Classful Launches Self-Paced Video Course Platform, Unlocking Passive Income for Educators
Teach on Classful removes the common barriers to online course creation:
Educators simply open a free Classful account, navigate to Settings > Integrations, toggle "Sell Courses," connect Stripe, and start uploading lessons. No live sessions, credentials, or external plugins required.
Beta Program Now Open
Early adopters can join the beta starting this August 5, 2025. Participants who publish a course before full launch will receive priority placement in the public catalog.
Meeting Surging Demand for Self-Paced Learning
Analysts project the global e-learning market will exceed $400 billion by 2026, and self-paced formats account for roughly 77% of that demand. Classful's new functionality positions educators to capture their share without expensive software stacks or marketing overhead.
"Teachers already rely on Classful for fundraising and digital resources," said the spokesperson, Connor Clem. "Expanding that trust to self-paced video courses was the logical next step. With one dashboard, educators can now raise funds, sell resources, and earn recurring course revenue-all in one place."
Why Classful Stands Apart
Unlike broad marketplace platforms that prioritize algorithmic ad spend, Classful focuses exclusively on educator-centric content, ensuring:
Educators, coaches, and creatives eager to diversify income are invited to sign up today at classful.com. Publish your first course during the beta to secure front-row visibility for the official launch in September 2025.
About Classful
Based in Las Vegas, Classful provides a unified platform for classroom fundraising, digital resource sales, and now self‑paced video courses. By simplifying technology and amplifying reach, Classful empowers educators to maximize earnings and impact in the digital age. For more information, visit classful.com, opens new tab.
Media Contact
Connor Clem+1 725-550-5661support@classful.com
###
SOURCE: Classful
Copyright 2025 EZ Newswire
See release on EZ Newswire
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Geeky Gadgets
24 minutes ago
- Geeky Gadgets
Oakley Meta HSTN vs. Ray-Ban Meta: The Smart Glasses Showdown
Smart glasses have transitioned from science fiction to reality, and two standout options in this space are the Meta Oakley HSTN and Ray-Ban Meta. These devices combine advanced technologies such as Meta AI, open-ear audio, and seamless app connectivity, but they cater to distinct user preferences. This detailed comparison video from HotshotTek will help you determine which model best suits your lifestyle and needs. Watch this video on YouTube. Design and Comfort The Ray-Ban Meta emphasizes versatility and style, offering a range of designs, including Wayfarer, Highlander, and Skylers, alongside numerous color and lens options. This makes it an excellent choice for those who prioritize personalization and aesthetics. In contrast, the Oakley HSTN adopts a sporty, performance-driven design with a single frame style. While its initial color options are limited, future releases are expected to expand its variety. Comfort is another critical factor. The Ray-Ban Meta glasses are designed for prolonged wear and are particularly accommodating for users with wider face shapes. On the other hand, the Oakley HSTN may feel tighter on broader faces, making it less ideal for extended use. If your priorities include style and all-day comfort, the Ray-Ban Meta is likely the better option. Camera and Recording Capabilities For those who value high-quality content creation, the Oakley HSTN stands out with its 12MP ultra-wide camera, capable of recording in 3K resolution. This makes it a strong choice for users who need professional-grade photography and videography. In comparison, the Ray-Ban Meta offers 1080p recording, which is sufficient for casual use but falls short for more demanding projects. Both models incorporate advanced features such as HDR, image stabilization, and a 1-second shutter delay to minimize accidental captures. However, if superior resolution is a priority for your creative endeavors, the Oakley HSTN is the clear winner. Battery Life Battery performance is a crucial consideration for any wearable device. The Oakley HSTN excels in this area, offering 7-8 hours of real-world usage compared to the Ray-Ban Meta's 4-5 hours. Both models include charging cases, but the Oakley HSTN's case provides an additional 48 hours of battery life, while the Ray-Ban Meta's case offers 38 hours. For users who require extended battery life for long days or intensive recording sessions, the Oakley HSTN delivers greater reliability and endurance. Audio and Microphone Performance Both models feature open-ear audio technology, allowing you to remain aware of your surroundings while enjoying clear sound quality. Noise cancellation is effective on both devices, making sure crisp audio even in noisy environments. Additionally, their microphones are designed to deliver excellent voice clarity, making them suitable for calls and recordings. Whether you're listening to music, taking calls, or recording audio, both the Oakley HSTN and Ray-Ban Meta provide a comparable and satisfying audio experience. Meta AI Integration Meta AI is a standout feature in both models, offering a range of capabilities that enhance their functionality. These include hands-free commands, live translation, and real-time text message notifications. Additional features such as live streaming, object recognition, and even solving equations using the camera further expand their utility. These AI-driven features make the glasses versatile tools for both professional and personal use, adding significant value to the user experience. Controls and Connectivity Both glasses use intuitive touchpad controls for managing volume, media playback, and activating Meta AI. They also connect seamlessly to the Meta app, where users can customize settings and access features like live streaming. This robust app integration ensures a smooth and user-friendly experience for both models. Storage and Durability With 32GB of internal storage, both models can store up to 100 videos or 500 photos, providing ample space for your media needs. Additionally, their IPX4 water resistance protects against light rain or splashes, making sure durability for everyday use. Potential Drawbacks While both models offer impressive features, they are not without limitations: Neither model includes a 'find my device' feature, increasing the risk of misplacement. The Oakley HSTN 's limited design options and snug fit may not suit all users. 's limited design options and snug fit may not suit all users. Both models record in portrait mode by default, which may require cropping for landscape-oriented content. The anticipated third-generation Ray-Ban glasses, rumored to include significant upgrades, are not yet available. Which Smart Glasses Should You Choose? Your decision between the Oakley HSTN and Ray-Ban Meta ultimately depends on your specific needs and preferences: Oakley HSTN: Best for content creators and professionals who prioritize superior camera resolution and extended battery life. Best for content creators and professionals who prioritize superior camera resolution and extended battery life. Ray-Ban Meta: Ideal for casual users who value stylish designs, personalization, and all-day comfort. Both models represent the forefront of wearable technology, offering a blend of functionality and innovation. Whether you prioritize style, performance, or battery life, these smart glasses are designed to enhance your daily life and keep you connected in a modern, seamless way. Here are more detailed guides and articles that you may find helpful on Meta AI Integration. Source & Image Credit: HotshotTek Filed Under: Gadgets News, Guides, Technology News Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Victims of killer self-driving Tesla on autopilot get a huge payout after four-year legal battle
A Miami jury has found Tesla was partly responsible for the 2019 crash of a self-driving vehicle that killed a woman and left her boyfriend badly injured to the tune of $242million in damages. Naibel Benavides Leon, 22, died after a Tesla Model S slammed in to her and boyfriend Dillon Angulo, then 27, in 2019. The couple had pulled over to look at the stars at the side of a road near Key Largo, Florida, when they were struck by the vehicle after driver George McGee took his eye off the road to reach for his phone. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cellphone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. Footage from the Tesla's front camera showed McGee blow through a red light as he speeds down the road at nearly 70mph. The car passes a stop sign and crashes through several other road signs before striking the couple's vehicle, which was parked 40 feet off Card Sound Road by County Road 905. Benavides Leon was thrown 75 feet and died at the scene, while Angulo suffered serious injuries, according to a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Tesla by the woman's estate. The decision ends a four-year long case remarkable not just in its outcome but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of Leon and for her injured boyfriend Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn´t thought it was there. 'We finally learned what happened that night, that the car was actually defective,' said Benavides' sister, Neima Benavides. 'Justice was achieved.' The decision comes as Elon Musk (pictured) seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. 'Today´s verdict is wrong,' Tesla said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla´s and the entire industry´s efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver - from day one - admitted and accepted responsibility.' In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million of a total $129 million in compensatory damages for the crash, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. 'It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry,' said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. 'It's not a good day for Tesla.' Tesla said it will appeal. Even if that fails, the company says it will end up paying far less than what the jury decided because of a pre-trial agreement that limits punitive damages to three times Tesla´s compensatory damages. Translation: $172 million, not $243 million. But the plaintiff says their deal was based on a multiple of all compensatory damages, not just Tesla´s, and the figure the jury awarded is the one the company will have to pay. It´s not clear how much of a hit to Tesla´s reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs´ lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla´s decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like 'driver assist' and 'copilot' to make sure drivers don´t rely too much on the technology. 'Words matter,' Schreiber said. 'And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they´re playing fast and lose with information and facts.' Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. 'I trusted the technology too much,' said McGee at one point in his testimony. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' The lead defense lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cellphone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn´t crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: 'The cause is that he dropped his cellphone.' The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla liability despite a driver´s admission of reckless behavior would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
How the Ali Act overhaul is clearing the path for a Saudi-backed takeover of boxing
When Ari Emanuel – the notorious Hollywood powerbroker and CEO of TKO Holdings Group, which owns both the UFC and WWE – made a rare media appearance on the Pat McAfee Show in February 2025, he offered cryptic remarks about the state of boxing. Though typically cagey, Emanuel hinted, 'Who knows what's going to happen with the Ali Act' – a reference to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, a federal law designed to protect the rights and welfare of boxers. Since then, rumors have swirled that TKO is quietly working to amend the law to make way for its newly minted boxing venture with Saudi Arabia. Last week, those rumors were confirmed when US representatives Brian Jack, a Republican from Georgia, and Sharice Davids, a Democrat from Kansas, introduced the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act in Congress. The proposed bill is being touted by the congressional representatives as a much-needed modernization of federal regulations in professional boxing, adding new provisions to the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act and introducing 'alternatives' to the sanctioning bodies overseeing the sport. 'I am incredibly proud to introduce the bipartisan Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, which provides boxers with more opportunities, better pay, and greater safety standards,' Jack said in the press release. 'Professional boxing is the only sport regulated by Congress, and ambiguity in current law – adopted over a quarter-century ago – has stifled investment. Congressional action is needed to revive this once-great American sport, and this bipartisan legislation establishes a framework for innovation to flourish.' The 'stifled investment' that Jack is referencing in his statement is TKO's new boxing venture with Sela, an entertainment subsidiary of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF), and Turki al-Sheikh, the figure behind Saudi's General Entertainment Authority and a close confidant of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The new venture, dubbed Zuffa Boxing, will debut on 13 September 2025, with an anticipated super middleweight showdown between Saul 'Canelo' Álvarez and Terence Crawford. An expanded boxing promotion will likely follow in 2026. Backed by the Saudi government's enormous resources, Emanuel's company advocated for the bill in Congress, including provisions to created alternatives to long-established sanctioning bodies like the World Boxing Organization (WBO) and World Boxing Council (WBC). The proposed alternatives in the legislation are known as Unified Boxing Organizations (UBOs), which is what Zuffa Boxing will likely operate as. While framed as a 'framework for innovation', Zuffa Boxing empowers Saudi Arabia to establish a parallel boxing ecosystem where it has sole determination over fighter ranking and championship belts. This paves the way for Saudi to bypass established sanctioning bodies, undermine existing promoters, and ultimately, gut professional boxing. 'This is a concerning bill for professional boxers,' said Erik Magraken, a combat sports regulatory lawyer and founder of 'It guts the key protections from the Ali Act for promoters that choose to use the 'unified boxing organization' model. It allows a promoter to control rank and title … and achieve a stranglehold on the sport.' The bill also sets out a series of compliance requirements for UBOs, including minimum per‑round payments and safety provisions such as mandatory medical examinations and expanded health insurance. While these measures could, in theory, benefit up‑and‑coming boxers, they also create significant barriers to entry for smaller boxing organizations attempting to establish UBOs. Zuffa Boxing, backed by Saudi funding, would be well‑positioned to dominate this space, attract new fighters, and establish a new hierarchy in the sport – one in which TKO effectively determines who holds the world titles. This new model for boxing is based almost entirely on the structure of the UFC, an organization that has long been criticized for its exploitation of fighters in its pursuit of profit. Fitting since UFC CEO Dana White, a longtime friend of US president Donald Trump, is expected to lead the new Zuffa Boxing venture. 'Everybody knows the format – the best fight the best,' White said in interview with The Ring, the boxing magazine owned by Al-Sheikh and, by extension, the Saudi government. 'You work your way up the rankings, and once somebody breaks into the top five [and] there is no question [about] who the best five guys are in each weight class, they fight it out. And once somebody holds that belt, you don't need three letters in front of the belt. Whoever has that belt is the best in the world in that weight class. It's a very simple model.' Despite generating billions in revenue, the UFC pays its athletes a significantly smaller share compared to other major sports leagues. While NFL and NBA players receive close to 50% of league revenues, UFC fighters earn roughly 15% to 18%, with many on the roster making as little as $10,000 to $20,000 per fight – amounts that barely cover training costs, coaching and medical expenses. Efforts to unionize or challenge these inequities have been quashed by the UFC, which has used long-term, exclusive contracts and its market dominance to keep fighters in line. Last year, the UFC agreed to a $375m settlement with several hundred fighters to resolve an antitrust lawsuit. The plaintiffs accused the promotion of stifling economic competition and using its monopoly power to suppress fighter pay. While the UFC denied any wrongdoing, the underlying claims remain central to a separate, ongoing case. When Congress passed the Ali Act in 2000, it was in response to the unfair and anti-competitive practices rampant in pro boxing at the time. The sport was dominated by influential promoters, corrupt sanctioning bodies and coercive contracts. The Ali Act provided federally-backed oversight and enforcement meant to reduce the exploitation of fighters through transparency mandates and financial disclosure requirements. The legislation passed with unanimous bipartisan support and stands as the only example of Congress attempting to directly regulate a professional sport in the United States. While the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act does not repeal the Ali Act, it does pave the way for new organizations to emerge outside of the purview of current sanctioning bodies, effectively bringing the UFC model to boxing. It is unclear when the bill will reach the House floor, as Congress will be in recess through the entirety of August. Nevertheless, the bill has received support from Ali's widow, Lonnie Ali, who was quoted in the press release as saying that 'Muhammad would be proud to have his name associated with this bill.' Davids, who co-sponsored the bill, was also a former MMA fighter who once tried out as a contestant for The Ultimate Fighter – a reality show that places fighters in a mansion for several weeks as they work their way through a tournament for a 'six-figure UFC contract'. Their involvement in the bill is a masterstroke of lobbying tactics by TKO and Emanuel. 'The Ali Act was created to stop coercive and exploitative practices by promoters. It was designed to make a monopolization of the sport not possible. Independent rank and title are the key reasons why pro boxers can command such great purses compared to MMA athletes,' Magraken said. 'Boxers compete for titles. Promoters compete for boxers. If promoters own and control titles then boxers can be exploited by promoters.' This will be remarkably beneficial to Saudi Arabia and Al-Sheikh, who have invested billions to wrest control of boxing from its traditional masters. Al-Sheikh has bankrolled some of the most high-profile heavyweight fights and broken through negotiation stalemates by offering record-breaking sums of money. His success as a promoter has made him one of the sport's most powerful figures, while fans and media affectionately refer to him as 'His Excellency' – a title that underscores his growing cult of personality. Al-Sheikh's expanding influence has stifled criticism within boxing. Fans are willing to overlook troubling behavior as long as he continues to deliver exciting matchups, while journalists, eager to maintain their critical access, often frame the narrative in his favor. The kingdom also owns its own boxing magazine and deploys a vast network of PR firms and executives to advance its political agenda through sports. It is yet another reminder of Saudi Arabia's broader strategy in sports – a blueprint built on acquiring influence, shaping narratives and establishing self-sustaining ecosystems under its control. Boxing may be the ideal asset to complete that vision. Karim Zidan writes a regular newsletter on the intersection of sports and authoritarian politics.
