I use this Oral-B electric toothbrush every day and it just fell 40% for Prime Day
I have been using this toothbrush for about two years now and right now you can get the Oral-B iO Series 3 for just $49 at Amazon via the on-page digital coupon. I almost bought another one... heck, I just might! Since using this toothbrush by teeth are always dazzling — just like this deal.
The Oral-B iO Series 3 is the electric toothbrush I keep going back to no matter how many I test. With a sleek design it certainly looks good in any bathroom, but most importantly, in my opinion, offers the best clean you'll ever get. It's far more stripped back than later models in the iO Series but still cleans like a dream. Note: Click the on-page digital coupon to get this price at checkout.
I take great pride in my dentist always telling me my teeth are perfect, so I like to think I know what a good toothbrush is. And although I test and review my fair of brushes here at Tom's Guide, I still haven't strayed from the Oral-B iO Series 3.
The base of the neck of the toothbrush has indicator lights to let you know if you are apply too much, not enough, or just the right amount of pressure. This helps me maintain a safe clean and keep my enamel strong (or so my dentist tells me).
One of the best things about this toothbrush though is the round brush head. This helps me get a deep clean all the way to the back of my mouth, even when dealing with pesky wisdom tooth flare ups.
There are quite a few iterations of the iO Series but the iO3 does everything you need it to without any of the bells and whistles, like the brushing feedback the iO5 model has. I am a firm believer that a toothbrush doesn't need Bluetooth compatibility.
While it is stripped back, 3 series comes with three brushing intestines for safe brushing on the gums and has three cleaning modes. These include daily, sensitive and whitening. What more could you need from an electric toothbrush?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
IKEA Just Launched the "Smartest" Collection — And This is the One Thing I'm Buying ASAP
This article may contain affiliate links that Yahoo and/or the publisher may receive a commission from if you buy a product or service through those links. If you've been wanting to dive into the smart home lifestyle, but haven't done so because you just don't like the way all those techy devices look, I've got good news for you. Just months after announcing the end of its SONOS speaker collaboration, IKEA's popular smart home lineup is getting a major overhaul — and you can buy one of these aesthetically pleasing yet affordable new devices right now. Get ready to go way beyond KALLAX hacks and into fully integrated living. IKEA confirmed it'll be releasing 20 new offerings over the next few months in a press release on Wednesday, July 9. Fans can look forward to a new generation of Matter-over-Thread-compatible sensors, smart lights, remotes, and, most importantly, speakers, that will roll out in the coming months. (For the uninitiated, Matter and Thread are smart home standards. Matter 'is the language that smart home devices speak,' while Thread 'is the network they use to communicate,' per For the non-techy folks, this can all sound like confusing tech babble. But it's not — IKEA says this move will make its smart home products easier to use for anyone, so you can simply 'plug and play.' The best part? The IKEA DIRIGERA smart hub now allows you to connect your IKEA tech with other branded products (such as Apple, Amazon, Google, and Samsung) that you already own, making your entire home's smart system much more integrated and seamless. Drumming up the excitement early, IKEA gave buyers a preview of its brand-new smart home lineup by releasing its NATTBADD Bluetooth Speaker on July 9 — and the retro yet futuristic design costs less than $50. IKEA $50 Buy Now Despite its futuristic appearance, the new NATTBADD Bluetooth Speaker is designed to look like a vintage radio while featuring all the state-of-the art capabilities that you'd expect from your Bluetooth speaker. Available for just $49.99, the NATTBADD Bluetooth Speaker comes in either a canary yellow (my personal favorite colorway) as well as a black or nude hue depending on the vibe of your home. Shaped with a half-moon design on top and a square base, the compact speaker won't take up much space with its 7-inch height, nearly 5-inch width, and just under 4-inch length. However, the simplicity of the design (there are just two buttons in the front) is misleading, because you can simply tap a button to zero in on the Spotify Tap functionality, or opt to go into multi-speaker mode to connect to other NATTBAD speakers around your space. IKEA fans who are looking for a speaker with a little pizzazz will want to wait out for the BLOMPRAKT Speaker with Light, which will be rolling out in October. The table speaker looks like a light blue sci-fi-inspired lamp at first glance, but you can also use it to play your favorite music without taking up any extra space on your desk or bedside table. In addition to the BLOMPRAKT Speaker with Light's release in October, IKEA will be rolling out a new line of speakers in collaboration with Swedish designer Tekla Severin in January 2026. IKEA of Sweden's David Granath told The Verge that the company will also be releasing new product categories next January and April. We Used Our New 'Room Plan' Tool to Give This Living Room 3 Distinct Styles — See How, Then Try It Yourself The Design Changemakers to Know in 2025 Create Your Own 3D Room Plan with Our New Tool Sign up for Apartment Therapy's Daily email newsletter to receive our favorite posts, tours, products, and shopping guides in your inbox.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
AI coding tools made some experienced software engineers less productive in a recent study
AI coding assistants decreased experienced software developers' productivity by 19%, a new METR study suggests. The study found developers were overconfident in the AI tools, expecting a 20% productivity boost even after using them. Critics caution that AI code editors have advanced since the February study period and that the results are site-specific. AI code editors have quickly become a mainstay of software development, employed by tech giants such as Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. In an interesting twist, a new study suggests AI tools made some developers less productive. Experienced developers using AI coding tools took 19% longer to complete issues than those not using generative AI assistance, according to a new study from Model Evaluation & Threat Research (METR). Even after completing the tasks, participants couldn't accurately gauge their own productivity, the study said: The average AI-assisted developers still thought their productivity had gained by 20%. METR's study recruited 16 developers with large, open-source repositories that they had worked on for years. The developers were randomly assigned into two groups: Those allowed to use AI coding assistance and those who weren't. The AI-assisted coders could choose which vibe-coding tool they used. Most chose Cursor with Claude 3.5/3.7 Sonnet. Business Insider reached out to Cursor for comment. Developers without AI spent over 10% more time actively coding, the study said. The AI-assisted coders spent over 20% more time reviewing AI outputs, prompting AI, waiting on AI, or being idle. METR researcher Nate Rush told BI he uses an AI code editor every day. While he didn't make a formal prediction about the study's results, Rush said he jotted down positive productivity figures he expected the study to reach. He remains surprised by the negative end result — and cautions against taking it out of context. "Much of what we see is the specificity of our setting," Rush said, explaining that developers without the participants' 5-10 years of expertise would likely see different results. "But the fact that we found any slowdown at all was really surprising." Steve Newman, serial entrepreneur and cofounder of Google Docs, described the findings in a Substack post as "too bad to be true," but after more careful analysis of the study and its methodology, he found the study credible. "This study doesn't expose AI coding tools as a fraud, but it does remind us that they have important limitations (for now, at least)," Newman wrote. The METR researchers said they found evidence for multiple contributors to the productivity slowdown. Over-optimism was one likely factor: Before completing the tasks, developers predicted AI would decrease implementation time by 24%. For skilled developers, it may still be quicker to do what you know well. The METR study found that AI-assisted participants slowed down on the issues they were more familiar with. They also reported that their level of experience made it more difficult for AI to help them. AI also may not be reliable enough yet to produce clean and accurate code. AI-assisted developers in the study accepted less than 44% of the generated code, and spent 9% of their time cleaning AI outputs. Ruben Bloom, one of the study's developers, posted a reaction thread on X. Coding assistants have developed considerably since he participated in February. "I think if the result is valid at this point in time, that's one thing, I think if people are citing in another 3 months' time, they'll be making a mistake," Bloom wrote. METR's Rush acknowledges that the 19% slowdown is a "point-in-time measurement" and that he'd like to study the figure over time. Rush stands by the study's takeaway that AI productivity gains may be more individualized than expected. "A number of developers told me this really interesting anecdote, which is, 'Knowing this information, I feel this desire to use AI more judiciously,'" Rush said. "On an individual level, these developers know their actual productivity impact. They can make more informed decisions." Read the original article on Business Insider
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
UnitedHealth's campaign to quiet critics
Mary Strause, a filmmaker in Wisconsin, logged on to Amazon's video-streaming service in late May so she could share a link to her latest project, a docuseries that harshly criticized the U.S. health care industry. She was surprised to see that her video had vanished. Strause had no way of knowing it, but the video had been taken down after a law firm working for UnitedHealth Group, one of the country's largest health care companies, sent a letter warning Amazon and another streaming service, Vimeo, that the video was defamatory. It was the latest salvo in an aggressive and wide-ranging campaign to quiet critics. In recent months, UnitedHealth has targeted traditional journalists and news outlets, a prominent investor, a Texas doctor and activists like Strause and her father, who complained about a UnitedHealth subsidiary. In legal letters and court filings, UnitedHealth has invoked last year's killing of Brian Thompson, the CEO of the company's health insurance division, to argue that intense criticism of the company risks inciting further violence. The tactics have had an impact. Amazon and Vimeo both removed Strause's film. The Guardian postponed publishing an investigation of the company after UnitedHealth sued over a previous article it said was defamatory. UnitedHealth joins a growing group of companies and wealthy individuals, including President Donald Trump, who are using legal threats and lawsuits to deter or penalize criticism. Over the years, there have been scattered examples of embattled companies -- such as Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive painkiller OxyContin -- deploying legal offensives against a broad spectrum of journalists and critics, said Lee Levine, a retired First Amendment lawyer who has defended news outlets, including The New York Times. 'Some version of this has been going on for a long, long time,' Levine said. But, he added, 'the incidence of it has increased.' For UnitedHealth, the stakes are high. In recent years, the company has been the subject of extensive investigative reporting into its billing practices and denials of patient care, among other things. It faces a variety of federal criminal and civil investigations, including into potential Medicare fraud and antitrust violations, The Wall Street Journal has reported. 'Negative publicity may adversely affect our stock price, damage our reputation and expose us to unexpected or unwarranted regulatory scrutiny,' UnitedHealth noted in its most recent annual report. The company's shares have declined 40% over the past year. Eric Hausman, a spokesperson for UnitedHealth, defended the company's efforts. 'The truth matters, and there's a big difference between 'criticism' and irresponsibly omitting facts and context,' he said in a statement. 'When others get it wrong, we have an obligation to our customers, employees and other stakeholders to correct the record, including by making our case in court when necessary.' Even before Thompson was fatally shot in December on his way into a Manhattan hotel, the company had been seeking to tamp down negative publicity. In March 2024, The Examiner News in Mount Kisco, New York, published its latest investigation of a UnitedHealth division, Optum Medical Care, that operated in the area. A source had provided Adam Stone, the newspaper's publisher, with a recording of Optum employees, and Stone said he inadvertently posted the whole file, rather than a snippet, with his article. Within hours, he had corrected the mistake -- but not before Optum had noticed. About a week later, Stone received a letter from the executive who ran Optum in New York and New Jersey, saying he had potentially committed a crime by airing audio that included private information about patients. The executive demanded that Stone destroy the audio and said the company might seek a court injunction barring him from continuing to publish it. Stone replied that he would not destroy the audio. An Optum lawyer then wrote a letter reiterating the demand. Stone again refused. It was the last he heard from the company. 'The aim was to use scare tactics to intimidate,' Stone said. UnitedHealth's efforts intensified after Thompson's killing. In early January, Dr. Elisabeth Potter, a plastic surgeon in Austin, Texas, posted a self-made video on TikTok and Instagram that described how she had interrupted breast-reconstruction surgery to respond to a phone call from UnitedHealth about whether the insurer would cover a patient's stay at a hospital. The call had come to the operating room's phone line, leading her to believe it was urgent. 'Insurance is out of control,' Potter said in the video. 'I have no other words.' The short video was viewed millions of times and attracted hundreds of thousands of 'likes' on social media. About a week later, Potter received a six-page letter from the law firm Clare Locke, which UnitedHealth had retained as 'defamation counsel.' The letter claimed that she had distorted the circumstances of the phone call and that her video was libelous. It noted that some commenters were responding to her posts by celebrating Thompson's killing. The letter demanded that she retract her video and apologize. A lawyer for Potter sent a letter to Clare Locke defending the accuracy of the video. The law firm did not respond, Potter said. One of the many people who shared Potter's video was billionaire investor Bill Ackman, who has nearly 2 million followers on the social platform X and regularly wades into controversies. In a post accompanying the video, he suggested that investors should bet against UnitedHealth's stock and that the Securities and Exchange Commission should investigate the company. The post brought even more attention to Potter's video. Ackman soon heard from Clare Locke. He already knew the firm. He and his wife, Neri Oxman, had hired Clare Locke to threaten Business Insider after it reported in 2024 that she had plagiarized parts of her doctoral dissertation. (They did not end up suing.) Now, though, the roles were reversed. One of the firm's co-founders called an aide to Ackman and told him that the video included falsehoods. And UnitedHealth contacted the SEC to complain that Ackman was trying to drive down the company's stock price. Ackman deleted the post. But after he spoke with Potter and looked at notes and call logs provided by her lawyer, he changed course. 'I believe that Dr. Potter told the truth,' he wrote on X in February. He accused UnitedHealth of 'brazen attempts to silence UNH's critics.' Clare Locke never followed up with him. Still, Potter's conflict with the company was not over, she said. She had recently opened her own surgery center and had hired a consultant to help persuade UnitedHealth and other insurers to classify it as an in-network provider. Winning that designation was essential to Potter's business plan. Then Potter's video went viral, and UnitedHealth stopped responding to inquiries from her representative, she said. Potter perceived it as retaliation. Although she said she was still in talks with other major insurers, UnitedHealth is the country's largest. She said she worried that her surgery center might have to close. At the time that she posted the video, Potter hadn't anticipated UnitedHealth's reaction. 'I guess I was naive,' she said. Hausman, the UnitedHealth spokesperson, said the insurer had decided not to designate Potter's center as in-network before she posted her video. In May, The Guardian published an investigation that said UnitedHealth had sought to save money by discouraging nursing homes from sending sick residents to the hospital. The article -- which was based on lawsuits, internal company documents, patient records and interviews -- noted that UnitedHealth disputed its findings. Last month, UnitedHealth sued The Guardian for defamation. The lawsuit accused the news organization of deliberately publishing false accusations and 'brazenly trying to capitalize on the tragic and shocking assassination' of Thompson. The Guardian said it stood by its reporting and was preparing to defend itself against the lawsuit. The timing of the lawsuit was notable. It was filed the day before The Guardian was scheduled to publish a second investigation into UnitedHealth, according to people familiar with the plans. The news organization had informed UnitedHealth about the article's timing. After the lawsuit was filed, editors at The Guardian decided to postpone publication of the second piece, the people said. It hasn't yet run. It was around this time that Strause, the filmmaker from Wisconsin, logged on to Amazon's video-streaming service to get a link to share with a friend. Strause and her father, Dan Strause, who had helped run a small chain of pharmacies in Wisconsin, had hoped that the docuseries, called 'Modern Medical Mafia,' would reveal the inner workings of drug industry middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs. One of the largest PBMs, Optum Rx, is a UnitedHealth subsidiary. The show's central premise was that PBMs operated like an organized-crime ring, using their dominant market positions to push prescription prices ever higher. The first episode included interviews with two members of Congress and several prominent critics of PBMs and featured computer-generated animations of shadow-cloaked businesspeople and gangsters. A trailer for the series went online late last year, and UnitedHealth learned that it was going to be available on platforms including Amazon Prime Video. In January, Clare Locke flagged UnitedHealth's concerns in a letter to Amazon's outside counsel. The episode nonetheless became available on Prime Video in late March. On May 21, Clare Locke wrote again to Amazon's lawyers. The 16-page letter claimed that the docuseries 'spreads a vociferous and false screed in a thinly-veiled call to violence for anyone who is dissatisfied with the American health care system. Recent history and Brian Thompson's murder demonstrates the devastating and irreversible consequences of ginning up such hatred with false claims designed to inspire violence.' The letter said the video violated Amazon's terms of service and should be removed, in part because it 'doxxed our clients' physical address' by showing a street sign for Optum Way in Minnesota. Within days, the video -- which had no more than a few hundred views -- had been removed from Prime Video. Strause contacted Filmhub, the company that had helped place the documentary on the platform, to ask why. 'Channels occasionally decline and remove titles that they say are not aligned with their ever-changing content policies,' Filmhub responded, noting that Amazon's decision was not subject to appeal. (An Amazon spokesperson, Katie Barker, said in a statement that Filmhub decided to have 'Modern Medical Mafia' removed after Amazon flagged its 'low video quality.' Filmhub executives did not respond to requests for comment.) In early June, Strause received an email from Vimeo, where 'Modern Medical Mafia' had also been available for streaming. 'This content was removed due to a complaint Vimeo received concerning defamation,' the email said. 'Vimeo is not able to evaluate the truth or falsity of such a claim, and it asks that you resolve the dispute directly with the complainants, Optum Rx and UnitedHealth Group.' To Strause, UnitedHealth's determination to get her video taken down showed that she and her father were exposing the truth. 'They're intimidated by what we're saying,' she said. The video remains available on YouTube, which said it had not received a request to remove it, and Strause said she planned to upload the rest of the series to that platform later this year. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
