Memorial Day Deal: My Favorite Wireless Keyboard Is More Magical Than Apple's and 20% Off
Over a decade ago, Logitech made the perfect keyboard for my needs, the K810. It was a compact TKL wireless keyboard that had both Bluetooth and backlit keys. While those two boxes far from hard to check off today, it was at the time. Best of all, I loved that I could seamlessly switch the keyboard to up to three different devices by just tapping a key.
It wasn't perfect, though. The biggest downside on the K810 was its build quality. While it wasn't bad, but it didn't feel super solid. As time went on, it became increasingly hard to find, and Logitech discontinued it by 2019. I wasn't alone in missing it, either. You can find plenty of Reddit posts looking for alternatives or pleas to Logitech to rerelease the K810. I found myself buying at least two used or refurbished K810s from eBay since Logitech hadn't produced a proper replacement.
Memorial Day Laptop Deals
Let our shopping experts show you the best Memorial Day sales on top laptops from Apple, Lenovo, HP and more before all of the best discounts are gone.
See now
Luckily, Logitech introduced a true successor to the K810 in 2021. The Logitech MX Keys Mini was nearly everything any K810 owner could want in a successor. It has the same compact and minimal design, backlit keys that are more comfortable to type on, easy switching to other devices, a much needed upgrade to USB C for charging and a solid build quality that goes toe-to-toe with Apple's Magic Keyboard.
In fact, I have no problem recommending the Keys Mini over Apple's equivalent offering any day of the week. The Keys Mini comes with a $100 price tag that might be a hard pill to swallow for some, but if you're like me and spend several hours a day using a keyboard (and, yes, I'm typing this on my Keys Mini), the price is justified. And right now, you can grab the MX Keys Mini in pale gray for 20% off thanks to a Memorial Day deal at Amazon.
If you're not a keyboard snob, and just need a keyboard for casual use, I'd still recommend the MX Keys Mini. Typing on it is a great experience, especially if you like a minimal and compact layout.
The Keys Mini isn't going to impress someone looking for a gaming keyboard, but if that's what you're in the market for, we have you covered with our best gaming keyboards for 2025.
Why I like the Logitech MX Keys Mini keyboard
The MX Keys Mini has a lot going for it. The backlit keys automatically turns off when I'm not using the keyboard and turns on as my hands approach it. Its ambient light sensor automatically adjusts the brightness of the keys to my current lighting conditions, though I can also manually adjust this as well. The surface of the keys themselves are slightly concave, so typing on them feels great. I love this keyboard so much that I have two of them.
David Carnoy/CNET
I also love the battery life. Logitech's website claims the Keys Mini will last up to 10 days on a single charge or up to 5 months with the backlighting turned off. That seems to undersell it. Even with daily use, I don't find myself having to charge the keyboard more than once a month.
The top row of keys comes with some standard and not-so-standard abilities. The expected multimedia, volume, esc and del keys are present, along with the three easy switch buttons to change the Bluetooth connection to another device I've already paired to and the backlight intensity keys.
The keyboard has a useful and dedicated dictation key, a mic mute/unmute key and an emoji key to open the emoji window for supported apps. While I can't say I've ever used the emoji key, I love the idea that enough typists want something like this and that Logitech included it.
The MX Keys Mini is about two-thirds the size of MX Keys.
David Carnoy/CNET
Available for $99 in both Windows
If you're looking for more, don't miss our round ups of the best Amazon and Best Buy deals for Memorial Day.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Forbes
The AI Paradox: When More AI Means Less Impact
Young business man with his face passing through the screen of a laptop on binary code background AI is in the news every day. On the one hand, this highlights the vertiginous speed at which the field is developing. On the other, it creates a sense saturation and angst that makes business organizations either drop the subject altogether or go at it full throttle without much discernment. Both approaches will lead to major misses in the inevitable AI-fication of business. In this article, I'll explore what happens when a business goes down the AI rabbit hole without a clear business objective and a solid grasp of the available alternatives. If you have attended any AI conference lately, chances are that, by the end, you thought your business was dangerously behind. Many of these events, even if not on purpose, can leave you with the feeling that you need to deploy AI everywhere and automate everything to catch up. If you've succumbed to this temptation, you most likely found out that is not the right move. Two years into the generative AI revolution, a counterintuitive truth is emerging from boardrooms to factory floors. Companies pursuing 100% AI automation are often seeing diminished returns, while those treating AI as one element in a broader, human-centered workflow are capturing both cost savings and competitive advantages. The obvious truth is already revealing itself: AI is just one more technology at our disposal, and just like every other new technology, everyone is trying to gain first-move advantage, which inevitably creates chaos. Those who see through and beyond said chaos are building the foundations of a successful AI-assisted business. The numbers tell a story that contradicts the automation evangelists. Three in four workers say AI tools have decreased their productivity and added to their workload, according to a recent UpWork survey of 2,500 respondents across four countries. Workers report spending more time reviewing AI-generated content and learning tool complexities than the time these tools supposedly save. Even more revealing: while 85% of company leaders are pushing workers to use AI, nearly half of employees using AI admitted they have no idea how to achieve the productivity gains their employers expect. This disconnect isn't just corporate misalignment—it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI creates value. The companies winning the AI game aren't those deploying the most algorithms. They're the ones who understand that intelligent automation shouldn't rely on AI alone. Instead, successful organizations are orchestrating AI within broader process frameworks where human expertise guides strategic decisions while AI handles specific, well-defined tasks. A good AI strategy always revolves around domain experts, not the other way around. Consider how The New York Times approached AI integration. Rather than replacing journalists with AI, the newspaper introduced AI tools for editing copy, summarizing information, and generating promotional content, while maintaining strict guidelines that AI cannot draft full articles or significantly alter journalism. This measured approach preserves editorial integrity while amplifying human capabilities. AI should be integrated strategically and operationally into entire processes, not deployed as isolated solutions to be indiscriminately exploited hoping for magic. Research shows that 60% of business and IT leaders use over 26 systems in their automation efforts, and 42% cite lack of integration as a major digital transformation hurdle. The most effective AI implementations focus on task-specific applications rather than general automation. Task-specific models offer highly specialized solutions for targeted problems, making them more efficient and cost-effective than general-purpose alternatives. Harvard Business School research involving 750 Boston Consulting Group consultants revealed this precision matters enormously. While consultants using AI completed certain tasks 40% faster with higher quality, they were 19 percentage points less likely to produce correct answers on complex tasks requiring nuanced judgment. This 'jagged technological frontier' demands that organizations implement methodical test-and-learn approaches rather than wholesale AI adoption. Harvard Business Review research confirms that AI notoriously fails at capturing intangible human factors essential for real-world decision-making—ethical considerations, moral judgments, and contextual nuances that guide business success. The companies thriving in 2025 aren't choosing between humans and machines. They're building hybrid systems where AI automation is balanced with human interaction to maintain stakeholder trust and capture value that neither could achieve alone. The mantra, 'AI will replace your job,' seems to consistently reveal a timeless truth: everything that should be automated will be automated, not everything than can be automated will. The Path Forward The AI paradox isn't a failure of technology—it's a lesson in implementation strategy. Organizations that resist the allure of complete automation and instead focus on thoughtful integration, task-specific deployment, and human-AI collaboration aren't just avoiding the productivity trap. They're building sustainable competitive advantages that compound over time. The question isn't whether your organization should use AI. It's whether you'll fall into the 'more AI' trap or master the art of 'smarter AI'—where less automation actually delivers more impact.
Bloomberg
29 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Tesla Stock Recovers as Musk Feud With Trump Eases
Tesla's shares rose after Elon Musk suggested he might make amends with President Donald Trump, easing tensions after their public feud. Musk said on X that he should 'cool off and take a step back for a couple days.' Craig Trudell reports. (Source: Bloomberg)
TechCrunch
30 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
Genetics testing startup Nucleus Genomics criticized for its embryo product: ‘Makes me so nauseous'
Nucleus Genomics, a genetic testing startup founded by 25-year-old Kian Sadeghi, initially launched in 2021 with the goal of calculating a patient's risk for specific diseases. But it's been courting controversy for years with products that claim to tell people how their genetics correlate to a host of complex issues, including their IQ. On Wednesday, it ratcheted up the controversy to an ear-splitting level when it announced a new product called Nucleus Embryo with a tweet that said: 'Every parent wants to give their children more than they had. For the first time in human history, Nucleus adds a new tool to that commitment.' Every parent wants to give their children more than they had. For the first time in human history, Nucleus adds a new tool to that commitment. Welcome to Nucleus — Nucleus Genomics (@nucleusgenomics) June 4, 2025 Nucleus says it can test IVF embryos not just for well-known specific genes that have a high chance of illnesses like breast cancer, but also for appearance — sex, height, hair color, eye color — as well as IQ and complex health attributes like anxiety and ADHD. The launch video includes a screen shot of a comparison menu. The idea is to help parents choose which embryos to pick and which ones to, perhaps, discard. Nucleus Genomics embryos features screen Image Credits:Nucleus Genomics (opens in a new window) Genetic testing of embryos isn't unheard of. IVF physicians can test for genes that can cause conditions like Down syndrome, or when parents know they are of high risk for a particular genetic disorder, like cystic fibrosis. Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW But that's not exactly what Nucleus is doing. It is using controversial 'polygenic scores' to determine 'complex genetic outcomes, like intelligence and anxiety,' a spokesperson says. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, polygenic scores only calculate the probabilities of a certain complex illness occurring, mainly within populations. 'A polygenic risk score can only explain the relative risk for a disease,' the NHGR says. This is not the same as discovering a specific gene, such as for example the BRCA1 gene mutation, which gives a person a 60-80% 'absolute risk of breast cancer,' the NHGR says. There's a reason doctors don't typically use such tests for individuals. 'Polygenic risk scores are not yet routinely used by health professionals because there are no guidelines for practice and researchers are still improving how these scores are generated,' according to the NHGR. Nucleus defends that its method can be used to determine an individual's risk. The spokesperson pointed us to a 2018 paper where the authors said they had developed validated methods for five common diseases: coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and breast cancer. That paper was advocating screenings to help individuals make lifestyle or therapeutic decisions, similar to Nucleus's initial concept. Wednesday's tweet was promising parents that Nucleus can help them create designer babies. It has now been viewed more than 4 million times and has hundreds of comments, many of them either expressing disbelief that this works as promised, or horror at the idea. One VC chimed into the discussion saying, 'I was going to type something like Noah get the boat but honestly the reality of this just makes me so nauseous.' I was going to type something like Noah get the boat but honestly the reality of this just makes me so nauseous — Max Niederhofer ❤️🔥 (@maxniederhofer) June 5, 2025 Nucleus has experienced this kind of controversy before, as TechCrunch previously reported, when it its $14 million series A earlier this year. The startup is backed by Founders Fund, Alexis Ohanian's 776, and angels including Adrian Aoun (CEO at Forward Health), Brent Saunders (former CEO at Allergan), and Matteo Franceschetti (CEO at Eight Sleep). Last year, Sadeghi launched Nucleus IQ, which is supposed to tell users how much their genetics influence intelligence. The product was blasted as 'bad science and big business' by some critics. Sadeghi published a lengthy defense of his company's methodology. Even so, telling adults that they are genetically smart is one thing. Telling IVF parents that they can choose the appearance and other complex attributes for their children is, many would argue, something else. Nucleus is not currently conducting such tests via IVF lab partners itself, The Wall Street Journal reports. It's partnering with Genomic Prediction, which works with IVF clinics. A Genomic executive told the WSJ that many parents request intelligence tests, and it doesn't provide that. Parents can voluntarily upload genetic data information to Nucleas if they want to pursue it. Or, as Sadeghi said in the launch video aimed at would-be parents: 'Not that long ago IVF-1 sparked fear and the stigma of test tube babies,' he said. 'What was once controversial is now an everyday practice. The same is true with genetic optimization. The technology is now here and it's here to stay.'
