Latest news with #review
Auto Blog
an hour ago
- Automotive
- Auto Blog
Walmart Is Selling a ‘Handy' $59 Cordless Tire Inflator for $20, and Shoppers Say It's the ‘Best Purchase Ever'
By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Maserati is serious about making its next flagship a manual transmission GT car with a high-powered version of its Nettuno V6, exceeding 621 horses. Is the 2025 Toyota Corolla FX more show than go? We got behind the wheel, and this is our honest review of the dark-trimmed compact sedan. Is this the sweet spot in the Sportage range? View post: Why Kia's Most Popular SUV Just Got Way More Expensive View post: Walmart Is Selling an 'Amazing' $88 Mini Chainsaw for Just $46, and Shoppers Say It 'Works Like a Charm' Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission. If you've ever dealt with a flat or low tire in the middle of nowhere, you know how essential a reliable inflator can be. A cordless tire inflator is one of the most practical emergency tools to keep in your car, especially during summer road trips or winter storms. Right now, you can grab a compact and capable option for a huge discount. The Phancir Cordless Tire Inflator is on sale for just $20 at Walmart, 66% off its original price of $59. Despite its small size — just 2.64 inches wide, 1.65 inches thick, and 6.3 inches long — this portable inflator punches above its weight with up to 150 psi of pressure, making it powerful enough to inflate car tires, bike tires, and even RV and truck tires. Phancir Cordless Tire Inflator, $20 (was $59) at Walmart It features a high-precision pressure sensor, a bright LED display, and four preset inflation modes for cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and sports gear. You can switch between pressure units with a button, and the device automatically shuts off once your preset pressure is reached. The dual lithium-ion batteries can inflate up to eight car tires per charge, and the built-in flashlight has three light modes for emergencies — standard, SOS, and strobe. It even includes USB ports to charge your phone or other electronics on the go. 'Very handy and great price!' one buyer wrote, while another added, 'It's a great product with enough battery capacity to inflate four tires.' Another satisfied shopper said, 'I like it so much that I ordered another one.' Others were impressed with how well it works in real-life situations. 'I was amazed [with] how quickly it inflated the tires, and when the pressure was met, it automatically cut off,' one review noted. Another added, 'Best purchase ever! This compressor has saved me considerable time and money.' 'Perfect for keeping in your glove box for emergencies. Glad I purchased this,' wrote another shopper. One customer praised its build quality, calling it 'incredibly reliable and well-built.' Flash deals at Walmart don't last long, so head over there today and pick up the Phancir Cordless Tire Inflator for just $20 while it's still on sale for 66% off. About the Author Andrew Koopman View Profile
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Roku Plus Series TV (2025) review: A great choice for tech-challenged users, but not without a few minuses
Here's a fair question: Why buy a Roku-branded TV when you can buy a Hisense, Sharp, TCL or other TV that has the same great Roku software baked in? When I reviewed (and gushed over) the Roku Pro Series last year, I thought I had a clear answer: The company had crafted an unrivaled user experience, from the cleverly designed wall-mount template to the useful quick-start guide to the Smart Picture setting that actually worked. Even the tool-free feet seemed special. It was on the pricey side, though, especially compared with some of the models from those aforementioned partner brands, so I was eager to check out the 2025 refresh of the more affordable Roku Plus Series. This year's model gained several features previously limited to the Pro Series — including mini-LED backlighting, a lost-remote finder and Smart Picture Max — while keeping a lower price point. However, while it's a very good TV overall, I'm a bit less enthusiastic about it. Here's my Roku Plus Series TV (2025) review. Related: Roku Pro Series TV review: My favorite TV of 2024, and not for the reasons you think Best OLED TVs: We tested four budget and premium models and these were the standouts Roku Plus Series: Setup and design Available in 55-, 65- and 75-inch sizes, the Plus Series is priced competitively with other mini-LED TVs — and will likely start seeing sale pricing as the holiday season draws nearer. Currently they're listed for $500, $650 and $900, respectively, making the 65-inch model the sweet spot in terms of bang for the buck. Like all Roku-powered TVs, this one is extremely easy to set up, with a helpful illustrated quick-start guide and friendly onscreen instructions for pairing the remote, connecting to Wi-Fi and activating the TV (by way of a Roku account, which you'll need to set up if you don't already have one). All told, the entire process took less than 10 minutes, including adding the streaming services I use regularly. That said, it still bugs me that Roku doesn't sync my app layout between devices; I always have to manually reorder icons to my liking. Also, there's one user-experience shortcoming Roku could easily remedy: The onscreen keyboard lacks shortcuts for things like ".com" or "@ which would save time when you have to manually input account information. The HBO Max app, for example, stubbornly forces you to enter your email address and password; there's no QR code to scan or web sign-in shortcut. Same with Disney+ and some others. (I don't know if Roku or the services themselves are to blame, only that most sign-ons are a lot faster on Google TV.) Thankfully, the Roku mobile app lets you use your phone or tablet keyboard to enter onscreen text if needed, and that tends to go much more quickly. (Side note: That app also affords Private Listening, allowing you to hear TV audio through your favorite pair of Bluetooth headphones or earbuds. This has long been a favorite feature of mine — but Roku TVs now support direct headphone pairing as well, no app required.) There's nothing particularly noteworthy about the physical design of the TV, though it does have a razor-thin bezel around the top and sides and is only slightly thicker along the bottom. That's where the two feet screw in (yep, tools required, alas). Although the Plus can be wall-mounted, of course, it lacks the more frame-like outer edge of the Pro Series. I continue to love the design of Roku's remote, with its convenient side-mounted volume and mute buttons, logically placed Home and Back buttons and attractive purple navigation pad. Unfortunately, the 2025 Plus Series comes with only the "enhanced" version, not the Voice Remote Pro that was included with the 2023 Plus Series (which I also reviewed). It's a slight downgrade in that it doesn't support hands-free voice commands and lacks a rechargeable battery, instead relying on a pair of double-A disposables. (For what it's worth, you can buy the Roku Voice Remote Pro (2nd Ed.) separately for just $30, a pretty good upgrade.) Roku did add a lost-remote finder, which can definitely help you overcome hungry couch cushions, but the activation button is located on the back of the TV — not the most convenient spot. Roku Plus Series: How's the picture? Picture quality in a TV can be as subjective as sound quality in headphones. I think even some of the most entry-level models produce pretty glorious color and razor-sharp 4K images. The original Roku Plus was already a solid contender in the picture department; the big upgrade in this 2025 model is mini-LED, which is supposed to improve contrast, brightness and overall detail, especially in HDR content. However, it didn't always succeed here. One of my favorite litmus-test movies for any TV is Solo: A Star Wars Story, which streams on Disney+. The first 10 minutes in particular tend to wreak havoc on TVs with lower peak brightness, and unfortunately the Roku Plus struggled here a bit — at least compared with the Roku Pro Series, which I set up right alongside it. The latter was noticeably brighter during these scenes, with better contrast as well. The same was true of Pixar's Ratatouille; the movie looked decidedly darker on the Plus than on the Pro, and I noticed I couldn't see the same level of detail in Remy's fur. Curiously, however, the Plus seemed to produce warmer, richer colors; the Pro looked slightly washed-out in comparison. Whether or not that color was more "accurate" or not I can't say, merely that my eye was drawn more to the Plus — darker though it was. Switching to another animated movie, the vibrantly colored Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, the brightness of the two TVs seemed to level out, but once again the Pro rendered sharper, more detailed images. You can see it below, not just in Gwen Stacy's hair, but also in the stage off to the left. Here's the thing, though: Watching these TVs individually, rather than comparing them side by side, my initial reaction was they both looked great. And I think that explains why customer reviews for TVs tend to be on the high side, even when professional reviewers find fault in things like color accuracy or black levels. I suspect few people focus on such nuances; they just want to see if the rat can impress the food critic. I'm no expert when it comes to the minutiae of TV technology, but I can say that here, as with most TVs, sometimes you have to fiddle with various settings to get things the way you want. Ironically, Roku's Smart Picture Max — which I first encountered on the Pro Series — is supposed to eliminate that need, to automatically refine things like color and sharpness so you don't have to monkey with all those settings. The "Max" part means there's a special processor devoted to this; lower-end Roku TVs and streaming devices rely solely on software-powered optimization, known simply as Smart Picture. Just one problem: Any content that's encoded with Dolby Vision — and there's more and more of it these days — overrides Smart Picture Max; the option effectively disappears from the Picture Settings menu. Consequently, much of what I streamed on the Roku Plus suffered from the dreaded soap-opera effect, aka the bane of my existence. (One of them, anyway; I have several other banes.) You can easily eliminate it by disabling motion-smoothing in the "expert" section of Picture Settings, but to my thinking the whole point of Smart Picture Max is to handle that for me. I want motion smoothing when watching sports or playing games, not with movies or TV shows. Speaking of sports and games, the TV's 60Hz refresh rate isn't ideal for either of those things — 120Hz is widely accepted to be better — but it does support VRR (variable refresh rate), in which the rate is dynamically adjusted to match the fluctuations in those sources. I didn't do any game-console testing, but I did watch basketball, NASCAR and other fast-moving sports; they all looked silky-smooth. The Plus Series ranks a bit above average when it comes to sound thanks to a built-in subwoofer, which provides some actual bass and rounds out the overall audio quality; I'd rank it as decent. That said, the main speakers get pretty shrill at higher volumes, which is why I always recommend adding a soundbar to whatever TV you buy. When it comes to your ears, there's no point settling for decent. The Roku Plus Series TV (2025): Should you buy it? Viewed in a vacuum, the Roku Plus 2025 is a splendid TV. I can't overstate my appreciation for the simple, intuitive interface; for the most part Roku has resisted the trend of changing things just for the sake of change (and making them more complicated in the process). If you've ever struggled to navigate an Amazon Fire TV or Google TV interface, you'll find Roku much easier to learn and use. As for picture quality, that's where the vacuum gets a little shaky. There's no question the Pro Series offers better brightness and contrast, with superior details as well. But when I watch Across the Spider-Verse (or just about anything else) on the Plus, I'm immediately sucked into it; it looks gorgeous and therefore I don't give the picture a second thought. The real question, as posited at the start, is whether the Plus stands out against Roku partner TVs. I haven't tested any recent ones (save for the Philips 974 Series, but that's an OLED model and therefore harder to compare directly), so I can't say specifically. There are definitely a couple minuses here that make me yearn for a bit more "Plus". But all else being equal, I'd rather get Roku straight from the source.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Science Officially Confirmed That The 10,000 Steps Rule Is Outdated. Here's The New Number To Target.
A new meta review published in the Lancet officially confirmed that we've been calculating our step count number all wrong. The new findings suggest that you can actually reap the major health benefits well before you hit 10,000 steps. Here's what experts say about the 10k number and how this applies to your life. The idea that you need to log 10,000 steps a day for good health has been health gospel for ages. But as Women's Health previously reported this year, the 10,000-a-day steps goal (which roughly equates to five miles) isn't really based in science. In fact, it's more marketing than anything. But it's a nice, round number, and it's built into most fitness trackers. Now, a new scientific analysis in The Lancet Public Health officially confirms that this lofty steps count goal isn't actually necessary—and the potential health benefits start to level off well before you reach that point. If you've been happily clocking 10,000 steps a day and feel like it's working for you, there's no reason to stop. But if that number is intimidating and feels impossible to reach with everything else you've got going on in your life, this study probably has some findings you can use. Here's what the scientific review discovered, plus where experts and trainers recommend you try to land with your new step count goal. Meet the experts: Albert Matheny, RD, CSCS, co-founder of SoHo Strength Lab; Dani Singer, CPT, founder of Fit2Go Personal Training What did the new meta review find? For the review, researchers analyzed data from 88 different studies, looking at how step counts were linked with the risk of developing a slew of health conditions. Overall, the researchers discovered that the risk of developing serious health conditions like cardiovascular disease, dementia, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and depression was lower in people who logged 7,000 steps a day compared to those who only did 2,000 daily steps. But they also discovered that the health perks beyond 7,000 steps were actually pretty minimal. "Although 10,000 steps per day, an unofficial target for decades without a clear evidence base, was associated with substantially lower risks for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease incidence, cancer mortality, dementia, and depressive symptoms than 7,000 steps per day, the incremental improvement beyond 7,000 steps per day was small, and there was no statistical difference between 7,000 steps per day and a higher step count for all the other outcomes," the investigators wrote. "Therefore, 7,000 steps per day might be a more realistic and achievable recommendation for some, but 10,000 steps per day can still be a viable target for those who are more active.' Where did the 10,000 number come from? The famous steps goal number has a long history behind it (you can do a deep dive here). But here's a quick recap: This number was formulated by a Tokyo doctor named Iwao Ohya who created a fitness tracker called Manpo-Kei (in Japanese, that means "10,000 step meter) with engineer Jiro Kato. It's been suggested that 10,000 steps was chosen because the Japanese character for 10,000 looks like a man running or walking, but it's not really clear if that's truly one of the reasons behind the number. (Both inventors have since died.) The number 10,000 eventually got picked up by researchers and fitness tracker developers, and its popularity spread. These days, almost everyone knows the number. Still, "no clinical data backed it then, and none was added later," says Dani Singer, CPT, founder of Fit2Go Personal Training. Why is it not accurate? While hitting 10,000 steps isn't bad for you (and means you're moving a lot throughout the day) the exact number is pretty much made up. "It was a marketing campaign,' says Albert Matheny, RD, CSCS, co-founder of SoHo Strength Lab. 'There wasn't a scientific basis for it.' Matheny stresses that the 10,000 steps a day goal isn't necessarily inaccurate from a health POV—but many people can get serious health perks between 5,000 to 7,000 steps a day. "The data show health gains level off well before 10,000," Singer says. "Mortality and cardiovascular risk improvements start at just 2,000. It's important to understand this so that you avoid an all-or-nothing mindset—especially one that isn't based on any actual data." If that's the number you like, and you hit it consistently, stick with it! But just remember: '10,000 steps per day is not the magic number," per Matheny. So, how many steps should I take per day? Based on the scientific review's findings, aiming for 5,000 to 7,000 steps a day is a good goal to reach for. That's roughly two to 3.5 miles per day, depending on your stride. 'There's nothing wrong with 10,000 steps, but it isn't based in science,' Matheny says. If you want to still aim for 10,000 steps, Matheny says you should go for it. 'If you don't get there, maybe you still get to 7,000,' he points out. But any amount of walking is helpful. 'A thousand steps is way better than zero,' Matheny says. You Might Also Like Jennifer Garner Swears By This Retinol Eye Cream These New Kicks Will Help You Smash Your Cross-Training Goals
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Science Officially Confirmed That The 10,000 Steps Rule Is Outdated. Here's The New Number To Target.
A new meta review published in the Lancet officially confirmed that we've been calculating our step count number all wrong. The new findings suggest that you can actually reap the major health benefits well before you hit 10,000 steps. Here's what experts say about the 10k number and how this applies to your life. The idea that you need to log 10,000 steps a day for good health has been health gospel for ages. But as Women's Health previously reported this year, the 10,000-a-day steps goal (which roughly equates to five miles) isn't really based in science. In fact, it's more marketing than anything. But it's a nice, round number, and it's built into most fitness trackers. Now, a new scientific analysis in The Lancet Public Health officially confirms that this lofty steps count goal isn't actually necessary—and the potential health benefits start to level off well before you reach that point. If you've been happily clocking 10,000 steps a day and feel like it's working for you, there's no reason to stop. But if that number is intimidating and feels impossible to reach with everything else you've got going on in your life, this study probably has some findings you can use. Here's what the scientific review discovered, plus where experts and trainers recommend you try to land with your new step count goal. Meet the experts: Albert Matheny, RD, CSCS, co-founder of SoHo Strength Lab; Dani Singer, CPT, founder of Fit2Go Personal Training What did the new meta review find? For the review, researchers analyzed data from 88 different studies, looking at how step counts were linked with the risk of developing a slew of health conditions. Overall, the researchers discovered that the risk of developing serious health conditions like cardiovascular disease, dementia, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and depression was lower in people who logged 7,000 steps a day compared to those who only did 2,000 daily steps. But they also discovered that the health perks beyond 7,000 steps were actually pretty minimal. "Although 10,000 steps per day, an unofficial target for decades without a clear evidence base, was associated with substantially lower risks for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease incidence, cancer mortality, dementia, and depressive symptoms than 7,000 steps per day, the incremental improvement beyond 7,000 steps per day was small, and there was no statistical difference between 7,000 steps per day and a higher step count for all the other outcomes," the investigators wrote. "Therefore, 7,000 steps per day might be a more realistic and achievable recommendation for some, but 10,000 steps per day can still be a viable target for those who are more active.' Where did the 10,000 number come from? The famous steps goal number has a long history behind it (you can do a deep dive here). But here's a quick recap: This number was formulated by a Tokyo doctor named Iwao Ohya who created a fitness tracker called Manpo-Kei (in Japanese, that means "10,000 step meter) with engineer Jiro Kato. It's been suggested that 10,000 steps was chosen because the Japanese character for 10,000 looks like a man running or walking, but it's not really clear if that's truly one of the reasons behind the number. (Both inventors have since died.) The number 10,000 eventually got picked up by researchers and fitness tracker developers, and its popularity spread. These days, almost everyone knows the number. Still, "no clinical data backed it then, and none was added later," says Dani Singer, CPT, founder of Fit2Go Personal Training. Why is it not accurate? While hitting 10,000 steps isn't bad for you (and means you're moving a lot throughout the day) the exact number is pretty much made up. "It was a marketing campaign,' says Albert Matheny, RD, CSCS, co-founder of SoHo Strength Lab. 'There wasn't a scientific basis for it.' Matheny stresses that the 10,000 steps a day goal isn't necessarily inaccurate from a health POV—but many people can get serious health perks between 5,000 to 7,000 steps a day. "The data show health gains level off well before 10,000," Singer says. "Mortality and cardiovascular risk improvements start at just 2,000. It's important to understand this so that you avoid an all-or-nothing mindset—especially one that isn't based on any actual data." If that's the number you like, and you hit it consistently, stick with it! But just remember: '10,000 steps per day is not the magic number," per Matheny. So, how many steps should I take per day? Based on the scientific review's findings, aiming for 5,000 to 7,000 steps a day is a good goal to reach for. That's roughly two to 3.5 miles per day, depending on your stride. 'There's nothing wrong with 10,000 steps, but it isn't based in science,' Matheny says. If you want to still aim for 10,000 steps, Matheny says you should go for it. 'If you don't get there, maybe you still get to 7,000,' he points out. But any amount of walking is helpful. 'A thousand steps is way better than zero,' Matheny says. You Might Also Like Jennifer Garner Swears By This Retinol Eye Cream These New Kicks Will Help You Smash Your Cross-Training Goals
CBC
3 days ago
- General
- CBC
Torrential rain, flooding hit parts of northern China
When search suggestions are available use up and down arrows to review and enter to select.
