Nanoleaf's first solar lights aren't smart, but they sure are pretty.
Jess Weatherbed
These quirky $49.99 Nanoleaf solar-powered garden lights are sold in pairs, each featuring eight LED bulb stalks that support eight RGB colors and 11 scene presets. They can also be charged via USB-C, and activate automatically via daylight sensors or timers.
For something a little less alien, Nanoleaf is also launching a 5-meter RGB addressable rope light for $69.99 that works with Matter and other smart home platforms.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
14 hours ago
- Business Insider
The future of AI will be governed by protocols no one has agreed on yet
The tech industry, much like everything else in the world, abides by certain rules. With the boom in personal computing came USB, a standard for transferring data between devices. With the rise of the internet came IP addresses, numerical labels that identify every device online. With the advent of email came SMTP, a framework for routing email across the internet. These are protocols — the invisible scaffolding of the digital realm — and with every technological shift, new ones emerge to govern how things communicate, interact, and operate. As the world enters an era shaped by AI, it will need to draw up new ones. But AI goes beyond the usual parameters of screens and code. It forces developers to rethink fundamental questions about how technological systems interact across the virtual and physical worlds. How will humans and AI coexist? How will AI systems engage with each other? And how will we define the protocols that manage a new age of intelligent systems? Across the industry, startups and tech giants alike are busy developing protocols to answer these questions. Some govern the present in which humans still largely control AI models. Others are building for a future in which AI has taken over a significant share of human labor. "Protocols are going to be this kind of standardized way of processing non-deterministic information," Antoni Gmitruk, the chief technology officer of Golf, which helps clients deploy remote servers aligned with Anthropic's Model Context Protocol, told BI. Agents, and AI in general, are "inherently non-deterministic in terms of what they do and how they behave." When AI behavior is difficult to predict, the best response is to imagine possibilities and test them through hypothetical scenarios. Here are a few that call for clear protocols. Scenario 1: Humans and AI, a dialogue of equals Games are one way to determine which protocols strike the right balance of power between AI and humans. In late 2024, a group of young cryptography experts launched Freysa, an AI agent that invites human users to manipulate it. The rules are unconventional: Make Freysa fall in love with you or agree to concede its funds, and the prize is yours. The prize pool grows with each failed attempt in a standoff between human intuition and machine logic. Freysa has caught the attention of big names in the tech industry, from Elon Musk, who called one of its games "interesting," to veteran venture capitalist Marc Andreessen. "The core technical thing we've done is enabled her to have her own private keys inside a trusted enclave," said one of the architects of Freysa, who spoke under the condition of anonymity to BI in a January interview. Secure enclaves are not new in the tech industry. They're used by companies from AWS to Microsoft as an extra layer of security to isolate sensitive data. In Freysa's case, the architect said they represent the first step toward creating a "sovereign agent." He defined that as an agent that can control its own private keys, access money, and evolve autonomously — the type of agent that will likely become ubiquitous. "Why are we doing it at this time? We're entering a phase where AI is getting just good enough that you can see the future, which is AI basically replacing your work, my work, all our work, and becoming economically productive as autonomous entities," the architect said. In this phase, they said Freysa helps answer a core question: "What does human involvement look like? And how do you have human co-governance over agents at scale?" In May, the The Block, a crypto news site, revealed that the company behind Freysa is Eternis AI. Eternis AI describes itself as an "applied AI lab focused on enabling digital twins for everyone, multi-agent coordination, and sovereign agent systems." The company has raised $30 million from investors, including Coinbase Ventures. Its co-founders are Srikar Varadaraj, Pratyush Ranjan Tiwari, Ken Li, and Augustinas Malinauskas. Scenario 2: To the current architects of intelligence Freysa establishes protocols in anticipation of a hypothetical future when humans and AI agents interact with similar levels of autonomy. The world, however, needs also to set rules for the present, where AI still remains a product of human design and intention. AI typically runs on the web and builds on existing protocols developed long before it, explained Davi Ottenheimer, a cybersecurity strategist who studies the intersection of technology, ethics, and human behavior, and is president of security consultancy flyingpenguin. "But it adds in this new element of intelligence, which is reasoning," he said, and we don't yet have protocols for reasoning. "I'm seeing this sort of hinted at in all of the news. Oh, they scanned every book that's ever been written and never asked if they could. Well, there was no protocol that said you can't scan that, right?" he said. There might not be protocols, but there are laws. OpenAI is facing a copyright lawsuit from the Authors Guild for training its models on data from "more than 100,000 published books" and then deleting the datasets. Meta considered buying the publishing house Simon & Schuster outright to gain access to published books. Tech giants have also resorted to tapping almost all of the consumer data available online from the content of public Google Docs and the relics of social media sites like Myspace and Friendster to train their AI models. Ottenheimer compared the current dash for data to the creation of ImageNet — the visual database that propelled computer vision, built by Mechanical Turk workers who scoured the internet for content. "They did a bunch of stuff that a protocol would have eliminated," he said. Scenario 3: How to take to each other As we move closer to a future where artificial general intelligence is a reality, we'll need protocols for how intelligent systems — from foundation models to agents — communicate with each other and the broader world. The leading AI companies have already launched new ones to pave the way. Anthropic, the maker of Claude, launched the Model Context Protocol, or MCP, in November 2024. It describes it as a "universal, open standard for connecting AI systems with data sources, replacing fragmented integrations with a single protocol." In April, Google launched Agent2Agent, a protocol that will "allow AI agents to communicate with each other, securely exchange information, and coordinate actions on top of various enterprise platforms or applications." These build on existing AI protocols, but address new challenges of scaling and interoperability that have become critical to AI adoption. So, managing their behavior is the "middle step before we unleash the full power of AGI and let them run around the world freely," he said. When we arrive at that point, Gmitruk said agents will no longer communicate through APIs but in natural language. They'll have unique identities, jobs even, and need to be verified. "How do we enable agents to communicate between each other, and not just being computer programs running somewhere on the server, but actually being some sort of existing entity that has its history, that has its kind of goals," Gmitruk said. It's still early to set standards for agent-to-agent communication, Gmitruk said. Earlier this year he and his team initially launched a company focused on building an authentication protocol for agents, but pivoted. "It was too early for agent-to-agent authentication," he told BI over LinkedIn. "Our overall vision is still the same -> there needs to be agent-native access to the conventional internet, but we just doubled down on MCP as this is more relevant at the stage of agents we're at." Does everything need a protocol? Definitely not. The AI boom marks a turning point, reviving debates over how knowledge is shared and monetized. McKinsey & Company calls it an "inflection point" in the fourth industrial revolution — a wave of change that it says began in the mid-2010s and spans the current era of "connectivity, advanced analytics, automation, and advanced-manufacturing technology." Moments like this raise a key question: How much innovation belongs to the public and how much to the market? Nowhere is that clearer than in the AI world's debate between the value of open-source and closed models. "I think we will see a lot of new protocols in the age of AI," Tiago Sada, the chief product officer at Tools for Humanity, the company building the technology behind Sam Altman's World. However, "I don't think everything should be a protocol." World is a protocol designed for a future in which humans will need to verify their identity at every turn. Sada said the goal of any protocol "should be like this open thing, like this open infrastructure that anyone can use," and is free from censorship or influence. At the same time, "one of the downsides of protocols is that they're sometimes slower to move," he said. "When's the last time email got a new feature? Or the internet? Protocols are open and inclusive, but they can be harder to monetize and innovate on," he said. "So in AI, yes — we'll see some things built as protocols, but a lot will still just be products."
New York Post
18 hours ago
- New York Post
Skip the cloud and keep your files close with this 1TB flash drive, now $40 off
Discover startups, services, products and more from our partner StackCommerce. New York Post edits this content, and may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you buy through our links. TL;DR: Keep 1TB of data safe and within arm's reach with this Dual USB-C + USB-A 3.2 High Speed Flash Drive, now $69.97 through July 20. Tired of shelling out a small fortune on cloud storage fees year after year? If you've been looking for a more affordable solution to safeguard your files, the Dual USB-C + USB-A 3.2 High Speed Flash Drive not only costs under $75 but also holds 1TB and fits right in your pocket. Right now, you can make the swap to this handy flash drive for just $69.97 (reg. $109.99) through July 20. Break up with cloud storage with help from the petite powerhouse: the Dual USB-C + USB-A 3.2 High Speed Flash Drive. This storage solution is ready to house an ample 1TB of data, and you only have to pay once. It also weighs just 3.84 ounces and easily slips into your pocket easily, making file transfers on the go a breeze. The Dual USB-C + USB-A 3.2 High Speed Flash Drive offers convenient USB-C and USB-A flexibility, making it compatible with PCs, Macs, smartphones, and gaming consoles. It also offers lightning-fast 20-30MB/s read and write speeds, so transferring even large files is quick. Don't be deceived by this flash drive's small size; it's super durable. It's ready to withstand the elements — it's waterproof, dustproof, and even features an anti-drop design, so your data stays safe. Cut back on your cloud storage with this Dual USB-C + USB-A 3.2 High Speed Flash Drive, now $69.97 (reg. $109.99) through July 20. StackSocial prices subject to change.
Android Authority
19 hours ago
- Android Authority
The USB-C dream is dead and it's too late to revive it
Robert Triggs / Android Authority I've been writing about USB-C for what seems like forever (seriously, it's been seven or eight years!). From a unifying, one-size-fits-all specification to the grim reality of compatibility issues and opaque feature support, USB-C has its plaudits and detractors. Me? I sit firmly in the middle — aware of the problems yet still hoping, however foolishly, that the trusty port will one day live up to its promise. Unfortunately, as time passes, USB-C's window of opportunity is closing, and fast. To understand exactly what's 'wrong' with USB-C, just look around your living room. Can you remember which of your power packs charges which of your gadgets quickly or slowly? Laptops and PCs are no better. Back when we had DisplayPort, HDMI, and barrel sockets, you knew where you stood — but now, deciphering which of today's three or four USB-C ports does what requires serious manual-reading. And who has time for that? From charging, data, and peripherals, USB-C does it all but seldom does it well. Playing 'Guess Who?' with a socket that claims to do everything but seldom does is just a microcosm of USB-C's biggest problem — the swirling mess of the specification itself. Big points to anyone who can tell me how many different charging standards are still kicking around in the smartphone world, or how many different data speeds exist across Apple's Mac lineup. Honestly? I've given up trying to keep track. USB-C's biggest problem isn't even that it's unclear what each port does; it's that matching two products that supposedly use the same interface has become an absolute nightmare — and it's only gotten worse over the past decade. Unfortunately, much like my USB-C cable drawer, I've lost hope of ever untangling this mess. Two steps forward, one step back It's taken nearly a decade, but efforts to improve gadget charging have emerged. Perhaps the biggest recent win is that USB Power Delivery (USB PD) support is now mandatory for 15W USB-C gadgets and above, thanks to an EU directive. While this doesn't guarantee fast charging on every device, it ensures common protocol support for all 'fast' charging gadgets. The really good news? Modern chargers will supply at least some power to all modern smartphones, as we've seen from many newer models out of China. Speaking of China, it hasn't been idle either. A collective effort to unify its cluttered fast-charging portfolio has produced the Universal Fast Charging Specification (UFCS). Though UFCS is a separate standard to Power Delivery, it's designed to be compatible with USB PD 3.0, offering similar voltage levels and power capabilities. China is also gradually moving to universal charging, but it's taking a long time. Unfortunately, UFCS isn't backwards compatible with existing standards like SuperVOOC or HyperCharge, so widespread adoption will take time. Still, it shows that even China's biggest players are concerned about interoperability and e-waste. The OnePlus 13, OPPO Find X8 Pro, and HUAWEI Mate 70 series are recent smartphones supporting UFCS alongside their proprietary standards. Certainly, the gradual adoption of USB Power Delivery as the primary method for fast-charging phones, laptops, and other gadgets has been a positive step for consumers. However, even ignoring proprietary standards, the USB Implementers Forum hasn't helped consumers navigate what should be a simple plug-and-play scenario. C. Scott Brown / Android Authority The introduction of USB Power Delivery Programmable Power Supply (PPS) added flexibility for the fine voltage control required to fast-charge modern batteries. However, USB PD PPS took years to reach the plug market, and it's still not apparent to most consumers that you need a PPS-compatible USB PD plug to fast-charge the Galaxy S25 series above 18W, for example. Regular PD is still the standard, but it's going out of fashion for smartphones and even laptops. We're still buying OEM-branded chargers as a compatibility hedge — that's how bad USB-C still is. Worse, the PPS specification now has even more sub-specifications, which are as confusing as the proprietary protocols. Google's Pixel 9 Pro XL is a prime example: it will only hit 37W power levels with a specific 20V PPS plug — the 'old' 9V PPS ones won't cut it, leaving you stuck at 27W. Good luck finding that small but critical detail on many plug spec sheets, if you even bother to look. All these years later, we're still buying OEM-branded chargers as a hedge against compatibility — what a joke. USB-C is determined to undermine itself Robert Triggs / Android Authority Charging speeds dominate smartphone conversations, but USB-C encompasses far more: data transfer speeds, audio, display support, and PCI-E extensions. You name it, USB-C can probably do it, depending on the specific port configuration. Outside of charging, data is the one area where the spec continues to confuse consumers the most. Since its inception, USB-C hasn't mandated a specific data-transfer protocol. It can be backed by USB 2.0, USB 3.2, or even Thunderbolt controllers, meaning speeds range from a measly 0.48 Gbit/s up to a speedy 20 Gbit/s. Consumers and experts alike have found it anything but straightforward to figure out what each USB-C port can do. Despite promising to help, USB4 has made things even worse. USB4 was introduced in 2019 specifically to clear up some confusion. The spec was based on (but not directly compatible with) Thunderbolt 3, bundling DisplayPort 2.0 support, a baseline 20 Gbit/s data speed, and backward compatibility with older standards. While this didn't directly address legacy standards still used over USB-C, the idea was that if your product was USB4-compliant, you'd know what to expect. USB4 was meant to bring order, but instead splintered into a soup of Gen 2×1, 3×2, and Gen 4 variations — each with wildly different speeds from 10 Gbps to 120 Gbps. Confused? You're not alone. Many DisplayPort, power, and PCI features also remain optional. If all that wasn't confusing enough, you'll have to buy a top-of-the-line USB-C cable to ensure the advanced features work correctly. Despite pages of official labeling guidelines, cheap and counterfeit cables have only made the affordability-versus-quality gamble worse. So much for simplicity. Apple bungled it too A reluctant latecomer to USB-C, Apple finally adopted the port with the 2024 iPhone 15 series following the European Commission's ruling. While Apple usually tightly controls and optimizes user experience, being dragged kicking and screaming away from Lightning resulted in a half-assed approach at best. I'd hoped Apple might bring some order to the USB madhouse. Instead, the iPhone embraced the chaos plaguing the wider tech world. If anyone could reign in USB-C it was Apple. Another chance missed. There's no better example than the iPhone 16's data speeds. The budget models still use sluggish USB 2.0 ports — rare outside the cheapest Android phones. Meanwhile, the Pro models are 20x faster but still don't match the 40 Gbps Thunderbolt capabilities of the iPad Pro. Recent iPhone Pro models charge a bit faster than basic models, but Apple has never clarified when this is the case, and hasn't adopted USB PD PPS to boost speeds further. iPhone 15/16 iPhone 15/16 Plus iPhone 15/16 Pro iPhone 15/16 Pro Max Connector iPhone 15/16 USB-C iPhone 15/16 Plus USB-C iPhone 15/16 Pro USB-C iPhone 15/16 Pro Max USB-C Data speed iPhone 15/16 USB 2.0 480Mbps iPhone 15/16 Plus USB 2.0 480Mbps iPhone 15/16 Pro USB 3.1 Gen 2x1 10Gbps iPhone 15/16 Pro Max USB 3.1 Gen 2x1 10Gbps Charging Power iPhone 15/16 20W iPhone 15/16 Plus 20W iPhone 15/16 Pro 20W (~25W recorded) iPhone 15/16 Pro Max 20W (~25W recorded) The only reason the Pros have faster data speeds is to enable the transfer of ProRes video. Otherwise, Apple has done the bare minimum with USB-C to pass muster; it seems more focused on MagSafe as the future standard for its mobile products. The USB-C mess is here to stay Robert Triggs / Android Authority By now, these problems are well-documented, and I'm sure you've experienced some of these frustrations yourself. USB-C is over ten years old and has done little more than give us a reversible connector to use on all our gadgets. That's a small success, but hardly the plug-and-play future we were promised. Worse, the genie is out of the bottle. With everything from headphones, laptops, and VR headsets now mandated to use USB-C, the port is everywhere. But with that ubiquity comes a sprawling mess of standards and support that cannot be undone. There's simply no way to rewind and set things on a simpler path, even if major players like Apple or Google suddenly wanted to. That fragmentation doesn't just frustrate, it undermines one of the fundamental USB-C promises: reducing e-waste. One of USB-C's biggest selling points has been the reduction of clutter and superior reusability across devices. Instead, users are still hoarding multiple cables, chargers, and dongles to cover all possible bases. While the connector is universal in shape, it doesn't always lead to fewer accessories in circulation. If, by some miracle, USB-C gets its act together eventually, what do we do with all of today's accessories? Just bin them? USB-C isn't just frustrating, the mess undermines its eco-promise. USB-C had a unique opportunity to tame the Wild West of data and power cables, unifying them into something simpler. While a fixed specification would have stifled innovation, tighter control with gradual, cohesive upgrades across sibling specifications every few years, preferably with mandatory support levels, would have prevented many of today's issues. Instead, USB-C has become a black box of 101 different capabilities, old and new. It might make a small dent in the e-waste problem, but it could have been so much more. What a spectacular failure.
