The Apple Watch Series 10 is the lowest it has ever been with $120 off
We were ready to hang up our cart and call it a wrap on Prime Day 2025 but apparently, Amazon had one last surprise up its compression sleeve.
The Apple Watch Series 10, yes, the one with the hot body, jet black aluminum case, and all the sensors we pretend we fully understand. Thankfully, our fellow commerce writer, Miska Saleman, wrote a review to get every last inch out of this wearable tech.
Currently, it's still sitting on the sale shelf at a shocking $279 (down from $399). This isn't some no-name step tracker hiding in the algorithmic abyss; it's Apple, y'all, and last time we checked, it's still dominating the market.
Apple's thrown in options like rose gold, titanium finishes, and Milanese loops. Plus, all models feature water resistance, a voice control interface, and enough health metrics to terrify your doctor into early retirement.
And if you're not already a member, don't stress, you can still get in on the savings with a free 30-day trial of Prime, unlocking all the best post-Prime Day deals.
Over 10,000 were snatched up in the past month, and we wouldn't be shocked if the remaining inventory disappears before this sentence is read. So if your wrist has been feeling a little underdressed lately, shop for it.
Amazon
The Series 10 is a versatile health tracker, monitoring everything from heart rate and sleep to wrist temperature and menstrual cycles. It includes unique tools like the Tides app for surfers, Headspace for mindfulness, and Strava integration for runners — great for unserious outdoor enthusiasts and serious athletes alike. It's rugged, sleek, and charges up to 80% in under 30 minutes. Seamlessly switch between sending texts, making calls, and tracking progress with the activity ring. The Series 10 truly does it all. Read more in our full review here.
For over 200 years, the New York Post has been America's go-to source for bold news, engaging stories, in-depth reporting, and now, insightful shopping guidance. We're not just thorough reporters – we sift through mountains of information, test and compare products, and consult experts on any topics we aren't already schooled specialists in to deliver useful, realistic product recommendations based on our extensive and hands-on analysis. Here at The Post, we're known for being brutally honest – we clearly label partnership content, and whether we receive anything from affiliate links, so you always know where we stand. We routinely update content to reflect current research and expert advice, provide context (and wit) and ensure our links work. Please note that deals can expire, and all prices are subject to change.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
18 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What Happens When Big Tech Goes Nuclear?
Silicon Valley firms are advocating for the U.S. to embark on a nuclear energy renaissance. They have received support from President Donald Trump, who recently signed four executive orders which seek to quadruple domestic production of electricity from nuclear power within the next 25 years. The massive energy needs of the data centers required to run artificial intelligence (AI) operations have led Big Tech firms like Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta to buy electricity from preexisting nuclear power plants, push for reopening closed ones, and encourage the construction of new reactors. Microsoft even signed an agreement in September 2024 to restart Unit 1 reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania—the site of the worst civil nuclear accident in U.S. history when the reactor core of Unit 2 melted down in March 1979. The role of private enterprise is not new in driving technological innovation in nuclear fission. The Manhattan Project itself had companies such as Dupont, Union Carbide, Bechtel, and Westinghouse heavily involved under the guidance of the federal government. After World War II, the federal government took the lead in nurturing the U.S. nuclear energy industry. It subsidized and regulated nuclear energy in an attempt to promote this new source of electricity to utility providers while also reducing the public health risks from accidents. The Trump Administration's executive orders on nuclear energy gut regulation in the name of efficiency and cost-cuts. But if the history of nuclear energy's emergence and expansion offers us any lessons on this, it's that the federal government has been pivotal for nuclear energy's growth, reliability, and safety. Read More: Nuclear Power Is the Only Solution For almost a decade after the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the federal government kept the scientific knowledge tied to nuclear energy and weapons as top-secret 'restricted data.' But in 1954, Congress shifted gears and passed the Atomic Energy Act. Unlike its 1946 predecessor, this Act allowed for the commercialization of nuclear knowhow. The role of government was vital in creating an atomic marketplace because it had to determine which technologies private companies could trade in, without posing risks to U.S. national security—a most important tenet during the early Cold War to prevent nuclear proliferation. This early technological ambiguity posed security challenges. In one case, the American company Vitro International ended up selling blueprints for a plutonium reprocessing plant to India—a key piece of infrastructure useful both for generating nuclear power and for developing a nuclear weapon. The sale ended up helping advance India's nuclear weapons program, exposing the need for clear rules and laws governing the sale of nuclear information, which only the federal government could devise. In addition to setting rules about what companies could do with nuclear information, the government offered subsidies to spur nuclear energy growth within the United States. It also encouraged U.S. companies to sell nuclear reactors abroad as part of broader goal of maintaining American technological primacy in the postwar world order. The federal government also enacted regulation to ensure nuclear energy's safety and security. In 1957, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, which limited the liability of the nuclear industry for accidents and also provided the public with mechanisms for seeking compensation when they occurred. In other words, the nuclear industry accepted regulation because the government was providing the majority of funding to build nuclear power plants. This acceptance, however, would change within a decade. By the late 1960s, the federal government's willingness and capacity to support nuclear energy had diminished—for reasons having little to do directly with energy policy. The U.S. had to accumulated large deficits due to military escalation in Vietnam, which prompted a budget crunch. Moreover, as the public became more skeptical of political elites and the government due to anti-war sentiments against Vietnam, and later, the Watergate scandal, opposition to large state-led projects such as nuclear power grew. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission was even reorganized, beginning under President Richard Nixon's administration, to curtail the power of the Commission. By the Carter years, the Commission had become the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which exists till this today, but whose regulatory powers the Trump Administration plans to drastically reduce. As government funding for the nuclear energy industry dropped, private finance stepped into the void. But, being primarily motivated by profit, private banks did not find nuclear energy lucrative enough, especially owing to frequent cost overruns of reactor construction projects, red tape, and regulation. Thus, private funding did not match the same levels of economic support that the state had once provided. Without government subsidies, the nuclear energy industry experienced financial difficulties— years before the accident at Three Mile Island shocked the nation in 1979. The Reagan Administration attempted to revive the industry by cutting regulations, or what it called 'Carter-era anti-growth policies,' while also boosting funding for nuclear energy by 36% in 1981. But the effort to save the industry failed. While the funding boost was quite generous in the context of an administration that was cutting spending on social service programs, it was not enough to cover the constant cost overruns of nuclear energy projects. Additionally, the general public came to mistrust and reject nuclear energy projects, further disillusioned by the Three Mile Island disaster. New operators even feared financial liability in the event of future accidents. Read More: The U.S. Is Losing a New Nuclear Arms Race In 1986, the severe nuclear accident in Chernobyl in the Soviet Union further increased opposition to nuclear power globally. In the U.S., the construction of new nuclear power plants halted. The only new nuclear units to be added to the grid in the 1980s were those whose construction began in the 1960s and 1970s. The current push for nuclear energy looks very different from the original one in the 1950s. Unlike in the past when the majority of funding for nuclear energy came from the state, private investments from the Silicon Valley are now flowing to the U.S. nuclear energy sector at unprecedented levels. Nuclear energy startups have mushroomed, a large number of these funded by Big Tech. This threatens to tilt the technocratic and regulatory power away from the state. President Trump's executive orders support this tilt through a variety of measures, including reducing power of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and emphasizing advanced reactor testing outside the national laboratories that are hubs of American scientific and technological innovations resulting from the Manhattan Project. And yet, historically, the U.S. nuclear energy industry has thrived when government provided strong guidance. When the federal government stepped back, the industry suffered immensely. China, Russia, and France have all learned this lesson too, embracing state-led and majority state funded industries. The ethos of Big Tech to 'move fast and break things' could spur unprecedented innovation in nuclear energy, especially through the construction of small modular reactors, microreactors, and even fusion. But, just like Silicon Valley itself, which has historically flourished through the invisible hand of the state, the nuclear energy industry might also need increased guidance from the government in order to be safe, secure, and reliable. Jayita Sarkar is Professor of Global History of Inequalities at the University of Glasgow and author of the award-winning book, Ploughshares and Swords: India's Nuclear Program in the Global Cold War (Cornell University Press, 2022). She is currently finishing her next book, Atomic Capitalism (Princeton University Press, under contract). She is a British Academy Global Innovation Fellow for 2024-25 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
CNBC
18 minutes ago
- CNBC
Amazon turns to rival SpaceX to launch next batch of Kuiper internet satellites
As Amazon chases SpaceX in the internet satellite market, the e-commerce and computing giant is now counting on Elon Musk's rival company to get its next batch of devices into space. On Wednesday, weather permitting, 24 Kuiper satellites will hitch a ride on one of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets from a launchpad on Florida's Space Coast. A 27-minute launch window for the mission, dubbed "KF-01," opens at 2:18 a.m. ET. The launch will be livestreamed on X, the social media platform also owned by Musk. The mission marks an unusual alliance. SpaceX's Starlink is currently the dominant provider of low earth orbit satellite internet, with a constellation of roughly 8,000 satellites and about 5 million customers worldwide. Amazon launched Project Kuiper in 2019 with an aim to provide broadband internet from a constellation of more than 3,000 satellites. The company is working under a tight deadline imposed by the Federal Communications Commission that requires it to have about 1,600 satellites in orbit by the end of July 2026. Amazon's first two Kuiper launches came in April and June, sending 27 satellites each time aboard rockets supplied by United Launch Alliance. Assuming Wednesday's launch is a success, Amazon will have a total of 78 satellites in orbit. In order to meet the FCC's tight deadline, Amazon needs to rapidly manufacture and deploy satellites, securing a hefty amount of capacity from rocket providers. Kuiper has booked up to 83 launches, including three rides with SpaceX. Space has emerged as a battleground between Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, two of the world's richest men. Aside from Kuiper, Bezos also competes with Musk via his rocket company Blue Origin. Blue Origin in January sent up its massive New Glenn rocket for the first time, which is intended to rival SpaceX's reusable Falcon 9 rockets. While Blue Origin currently trails SpaceX, Bezos last year predicted his latest venture will one day be bigger than Amazon, which he started in 1994. Kuiper has become one of Amazon's biggest bets, with more than $10 billion earmarked for the project. The company may need to spend as much as $23 billion to build its full constellation, analysts at Bank of America wrote in a note to clients last week. That figure doesn't include the cost of building terminals, which consumers will use to connect to the service. The analysts estimate Amazon is spending $150 million per launch this year, while satellite production costs are projected to total $1.1 billion by the fourth quarter. Amazon is going after a market that's expected to grow to at least $40 billion by 2030, the analysts wrote, citing estimates by Boston Consulting Group. The firm estimated that Amazon could generate $7.1 billion in sales from Kuiper by 2032 if it claims 30% of the market. "With Starlink's solid early growth, our estimates could be conservative," the analysts wrote.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dietitian Reveals Best Ways to Improve Body Odor
A recent study showed that some foods impact the smell of body odor in a negative way. New Jersey-based dietitian Erin Palinski-Wade revealed those foods in a study via Fox News, and they are as follows: Fish, spices, vegetables such as broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts and red meat. On the flip side, Palinski-Wade also gave a very helpful tip and named some foods that can help improve body odor. "Foods like apples, leafy greens, yogurt and green tea may help to neutralize odor-causing compounds and support beneficial gut bacteria, which can reduce unpleasant body odors." Palinski-Wade gave some more information and tips to improve body odor. "Staying well-hydrated and focusing on supporting metabolic health by improving quality sleep, reducing stress and staying active can all help to improve overall body odor." Of course, the best way is to bathe regularly, which seems obvious. Other ways to do so are cutting down on foods that are rich in sulfur, cutting down on spicy foods and drinking more water. It's a big issue, and a study in 2024 showed that 72% of men are anxious about how they smell, per the New York Post. On that note, 51% didn't know how to fix that issue. It seems that Palinski-Wade has given quite a few suggestions for those looking to cut down on their body Reveals Best Ways to Improve Body Odor first appeared on Men's Journal on Jul 15, 2025
