking out her window into her backyard one evening when she noticed someone playing on her family’s trampoline — and quickly realized it was a very stuck little fox.

It seemed the fox had been jumping around on the trampoline, just trying it out, when he somehow got one of his back legs stuck in the springs of the trampoline and couldn’t figure out how to free himself. Concerned, the woman quickly contacted the RSPCA, hoping it could help the very confused little fox.

Bomb Squad Investigates Bag Left At Airport — And Finds It Bursting With Cuteness

Tensions were high at Australia’s Adelaide Airport on Wednesday evening after a suspicious bag was found to have been left unattended near some restrooms. Naturally, the bright pink package triggered airport security protocol, and soon a bomb squad was on the scene to investigate.

But, as it turns out, what they found inside wasn’t dangerous at all — well, unless you happen to be a carrot.

How to Order the Nintendo NES Classic Mini (And SNES Classic)

The NES Classic Mini and SNES Classic are elusive little beasts. The teeny tiny Nintendo Entertainment System packed with 30 classic 8-bit games originally hit store shelves in late 2016 … and promptly sold out. It’s been nigh impossible to find ever since, and was sent off into the sunset in favor of Nintendo’s Super NES Classic, which also sold out. We weren’t thrilled with Nintendo’s decision to discontinue the system, and its continued trouble keeping both of them in stock is odd.

If you missed out the first time around, we have some good news! The miniature version of the console that made Mario is back as of June 29, again at a $60 price point. The bad news is that the NES Classic is quickly selling out again.

NES Classic May Be Available at These Stores

Availability goes in and out, but check all of the links. We’ll add more as we find more. Extra NES Controllers are available on Best Buy. 8Bitdo also sells a nice wireless NES Classic controller.

Backup Plan. Buy the EU NES Classic

If you really want to lock in your NES Classic, this trick might work.

You can preorder the NES Classic on Amazon.co.uk.

It goes in and out of stock, but the Amazon UK site will deliver to the United States. You’ll have to register for an Amazon UK account, but if you enter the same email you use for the U.S. Amazon, it will automatically have your credit cards and shipping addresses, alleviating some hassle. Since the NES Classic is powered via USB, you should not have a problem with Euro power plug incompatibility. The system should work on U.S. TVs. With shipping added (and UK taxes removed), it will cost you about $65 USD. Standard shipping estimates show a delivery window of July 13 – 18.

The EU NES Classic is also available on Amazon U.S. for $85 and Walmart for $87.

Be sure to hit up NowInStock.net to keep an eye on availability in the US.

SNES Classic is Also Available

If you’re disheartened by NES Classic sellouts, the SNES Classic is also back in stock at many retailers. It comes with 21 games, including the unreleased Star Fox 2, and two controllers. 8Bitdo has a wireless SNES Classic Controller, too. We’ve used it and it feels very authentic.

Updated on June 29: Many more buy links added for various stores. The system is now available again. Also added SNES Classic availability.

When you buy something using the retail links in our stories, we earn a small affiliate commission. Read more about how this works.

Amazon Echo Dot Kids Edition: Cute But Unnecessary

This may seem obvious given my profession, but I think technology is…fine? Even for kids? It’s hard to believe that it’s safe for your kid to get anywhere near a Wi-Fi-enabled device when you read stories about tech addiction, hacked toys and horrible YouTube videos. It’s also possible that my opinion might change as my kids get older.

But I do believe it is possible for families to strike a balance between protecting their children and introducing them to the tools that they will be using for the rest of their lives. As a millennial, I’ve been on the Internet for as long as I can remember, but I’ve somehow grown to adulthood without marrying a talking toaster. I’m guessing that your kids will probably be okay.

For that reason, I was open to the idea of testing Amazon’s Echo Dot Kids Edition. For months, I’ve found the child-friendly Fire tablet and FreeTime Unlimited to be useful tools for helping us navigate dinners and long plane rides with an obstreperous toddler and wiggly baby. And I was mildly, perversely curious to see what a smart assistant aimed at a child would do.

The good news is that your kid is probably smarter than you think. The bad news is that your kid does not need a smart device.

Dots for Days

Like the Fire for Kids, the Echo Dot Kids Edition is just an Echo Dot, but foam-wrapped in appealing colors for maximum cuteness. The Dot was already cute, but the foam makes it even cuter. When I took it out of the box, my three-year-old was enthralled and asked to carry it around with her.

While a Dot is $50, the Kids Edition is $80. That extra $30 pays for that kid-friendly foam case, a two-year unlimited warranty, and a year’s subscription to FreeTime Unlimited. FreeTime Unlimited is Amazon’s subscription service, which gives your kid access to age-appropriate content in the form of apps, games, videos, books, and now, on the Dot for kids, Alexa skills.

My colleague Robbie Gonzalez outlined a few of my concerns before I even received the tester. I didn’t want to give my toddler unlimited access to her own personal digital slave, so I restricted her use to a half-hour, just as I do with the tablet or the television. She also had to play with me. I unplugged the Echo Dot and put it in a drawer whenever it wasn’t in use. Whatever worries I have about privacy for my own sake, I triple, double, and quadruple for my kids.

Setup is simple. I plugged it in and downloaded the Alexa app while my toddler waited impatiently. Then we sat there for awhile as I pondered what to do with the darn thing.

Trying to figure out how to play with the Dot with a three-year-old felt a little like sitting at a computer in 1995, trying to figure out something to ask Jeeves. Many adults find the Echo and Echo Dot to be useful tools, but toddlers don’t have chores. They don’t even have to wipe their own butts. My toddler doesn’t need to know what the weather will be like, or what temperature a steak is supposed to be.

I asked Alexa for ideas. When she suggested a joke, I asked her for one. “What’s the difference between a well-dressed cyclist and a scruffy guy on a tricycle? Attire!” she said. I looked at my toddler, who had a polite, frozen smile on her face.

As with the Fire for Kids, you can access FreeTime Unlimited’s controls online via the Amazon Parent Dashboard at parents.amazon.com. You can set an age filter, time limits, or give your child access to the devices in your smart home so that they can turn the lights on and off. I checked, and the age filter for my toddler is set from two to six. I’m not sure even a six-year-old would have gotten that joke (did you?).

Play Date

Over the course of a few weeks, we did find ways to have fun with the Dot. My toddler’s diction still isn’t very clear. Even I still have trouble interpreting phrases like “swammy” (“salami”). But Alexa was able to decipher her perfectly, leading to my worst nightmare coming true: for the first few days, all she did was ask Alexa to play “Let It Go” over and over and over.

The games were hit or miss. But we did like Freeze Dancers, a self-explanatory game wherein we had to freeze whenever Alexa stopped playing music. My toddler also enjoyed queueing up KidzBop playlists whenever she liked, within her half-hour of playtime.

It’s easy to remember what we did every day, because the app keeps a complete history of my toddler’s activities that you can remove or delete as you see fit. For example, I see that there is a long string of commands telling Alexa that she is a butt. Alexa refused to respond.

Some of her responses are perfectly tailored to a three-year-old. When my toddler asked her if she had a dog, Alexa responded, “I don’t have a dog, but if I did, I would name him Astro!” I can also see that my toddler asked for help making cookies, and Alexa told her to ask a grown up first before touching the oven, toaster, or microwave.

But other responses were wildly off-base. My toddler is obsessed with stars and Greek mythology (yes, I know! She’s only three! She’s amazing!) and when she asked Alexa who Cassiopeia was, Alexa responded that cassiopea is a genus of jellyfish. That is…not the answer we were looking for at all.

When I asked Alexa what a vampire squid was, she said that it’s a small cephalopod. What’s a cephalopod? I kept asking follow-up questions until it just became easier to Google pictures of vampire squid myself. Reciting rote facts isn’t helpful for a three-year-old who has no context for such things. Arguably, it isn’t helpful for anyone.

I also was sent a set of Lego Duplos, in order to try the Lego Duplo Stories Alexa skill. But by the time I had futzed around and figured out that it was only available in my adult profile, and not in FreeTime, my toddler had become distracted by building planes, tying Lego people onto them with some twine she had found, and flying them to see her grandparents. The firefighters were taking care of the girl’s dogs, and her grandparents were waiting at the airport.

My toddler didn’t need Alexa’s help making up stories. It seemed counterproductive to interrupt her with pre-recorded stories about other peoples’ dogs. Maybe she knew, better than Lego would, which stories would help her process the events that were happening in her own life.

On that note: As with the Fire for Kids, toggling between the FreeTime profile and the adult profile can be difficult. Parental controls mean that your child can’t use voice purchasing, or ask Alexa to say bad words. But you have to whitelist other skills from the parent dashboard into FreeTime on the Dot.

I couldn’t figure out how to do this, even after getting on the phone with Amazon customer service. The Alexa app said the skill was enabled under my toddler’s profile, but when I tried to play it, it repeatedly told me I could not. Since I was sitting with my toddler anyway, I just switched to my parent profile, but obviously, this isn’t a solution that would work if your kid plays with the Dot unattended.

People Pleaser

If you’re a parent, you might be worried that your kid will not be able to distinguish Alexa from a person. I can’t answer for everyone’s kid. But in my own experience, my toddler was able to quickly and easily divine what Alexa was all about.

For her parents, Alexa might be a useful hands-free tool. But, at least in its current incarnation, it’s pretty obvious to a toddler that Alexa is a simulacrum of human interaction that’s designed to distract her long enough for me to cook dinner.

I could see this revelation dawning early on. After the first day of testing, my toddler asked me, “Is Alexa my friend?” I explained that no, Alexa is a machine, not a person. The next day, she asked, “Can Alexa make me feel better when I’m sad?” No, I responded again. Your teachers, friends, and family can make you feel better when you’re sad.

From then on, her interest declined sharply. One afternoon, she was too busy taping all our kitchen chairs together to talk to Alexa. Another time, I convinced her to start playing Name The Animal. She was engaged for the first few minutes. But after a frustrating interval where she yelled “MONKEY! MONKEY!” and Alexa responded, “The correct answer is ‘Chimpanzee'”, she flopped down on the couch in a convincing imitation of the teenager she will someday become and sighed, “You play it.”

Our kids don’t need adults in their lives simply to play games and read stories. We interpret context for them: When you ask what a vampire squid is, do you want the dictionary definition? Or do you want to look at pictures of squids? Do you want to talk about how they swim or where they live, or whether they have names?

We adults also provide behavioral guidance and emotional support. If you don’t specifically tell your child that Alexa is not a person, it’s possible that they might turn to Alexa to fulfill their emotional needs. But my toddler is three, and only needed me to explain that Alexa was a machine twice. After that, it was as unthinkable for her to say, “Alexa, I’m bored”, as it would have been for her to beg our dishwasher for a hug.

Given the choices we’ve made as a family, we simply didn’t find the Dot useful as a tool or toy. I didn’t want my daughter to have unlimited access to the Dot, so a few of the functions were useless. If my toddler wants to turn on the lights, she can pull a step stool over and turn it on manually, as short humans have been doing since indoor electricity was developed. We don’t have Echoes in every room, so I couldn’t use it to tell her to come in for dinner. And like most parents, we find that our children wake up obscenely early, so it was useless as an alarm clock.

It may be different for other families, especially if you have older children. But for my toddler, it came down to a simple question: Why talk to a machine or ask it to read to you when your mom is right there? Like Alexa, I can play music and games, but I can also serve snacks, engage in long philosophical discussions about whether your right leg is your right leg or your left leg, and walk to the sink and run water over my head when she’s hilariously spat jelly all over my face. It will be a long time before Alexa can compete with any of that.

Mission Bicycle’s Light-Up Fork Will Never Leave You in the Dark

It’s happened to me, it’s happened to you. You walk out of a concert, a restaurant, or the office at an hour well past sunset, go to unlock your bike, and you realize you don’t have your lights. Maybe you forgot to charge them and they’re as dead as beans. Maybe you forgot to bring them entirely because it’s the summer and they daylight hours are long. Maybe they were stolen off your frame—in which case you’re lucky they didn’t take the whole bike.

A San Francisco company called Mission Bicycle has rolled out a new bike design that will never leave an owner in the dark. The frameset has LEDs build right into the fork. Tapping a button sets the front end of the bike alight.

Beth Holzer for Wired

The design is simple and tidy. On the inside of the fork’s arms, there are two LED strips situated vertically. Each strip holds 50 diodes, for 100 lights in total. You press a button on the top cap of the headset to turn the lighting system on and off; pressing and holding the button dims the lights, which helps the battery last longer. There are also five red LEDs built into the seatpost. All of the wiring runs through the frame—from the headset, down the fork, and back to the seatpost.

The whole system uses a rechargeable battery that lives inside the headset. To access it, you unscrew the top cap, and the battery pops up far enough for you to grab it. You can charge it wherever it’s convenient using a USB cable.

Integrated lighting systems aren’t unique in the cycling world. You can find a number of commuter bikes with headlights built into the frames and tail lights built into the seat posts. But what makes Mission Bicycle’s design notable is the ease with which the lights blend into the design. Walk past the bike on the street, and you won’t notice the LEDs or the on/off switch unless you’re really looking for them. It stays fully hidden and makes for a clean, minimal look. More importantly, it means you always have your lights with you—as long as you remember to charge the battery.

Beth Holzer for Wired

Mission Bicycle leant me a bike to ride for a couple of weeks. The company sells fully customized city bikes starting at $1,100, and it offers a bunch of different options for drivetrains, components, and frame colors. The integrated lighting system is available as an option on every build. My loaner was a singlespeed; a simple, easy roller.

When you fire up the LED systems, it illuminates a big circle of pavement around the front wheel, about four feet in diameter. The effect is eye-catching in a way that a forward-facing headlight isn’t, and since the LEDs are visible from the side too, it easily makes you the most noticeable vehicle in the bike lane. The light itself is a cool blue, which at first seems a bit harsh, but only helps you stand out more alongside the yellowish glow of the overhead sodium bulbs that illuminate the roadways. The battery lasted the whole time I had the bike, and if your commute involves less than an hour of night riding each day, I imagine you’d have to charge it once every three or four weeks.

Two caveats. One, the lighting system makes you visible to others on the road, but doesn’t direct light far enough in front of you to fully illuminate the road ahead. The company’s reasoning is that, in a city, the streets are generally well lit enough that being seen is a higher priority for your safety than seeing where you’re going. Sure, but if you don’t live in a city with well-lit streets, you’ll need a headlamp. Second, the crown that you unscrew to get at the battery isn’t fully secure. So if a thief is knowledgeable enough to look for the little rubber on/off switch, they can steal your battery (or the top cap) pretty easily. The folks at the shop tell me they are working on a solution to this. For now, maybe just slip the battery into your pocket when you leave your bike locked up outside the bar. No biggie.

More Great WIRED Stories

Kilner Fermentation Set Review: A Great and Easy Way to Get Started

There’s a point when I make sauerkraut where it feels like the whole thing is going off the rails. Mine has the traditional cabbage and caraway seeds, but I like to throw an onion in there and something about the latter steers the whole thing into off-putting deep-funk territory at about the six-day mark: it smells vaguely of stinky shoe and has a taste that’s equally prohibitive. Amazingly, these are not bad signs. Instead, they mean that in just a few more days, everything will click into place and I’ll soon be making a late-night snack of bread, cheese, beer, and sauerkraut that leaves me giddy.

Turns out that many fermented foods have this happy effect on me. So much so that while it took two decades of adulthood before I started making them myself, they’re now a part of my repertoire. Most of the time, I have a jar of sauerkraut or even kimchi fermenting away on a cool shelf, and another ready to eat in the fridge.

I like fermenting for a few reasons: the meditative chopping of a pile of vegetables, tasting the food as it evolves, and the day it hits that “holy cow” level of goodness when I slide it into the fridge for storage. I also love that the lowly cabbage—the unlikely star of the fermented world—can be transformed into something so exciting. If you’re in it for more than just great flavor, there are also a host of purported health benefits you may wish to explore.

Yet there are obstacles to making fermented food that you don’t usually run into with cooking, mostly because fermenting is a weird blend between steering the ship and not knowing exactly where it’ll end up.

First, fermentation is essentially controlling bacteria—keeping bad ones at bay while creating an atmosphere where good ones thrive and help create flavors that we love. This can be intimidating.

Second, you need salt to make it happen, but knowing how much of which kind of salt can feel like you need a degree in the dark arts to get it right.

Third, it’s clunky. You’ve gotta rig up a system to keep the vegetables submerged in the brine, usually with some sort of weight. One type of kit you can buy uses what looks like a spring from jack in the box to keep everything under the surface. Some people use washed stones or a plate or a Ziploc bag full of brine on top of everything and cover the jar with muslin. For my sauerkraut, I’d been putting the cabbage in a large, wide-mouth jar, and weighed it down with a smaller jar with a heavy pestle inside it. I also learned to put everything on a tray in case the brine overflowed.

You eventually figure out the salt and grow accustomed to the lack of control, but the clunkiness is just an impediment. As someone who may have been a herding dog in another life, I like the thought of getting a few more people into the fermentation game, and one way to do that is to simplify the entry requirements by making the setup a little less cobbled-together feeling.

You can speed it up a bit, spend big, and get a large ceramic crock that has weights to hold the food down and a U-shaped lip on the rim that you fill with water. This is what you find set out on urban balconies and countryside porches all over South Korea.

Right now, though, I’m really enjoying Kilner’s Fermentation Set—a three-liter jar (big but not huge), with a pair of glazed ceramic half moons that easily slip inside the mouth of the jar to weigh everything down, and a lid with an air lock, a simple one-way valve that keeps unwanted guests out and allows the whole thing to gurgle away without building pressure in the jar.

The Kilner setup certainly has a bit of a “home science kit” look to it with that air lock up top, but it costs a very affordable $30 and it’s simple—you can figure out how it works just by looking at the picture on the box. From there, chop and salt the cabbage, add it to the jar, set on the weights, pop on the lid and set it somewhere cool. Unlike a crock, the jar’s clear glass sidewalls allow you to keep an eye on things, which is particularly helpful when you’re making sure everything stays submerged or watching for unwanted mold growth. In the early stages of your fermentation career, the less guesswork the better.

Having become used to the clunkiness of fermenting, suddenly having a nice setup had some pleasant effects, most notably that everything went faster. There are similar setups out there, but this one is particularly refined.

It also freed me up enough to spread my wings more than I’d done in the past. Since refrigeration essentially hits the brakes on fermentation, once I made sauerkraut and got it where I wanted it, I transferred it into a couple Ball jars, put them in the fridge, then turned right around and started some kimchi. When the kimchi was done, I started my first-ever batch of sour pickles, riffing off a recipe for “nuclear” pickles from Ukraine.

When my mom came out for a visit, we took inspiration from fermentation guru Sandor Katz and made a big batch of sauerkraut that was half cabbage and half all sorts of other vegetables like boy choy, zucchini, garlic scapes, and radishes. An accomplished home cook, mom had never made sauerkraut and took to it quickly. She salted the shredded cabbage and started kneading it with her hands to help the salt pull out the moisture and create the brine.

“I’m not used to tactile-ing the cabbage so much,” she said crushing it between her fingers and working out some frustrations with our current political climate at the same time. Then she started layering the vegetables into the jar, taking the time to make it look nice.

“It helps, doesn’t it?” she asked. It did! We celebrated by tasting a sour pickle.

Having these foods around (and looking good!) means you’re likely to eat more of them, then crave more, then make more, a perpetually slow-bubbling virtuous cycle of fermented happiness. I’m now in the habit of bringing jars to friends, breaking them out at barbecues, or having a bit as an easy side dish at dinner.

One thing worth kvetching about is that I wish a storage lid was part of the kit. Another quibble is the choice of a wooden lid—which some experts appreciate, but also could harbor unwelcome bacteria that can ruin a batch. This is something that divides the fermentation crowd; Sandor Katz mentions the use of a hardwood as a crock weight option in Wild Fermentation, but other people have been scarred by the process. I had no problems with Kilner’s lid in my testing, and some pros use wooden parts in their fermenting, but it’s something I’ll be keeping an eye on in the future. Kilner is in the process of phasing out the wooden lid and a spokesperson said it was being replaced by a silicone lid late this summer.

In Wild Fermentation, Katz says, “clever people accomplish this simple process [of fermentation] in many different ways. No single vessel is best.” You can certainly rig up your own fermentation setup or pay a bunch for a crock. But for a fermenting novice like me, Kilner’s kit is well worth the investment.

Kilner’s Fermentation Set isn’t reinventing the wheel—there have been versions of something like this for centuries—but this one is relatively inexpensive, well thought out, and it does two things that all great products should: it made my life easier and encouraged me to make more.

Food writer Joe Ray (@joe_diner) is a Lowell Thomas Travel Journalist of The Year, a restaurant critic, and author of “Sea and Smoke” with chef Blaine Wetzel.

4th of July BBQ Grill Picks For Your Party: Yeti, Weber, Biolite

CNMN Collection

© 2018 Condé Nast. All rights reserved.

Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated 5/25/18) and Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement (updated 5/25/18). Your California Privacy Rights. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad Choices.

Sonos Beam Review: Support for Alexa in a Great Soundbar

There are two distinct ways of looking at the new Sonos Beam soundbar: from the perspective of a person who already owns Sonos speakers, or as a person who does not have any Sonos speakers.

The former, the speaker-rich among us—that’s Sonos’s sweet spot. The company says nearly 40 percent of Sonos purchases within the past year were made by people who already own a Sonos speaker, and that once people buy a Sonos product, they use it for years.

In that context, the Sonos Beam isn’t just a TV soundbar, but a WiFi-connected, fabric-wrapped hypnosis machine. You will think you are listening to Beyonce or Childish Gambino or “Chill Hits” on Spotify. But what you’re really hearing is “Buy more Sonos.” You will wake up with no recollection of having bought the thing, and you may have some explaining to do.

However, if you’ve never owned a Sonos speaker and you happen to be looking for a TV soundbar that lets you use Amazon’s Alexa to control the experience, then the Beam is worth considering. At $400, it’s much less expensive and smaller than Sonos’s previous home entertainment speakers. But it’s still an impressive compact soundbar for your TV. And of course, when you’re not using it to enhance onscreen visuals, it makes a good all-around living room speaker that sits comfortably on its own, or as part of a multi-room system.

Shape of Sound

Notably, the Beam was designed to support a trio of voice assistants—Amazon’s Alexa, Google’s Assistant, and Apple’s Siri—all on the same device. That’s no small feat; each company’s voice service has its own rules of engagement for smart-home hardware. If the whole speaker thing doesn’t work out, Sonos’s executives may very well have futures in diplomatic relations.

While support for all three services is the promise, the reality is that the Sonos Beam doesn’t actually work with all of those virtual assistants at the time of this review. Its shrunken size also means Sonos has made some sacrifices in the sound department. But we should talk about its design first, since the Beam is something that you’ll probably be looking at a whole lot after you place it under your television.

This is the third Sonos speaker meant to serve as a companion to your TV, and the smallest. If the Sonos Playbase and Playbar (both $700) are, respectively, a truck and a mid-sized sedan, the $400 Sonos Beam is a coupe. It measures 26 inches across and 2.7 inches tall, and weighs around six pounds. That’s heavier and longer than something like the Polk Audio MagniFi Mini, but that soundbar is also taller and, like a lot of soundbars, is visually uninspiring. The Sonos Beam is a delight to behold, a perfectly baked breadstick complementing an endless buffet of video and audio content. It ships in black and white, and it can be mounted on the wall if that’s where your TV lives.

The body of the Beam is wrapped in a single piece of knitted polyester. The speaker’s guts include a single center tweeter, three passive radiators, four custom-designed full-range woofers, and a five-microphone array for voice control. On top are some capacitive touch controls: a play/pause button, volume up and down, and a microphone icon, to turn the voice assistants on and off.

In back, you’ll find three ports: power, Ethernet, and HDMI-ARC. If your TV doesn’t support HDMI-ARC (my old Sony Bravia TV does not), there’s an HDMI-to-optical adapter you can use. But you definitely lose some of the magic of Sonos’s promised content control when you have to revert to optical. The “ARC” in HDMI-ARC stands for Audio Return Channel, and it means that audio signals can be sent from the TV to an external audio device using a single HDMI cable. And if you’re using HDMI, that means the Sonos Beam is also tapping into CEC, or Consumer Electronics Control, to let you control the TV’s volume or toggle the power through the Beam.

Ear Candy

The latest speaker from Sonos plays music and works as a soundbar for your TV. It also lets you control your smart home with your voice.
Beth Holzer for Wired

Sonos is positioning the Beam as “Not Just a TV Soundbar,” but still, its primary function is supplying the audio for movies and shows. And as a soundbar, it performs well. It lacks some of the deep, heavy bass of its larger competitors. But it does enhance dialogue, effects, and soundtracks to enrich the whole entertainment experience. It strikes me as something that won’t bowl over audiophiles, but will add value for casual listeners—and at the very least, even audiophiles might appreciate what Sonos has done with the Beam’s physical constraints.

As part of my testing I watched John Wick, an extremely family-friendly movie about a man who’s sad about the death of his dog and befriends his Russian neighbors. The action movie genre is the one my TV’s built-in speakers struggle with the most, with most low-toned speech drowned out by dramatic scores, club beats, violent action, or dudes doing donuts in cars.

The Sonos Beam eliminated the need for me to hold a remote in my hand to adjust the volume 27 times throughout such a movie, with dialogue coming through crisp and clear. It evens out all the sounds really well and, like other Sonos speakers, adjusts its output to best suit the room. (Though you still have to go through Sonos’s mildly awkward, 45-second TruePlay setup to establish this.)

Like the previous Sonos soundbars, there’s a Speech Enhancement feature you can toggle on and off in the Sonos app. There’s also a Night Mode feature, which clarifies dialogue and other quieter sounds while toning down the kind of high-octane effects that would normally keep your neighbors up. I used both of these features liberally, although, even with Speech Enhancement on, dialogue can sound a little flat and lacking in resonance.

To get a sense of the speaker’s abilities for music, I listened to Gregory Alan Isakov’s concert with the Colorado Symphony from 2016, among other playlists. The Beam’s didn’t give me any kind of illusion that the symphony was playing behind me, or that it was comparable to seeing Isakov in concert with an orchestra (which I have seen). But it still filled the room, and its spatial sound abilities made it possible to envision where members of the ensemble were on stage when it was recorded. Also: This soundbar gets loud.

All Talk

Since the Sonos Beam natively supports Amazon’s voice services, you can ask the soundbar the same things you’d ask an Echo, whether that’s “Alexa, play Spotify workout playlist” or “Alexa, tell me a joke” (“How do you win over a chocolate lover? Keep some Twix up your sleeve.”) You can search for and download skills, Amazon’s term for voice apps, and set timers, something that accounts for approximately 90 percent of my Alexa requests on my Echo speaker.

The draw of having Alexa in the Sonos Beam soundbar, though, is that you can control your TV with your voice. Using voice commands to control certain aspects of your TV experience has been an option on various home entertainment devices for a few years now, but it has almost always required that you push a physical button on a remote to initiate the voice functions. The latest push in TV voice control is toward devices that rely instead on a simple wake word. That’s Sonos’s strategy here—you can just shout “Alexa” at your Beam and ask it to turn the TV on and off or to raise the volume.

If you have an Amazon Fire TV Stick, too, you can link your Fire TV Stick to the Beam and ask Alexa to pause the program you’re watching by speaking to the AI through the Beam. This workaround is a little convoluted, though, as it requires you to first connect the two devices in a sub-menu of the Alexa app (not the Sonos app), and even after that you have to be specific: “Alexa, pause Fire TV,” not just “Alexa, pause.”

Unfortunately, my TV doesn’t support HDMI-ARC. That meant I wasn’t able to use an HDMI cable to connect the Beam to my TV, and instead I was forced to rely on the optical audio connection. This kept me from utilizing the CEC functionality, the feature of HDMI that lets a soundbar or other speaker send commands to the television set. As a result, I wasn’t able to turn the TV on or off with my voice using my current home setup.

I recently tested another product that lets you toggle your TV power with your voice: the Amazon Fire TV Cube. But in addition to the HDMI option, the Cube also comes with little infrared blasters you can use to send commands to older televisions that lack support for HDMI-ARC. While I didn’t love the Cube, I did like that it gave me the option to use my voice to control my older TV. So while CEC is a useful feature for the Sonos Beam to support, those with lesser TVs won’t be able to take advantage of it.

Speaking Up

Sonos’s voice strategy doesn’t stop with Alexa. The company has some competition in that space, like Polk Audio’s upcoming $300 Command Bar, a voice-controlled soundbar that also has Alexa built in (and which we haven’t reviewed yet). So to get ahead, Sonos has been working on support for Apple’s AirPlay 2, which will also give Siri some limited control over the Sonos Beam. Sonos has also said Google Assistant support will arrive on its newest speaker models sometime this year. This is supposed to allow for a “continuity of control”—in theory, you’ll be able to start music with one voice assistant, then ask another voice assistant to identify the song, or to pause or stop the music.

The problem, though, is that AirPlay 2 support wasn’t ready by the time I wrote this review. Nor was Google Assistant. This means Sonos has effectively asked the media to review a product that doesn’t yet do everything it’s promised to do. (Sonos has also asked us to hold off on publishing our impressions of the AirPlay 2 experience on the Beam, even though AirPlay 2 software is technically available now, which seems excessive.) By promising these features in the future, Sonos is asking consumers who don’t want Alexa to take a chance by pre-ordering the Beam before it works with their voice assistant of choice.

It’s also worth noting that you can get some of this same voice-controlled Sonos experience with the Sonos One, a $199 smart speaker that works with Alexa—and will also be upgraded in the future to work with AirPlay 2 and Google Assistant. Of course, it’s not a TV soundbar, so it won’t work the exact same way the Beam does. However, if you’re not actually that interested in a soundbar but are still very interested in a Sonos speaker with voice control, the One is a quality gateway drug. That speaker competes more directly with products like Apple’s $349 HomePod and the $400 Google Home Max—although Sonos’s argument has always been that its speakers let you play whatever audio you want without pushing you into one music service or voice assistant over another.

Present Tense

Sonos is relying partially on the goodwill it’s developed with customers over the past several years in order to sell the new Sonos Beam. Trust us, the company is saying; AirPlay 2 and Google Assistant are coming soon, and it will all be great. Normally, in that scenario, I would say hold off.

But even without the full assortment of voice assistant capabilities, the Sonos Beam is a and impressive and thoughtfully designed soundbar. In under two weeks, it’s improved my own TV watching, podcast listening, and music playing experience in a real way. Having Alexa in a soundbar has been useful too, even if that’s the sole virtual assistant for now. The Beam has also become something of a sound centerpiece to the Sonos speakers I already have at home. Which probably sounds like music to any Sonos lover’s ears.

Google Duplex Gets a Second, More Subdued, Demo

When Google first demonstrated its AI phone-calling technology Duplex back in May, the pre-recorded demo struck many observers as eerie. Piped through the speakers on stage at the Google I/O developer conference while a video capture of an Android phone played on screen, we heard an artificial voice call both a hair salon and a restaurant to book reservations on behalf of a human.

Right away, many in the tech community cited two big problems. First, the people on the receiving end of the call were unaware that the voice speaking into the phone was a machine, meaning Duplex was essentially fooling unsuspecting humans. Second, the bot in the demo never indicated it was recording the phone call, raising the eyebrows of privacy advocates and prompting follow-up questions from journalists (including writers at WIRED).

On Tuesday, Google gave multiple demonstrations of its Duplex technology in action. This time, there were some obvious differences.

Now, just a couple weeks ahead of Duplex’s rollout among a small set of users and businesses, Google is trying to give its phone-calling robot a do-over. The company is attempting to prove it has addressed some of the concerns about Duplex. And its latest pitch around transparency is coming at a time when some of its more critical use cases for AI are being seriously questioned—just recently, the company released a set of AI principles prohibiting Googlers from using AI in technologies that could violate human rights or cause “overall harm.”

On Tuesday, at a hummus shop in Mountain View, California just down the road from Google’s headquarters, the company gave multiple demonstrations of its Duplex technology in action. This time, there were some obvious differences. “Hi, I’m calling to make a reservation,” the bot said, which Google patched through speakers in the shop so the assembled reporters could hear it. “I’m Google’s automated booking service, so I’ll record the call. Can I book a table for Thursday?”

Google executives Nick Fox and Scott Huffman, along with product manager Valerie Nygaard, were on-hand to answer questions from reporters. Nygaard even had reporters rotate through the host’s stand at the front of the shop and take turns answering the phone, so we could interact with the Duplex-powered virtual assistant calling the restaurant. Each of the Duplex calls were being initiated by a Google Assistant request off of a laptop, just feet away in the restaurant.

I’ll admit that when I answered the phone at Oren’s Hummus Shop, I tried hard to trip up the Duplex bot. A female-sounding voice called and asked for a reservation Monday the 2nd. After determining that “she” meant the 2nd of July, I asked for the number of people in her party and for the desired time. “At 9pm,” she replied. I told the bot that the shop closes at 9:30 pm—making it up as we went along—so she might want to book for an earlier time. 7:30pm, the bot suggested? “We have something at 7:45, actually,” I said.

I then asked whether there were any allergies in the group. “OK, so, 7:30,” the bot said. “No, I can fit you in at 7:45,” I said. The bot was confused. “7:30,” it said again. I also asked whether they would need a high chair for any small children. Another voice eventually interjected, and completed the reservation.

I hung up the phone feeling somewhat triumphant; my stint in college as a host at a brew house had paid off, and I had asked a series of questions that a bot, even a good one, couldn’t answer. It was a win for humans. “In that case, the operator that completed the call—that wasn’t a human, right?” I asked Nygaard. No, she said. That was a human who took over the call. I was stunned; in the end, I was still a human who couldn’t differentiate between a voice powered by silicon and one born of flesh and blood.

Talking Back

I asked Huffman and Fox whether Google regretted showing off a carefully-produced Duplex demo back in May that offered little in terms of transparency or exposition. Fox didn’t say directly whether he regretted it. “We thought of the demo at I/O as much more of a technology demo, whereas what you see here is much more of the product side of the technology,” Fox said. “It was more of a pure technology demo. But we always knew we needed disclosure and it was the right thing to do.” Fox added that Google found all of the feedback from people “useful.”

While Google has addressed the stickiest stuff in that demo—adding a statement identifying the caller as a bot and disclosing the recording of the phone call—one big unanswered question about Duplex is one of agency: Who is responsible when a bot calls a business but then a human flakes?

“The agency question to me is the most complex, and will probably take the longest for us to work out as a society,” says Roman Kalantari, senior design director of creative technology at the design consultancy Fjord. “Will people feel less pressure to show up to an appointment their bot made because they never spoke to a person? This is already a huge problem at restaurants, for example, and this will likely get worse when it is easier, and the user has even less emotional attachment to the interaction or guilt about cancelling or not showing up.”

Bot Beginnings

During Tuesday’s demo, Huffman gave the group some background on the development of Duplex—its earliest phone calls, the human operators who back it up, and why Google sees Duplex’s tech evolving with use the same way self-driving car systems do. Huffman said it only took “a couple months” for the initial version of Duplex to get set up, but its earliest demos were incredibly rudimentary, with the speaker of a wired telephone being placed next to a Mac laptop’s speakers while the Duplex technology ran on the machine.

Huffman played one of the first Duplex phone calls ever made, when the bot tried to reserve a table at a restaurant. It was awkward. There was some confusion when the human being on the phone asked about the reservation time, and again when the human asked for the first name of the reserving party. The Duplex-powered bot was clearly flustered. “It wasn’t super good,” Huffman admitted, “but we could tell it had potential.”

LEARN MORE

The WIRED Guide to Artificial Intelligence

Google began to employ human moderators who would annotate the earliest Duplex calls. This team would take those notes and feed them into the system, allowing the AI to learn and adjust. Those human moderators are still working on Duplex—in fact, some of them are operators who will save a Duplex call when things go sideways—but Huffman and Fox declined to say how many people they’ve hired for the Duplex team. Google has also been studying speech disfluencies, and how they relate to Duplex, Huffman said. How should a bot deal with uncertainty in a polite way? How frequently should it offer conversational acknowledgement—the “Mmhmm”s we all say when someone’s been rambling for awhile—over the phone?

One way Google is trying to position Duplex is in the same realm as a self-driving car—an analogy that might be more welcome right now than an association with Google’s controversial military AI program. There’s a manual mode, in which the human’s hands grip the wheel, or, in this case, when a human makes the phone call. Then there’s a supervised mode, and then, “maybe the system is good enough where you can sit back and let the car drive itself,” Huffman said. “Four out of five of the calls we work on can be automated completely.”

Your Call

Google still hasn’t said when it will officially roll out Duplex to a wide user base, just that public tests of it are going to start in the next couple of weeks, with a “limited set of trusted testers and select businesses.” It also won’t say how many testers or businesses there are, to start. Duplex will work as part of Google Assistant, the company’s virtual assistant for phones and smart speakers. Initially, it will respond to requests around holiday hours for businesses; over the next few months, it will expand to include restaurant reservations and hair salon appointments.

Much of Google’s focus during Tuesday’s Duplex demo was around how it could help businesses. According to Google’s own internal research, 60 percent of small businesses that take reservations don’t have an online booking system. Huffman says telling people to pick up the phone and call some place is a barrier in an age when so many tasks like booking appointments and placing orders can be done online. Google thinks it can fix this resistance to making phone calls and help those businesses that still do things the old fashioned way.

Huffman said there was an interpretation after the demo at Google I/O back in May that Google’s AI could be used to take over any conversation. “This is trained for specific tasks,” he said. “I really want to make clear that the reason why it works is that we’ve chosen very specific tasks … it’s not a general purpose AI, but it’s very good at doing these narrow and specific things.”

Huffman makes a good point, but it may not be the “specific things” that continue to raise questions about Duplex. Rather, it may be the “very good” part.


More Great WIRED Stories

Watch Out, Pro Racers: These Drones Just Learned to Fly Solo

These days any old schlub can pilot a drone without cratering it, what with good old autopilot tech, but there are drone pilots out there whose abilities push the limits of human cognition. Drone racing is a truly insane endeavor (now with its very own Drone Racing League!) with human pilots banking around corners and through obstacles at over 100 miles per hour, navigating it all through the craft’s onboard camera. It takes an almost unimaginable amount of coordination—but, alas, even this highly skilled job is in danger of automation.

Researchers have developed a system that allows drones to autonomously navigate an obstacle course of gates with 100 percent accuracy—that is, the robots don’t crash into something and explode. Not only that, because of the clever way the researchers trained the drones, the machines can adapt if a wily human moves a gate mid-run, completing a course that looks different than when they started. They run a bit slow at the moment compared to human pilot, sure, but they’ll only get faster from here.

When you think about robots roaming the world, you probably think first of self-driving cars. These can only work because engineers first use lidar to coat the world in beams of light, mapping it in fine detail. This helps the machines localize themselves in the static environment—trees and buildings and such.

But a new class of machines are beginning to sense their world more like we do. Boston Dynamics, for instance, makes the famous SpotMini robot dog. This machine doesn’t use lidar because lidar is computationally and energetically expensive. So instead, a handler remote-controls the machine through an environment as cameras capture its surroundings. Armed with this information, the robot can then walk the same route autonomously, using its cameras to eyeball a now-familiar world.

This new drone system works in much the same way. You can’t bolt a bulky lidar on a drone and expect it to get off the ground, so this system also runs on cameras. The researchers trained the drones by, well, holding them and “flying” them through the obstacle course first (comical mouthed airplane noises excluded), like SpotMini first walking a route. This allowed them to collect images, tens of thousands of them. The researchers used all this data to train a neural network on how to fly through the obstacle course, not with a detailed 3-D lidar map, but with sight.

When they let the drone loose, it could navigate autonomously using its onboard camera. “The drone receives an image from the camera and the neural network outputs, Hey drone, now you have to go two meters to the left,” says University of Zurich roboticist Antonio Loquercio, who helped develop the system. The drone is constantly taking in these images, processing them, and correcting its course, all based on its training on the neural network.

Because the drone isn’t just relying on a static map of its environment, it’s better equipped to react to the unexpected. “During data generation, we moved one or two gates on the track and adapted the trajectory,” says roboticist Elia Kaufmann, also of the University of Zurich. In other words, part of the robot’s training was to deal with changes in the environment.

Even when humans throw it challenges like this, the drone managed to complete 50 out of 50 laps without a collision. In fact, it bested a pro pilot the researchers brought in to fly the same course, who managed 45 out of 50, albeit at a greater speed—the human was an average of three times faster than the robot. “Drone pilots fly very, very aggressively,” says Loquercio. “They are more open to take risks, way less conservative than what our current approach is.”

These thinky machines are conservative both by design and by limitations of the technology. Drones are expensive, and the researchers preferred to not destroy them—plus the neural network isn’t powerful enough to match humans’ blazing speeds. We’re talking about a lot of data the drone has to crunch on the fly.

Impressively enough, though, the drone is already doing it all onboard, as opposed to tapping into a computer through Wi-Fi, thanks to more efficient neural network algorithms and a fairly burly processor—for a drone at least. And the machines will only get more powerful, and may soon match or best the speed of pro pilots, all while maintaining that coveted accuracy.

This approach could also find its way into other applications in the robotic future. Our skies are about to fill up with drones, delivery drones in particular, that will have to avoid not just one another, but the many obstacles of the big city. If they just relied on static maps, it’d be chaos (read: drones colliding and plummeting out of the sky and onto our heads). Drones will have to more dynamically adapt to their surroundings to be safe and effective.

For the nearer future, though, drone racers take note: the competition is about to get tougher. Just never make a mistake and you should be fine…

Stop Expecting Games to Build Empathy

What do games do for us—and what do we owe them for that? It’s an odd question, but it seems to come up, in one form or another, whenever a gaming controversy hits the news. Gaming is no longer a young medium, but it’s still somewhat opaque from the outside, which makes games an easy target for crusades from those wont to crusade: most recently, with local-newsinsistences that Fortnite is rotting your children’s brains.

It’s not. (Probably.) But every question about gaming’s value is met, within the world of videogaming, with a chorus insisting that games are good for you, games are your friend, and—perhaps most concretely—games actually make you more empathetic. It’s this assumption that buoys the Games for Change Festival, the 15th edition of which begins today in New York, as well as a dozen other games advocacy groups. It has become a talking point in all levels of the industry, and with empathy as the TED Talk-anointed foundation of game-adjacent VR “experiences,” it informs one of that technology’s busiest content categories.

Games, the thinking goes, can make you a better person. But can they? Do they?

The argument goes like this: by exposing you to experiences outside of your own, in an interactive fashion, games foster empathy. They are the literalization of “walking a mile in someone else’s shoes.” So games can, for instance, let you embody the life of a budding lesbian coming of age in Washington State, or allow you to experience the turmoil and terror of a Syrian refugee. By doing this, advocates argue, games can influence and improve our behavior outside of the “magic circle,” that digitized realm where events take on new, outsized significance.

Unfortunately, it’s not really that simple, and presenting it as such does a disservice—to games, and even to empathy as a concept. For starters, the science on the topic is inconclusive at best. Earlier this year, Holly Green at Paste rounded up and digested a swath of relevant research on the topic, and the results are far muddier than empathy game proponents would want them to be. Games, if anything, seem to confirm the moral activation or disengagement of the person playing, offering them a chance to live out who they are, or at least a version of them shaped by the morals offered by the game world.

And what of the much-touted empathy VR experiences, which strip the player of agency, instead embodying them in experiences unlike their own (be they violent or traumatic or tragic)? To be perfectly frank: they’re good publicity for whoever’s making them, and not a whole lot more. Even if games and first-person experiences can increase the player’s emotional activation, empathy is more complicated than that. Empathy is active: it involves both mental acuity and changes to behavior. Understanding without change isn’t empathy. Emotion without action to help others isn’t empathy.

Games are imaginative spaces, and imagination is fodder for empathy—picturing another person as being as wholly human as yourself, with struggles that matter, is an important part of becoming empathetic. But games can’t teach, or even develop, that. An empathy game can make you cry, but it can’t make you care. That’s up to you.

What the insistence on empathy in games amounts to, in a lot of cases, is a sort of exceptionalist persecution complex. Because games are often attacked by outside forces that seem powerful—lawmakers, media advocacy groups, sensationalist publications—those of us in the gaming world have an impulse to defend games as being special in a way that other media aren’t. To argue that games, apart from film or music or theatre, can do things that other mediums can’t. That games aren’t just an art form—they’re the art form. We say: Games aren’t just fun or interesting. They make you better people.

But that persecution complex is both inaccurate and unrealistic. Videogames are, in fact, incredibly powerful, bringing in a massive influx of revenue every year. They are, in fact, one of the most ubiquitous forms of entertainment in the world, crossing demographic lines across the planet. Games don’t benefit from our defensiveness. It’s not necessary to legitimize games with flimsy arguments about empathy. It’s not necessary to legitimize them at all.

Don’t get me wrong: games are really cool! They’re imagination and philosophy engines, ways of exploring ideas and experiences outside of our normal lives. That’s incredible—but it’s the same type of incredible as any other form of art. Games, like any other type of art, can make life more interesting and more tolerable. But they can’t make you a better person, no matter how many sad games you play or how many VR experiences you walk around in. Games can’t make you better. That’s your job.


More Great WIRED Stories

Here’s One Way to Reform an Internet Conspiracy Theorist

Before a storm, the calm; after the storm, a hail of conspiracy theories. The urge to seek truth among unconnected dots is nothing new, but social media has supercharged that urge, ratcheting up the speed and spread of the resulting theories. As soon as a scrap of news hits Twitter, thousands upon thousands of users across multiple platforms swarm to synthesize it with other, unrelated scraps—even if fusing them into a coherent narrative requires logical backflips and manufacturing some data points of their own. And once the conspiracy has been constructed, no amount of well-intentioned debunkings can shake these truthers’ faith.

But who are these conspiracy-minded internet sleuths spreading misinformation? Where do they come from? Where do they go once the furor around a crisis has cooled? And more importantly, how can the rational citizens of the internet help snap them back to a reality devoid of lizard people and shadowy baby-stealing organizations? Those are the questions Virginia Tech researchers Mattia Samory and Tanushree Mitra, who study deviant behavior in online discussions, tried to answer by analyzing a decade’s worth of Reddit conspiracy talk.

In a new study being presented today, Samory and Mitra share their findings after watching chatter on r/conspiracy and related subreddits. What they found, though, is that not all Reddit conspiracy theorists are alike—and in fact, the most fervent among them might be the easiest to deradicalize.

Samory and Mitra’s study honed in on the conspiracy theories around four different major crises: the Boston bombing, the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings, and the disappearance of Malaysian Air flight MH17. They found that not only do crises reinforce and increase the numbers of conspiracy communities—the combination of emotions running high and scant verifiable information seems to send many hunting for answers—but also that the approximately six million users posting conspiracy content during these crises tended to fall into three categories. First, there were the veterans, the long-term, single-minded r/conspiracy users. Then there were the converts: folks who were already active elsewhere on Reddit, but poked their heads into conspiracy subreddits once the crisis arose. And then there joiners, who only became Reddit users in the wake of the crisis and posted almost exclusively on conspiracy subreddits.

The researchers found that, while all three categories may be active at once, they demonstrate significantly different online behavior. Despite often being prolific Redditors, converts sink the least effort into conspiracy theorizing, often repeating the same small point over and over. They also tend to express more skepticism over time, and tend not to become long-term conspiracy subreddit users. (Knowing Reddit, it seems plausible that a portion of these converts may be indulging in ironic trolling.) Joiners and veterans are the ones who move conspiracies theories forward—offering the most verbose and least repetitive responses and demonstrating the highest levels of engagement with the conspiracy within (and, for veterans, outside) r/conspiracy.

Of the three category profiles, it’s the joiners who surprised the researchers most—and are likely to prove most important. “We expected them to be mostly skeptical people testing the waters,” Samory says. “But they actually had the most continuous involvement in the community and had increasing involvement in other conspiracy theories.” Joiners, it turns out, are also the most likely to become veterans, likely for the same reason that veterans return for crisis after crisis. If you self-select to only be exposed to a small subset of viewpoints and information, you’re putting yourself in the position to be radicalized. That’s less likely to happen to converts, who generally were engaged in multiple different subreddits.

This is by no means a complete picture of the dynamics of online conspiracy theories, but the study does suggest a possible course of action for deradicalizing some participants. “A good course of action to mitigate the problem is to catch new conspiracy theorists early,” Samory says. “They’re the fastest to radicalize, they’re the ones that remain the most engaged, but they also have the highest amount of distrust during the crisis.” In other words, debunking efforts should focus on these newbie joiners.

That’s especially urgent when, as in these circles, an appetizer tends to lead to an all-you-can-eat binge. “Once we start believing in one conspiracy theory, it’s easy to believe in multiple [theories],” Samory says. “And that leads to the rejection of attacks on any conspiracy theory, and the belief that those correction attempts are part of the conspiracy.” It’s a short walk from false flags to “crisis actors”—and from there, Pizzagate and full-on Alex Jones-ville aren’t far behind.


More Great WIRED Stories

Tech Companies Deflect Blame for Opioid Crisis Ahead of FDA Summit

Representatives from Facebook, Google, Twitter, and roughly a dozen other tech companies will gather with academics, lobbyists, and government officials Wednesday for a summit hosted by the Food and Drug Administration. The goal of the summit, according to the FDA, is to get tech leaders to “discuss ways to collaboratively take stronger action” against the spread of illicit opioids online. But the gathering was mired in controversy before it even began, as the tech and pharmaceutical industries wrestled over the question of who bears more responsibility for a crisis that kills more than 115 Americans every day.

According to an invitation to the summit, which was sent to attendees by FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb in May, the FDA initially planned on asking tech companies to sign a “Pledge to Reduce the Availability of Illicit Opioids Online,” which it would publish 30 days after the event. “The purpose of this pledge is to allow Internet stakeholders to demonstrate an ongoing commitment to help address the terrible impact of the opioid crisis by taking concrete steps to reduce the availability of illicit opioids online,” the invitation read.

But after consulting with tech companies, the FDA says it put that plan on hold. “We will consolidate the feedback and ideas discussed at the summit and turn it into an actionable plan – not just for those in the room but for all internet stakeholders to join,” an FDA spokesperson said.

The shift left some attendees wondering whether tech companies objected to the pledge and got their way. “They’ve successfully changed the dynamics of the meeting,” says Tim Mackey, an associate adjunct professor at University of California, San Diego, who is also presenting at the summit.

‘If all drug sales happening on the internet were on the dark web, I’d throw a party.’

Libby Baney, the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies

The tech industry’s involvement in the opioid crisis has become the subject of harsh scrutiny in Washington over the last few months. In April, Commissioner Gottlieb told attendees at the National Rx Drug Abuse and Heroin Summit that tech companies “haven’t been proactive enough” in eliminating illicit drugs on their platforms.

“We find offers to purchase opioids all over social media and the Internet, including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Google, Yahoo, and Bing,” Gottlieb said. Days later, when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before the House Intelligence Committee, members of Congress pressed him on Facebook’s handling of ads for illegal online pharmacies. And in early June, the FDA sent warning letters to nine companies that operate 53 online pharmacy websites, ordering them to stop marketing opioids or risk legal repercussions.

In the days leading up to the summit, tech companies and the lobbying group that represents them worked to deflect blame for the crisis and tout their early efforts to combat a problem they say the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry created. On Tuesday, the Internet Association, which represents several summit attendees including Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Pinterest, Snapchat, Amazon, and eBay, held a call with reporters previewing the event.

“The opioid epidemic is, in a majority of cases, primarily an offline problem,” a representative of the Association said, pointing to research by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration that showed the vast majority of people misusing opioids acquire them from a drug dealer, doctor, or a friend.

And on Monday, the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies, which is backed by Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and a slew of credit card companies, released a report suggesting that the bulk of illicit drug sales that do take place online are happening on the dark web, as opposed to the open web, and are being paid for with cryptocurrency. The report also found that the majority of the sites on the open web that purport to sell opioids are actually so-called “non-delivery schemes” that steal people’s personal information, but never actually sell them drugs.

“They’ll be websites that say, ‘Buy oxy here,’ and you go onto the website, and there’s no oxy for sale. It’s clickbait,” says Marjorie Clifton, executive director of CSIP. “People say, ‘Look at all the stuff the internet’s selling.’ But no one’s going through the purchasing process.”

That may be. But lobbyists working to crack down on illegal online pharmacies on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry say that the tech industry’s blame-shifting is unhelpful. “If all drug sales happening on the internet were on the dark web, I’d throw a party. Then the vast majority of Americans would be safe,” says Libby Baney, an advisor to the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies, who is appearing on a panel at the summit. The CSIP’s own study found dozens of sites purporting to sell opioids through simple organic searches, and spotted posts marketing opioids on sites like Twitter, Reddit, and even LinkedIn. But it’s hard to tell from a distance which advertisements are scams and which are the real deal.

Mackey and other researchers at UC San Diego have developed algorithms that hunt for opioid sales on Twitter. They’ve found that often those tweets link to illicit goods that have been sourced on the dark web. “What’s happening on the dark web is a lot of business-to-business sales,” Mackey says. “The digital drug dealers are sourcing from the dark web and using social media to sell directly to consumers.”

It’s not that tech companies have ignored this problem completely. Recently, they’ve taken several steps toward curbing opioid sales on their platforms. In April, Google Search’s homepage promoted an initiative by the Drug Enforcement Agency called Take Back Day, which encourages people to take their unused medications to safe collection sites. According to the Internet Association, over 50,000 people used the tool, contributing to a record-setting 1 million pounds of prescription drugs being collected on that day. And last week, Facebook announced it would begin to redirect users attempting to purchase opioids or seeking treatment to a federal crisis helpline. That move follows Instagram’s crackdown on opioid-related hashtags like #oxycontin. The companies involved in CSIP, meanwhile, collectively blocked 117 million ads that tried to appear on their platforms last year alone.

For Baney, all of that is a promising start, but it will be wasted if businesses on both sides don’t own up to the roles they’ve played in perpetuating a national tragedy. “This is a historic opportunity to do more with what we already know is true,” she says. “If it ends up being us versus them and there’s pointing fingers and a lot of ‘We’re already doing this or that,’ that’s an old-school way of thinking that isn’t responsive to the public health need.”


More Great WIRED Stories

LG C8 OLED 4K TV: The Best-Looking TV of 2018

Shopping for a 4K TV is like trying to find a single wave in the ocean. Most TVs are indistinguishable from each other at a glance—unless your eyes happen to lock onto an OLED. When you look at an OLED TV, you tend to keep looking. You may not even know why at first, but it looks better. Even next to the best LCD TVs, an OLED, with its vivid colors and inky blacks will entrance you.

It’s simple actually: OLED TVs don’t need a backlight. All other TV screens have a panel of pixels and a light source of some kind—either a big grid of small Christmas Tree-like LED backlights, or lights on the edges that shines through the LCD panel. TV makers have gotten real skilled at improving backlit and edge-lit TVs. But, no matter—OLED bests even the most advanced LCD-based TVs in just about every metric.

That’s because every dot in the 4K (3,840 x 2,160) grid of pixels lights up individually. That means that every single pixel can turn itself completely off if a scene is dark, and that the colors in every pixel are extra vivid because the red, green, and blue subpixels can shoot their colors at your retinas without assistance.

LG made a good bet with its OLED screen tech. It’s currently the only company that makes OLED TV screens (it also supplies them to companies like Sony and Panasonic), and it’s had an iron grip on the tech since 2013. That’s the main reason why, for yet another year, LG’s many OLED TV series—B8, C8, E8, G8—are the best-looking TVs in the world. For about a month, I’ve watched all my TV shows and movies on the 55-inch C8 (OLED55C8PUA), a good representative of the whole lineup, and I don’t want to go back.

Thanks to OLED, the C8 is the only 4K TV I’ve used that makes absolutely everything I watch look noticeably better, even upscaled HD content or YouTube videos.

Science fiction shows, like The Expanse or any Star Trek look especially stunning with the deep blacks, but honestly, I also love that when a program is letterboxed, the top and bottom borders simply vanish. Even the drearily-lit palaces in The Crown have more depth and beauty thanks to the contrast on the C8.

As a gamer, I also appreciate the low 21ms latency in LG’s Game Mode. Games of Fortnite look colorful and punchy on it, and I may have gasped the first time I booted up Nintendo’s vibrant, bubbly fun Super Mario Odyssey.

Not a Perfect TV

I can wax poetic about the beauty of OLED for hours, but that doesn’t mean LG’s C8 or its peers are perfect TVs. The C8 was so thin at the top (less than a quarter inch) that I thought I might accidentally bend it when I laid it down on my couch to screw on the pedestal stand after I unboxed it. Luckily, it has a small amount of junk in its trunk toward the bottom (it’s about 2 inches thick), making it easy to pick up.

My extended family was visiting when I first set up the C8, and they got a bad first impression. For some reason, voice menus were on by default, so the TV loudly announced every menu movement I made, and when I tried to turn it off, the voice actually doubled in speed, sounding kind of like Alvin and the Chipmunks. I finally silenced the voices, but was annoyed that the TV assumed I was a cable subscriber, and put up a static snow screen with volume on high. Most modern TVs mute the static, at the very least, but LG’s TV menus are rough around the edges.

If you expect modern conveniences like the C8 automatically recognizing what devices you’ve plugged in, think again. My Roku is HDMI 3 to LG, and that’s all it may ever be. (There are 4 HDMI ports on this model, along with 3 USB, 1 optical, 1 cable, and most other ports you’d expect.)

LG

The Wii-like motion control remote control works well enough with LG’s webOS interface, and I like that holding the mic button down lets you talk to Google Assistant on the TV. But the remote is still a little busy, full of unneeded buttons. The TV settings menus also have clear backgrounds by default, which makes them difficult to read if you’re watching something reasonably bright. Changing menu transparency means digging deep into the picture settings, which aren’t intuitive.

Things really went off the rails when we tried to watch The Incredibles but had to fiddle with those picture settings to fix up the color and motion—something you’ll want to do, as well. The default settings had LG’s version of the annoying soap opera effect, called TruMotion, set to ON, and was too dimly lit for my tastes thanks to an energy-saving mode. So I tinkered with it, turned TruMotion OFF, and tweaked some other settings easily enough.

I thought I had it all dialed in until I switched inputs from my PS4 to my Roku and discovered the TV has no universal picture settings. Even if you alter your picture settings and hit “Apply to All Inputs,” you’ll still have to fix the advanced picture settings for every device you hook up. This is dumb, and makes an already complex picture setup process three or four times more frustrating.

It took me about an hour to understand what was going on and get it all set up. My family grew impatient as movie time was significantly delayed. They told me they’d never have the patience or troubleshooting knowledge to be able to dig in and tinker as much as I did. We even had some audio sync issues with the 4K Amazon Fire TV, too, though all my other devices worked perfectly.

Over the next few days, family members began to compliment the quality of the picture, and my wife is now a believer, but LG really needs to modernize and improve its settings and setup.

Even the webOS app interface, which is admittedly better than what other smart TVs have, could be easier to use. Apps don’t auto update. You’re instead taken through a labyrinth of menus just to tell the TV, yes, you’d like to update so you can use the app again. After telling it to download an update, there’s no easy way back either, so you have to reopen the apps menu entirely. Despite LG’s best efforts, I still recommend buying one of these TV streaming devices to watch Netflix and content from other services.

The C8 does have relatively good downward firing speakers for a TV, and is technically Dolby Atmos capable. As much as I didn’t mind its sound, there is no substitute for a good soundbar.

The only elephant in the room? Screen burn-in. It’s a kind of a shadow or ghost outline that you can see after a graphic is gone. It can happen with OLED TVs if you watch a lot of the same channels or play games with persistent on-screen elements (think CNN or QVC, or the heads up display of Fortnite). As someone who’s owned a Plasma TV for 7 years, I can say you probably won’t encounter permanent burn-in unless you have some very specific viewing habits, or disable the LG’s built-in tools. If the idea of a rare display flaw plaguing your expensive TV irks you, you’ll likely be waiting for a while—either LG will finally cure OLED’s Achilles’ Heel or something better will come along.

Still the Best

You’re going to have to spend some time tinkering (and a little annoyed) with all of LG’s 2018 OLED TVs, but the picture quality is worth it. So if you’re price-averse, take it from me: the $2,000+ price of the 55-Inch C8 melts away once you get used to the sweet picture quality you’ll have on-tap.

If it’s out of your budget, make sure to check prices on every LG OLED model, especially last year’s models. They may be a little older, but they’re identical to what you get this year in the ways that count, and prices can drop as low as $1,300. You can also try waiting until Thanksgiving weekend. That’s usually when TVs start getting big holiday discounts, though don’t expect the 2018 models to get cheaper than $1,500 even this winter.

If you truly want the best-looking TV, this is it. LG’s setup and menus may leave something to be desired, but its screen is so stunning that you’ll forgive it. In 2018, LG’s OLED TV lineup is the best you can buy.