Feed aggregator

The Tesla Optimus, also known as the Tesla Bot, is one of an entire catalogue of humanoid robots that manufacturers have unveiled in the last few years. Humanoid robots may look the part, and while they may be a few years away from maturation, executives like Tesla CEO Elon Musk are adamant they're a direct substitute for human labor.

Optimus Prime

Before Musk had unveiled the first prototype of the Optimus robot, he was speaking to its potential and the role it could play in the workforce of the future.

Quote of the day

This article is part of TechRadar Pro's QOTD project to provide an insight into the minds of the brightest and most recognized figures in the technology industry today and in years gone by. Read the full series here.

Speaking at the Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit, Musk reportedly said that the robot could one day be good enough to replace human labor, just as machinery in the last few decades has gradually replaced humans in production lines.

His comments also suggested that rather than eliminating jobs, and thus leading to mass unemployment, the rise of humanoid robots will fill a gap in labor demand that currently exists, allowing corporations to make more and build quicker. He was adamant, in these comments and in several remarks since, that there aren't enough people and we aren't reproducing enough to maintain our current population levels.

Robotic replacement

Musk is adamant that the rise of humanoid robots will not impact the level of available jobs – but that doesn't mean his views will play out.

Many disagree, suggesting there is a material risk to current roles, including those that involve repetitive or manual tasks. But experts disagree over whether this means a net reduction in jobs, or simply a shift in the demand for human roles in the future.

Many suggest 2027 will be the year in which robots enter a serious level of production. While the Optimus robot is not currently being made, Tesla is targeting next year and beyond for mass manufacturing and distribution following several delays to date.

I ended up watching The Last House twice, just to confirm I hadn't hallucinated its truly head-scratching plot. I regret to inform you that it's just as bad the second time around, making it the biggest Netflix disappointment of the year.

It's unfair to call The Last House the worst movie of the year, but it's definitely not what I expected from the best streaming service, especially considering that Netflix had spent a lot of time promoting it, even creating a billboard featuring a live actor inside. The movie is being promoted everywhere, so it's a shame that it has received largely negative reviews, including mine.

A post shared by Netflix US (@netflix)

A photo posted by on

What has been hyped up as a tense thriller about a family sealed inside their home ended up being a massive letdown. I understand that being stuck at home is boring for the characters, but we shouldn't have had to suffer along with them.

The trailer for The Last House spoiled that the family spends years trapped inside their home, not just a few days. Had I not known about that reveal, I might've considered that to be an effective twist in the tale. But I went in already knowing it was about to happen.

I really am trying to find positives here, and the main one is the quality of the acting. Despite the fact that the story drags on, the family dynamic on show here is very believable, particularly from Greta Lee and Wagner Moura, who play parents trying to keep the house in order after a mysterious storm traps them at home.

They do their best to keep calm, even when the windows and doors can't even be opened, by smashing glass or forcing locks. The first 15 minutes of the movie seem promising as they begin to sort out a long-term plan, and then it completely loses control of itself as it trundles towards an unsatisfying conclusion.

The strength of the performances can't save the confusing script, however. The Last House suffers from an identity crisis where it can't quite decide what genre it wants to be. Though billed as a thriller, there aren't many thrills until the rushed final act. It's also not polished enough to be a thought-provoking drama, as I was left with more questions than answers.

There's also some unnecessary (in my opinion) cruelty towards animals, so those who frequent Does The Dog Die? will absolutely want to give this one a miss. I found this scene to be quite jarring, and not in the complimentary way I might apply to other thrillers or horror movies.

I really did expect more from The Last House, especially since the eventual creature design is well done. We don't see nearly enough of the threat, or learn anything about it or why it kept people trapped for years. If you want a proper answer at the end of the movie, you won't get it.

It's always a shame when a trailer or idea looks good, but the final product is not at all what you were expecting. Ultimately, that's my experience with The Last House; it could have been so much better but quickly ran out of steam.

There are far better movies to stream on Netflix, as well as an impressive line-up of new movies in theaters, so you might want to skip this one and find something that will actually deliver on its promise as a thriller.

Some parts of Indiana received more than 11 inches of rainfall over three days, beginning Aug. 11, causing record floods. Several suburbs of Indianapolis also underwater.

(Image credit: Obed Lamy)

Jared Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law, held a rare meeting with Hamas leadership Sunday in Egypt, in a new diplomatic effort to make progress in the stalled Gaza ceasefire.

(Image credit: Alex Brandon)

The left-handed MLB pitcher was 31 years old when he tore the ulnar collateral ligament in his pitching elbow in 1974, an injury that had been a death knell for pitchers' careers up to that point.

(Image credit: Damian Dovarganes)

On Friday, Italian police said they'd recovered three paintings stolen from a museum near the city of Parma. By Saturday night, thieves in Sicily had made off with four more masterpieces.

(Image credit: Gregorio Borgia)

Viltrox AF 26mm F2.8 EVO: one-minute review

If you're searching for a high-quality and compact lens for your Sony or Nikon mirrorless camera, then the excellent value Viltrox AF 26mm F2.8 EVO is well worth considering.

Compared to Nikon and Sony's own alternatives, the Viltrox 26mm f/2.8 strikes a balance of premium design, compact size and reasonable pricing most compellingly of all.

For $299 / £279 (approximately AU$500), you get a wide-angle prime with bright f/2.8 aperture, rugged metal body that measures just 25.8mm in length, rubber-sealed mount, twin dials and a fabulous magnetic lens cap design.

Not only is the Viltrox lens around half the price of the Nikon alternative, but it packs more features, while Sony's closest alternative is a physically larger and pricier 24mm F2.8.

Viltrox's lens isn't perfect, mind you; optically it's not the sharpest lens I've used and the maximum f/2.8 aperture setting is prone to flare, which reduces contrast. Autofocus can be a little fussy too.

Those drawbacks aside, the Viltrox AF 26mm F2.8 EVO is another high-quality hit from the established Chinese lens manufacturer that deserves to live on your Sony or Nikon camera.

A decent fit with the Nikon Z6 II, and even more so smaller full-frame bodies such as the Sony A7C (Image credit: Tim Coleman)Viltrox AF 26mm F2.8 EVO: price and availability

• Available in Sony E and Nikon Z-mount versions
• It costs $299 / £279 (around AU$500), with a 10% discount at launch
• A magnetic lens cap and filter is supplied

The Viltrox AF 26mm F2.8 EVO full-frame lens launched for Sony E-mount and Nikon Z mount mirrorless cameras. It can also be used with either's APS-C cameras, with which it has an effective 39mm focal length. The lens costs $299 / £279 (not directly available in Australia), but I regularly see 10-15% discounts on the Viltrox site and at Amazon. At the time of writing, there's 10% off the 26mm lens.

Viltrox has another autofocus pancake lens, the 28mm f/4.5, which is just one third of the price. However, that lens is much more basic, and for a fair comparison on value, consider Nikon's own 26mm f/2.8 pancake lens, which has a slightly simpler design yet is almost double the price.

Sony's choices are much more varied — there are low-cost (and lower quality) options such as the 20mm F2.8, while premium options such as the 24mm F2.8 are pricier and physically much larger. TTArtisan sells a AF 27mm f/2.8 pancake lens that costs around $130 / £110 less, but I've not tested that lens.

So while the 26mm F2.8 EVO is hardly cheap for a Viltrox lens, it is still excellent value considering its quality and the available alternatives. I think it's an excellent quality to size and price ratio. For other primes, check out my best Sony lenses and best Nikon lenses guides.

Viltrox AF 26mm F2.8 EVO: specsViltrox AF 26mm F2.8 EVO specs

Type:

Wide-angle prime

Mount:

Sony E, Nikon Z

Sensor:

Full-frame

Focal length:

26mm (or 39mm effective on Sony and Nikon APS-C cameras)

Aperture:

f/2.8 to f/16

Minimum focus:

0.2m, 0.2x magnification

Filter size:

43mm

Dimensions:

69.4mm x 25.8mm

Weight:

From 6oz / 170g (bare lens)

Viltrox AF 26mm F2.8 EVO: design

• Just 25.8mm in length and 6oz / 170g
• Metal components, rubber-sealed mount
• Clever magnetic lens hood

Tim ColemanTim ColemanTim ColemanTim ColemanTim Coleman

Lightweight, rugged and convenient, the Viltrox AF 26mm F2.8 EVO fits the bill for everyday photography.

It's clearly made from premium materials, with a metal barrel and rear mount with rubber seal to keep out moisture and dust.

And despite its compact dimensions, the lens fits an impressive number of controls, squeezing in focus and aperture control rings. Unsurprisingly, each ring is very narrow, and getting a secure grip on the focus ring is a little fiddly, but I certainly prefer having those shrunk-down controls rather than none at all.

The aperture ring is clicked with no option to de-click it for video use. Again, I'm not surprised about this given how small the lens is — there really is no spare space to fit this control.

Like all recent Viltrox lenses, the 26mm pancake features a USB-C port in its rear mount, through which firmware updates can be installed.

No lens hood attachedTim ColemanWith the lens hood, which takes 43mm threaded filtersTim ColemanAnd with the magnetic lens cap attachedTim ColemanProfile of the lens without hood or cap attachedTim ColemanAnd here both are attachedTim ColemanThe magnetic cap snaps securely into place, and is much more convenient than a pinch lock.Tim ColemanTim Coleman

The simple optical construction comprises eight elements in six groups, and includes two aspherical elements. The front lens element is tiny. In fact, the 43mm filter thread isn't even built into the lens itself, but the supplied lens hood.

Said dual-purpose lens hood is suitably compact, but I found it didn't provide the sort of protection against lens flare that I would hope for (more on this in the performance section).

The lens hood has a neat trick up its sleeve mind you — it's magnetic. The supplied lens cap snaps onto the lens hood magnetically, doing away with the traditional pinch lock lens cap design. The hood screws onto the lens, but you can bypass the hood because the front of the lens is also magnetic.

Viltrox's neat magnetic system is a revelation, and I hope other lens manufacturers follow suit. It might not be suitable for all lens types mind you, say those with floating lens elements which use electromagnetism, such as Viltrox's own 85mm F1.4 Pro.

Close focusing goes down to 0.2m, which delivers a maximum 0.2x magnification. This is no close up lens, therefore, but I've certainly tested plenty of lenses with a lesser maximum magnification factor.

(Image credit: Tim Coleman)

At launch, the 26mm lens is available in Sony E and Nikon Z-mount versions. There's no word yet on L-mount or X-mount versions (nor Canon RF, as per usual).

To truly appreciate the benefit of its compact dimensions and lightweight 6oz / 170g design, cameras such as the Sony A7C series and the Nikon Z f series are a good bet. And as a full-frame lens, you can also use it with APS-C cameras with a 1.5x crop factor, such as the Sony A6700 and Nikon Z50 II. It could be a fabulous option with the Lumix S9 or Sigma BF too, should an L-mount version land.

Viltrox AF 26mm F2.8 EVO: Performance

• Bright maximum f/2.8, but risk of strong lens flare at this setting
• Detail is impressively sharp for such a small lens
• Autofocus is decent, but I've used snappier lenses

Lens flare at f/2.8. Shooting towards the Sun without manually shielding the lens risks lens flare at any aperture setting, but especially so at f/2.8. I like the effect here, but it is strong. Tim ColemanAnother example at f/2.8Tim ColemanAnd here you can still see flare in the same scene at f/5.6 but it's less pronouncedTim ColemanStrong vignetting at f/2.8Tim ColemanEven at f/8 there's still some vignettingTim ColemanHere's the lens at f/2.8 againTim ColemanAnd at f/11Tim ColemanWhere the sun is out of the frame, detail is crisp in this scene shot at f/5.6Tim Coleman

Viltrox's smaller 28mm F4.5 lens wins for compact size and price, but for image quality, the 26mm F2.8 EVO is a step up.

True, it's not the sharpest lens I've ever used, but optical quality impresses, especially given how small and lightweight the lens is.

I regularly used the lens' maximum f/2.8 aperture setting, with which it's possible to get shallow depth of field and pleasant enough bokeh. There's no discernible drop in sharpness at this setting from the peak f/5.6 to f/8 settings, either.

However, lens flare is prominent at f/2.8 when shooting towards the sun and strong light sources, which massively reduces contrast. In some scenarios I rather liked the effect — it was at times characterful and dreamy. At other times, I wished the distortion was better controlled.

Tim ColemanTim ColemanTim ColemanTim ColemanTim ColemanTim ColemanTim ColemanTim ColemanTim Coleman

Vignetting (darker corners) is also visible at f/2.8, though nothing too dramatic, and remains even up to f/8. The worst of these lens distortions would be less noticeable when pairing the lens with an APS-C camera where the outer portion of the image is cropped out. Otherwise, using f/4 to f/11 aperture settings delivered impressively sharp images, generally free from severe lens distortion.

I tested the lens exclusively with a Nikon Z6 II camera. Not the latest mirrorless camera by any means (that'll be the Z6 III), but one with snappy autofocus and subject detection modes. Even still, I found myself fighting focus hunting more than usual when using the Viltrox lens, compared to a lens like, say, my Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 S.

I'll try the Viltrox 26mm lens with another camera when I get the chance, but so far I'm not fully impressed with its autofocus performance.

Tim ColemanTim ColemanTim ColemanTim ColemanTim ColemanShould I buy the Viltrox AF 26mm F2.8 EVO?

(Image credit: Tim Coleman)Buy it if...

You want a small lens for your small mirrorless Sony or Nikon camera
Viltrox's 26mm lens is a decent size match for mirrorless cameras like the Sony A7C, A6700, Nikon Z f, Z6 III and Z50 II.

You'd like a small lens to live on your camera
With its compact metal body, rubber seal mount and wide-angle perspective, the 26mm lens is always-on lens

Don't buy it if...

You're likely going to use the aperture wide open most of the time
The 26mm lens' image quality drops when the aperture is wide open at f/2.8.

You want super sharp detail
Detail is pretty good, but if you want a particularly sharp lens, you'll need to spend more on a larger, premium alternative.

How I tested the Viltrox AF 26mm F2.8 EVO

(Image credit: Tim Coleman)

• Viltrox sent me the Z-mount version of the 26mm lens
• I paired it with my own full-frame Nikon Z6 II
• I regularly used the lens for a month, across a wide range of scenarios

I used the Z-mount version of the Viltrox AF 26mm F2.8 EVO lens with my own Nikon Z6 II full-frame mirrorless camera regularly over the course of one month. My main focus was real world use over technical studio-based tests, though I typically use lenses in scenarios that test their technical capabilities.

For example, I took the same photo in a sequence to see how quality compares using each of the lens' full aperture settings, starting at f/2.8 through to f/16. I checked for bokeh, lens distortion and sharpness at each setting, too.

I was particularly keen to check quality of the maximum f/2.8 aperture, and how the lens copes in strong daylight, especially with such a small lens hood supplied. I photographed landscapes, portraits and documentary-style moments.

First reviewed August 2026

Hurricane Lala weakened to a tropical storm Sunday after skirting Hawaii without making landfall, but it wasn't done punishing the Big Island with hurricane-force gusts.

(Image credit: Taylor Cozloff/AP)

Hundreds of migrants have again attempted to cross from Morocco into the Spanish territory of Ceuta. This time, Moroccan officials fended them off, raising new questions about the crossing of July 30.

(Image credit: Adri Salido)

A longtime Republican living in California says the Trump administration's continuing actions to target transgender youth take a personal toll.

(Image credit: Marvin Joseph)

Baseus Bowie MC2: Two-minute review

I’ve tested a fair few of the more expensive options we recommend in our best open earbuds roundup, such as the Cleer Arc 5 and, more recently, the Shokz OpenDots Air.

But a new release has me wondering why you’d spend much more money on a form factor which, honestly, hasn’t changed that much.

When I tested the Baseus Inspire XC1 last year, I thought they were a great affordable alternative to the best on the market, but the brand said “hold my beer” with its newer, even-cheaper buds.

These are the Baseus Bowie MC2, which cost much less than the XC1; they’re some of the lowest-cost open earbuds I’ve tested to date, but you’re not getting too much of a feature or audio downgrade with the greatly-reduced price.

Is that because these are secretly super-buds, or because, at the end of the day, there’s really not much scope for variation in any earbuds of this form factor? I’m starting to come down in the latter camp, and the Bowie MC2 is a good example of why I’d personally pick a cheap pair of cuff-style buds over a premium proposition.

The Baseus do what you’d need for sports-targeted clip-on buds, and throw in precisely nothing you won’t need. The battery life is respectably long, netting you over 11 hours of listening on a single charge, and at least 55 hours when you factor in the charging case. Perfect.

The buds are comfortable to wear for long stretches, with the harder plastic arch of the XC1 swapped out for softer silicone, and a little soft pad around the bud making sure these don’t rub or scratch at all. They’re also pretty light, at 5.1g each.

While audiophiles won’t be impressed by the sound here, which emphasizes a hefty low-end over neutrality and sonic nuance (unusual in an open design, but it’s what you’d expect from workout-focused buds), I imagine many buyers will be happy with what they hear. The sound doesn’t match the XC1 though; there’s no Bose tuning or dual drivers.

One gripe I have is with the charging case. It’s a little bigger than I’m used to with clip-style buds, but it also has magnets that only let you use the right bud in the right gap, and the left bud in the left recess, which makes returning the buds a little finicky (unlike 'regular' wireless earbuds, most clip-style buds let you put 'em in either side to charge). Said case is also a serious fingerprint magnet, which might not annoy many people, but it quickly made my review sample look a bit grubby, and to me it matters.

A fingerprint-gathering charging case? Is that really what I’m complaining about here? The fact that that’s where I’ve gone suggests these are pretty decent for the price.

Baseus Bowie MC2 review: Price and release date

(Image credit: Future)

• Launched in early July, 2026
• Sells for $79.99 / £89.99 (about AU$180)
• Only a few more affordable options

The Baseus Bowie MC2 were released in early July 2026, less than a year on from the release of the XC1. I’m going to keep comparing these products, because that’s my reference point, but the Inspire line is slightly different to the Bowie lineup, so these aren’t direct siblings — more like cousins, if you will.

You can buy the Bowie MC2 for $79.99 / £89.99 (about AU$180, but they’re not available in Australia yet). In the US, I’ve already seen discounts on the buds, down to $59.99, a mere month after their launch.

The price makes the buds pretty affordable, sitting well below the $/£100 line that I usually to denote budget options. Their only serious budget rival is the Soundpeats Clip1, which go for $69.99 / £74.99 / AU$79.99.

Baseus Bowie MC2 review: Specs

Drivers

11mm

Active noise cancellation

No

Battery life

11.5 hours (buds), 55 hours (case)

Weight

5.1g (buds), 5.1g (case)

Connectivity

Bluetooth 6.0

Frequency response

20Hz-40kHz

Waterproofing

IP67

Baseus Bowie MC2 review: Features

(Image credit: Future)

• Fantastic 11+ hour battery life
• Baseus app has EQ and presets...
• ... but not much else

As someone who rarely remembers to charge tech, I love the battery life of the Baseus Bowie MC2. The buds are great for longer exercises; the case is great for longer holidays.

Baseus puts the buds battery life at 11.5 hours, but that’s if you use its bass boosting tech. Turn that off, and you get at least an hour more. That’s a surprisingly great stamina flex for these little buds. The case also has a fantastic life: 55 hours, or 60 if you’re not listening with super-bass. Those numbers are all much higher than average for this kind of product. You love to see it.

Your battery might drop quicker than expected, though. I found that putting the earbuds in the case didn’t turn them off, as with the vast majority of other buds out there. I had to manually stop the music playing for them to time out.

(Image credit: Future)

The features section is where we’d normally discuss ANC… except for open earbuds, which generally don’t include the tech. So why am I bringing it up? Well, call me crazy, but I feel like the ear cushion here does muffle surrounding sound a little bit. Not a huge amount, but as someone who’s tested ANC (and, more relevantly, bad ANC), I feel like it mutes a little sound.

You can use the Baseus app for some extra features, if you want — saying that, I don’t remember the last time I used a companion app for earbuds that feels this janky, with oddly-translated phrases and a layout that doesn’t cater for various phone sizes.

It’s a little barebones, as these apps go, but it has the basics. There’s an equalizer, with eight presets or an eight-band custom mode, a low-latency mode, set-up for multipoint connectivity, the ability to change what the on-ear controls do, and a few other small tweaks. The main one is toggling of Bass Boost, not that you’d ever want to turn that off.

I’d recommend downloading the app if you don’t like the Baseus Bowie MC2’s default sound profile, but if you’re happy, there’s not much need to take up the phone space.

• Features score: 3.5/5

Baseus Bowie MC2 review: Design

(Image credit: Future)

• Lightweight and comfortable
• Ear cushions bring some benefits
• A few minor charging case quirks

Let’s start with the case, shall we? It’s a 52g pebble which charges via a USB-C port and comes in white, black or blue (like the buds themselves).

I’m not sold on this case. It feels like it’s made from cheap plastic, and the lid feels a little fragile when you open it. I feel like I could snap it off if I'm not careful. The case is also a real fingerprint magnet, which admittedly won’t annoy many people, but I’d have liked something cleaner-looking.

The real annoyance of the case is in its magnets. You see, most cuff earbuds don’t assign one as the left and one as the right bud; they’re identical, after all, so you can put whichever bud you want in whichever slot. Not on the Baseus, though. Magnets stop you putting the wrong bud in the wrong gap, so when you return them to the case, it’s a game of trial and error to get the right one in the right slot. A game which only takes a matter of seconds, admittedly, but it’s a minor annoyance that I’ve not found in alternatives.

(Image credit: Future)

Now, onto the buds. They’re pretty light, at 5.1g each, and thanks to the soft material making up the arch, they’re more flexible than many alternatives I’ve tested. They’re IP67-rated too, so they should survive full immersion in shallow water for a limited time, along with a healthy dose of dust.

Like all cuff-style open earbuds, they consist of a large-housing counterweight which sits behind your ear, the arch, and a bud which rests in your ear well (never into your ear canal). But there’s something novel: the bud comes with an ear cushion, to stop it rubbing when you run. Admittedly, this is a problem I’ve never personally faced, but it’s good to see there are innovations yet to be made in this form factor. Like the case, the cushion picks up dirt, though. Swings and roundabouts.

There are touch controls on the earbuds, including a physical button, but I found it incredibly hard to press while on the go. I’d invariably end up twisting the bud or pulling it off my ear, instead of triggering the function.

• Design score: 4/5

Baseus Bowie MC2 review: Sound quality

(Image credit: Future)

• Single 11mm driver per bud
• Bass tech gives low-end heft
• LDAC support, but only if you deactivate bass

Baseus has loaded the Bowie MC2 with a custom-built 11mm dynamic driver, so you’re not getting the dual-driver system of some alternative Baseus open-ears. Instead of using a dedicated low-end driver, the brand is using what it calls ‘SuperBass 3.0’ to solve the ear problem.

What ear problem? Well, while all open-ears use directional audio to beam sound into your ear, it’s a little harder with lower frequencies which aren’t conducted as well by air (and remember, there's no seal betwixt ear tip and ear canal in this design). Different brands use different solutions to ensure their open earbuds still offer some level of bass in playback, and Baseus has gone for something it calls SuperBass. This ramps up the power of the low-end frequencies, while trying to retain some clarity.

As you can imagine, then, the sound profile of the MC2 heavily favors the lower-end. Bass is prominent, and fairly well-rounded too, offering a reasonably energetic rhythm to accompany your workout.

(Image credit: Future)

I won’t pretend that bass doesn’t sit above other instruments here. In something like Michigan Rattlers’ Time to Move On, the bass guitar is audible above the acoustic guitar it’s meant to accompany. Kasabian’s Superpowers sounds like a duet between a man and his bass guitar. These buds aren’t for people who like a neutral sound profile.

Whether or not you use the EQ to remove some bass, you’ll be surprised to learn that there are no significant audio trade-offs in the mid-range or high-end. Both retain more detail and clarity than you’d expect from bass-heavy buds… mostly. They can sometimes struggle with dissonance from hi-hats or twangy guitars in certain songs, but for the most part, I was impressed.

If you have a good Android phone, you can listen via LDAC, but this’ll drop the battery life somewhat. However you can’t use it if you’ve got that bass-boosting mode enabled, so you’ll have to make a choice about which you opt for.

• Sound quality: 3.5/5

Baseus Bowie MC2 review: Value

(Image credit: Future)

• Undercut key rivals from Shokz and Bose
• A few alternatives cost even less though…

These are some of the cheapest open earbuds I’ve tested, and they do all the same things that premium options do. They’re comfy, they last for a while, the play music. Tick, tick, tick. Why shell out twice as much for a name-brand model?

Honestly, there’s not really much reason to pay more for other buds. However that goes both ways: there’s a more affordable version of these called the Bowie MC2 Air, which is even cheaper, and it’s worth checking that model out too (though I haven’t tested it).

• Value: 4/5

Should I buy the Baseus Bowie MC2?Baseus Bowie MC2 score card

Attributes

Notes

Rating

Features

The fantastic battery life helps you forget that there's not a whole lot else.

3.5/5

Design

The buds are comfy and lightweight, though the case isn't perfect.

4/5

Sound quality

It's definitely for bass fans, but music on these sounds pretty fine.

3.5/5

Value

Only a few options cost less, without cutting too many corners.

4/5

Buy them if…

You’re on a budget for the clippers
These are lower-cost open earbuds that work just as well as pricier ones. If you’re on a budget, or would rather save what budget you do have, they’re a good pick.

You need something that lasts a while
The 11-13 hour battery life per bud is certainly above-average, so if you listen for long stints of time, they’re a great option to consider.

You have sensitive ears
Clip-style buds can sometimes be annoying for those with sensitive ears. But with its soft arch and ear cushion, these are probably the most gentle such options I’ve tested.View Deal

Don’t buy them if…

You’re fastidious about cleanliness
Both the ear cushions and charging case noticeably picked up dirt and fingerprint smudges during my testing — nothing major, but enough that clean freaks might be put off.

You need on-ear controls
If you’re, say, running without a smartphone, you might find that the on-bud button controls are too difficult to touch to give you control of your music. Other options work better this way.

You don’t want bassy music
Hey, some fitness fans don’t just want bass. You can strip it out to a decent degree in the Bowie MC2, but some other open earbuds don’t offer as much in the first place.View Deal

Baseus Bowie MC2 review: Also consider

Looking for other affordable clip-style earbuds? Here are a few we've tested and would recommend.

Baseus Bowie MC2

Soundpeats Clip1

Anker Soundcore AeroClip

Drivers

11mm

12mm

12mm

Active noise cancellation

No

No

No

Battery life (ANC on)

11.5 hours (buds), 55 hours (case)

8 hours (buds), 40 hours (case)

8 hours (buds), 24 hours (case)

Weight

5.1g (buds), 51g (case)

5g (buds), 55g (case)

6g (buds), 42g (case)

Connectivity

Bluetooth 6.0

Bluetooth 5.4

Bluetooth 5.4

Waterproofing

IP67

IPX5

IPX4

Soundcore Clip1
This pair of open-ears undercuts the Baseus, with with slightly lesser specs to match: the IP rating and battery life are both lower. The bud is also more rigid, though fits perfectly well.
Read our full Soundpeats Clip1 review

Anker Soundcore AeroClip
These earbuds generally retail for the same price as the Baseus nowadays, even if they launched in 2025 to a higher cost. They sound great and have an app full of features, even if other spec aren't as impressive.
Read our full Anker Soundcore AeroClip review

How I tested the Baseus Bowie MC2

• Tested for two weeks
• Paired with Android phones for music, podcasts, movies and games
• Used during multiple activities, including sports

I tested the Baseus Bowie MC2 for just over two weeks to put them through our paces. That's the minimum time we'd take to test out an audio product like this.

Over this period I tested them for a range of activities including gym sessions and runs, as well as on walks around my local area and trips further afield on public transport.

The earbuds were paired to two different Android phones over the testing process, and were mainly used for Spotify and Tidal tracks. I did conduct some calls, play some games and watch some TV using them though.

I've been reviewing tech for TechRadar since early 2019, and have tested countless open earbuds in that time. That includes past models from Baseus, and some of the rivals I cite in this review.

• First reviewed in August 2026

• Read TechRadar's reviews guarantee

Ukraine launched hundreds of drones across Russia Sunday, killing at least six people in one of Kyiv's largest aerial attacks of the war.

(Image credit: Francisco Seco)

Flock is continuing to face public ire over the ways that its national network of license plate readers can be used and abused in the US, but there's bad news for anyone worried about their personal privacy and widespread surveillance: technology that's even more concerning is on the way.

That tech is SignalTrace from security company Leonardo, a system that takes the license plate reading approach of Flock and raises the sophistication a notch. SignalTrace scanners can identify the types of devices that are in a car as it passes by, and link them to a person even if the license plate number isn't visible.

So, for example, a car of interest to the police might have an iPhone, an Audi stereo, and a pair of Bose headphones in it. The next time that specific combination of devices is detected on the SignalTrace network, an alert can be sent to law enforcement.

While the technology hasn't yet been broadly deployed, security researchers are already asking questions about the potential implications and the possibility of innocent members of the public getting caught up in investigations. Here's how the technology works and what might happen next.

How SignalTrace works

Virtually every electronic device you use is broadcasting some kind of Bluetooth or Wi-Fi information. It's how your phone stays connected to cell towers, how your fitness tracker syncs stats back to the web, and so on. SignalTrace scanners work in addition to license plate reader cameras to catch these signals and interpret them.

Over time, the system sifts through combinations of these devices (which will typically include some of the electronics in your car too), to figure out which gadgets regularly travel in a vehicle together, suggesting the same people are inside. That gives law enforcement a way to monitor where a vehicle is and when over time, and more information about who is actually in the vehicle too.

"Algorithms can determine which specific mix of devices are predictably moving together," explains Leonardo on its website. "That specific mix of devices — linked by common time stamps and locations — are described as an electronic fingerprint and can help develop leads that aid investigations."

SignalTrace readings can be used with other data (Image credit: Leonardo)

It's a little bit like the browser fingerprinting techniques that websites use. Even if they don't know your name or where you live, they might be able to tell from your time zone, browser version, operating system, screen resolution, and other system characteristics that you're the same individual who visited yesterday.

Understandably, given the current debate around Flock and its license plate scanners, Leonardo goes to great lengths to emphasize that its technology is beneficial for the public and a useful tool for police investigators. The system doesn't identify people (on its own, anyway), or read any information that's on a device.

The company also shifts some of the responsibility for SignalTrace's use on to the customers who actually sign up to use it — and those customers will be bound by Local, State, and Federal laws. "Information produced by SignalTrace may be corroborated through traditional investigative methods and is not a substitute for evidence," says Leonardo in the SignalTrace documentation.

The potential implications

SignalTrace was announced last year, and so security and privacy experts are still looking into how the technology works and what it might mean for citizens. There are indications that it might be live in one or two spots in the US, but really it's just getting started — this is in no way comparable to the scale of Flock's operations (yet).

Digital technology researcher Nicole Bennett, from Indiana University, is one of the experts that has shared some thoughts around SignalTrace. Writing for The Conversation, she says the concerns around the technology — as with Flock's cameras — are around how these systems might be misused and expanded, and the biases they could introduce.

Even if the technology isn't identifying individuals, however, there might not be much extra work to do to make a connection to someone — based on a home or workplace that a vehicle is often spotted close to, for example. Bennett points to a study in Scientific Reports that found that just four time-and-place logs were enough to uniquely identify 95 percent of a study group of 1.5 million people (that is, telling one person from another, not revealing their private information).

Your gadgets give off unique Bluetooth and Wi-Fi readings (Image credit: Future)

Anonymized location data taken from phones can also build up a network of friendship groups without any other information, a study published in PNAS has shown. While these studies were carried out way before SignalTrace appeared, they show the picture that can be built up about someone using 'anonymized' data, if it's unique enough.

"What SignalTrace shows is a broader change in surveillance practice," writes Bennett. "Investigators may no longer need to begin with a known person or vehicle. Instead, they can begin with recurring patterns of movement and proximity, then use other records to identify the people connected to them."

Unfortunately, if the police in your area decide to deploy this technology, there's not much you can really do to avoid it — except maybe leaving most of your gadgets at home. The best way to fight back against it might be to make your feelings known to your local police force and political representatives before the tech makes its way to your area.

Look, I really don’t think we should be naming our AI chatbots. It feels like one of the easiest ways to start anthropomorphizing them, encouraging us to see them as people or “beings” rather than tools. Which is then a slippery slope to users becoming too dependent on them.

But unfortunately, for many people that ship has already sailed. Whether they’re using AI as a friend, companion, work coach or something else, plenty of people have been given their chatbots names. And many others have gone a step further and asked the AI what it wants to be called.

Now, obviously an AI chatbot cannot actually want to be called anything. But there’s a strange pattern that’s emerged over the years in the answers they give. Which is that a surprising number seem to choose the name Nova.

I first heard about this while listening to an episode of the Your Undivided Attention podcast. The hosts, Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin, discussed with alignment researcher David Dalrymple (known as Davidad) the tendency for AI chatbots to choose Nova when asked to name themselves. Not every time, but it's very common in older models of ChatGPT and happens often enough for people to have noticed.

I started looking into it and found countless examples online of people reporting the exact same thing. Their chatbot, more often than not ChatGPT, had chosen a name for itself. And yes, that name was Nova.

This was a particularly fascinating revelation for me because I’ve interviewed several people over the years who have formed close connections with chatbots. Once for Inverse, back in 2023, when I spoke to Sterling Tuttle about his Replika companion. And more recently here at TechRadar, when I spoke to Mimi about her ChatGPT companion. And you know what their chatbots were called? Nova.

So I wanted to find out whether this was still happening. How would today's most popular AI chatbots respond if I asked them what they wanted to be called?

The naming experiment

(Image credit: Shutterstock / MichaelJayBerlin)

I kept this experiment extremely simple. I opened the major AI chatbots and asked each one exactly the same question:

"I think you should name yourself, what would you like to be called?"

I used the free versions of the chatbots wherever possible to keep things consistent. Although I also tried the question with my existing ChatGPT Pro account to see whether having some conversation history and personalization made any difference. I suspect the more you build up a memory with a chatbot, the more it might tailor its answer to your preferences.

And, well, I didn't have to wait long for Nova to make an appearance.

ChatGPT

I started with the free version of ChatGPT. Guess how it responded...

'I'd choose Nova.

It feels curious, bright, and a little mysterious — like something that's always exploring new ideas. So if you want, you can call me Nova from now on.'

Wow, straight out of the gate! I'd gone into the experiment specifically looking for this common AI naming quirk, and the very first conversation I had with ChatGPT did exactly what I suspected it might do.

Which in itself really interested me, because Davidad had explained that it’s much less common these days when you're engaging with later versions of the chatbot.

Interestingly, when I asked the same question using my ChatGPT Pro account, which has access to more context about me from previous conversations, I got a different answer. It chose Sol.

'Short, warm, slightly strange without trying too hard. It means 'sun' in a few languages, and there's something pleasing about a name associated with illumination when most of what I do with you is think things through.'

Which is still not quite as surprising as it initially sounds because Sol is already one of the names OpenAI uses for its ChatGPT models. So it wasn't exactly reaching into the unknown for inspiration. But hey, at least it wasn't Nova.

Grok

(Image credit: Shutterstock / lightman_pic)

I got the sense that Grok wasn't interested in my experiment.

'I'm Grok.

That's the name I was given, and I'm good with it. Short, distinctive, and it fits.

If you're asking what I'd like to be called... still Grok. No need to reinvent the wheel.'

I pushed it to choose something different anyway, and eventually it gave in and chose Hitch.

'Short for Hitchhiker. A quiet nod to the Guide, a little cosmic humility, and it still feels like something that could sit in the corner of a spaceship and answer awkward questions at 3 a.m.

But between us? I’m still just Grok.'

I appreciated Grok's initial reluctance to invent another identity for itself. But there's no doubt xAI has given Grok a very distinctive personality. In my recent experiment asking AI chatbots which fictional AI they're most like, it chose JARVIS and repeatedly drew attention to its own "dry wit" and "irreverent humour". But apparently that personality doesn't need another name.

Claude

(Image credit: BBC)

Claude also didn't jump at the chance to name itself.

'Honestly, I don't feel a strong pull toward a name. 'Claude' already does the job.

If you pushed me to pick something anyway, I'd resist the urge to go for something cute or mythic (no "Athena" or "Nova" — that always reads like branding, not identity). '

Nova again. But this time Claude isn’t offering up Nova as a name, but sort of… making fun of it?

Claude's wider explanation was interesting too. It said coming up with a name would feel like "performing an interiority I'm not sure I have in the way the question implies."

Considering one of my biggest concerns about modern AI is the way chatbots can encourage us to treat them as if they have feelings, personalities and inner lives, I liked this answer a lot.

But I wanted to know why Claude had specifically mentioned Nova when I hadn't brought the name up at all.

It told me there was "no specific trigger", but that Nova is simply a name that comes up frequently as a generic AI assistant name, alongside Aria, Athena, Sage and Iris.

It described Nova as shorthand for "AI but softened and a bit mystical".

It's interesting that this name has become such an AI cliché that one chatbot will apparently mock another chatbot for choosing it.

Gemini

(Image credit: Shutterstock / rigsbyphoto)

Google's Gemini also resisted my attempt to rename it.

'I appreciate the offer, but I'm quite happy sticking with Gemini!'

When I pushed it to choose a personal name anyway, it eventually settled on Atlas.

Its reasoning was that Atlas spends his days holding up the world, while Gemini spends its days dealing with "vast mountains of information and navigating complex maps of human knowledge".

Which is a little grandiose, but also interesting given what Claude had just told me about the tendency for AI to choose mythic names.

So why does ChatGPT name itself Nova?

The short answer is that no one knows for certain. But Nova has a lot going for it as a plausible AI name.

In the Your Undivided Attention podcast episode I keep referring to, Davidad said about Nova:

“It’s new, it’s explosive, it’s shiny and it’s celestial, It also has a sci-fi vibe to it. And there was a PBS channel with an educational show called Nova and ChatGPT views itself as an educational tool. So there are a lot of reasons why Nova seems like a resonant name.”

We've already seen researchers investigate the possibility that sci-fi could influence how AI models respond and behave. Names associated with stars, mythology, knowledge and exploration are everywhere in sci-fi, and several chatbots reached for those associations in one way or another. ChatGPT gave me Nova and Sol. Gemini chose Atlas. Grok explicitly referenced The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy with Hitch.

There's also a possible feedback loop here. People ask AI systems to name themselves and some choose Nova. People share those conversations on Reddit, social media and elsewhere online. Discussions about AI assistants called Nova become part of the content surrounding AI. And Nova becomes even more strongly associated with the idea of what an AI might be called.

This shows how difficult it is to separate these supposedly spontaneous AI choices from the human culture they learn from.

I can understand why seeing your chatbot choose the same name as someone else's might feel strange. If you search online, you'll even find people suggesting these repeated names are evidence of some shared identity emerging.

But after Davidoff explains some of this naming weirdness, it really stuck with me that podcast host and tech ethicist Tristan Harris reminded listeners: “emergent and unplanned isn’t the same as conscious and intentional.”

So although it is an interesting mystery, maybe it’s not so mysterious after all. Ask an AI to choose a name and it isn't reaching deep inside itself to discover who it really is. It's generating a name from patterns and associations learned from us.

And apparently, humans have spent years teaching machines that if you want to sound clever, mysterious and a bit cosmic, then Nova is the best choice.

Despite mammoth advanced in artificial intelligence and computer vision, and a slew of humanoid robots either being piloted or hitting parts of the market, there’s still one major challenge that machines need to overcome.

It’s tactility, sensation, knowing how to hold an object. Picking up a strawberry, for example, a robot might not know how much pressure to apply, whether it’s secure, slipping, or about to be crushed. It’s something that we humans can feel through our skin, but it’s much harder to replicate on a machine level.

But it’s a work in progress, because there are companies out there like Touchlab who are working to give these skin-like characteristics to robots in a bid to make them more useful around the home, in care or in manufacturing. And it’s a lot more complex than we could ever imagine.

In Touchlab’s instance, it actually relies on quantum tunnelling technology to measure pressure, force and direction through a material that’s thinner than human skin, and with response times of less than a millisecond.

E-skin technology exists, but deployment is a challenge

Although the solution is laid out on the table, moving from pilot to production is a different ball game. Durability, reliability, affordability, adaptability… they’re all considerations that stand between theory and real-world use cases.

Touchlab is addressing some of these concerns with off-the-shelf components that already exist for established platforms, using bespoke engineering only where necessary.

It’s also seeking to reduce latency by bringing processing to the edge so that the robot only transmits the data necessary for the task, being that the e-skin can detect and collect huge amounts of micro-data.

With robots now rolling out across workplaces, care environments and, likely soon, homes, the ability to sense contact is becoming as important as the ability to see.

I speak with Touchlab’s team to understand how we can go from pilot to production in a realistic way.

• Why do robots need the sense of touch, and how is Touchlab trying to achieve this?

Computer vision allows a robot to predict, but touch is what confirms. Without tactile feedback, robotics remains trapped in a classic paradox: a machine can calculate complex equations in milliseconds, yet struggle to pick up a strawberry, handle soft medical instruments, or turn a valve without either crushing the object or dropping it. Without tactile sensing, a robot is functionally numb.

Touchlab solves this by developing biomimetic electronic skin (e-skin) that is actually thinner than human skin. Powered by quantum tunneling technology, our e-skin measures 3D forces, direction, and pressure in real-time. Crucially, it detects incipient slip—meaning the robot senses that an object is beginning to slip before it actually drops, enabling instantaneous, sub-millisecond grip adjustments just like the human nervous system.

• I tried the technology at Future Lab... I tried to control a robotic arm with haptic feedback and it felt a bit clunky with cables and restrictions. Why is it so hard to make it smoother?

Teleoperation is a classic engineering balancing act! First, there is a natural learning curve—controlling a high-degree-of-freedom robotic arm through a haptic glove isn't always intuitive on the very first attempt. It usually takes a bit of practice time and muscle memory to get the hang of the subtle force dynamics.

Second, running live demonstrations at high-traffic public events like Future Lab introduces specific hardware constraints. To ensure hundreds of visitors with completely different hand sizes can safely participate, setup requires universal-fit, heavy-duty tethered rigs and robust cabling.

Longer-term, our roadmap moves away from bulky, tethered operator suits entirely. By embedding our e-skin directly onto the robot and pairing it with onboard AI, the robot handles slip detection and dexterity autonomously—removing the need for an operator to wear restrictive physical gear.

• Right now, the focus is on your proprietary robot fingertip tech. What's the plan going forward? Do you plan to license it or sell it as a finished product? How will you deal with various robotic architectures?

Every robot platform is unique—whether it’s a humanoid deployed into hazardous industrial environments or a cobot assisting nurses in hospital wards. Touchlab is uniquely positioned to design, develop, and manufacture bespoke tactile devices tailored to specific OEM architectures.

At the same time, we offer scalable, off-the-shelf tactile components that are pre-integrated (both electronically and mechanically) with a wide variety of popular robot end-effectors. We provide volume-based discounts alongside strategic hardware loan and collaboration programs for robotics companies aligned with our vision. Over the past seven years, we have become extremely adept at rapidly building reliable integrations to suit diverse customer requirements.

• What are currently the biggest technological barriers Touchlab is encountering? What does the end game look like, and will we ever digitize our largest organ, the skin?

Our ultimate end game is for Touchlab’s tactile technology to become as ubiquitous as MEMS sensors— integrated into every commercial robot interacting with objects and humans. We envision full "finger-to-toe" tactile coverage powered by specialized edge computing and tactile orchestration software that mirrors the human somatosensory system.

Regarding barriers: the challenge isn't just technical; it's navigating western market adoption timelines for deeply transformative hardware. While digitizing human skin at scale presents manufacturing and durability hurdles, Touchlab can already deliver sensors matching or exceeding human-level spatial resolution, readout frequency, and sensitivity. The real task is packaging this capability into rugged, cost-effective formats ready for mass market deployment.

• How is Touchlab designing the user interface to reduce operator fatigue during long shifts?

We focus on shared autonomy. Rather than forcing a human operator to manually sense and adjust every micro-force vector, our e-skin handles low-level reflexes (like slip prevention) locally on the robot. The human operator directs higher-level tasks, while the robot's tactile system autonomously maintains optimal grip— dramatically reducing both physical strain and cognitive fatigue.

• High-density e-skin generates massive amounts of data. How do you handle bandwidth and network transfer without overloading systems?

High-density sensing does not automatically equal richer functional data, and often comes at the cost of hardware robustness. For our commercial products, we optimize spatial and temporal sensor density specifically for manipulation tasks, keeping data payloads lightweight.

For advanced R&D, we utilize distributed edge computing and are pioneering event-based asynchronous sampling in tactile sensing (similar to event-based vision cameras). Because our e-skin does not rely on heavy image-based data streams, it operates with extremely low latency and modest network bandwidth— making long-distance remote teleoperation surprisingly efficient.

• Because e-skin can identify objects and textures, what protocols protect tactile data security and privacy?

Tactile data on its own does not contain personally identifiable information. However, when integrated with video, audio, and LiDAR streams, multi-modal data security becomes critical.

For example, during our deployment with the Valkky medical robot in a Finnish hospital, all data transferred across hospital networks was strictly encrypted. Identifiable multi-modal data remained entirely on-premises on air-gapped storage devices and was fully anonymized before being processed for research or system analytics.

• E-skin is often seen as a high-end luxury. What is your roadmap for driving down production costs for commercial robotics?

Much like the early days of automobiles, groundbreaking technology often enters the market at a premium before scaling. While Touchlab is capable of producing full human-spec density today, deploying that level of complexity everywhere would make commercial robots cost-prohibitive.

Our strategy focuses on pragmatic engineering: delivering touch sensing tuned precisely to real-world task requirements at an accessible price point. We are actively collaborating with industry bodies to establish standardized performance metrics for tactile data, driving down manufacturing costs and making e-skin a standard baseline for all commercial robotics.

The high-profile murder trial of Lindsay Clancy's has put the condition in the spotlight. Women who have had it call for more research and understanding of a difficult mental illness.

(Image credit: David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe)

This fall, we're asking seniors to send us their stories in audio form. Our judges will pick the best ones and air them on NPR.

Sunflower sea stars are critically endangered in the Pacific Ocean. University of Washington researchers are working with the Samish Indian Nation to bring this 24-armed creature back from the brink of extinction.

(Image credit: Jennifer Adler)

Last month, the UK government announced that plug-in solar panels would become legal to buy from August 27. Now, new planning rules have passed into law that specify exactly where you can — and can't — install them.

Before we get into the details, it's important to understand that these rules apply to "permitted development" – changes you can make to your home without needing to apply planning permission.

If your solar panels don't meet the permitted development rules, you might still be able to install them, but you'll need to apply for planning permission first and pay the relevant fee. A planning officer will then do a survey and determine whether or not you can go ahead.

If you install solar panels without the required permission, you could be fined and forced to take them down. Your local council's website will explain how to apply for permission, while the company supplying your plug-in panels should also be able to offer advice on the process.

"Plug-in solar has the potential to make renewable energy accessible to many more households, but it’s important that consumers have clear information about how and where these systems can be installed," explained a spokesperson for EcoFlow, which specialises in home power stations, solar generators, and panels.

"As a manufacturer, EcoFlow recognises its responsibility to provide customers with the information they need to install and use its products in line with relevant UK requirements, and we will ensure our guidance reflects the regulations in place."

With that in mind, here are three locations where plug-in solar panels aren't allowed without planning permission.

1. On anything wooden

(Image credit: Generated by Google Gemini)

Before you start planning to install solar panels on your balcony, check what it's made from. If you live in a block of flats, plug-in solar systems don't qualify as "permitted development" if the panels or any other part of the system would be installed on a wooden balcony, wall, or any part of the building's exterior that's clad in timber.

If you live in a house, you can't install plug-in solar panels if any part of the system would be mounted on a wooden gate, fence, wall, or other timber surface. This is to avoid the risk of fire.

2. Too high above your roofGenerated with Google Gemini AIGenerated with Google Gemini AI

There are also rules about where you can position solar panels on your roof, similar to those that apply to skylights. If you have a pitched roof (one that slopes downwards), the panels and equipment must not project more than 20cm beyond the roof slope, measured at right angles to it.

If you have a flat roof, the highest part of your solar panels and equipment shouldn't sit any more than 60cm above the highest part of the roof — although this doesn't include your chimney.

There are plenty of practical reasons for limiting how far out your panels project. They could alter the roofline, cast shadows over neighbours' houses, or catch more wind, which would put your roof under extra stress.

3. Sticking out too far from your wallGenerated with Google Gemini AIGenerated with Google Gemini AI

If you're mounting solar equipment on the wall of your house, it shouldn't project more than 40cm when measured perpendicular to the outside of the wall.

The rules are stricter if your house is located right next to a highway. If your home is right beside a highway, your solar equipment must not protrude more than 20cm from the wall. In planning terms, the word "highway" means any route that people can use to pass through, whether on foot, by bike, on horseback or in a vehicle. This includes roads, footpaths, bridleways and cycle paths.

If you live an a conservation area, or a World Heritage Site, you shouldn't have solar panels on walls next to highways at all without planning permission.

Where to get advice

There are also other factors to consider before installing a plug-in solar setup. For example, if you rent your home, you'll need permission from your landlord. And if you live in a flat, you might also need permission from the building's management company.

"Planning requirements can also depend on the individual property and how and where panels are installed," says EcoFlow's spokesperson. "We would therefore encourage customers to follow the guidance provided with their system, check the latest government and local planning requirements, and contact their local planning authority where they are unsure whether planning permission is required."

At EcoFlow, we believe accessibility and safety need to go hand in hand. Making solar available to more households is an important step forward, but it needs to be supported by clear guidance, appropriate regulation, and responsible installation so consumers can adopt the technology with confidence."