Save $800 on this Samsung 49-inch gaming monitor and get a second monitor free
Samsung has brought back an incredible buy one get one free deal on gaming monitors. Right now, the 49-inch Samsung G95C is down to $800 from it's original price of $1,600. On top of that, when you order you also get a 27-inch Samsung G55C completely free. This incredible deal is similar to a promotion Samsung ran for the G8 monitor back in March. There's no indication when this deal will end, so if you need to spruce up your gaming cave, you should take advantage of these monitor deals today.
Why you should buy the Samsung G95C (and get a free Samsung G55C)
The Samsung G95C is a great option for gamers who need an ultrawide monitor. It has a 49-inch curved screen with Dual QHD resolution. That means it runs at 5120 × 1440 resolution and 32:9 aspect ratio. It's great for everything short of 4K. The 1000R sucks you in, and makes seeing the edges of the screen as natural as seeing the middle. It has a 240Hz refresh rate, so high frame rate games will feel smooth, and it has 1ms gray to gray response time.
While its visuals aren't quite on the level of an OLED display, it does get up to 1000 nits of brightness and a million-to-one contrast ratio. You'll get nice deep blacks and vibrant colors, and shadows will stay dark without going completely murky. As an added little bonus, the G95C has a built-in light on the back that can project colors on your wall that match your gameplay — a real mood setter.
We can't neglect the Samsung Odyssey G55C, which is normally $350 but you'll be getting for free. The G55C has a 165Hz refresh rate and a 1ms response time. It has QHD resolution and a slight curve, so it will fit along the same arc as your G95C.
Grab this buy one get one free deal at Samsung while the entire package is only $800. We're not sure how long it will stick around.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Switch 2's Record Sales Make It Nintendo's Fastest-Selling Console
TOKYO—Nintendo 7974 -3.76%decrease; red down pointing triangle seems to have hit a home run with the Switch 2, as red-hot demand for the gaming device makes it the fastest-selling console in the company's history. The Switch 2—Nintendo's first new gaming device in eight years—has sold over 3.5 million units worldwide since its June 5 launch. That is the highest tally for the first four days of sales for any Nintendo console, the Japanese company said Wednesday.
Digital Trends
an hour ago
- Digital Trends
Apple's updated Spotlight is the best upgrade in macOS Tahoe
It's only been a day since Apple revealed the massive Liquid Glass redesign across all its platforms and released the developer preview builds. Interestingly, most of the chatter has been centered on the ups and downs of the transparent aesthetics and the functional overhaul of iPadOS 26. The most meaningful update, however, flew under the radar. With macOS Tahoe, Apple has reimagined what Spotlight can do. So far, Spotlight has served as a system-wide search tool that lets you quickly access files, apps, emails, and more. Recommended Videos In macOS Tahoe, it has transformed into an action center and memory hub. Think of it as typing text commands in the search field, and the Mac automatically turns them into executable tasks. Imagine a sequence like 'Email Find this research paper to Saba with Urgent help subject.' That's what Spotlight is now capable of. It can find my apps, pull a file, and tap into shortcuts. Ever since the Spotlight updates were shown at WWDC 2025, the Mac community has been asking a familiar question: Are third-party power user utilities such as Raycast and Alfred effectively dead? Well, the answer is no, but the new Spotlight experience gets very close. With a few iterative builds, it just might. Ardent users will stick to the apps they paid for, as will I, but for an average Mac user, they can now save money on paid apps that otherwise fill the functional gaps in macOS. I've spent a day running macOS Tahoe on my MacBook Air, and it has emerged as my favorite Mac upgrade in years. Native clipboard, finally One of the most glaring omissions of macOS has been the absence of a native clipboard. The gap was big enough that it spawned a whole category of clipboard apps for macOS. Some of them were free, such as Maccy, while others were paid. In macOS Tahoe, Apple has integrated a system-wide clipboard within Spotlight. When I summon it using the Command + Space key shortcut, the pill-shaped search box now automatically opens four dedicated quick controls in the form of rounded icons. The last one is the built-in clipboard, which I can either click on, or directly pull using the Command + 4 shortcut. As far as capabilities go, it can copy text, images, and even folders. In a nutshell, the whole package. The only reasons a Mac user now has left to stick with third-party clipboard apps are the UI preference, add-on features, and developing muscle memory for those keyboard shortcuts. For example, Apps such as Maccy offer a minimalist Menu Bar-only design and perks such as automatic deletion of the clipboard items. But if you've never tried them, the native system built within Spotlight will serve you just fine. Actions Arguably, the most powerful upgrade to Spotlight is the ability to take actions across different apps. It's like asking a chatbot to create an image using the text-to-image route, but instead of photos, macOS Tahoe lets me handle a wide range of tasks. Apple is calling them parameters, and it looks familiar to how I fill the intent and destination fields in the Shortcuts app. Think of them as action hotwords, like 'Send.' Once I type it in Spotlight, it will show intelligent suggestions across apps such as Mail and Messages. And as I proceed, it makes adjustments in real-time, by adding fields such as Recipient and Subject, in case I want to compose an email. Then there is the pre-built set of actions separated across native apps and the Shortcuts dashboard. I'm talking about chores like calling a friend, sending an email, creating content boards, adding stuff to a reading list, making a GIF, launching an audio recorder, taking a note, moving files, and even interacting with images. To make life easier for users, as you type in the Spotlight Search field, you will see the categories and destinations right underneath. For example, if I type the word 'gradient,' Spotlight will search across the system and bring up matching entries, such as a mention in Messages, a file by that name, and or a Notes entry, among others. Quick Keys Think of Quick Keys as the evolution of Actions in Spotlight. It works by using a system of letter initials or finding an exact match. So, if I type 'se,' it can be interpreted as 'send email,' bring up a chat I had with Selina, or pull up a note that mentioned sensory impact. 'Br' suggests users take actions such as adjusting the brightness of the screen, setting the default browser, deleting browser data, opening a Safari bookmark from the British High Commission website, and more. It's like taking a look at my macOS usage history and all the tools and files stored on my computer at the same time. Essentially, whatever I type in Spotlight is intelligently identified as a command and text match. Furthermore, based on my own usage, the actions are ranked based on how recently I interacted with a certain file or task. Of course, there are filters at the top that will help me narrow down the search across different apps and system utilities. Once again, shortcuts are a crucial part of the equation. I can assign quick keys to each of my shortcuts, such as 'ch' for changing headlines into something more friendly by using modern social media-savvy terms. The best part is that the shortcut runs in the background, and I can see the response right within the Spotlight window. The most crucial piece of the equation? These actions will work across third-party apps, as well, using the App Intent system. With the next-gen Spotlight, Apple has created a universal system that lets you find items and execute tasks without even having to go through the hassle of launching apps. In macOS Tahoe, it has turned into an omnipresent assistant that learns from your usage history and executes tasks with merely a few letters and words. That's the kind of convenience we deserve from computing machines on a day-to-day basis.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Artificial Intelligence Will Soon Replace Many Human Arbitrators
Artificial intelligence is already affecting the way that we resolves disputes. Arbitration is a process whereby the parties to a dispute agree that it will be privately decided outside of the normal court process. Instead of the formal and heavily-structured litigation procedures of our courts, which can be very expensive and take literally years to reach a conclusion, arbitration offers a much more informal and less-structured process where a result can be reached within just a few months for a fraction of the cost. Instead of a judge, the parties to an arbitration hire what amounts to a private judge, known as the arbitrator of course, to oversee the arbitration process, consider the law and relevant evidence, and come to a conclusion. The downside to arbitration is that it amounts to a giant corner-cutting of the normal litigation process. The parties to an arbitration may or may not have access to discovery, which at any rate will be abbreviated and typically less than through the courts, and generally there is no effective appeal of the arbitrator's opinion. While the results reached by our courts are certainly not perfect ― there is a reason why we have full-time courts for appeals ― those results are likely by several magnitude to be more accurate than those reached by arbitration. Basically, the parties to an arbitration are trading the potential quality of the result to get the dispute over with as cheaply and quickly as possible. The entire philosophy of parties who agree to arbitration may be summed up as "get the dispute over with and get back to normal business as soon as possible." Particularly for large and deep-pocketed enterprises that are frequently involved in litigation, and for whom the results of litigation are viewed simply as an aggregate rounding error as opposed to a life-changing event, arbitration is a far more efficient method of resolving their myriad disputes than spending oodles in courtroom litigation. This now brings us to the arbitrators. The goal of these private judges is, again, to review the law and the evidence and reach a conclusion as quickly and efficiently as possible. In line with the purposes of arbitration, the goal is to resolve the dispute one way or another so that the parties can move on. The arbitrator's award is usually final since the courts may only review an arbitration award for some very serious error, sometimes known as manifest error, such as where the arbitration process in a particular case was corrupt or if the arbitrator exceeds his or her authority. Yes, some arbitration agreements provide for an appellate process, but these are quite rare. Most arbitrators are highly conscientious professionals who take their job very seriously. They carefully review the law and the evidence and attempt to reach the result that they think is correct under the circumstances. These arbitrators offer the parties a quality of decision that is at least equal to the courts and in some situations (particularly with specialized subject-matter) might even be better. Unfortunately, the better arbitrators naturally tend to end up with the more significant cases. Downstream, the picture isn't so pretty. The sad truth is that I've seen a lot of bad arbitration decisions of the years. Cases where it was obvious that the arbitrator simply "mailed it in" without spending much time trying to figure out the law or analyze the evidence. This is a result of mediocre lawyers becoming mediocre judges (more often than not through an election) and then leaving the bench early so that they can make the big bucks as a mediocre arbitrator. They don't have to worry about the quality of their decisions either, because there is no court of appeals looking over their shoulders. This isn't rough justice ― it's really not justice at all. Honestly, the parties should instead just flip a coin and live with the result. These mail-it-in arbitrators tend to congregate towards the lower-end cases. You might think this means that they are doing the least amount of damage here, but these smaller arbitrations often involve small businesses and individuals who don't have the financial strength to simply write off a bad decision as a rounding error in the same way that large enterprises do. Luckily, a new solution is likely to appear in the way of using artificial intelligence as a passable substitute for arbitrators in these smaller cases. Lawyers are already using AI to analyze evidence, summarize witness testimony, and conduct legal research. It would be a relatively small additional step for the parties to an arbitration to put together their briefs and evidence, upload it to the server, and then ask the AI program to render a decision. Two minutes later that decision will appear. The immediate objection will be that, "AI makes too many mistakes". While it is true that AI can make mistakes, it is also true the human arbitrators make mistakes as well. While the mistakes of most human arbitrators are honest, human arbitrators still suffer from implicit bias, they misread court opinions or err in their analysis of the evidence. Then, as discussed above, some human arbitrators at the lower levels are some combination of intellectually lazy and incompetent which make their arbitration awards little more than a form of random justice ― the parties might as well just flip a coin ― and certainly even a glitchy AI algorithm will be better than that. To take just one example of implicit bias, there has long been a concern that certain arbitrators working for certain arbitration firms will tend to find in favor of the firms who send them the most business. Or, in other words, some arbitrators are "voting their wallets" instead of strictly in favor of the merits of a particular case. AI holds the potential to eliminate this form of implicit bias, as well as other implicit biases arising from the race, sex, religion, or socio-economic status of a party. Unlike a human arbitrator who cannot "unring a bell" and may be swayed by evidence ultimately deemed to be inadmissible, an AI program can completely discount evidence that it deems to be inadmissible and without subliminally taking it into account. Admittedly, while the move from human arbitrators to AI takes place, it will likely be necessary for some human review to take place to make sure that the AI analysis hasn't gone totally off the rails. But since AI is inherently a learning algorithm, over time this constant human review may be dispensed with and the courts can review the arbitration awards as a perquisite to enrolling the award as a legal judgment just as they do now. But here it is to be remembered that if a human makes a mistake, probably only that particular human learns from it. If AI makes a mistake, the entire AI service learns from it. So, as we have seen from news reports of lawyer who have inadvisedly filed briefs AI-written legal briefs, AI will often just make up legal authorities out of thin air. But the AI algorithms can be modified going forward to provide for greater self-checking and accuracy, to eventually a degree of accuracy that even the most meticulous arbitrator would be hard-pressed to replicate. We have not yet discussed another advantage of AI which is the cost-savings that it potentially offers to litigants. Other than their own attorney fees, the single largest cost in any arbitration is of course the arbitrator's fee. With arbitrators charging many hundreds of dollars per hour (and with some superstar arbitrators now having an hourly rate in excess of $1,000), the fees ultimately charged by an arbitrator in a particular case can be very expensive. By contrast, the token charge for AI to make the same decision might be only $50 or something. Indeed, AI arbitration may prove to be so cheap that the parties could submit their arbitration briefs with attached evidence to several different AI services to check the results for accuracy of the decisions and still probably not exceed the cost of a single hour of a human arbitrator's time. It should be expected that the large legal database firms such as Westlaw and Lexis will develop these AI arbitration services sooner rather than later. They already have up-to-date legal authorities pre-loaded for AI consumption and they are both offering AI legal research services to attorneys already. Presumably, somebody at these firms will one day wake up and see that they are missing out on a potentially significant share of the lucrative arbitration marketplace and soon thereafter add arbitration consoles to their existing service packages. As with all things, AI arbitration will have its limits. For some time, the larger arbitration cases will likely require human arbitrators to make the difficult decisions regarding the deep nuances of the law and evidence which make the difference in such cases. But for the smaller arbitration cases where the parties are just eager for some quick and cheap outcome whatever it is, AI arbitration holds substantial promise. AI arbitration is coming, it is only a matter of when.
