Tuesday, July 07, 2026
It’s Actually Okay to Run the AC All Day, Even If You’re Not Home | Reviews by Wirecutter
It’s Actually Okay to Run the AC All Day (Even If You’re Not Home)
By Thom Dunn
"Thom Dunn is a writer focusing on home heating and cooling. He once blew up a power strip with a space heater and a Marshall half-stack.
During my childhood summers, leaving the house was a process: Turn off the AC, dash to the door, and close it as quickly as possible to minimize the loss of cooled air.
Those old energy-saving habits can be hard to break—I’ve only recently accepted that it’s okay to leave the lights on when I’m not in a room.
It got me wondering: Is it really worth it to shut off the AC when you leave the house?
I’ve been testing at least a dozen AC units every year since 2019, and air-conditioner efficiency has come a long way since the summer when ska was popular. So I ran some tests.
As it turns out, the most efficient way to keep your home cool and the bills low is to leave the AC running—ideally, with the temperature turned up toward the upper 70s.
A cold comparison
To figure out the most efficient way to run our AC, we set up two of the same units (a 12,000-BTU version of the Midea U, our pick) on two different floors of the same apartment building. We also took measurements from a third apartment, on a separate floor, equipped with a heat pump (a now discontinued 18,000-BTU LG LAN180HYV3).
The heat pump and one window unit were in apartments that were roughly equal in size—about 1,200 square feet—with windows facing south. The other Midea window unit went into a third apartment, on the top floor, and it was about two-thirds that size, with windows facing west. The variations in elevation and sunlight direction would obviously affect the test results, but I also thought it would be helpful to compare the energy use in homes with different thermal envelopes under the same weather conditions. (Pro-tip: Insulation and weatherization make a huge difference!)
On the first day of our tests, we shut the AC units off at noon, and we turned them back on at 5 p.m., after the sun had passed its apex over the building. We recorded the temperature inside each apartment before we turned the AC back on, and then we tracked how long it took to get the indoor temperature back down to 72 degrees Fahrenheit.
The next day, we did the same thing—only this time, we left the AC running all day at 72 degrees. We used an energy monitor to track how much electricity each AC unit used over the course of each 24-hour period.
On both days, the outside temperature reached a whopping 93 degrees Fahrenheit.
To our surprise, all three apartments ended up using more energy when the AC was turned off than when we left it running all day. The first-floor unit, with the 18,000-BTU heat pump, used 7 kWh of energy on the day we turned off the AC, and it used only 4 kWh when we left it running. Using the average electricity rate in Massachusetts, this would be a cost difference of about 44¢ per day.
Similarly, the second-floor apartment, with a 12,000-BTU window AC unit, used 18 kWh when we turned the AC off and 12 kWh when we kept it on—a price difference of about $1.27 per day.
The westward-facing unit in the third-floor apartment—which was smaller than the other two apartments but also a better size for its 12,000-BTU window AC unit—saw the smallest change in energy use: 12 kWh on the first day with the AC unit off and 11 kWh when the unit was kept running. That might seem like a small difference, but it could still save you about 20¢ per day.
This test not only showed us how to save energy but also how to keep our homes more comfortable. On the day we turned the AC units off, the temperature inside each apartment got up into the low 80s; even after we turned the AC units back on, it still took another 90 minutes to cool the apartments back down again. In fact, only the apartment with the 18,000-BTU heat pump was able to get all the way back down to 72 degrees Fahrenheit before sunset. By contrast, the temperature in the two apartments with window AC units hovered around 75 degrees until several hours after dark, when the ambient temperature outside dipped as well.
If you’re going to have to wait that long to cool your home back down after shutting off the AC, you shouldn’t also have to deal with the higher utility bills that come along with it. Sure, you might be able to schedule the unit to turn back on with enough time to cool your home back down before your return. But then you have to do more work, and it’s still going to cost you more money than if you had just kept the AC running in the first place.
To maximize savings and comfort, raise the temperature while you’re out
The AC units we used for these tests (like nearly all of the window units we recommend) use a variable speed inverter compressor. Unlike the air conditioners I grew up with, which really had only an “on” or an “off” mode, these newer models can fluctuate their energy usage based on how much cooling power they actually need at any given moment.
This is great for efficiency because these models use a lot less energy to maintain a steady temperature than they do to actively cool something down. And that’s precisely what we saw in our testing in a third trial, in which we left the air conditioners running all day but set the temperature to 78 degrees Fahrenheit, instead of 72 degrees.
This was the most efficient approach, and it led us to conclude the following: If you want to save energy without sacrificing much comfort, the best thing to do is to leave the AC unit running, but set its internal thermostat a little higher.
Those six degrees made a serious difference. The smaller apartment with the window air conditioner used only a quarter of energy this time—3 kWh instead of 11 kWh, or an average utility savings of about $1.70 per day. Similarly, the apartment with the 18,000-BTU heat pump needed only about 2 kWh to maintain a 78-degree Fahrenheit temperature, as opposed to the 4 kWh it took to run at 72 degrees. That would cost me less than 50¢ per day.
This is consistent with a lot of energy-saving guidelines
We’re not the only AC testers who’ve gotten these kinds of results. According to NYSERDA, you can save an average of 3% of your energy costs for every degree you turn up the thermostat. Similarly, Mass Save suggests raising the thermostat by 8 to 10 degrees when you leave the house, and it specifically recommends 78 degrees Fahrenheit as a good standard temperature. Likewise, the US Department of Energyadvises setting the temperature “as high as is comfortably possible in the summer” to maximize energy savings.
These energy-saving tips work whether you have a window unit, a portable AC setup, or a central air system, like a heat pump. If you have a smart thermostat, you can even automate it so the thermostat automatically turns up (but not off) when you leave the house and then automatically sets to 78 degrees Fahrenheit when you return. Most of our window and portable picks also have smart-home features that will let you adjust the temperature even when you’re not home.
There are still plenty of situations where it might make sense to turn the AC off during the day. For example, some municipalities offer Demand Response programs or have fluctuating hourly electrical prices that vary based on demand. Of course, if everyone left their AC running all day, it could still increase the overall demand on the electrical grid (though inverter AC units can mitigate that strain).
But, generally speaking, if you want to get the best cost and comfort, set the temperature on your AC unit to 77 or 78 degrees Fahrenheit, and just leave it running. Bonus points if your unit has an “auto” setting, and if you’ve made sure the place is weather-tight and insulated. It might not bring back the summer of ska, but it will save you some money.
This article was edited by Harry Sawyers and Maxine Builder
Meet your guide
I’m a writer with a focus on heating, cooling, and humidification devices, as well as gadgets such as Christmas lights and karaoke machines."
Monday, July 06, 2026
Sunday, July 05, 2026
Saturday, July 04, 2026
Google DeepMind Unionization Talks Are Off to a Rocky Start
Google DeepMind Unionization Talks Are Off to a Rocky Start
“Google DeepMind unionization talks with the Communication Workers Union and Unite the Union have stalled. Employees are frustrated by the absence of senior management and allege that Google is attempting to suppress open dialogue and dissent. The push to unionize began in February 2025, following Alphabet’s removal of ethical guidelines prohibiting the use of AI for weapons development and surveillance.
During negotiations on Wednesday, employees voiced frustrations with what they consider an unwillingness among senior DeepMind executives to engage meaningfully with the prospect of unionization.
Photograph: Chris Jung/Getty Images
Negotiations between Google DeepMind and its London-based employees over the possibility of unionization stumbled this week, after initial talks left union representatives feeling they had wasted their time, WIRED has learned.
In May, DeepMind employees asked Google to recognize the Communication Workers Union and Unite the Union as joint representatives. The company later denied that request, but agreed to participate in negotiations arbitrated by a third-party body.
Don't just keep up. Get ahead—with our biggest stories, handpicked for you each day.
An initial meeting on Wednesday was attended by union officers, DeepMind employees involved in the unionization push, the third-party arbitrator, and DeepMind HR representatives. Those advocating for unionization were left frustrated by the absence of DeepMind leadership figures.
“Recognition talks not being attended by senior management at the opening stage is a leading indicator that a company isn’t engaging in good faith. It’s just a time-wasting exercise,” claims John Chadfield, a CWU officer, who attended the meeting. “Negotiations have stalled at an early stage.”
DeepMind denies that negotiations have stalled. “The first step in the process is to define who the unions want to represent and the parties agreed on next steps to do this,” says Al Verney, a Google DeepMind spokesperson. “The appropriate representatives attended this initial meeting.”
During the meeting, a DeepMind employee read out a prepared letter on behalf of colleagues that support unionization, reviewed by WIRED. “Instead of having meaningful dialogue with its employees about our concerns, Google DeepMind workers have been treated as a problem handed off to HR,” the letter states. The employee reading the statement was interrupted on two occasions by DeepMind HR representatives, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the meeting.
The letter goes on to allege that Google has attempted to quash open dialogue between DeepMind employees and crack down on dissent, by shutting down or reconfiguring internal chat venues, and preventing staff from responding to company-wide communications about the unionization bid. Employees that sought to dance around restrictions were “reprimanded” by HR, the letter alleges.
“The intention was to intimidate,” claims a DeepMind employee involved in drafting the letter, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the media. “These are well-established union-busting techniques.”
"We’ll continue to engage constructively in the…process and have open dialogue with employees,” says Verney. “For topics outside of this, we continue to offer employees a variety of other channels and opportunities to discuss their views.”
The push to unionize at DeepMind began in February 2025, when Google’s parent company Alphabet removed a pledge not to use AI for purposes like weapons development and surveillance from its ethics guidelines, WIRED previously reported.
“Those principles were a big part of why I joined DeepMind,” says a second DeepMind employee, who asked to remain anonymous for the same reason. “We basically just got rid of them all.”
Employees across the AI industry have raised concerns about the militarization of the models they are developing. In late February, staff at DeepMind and OpenAI signed an open letter in support of Anthropic, after the US Department of Defense sought to designate the lab a supply chain risk over its refusal to allow its technology to be used in autonomous weapons and mass surveillance.
In April, The New York Times reported that Google had entered into a deal allowing the Pentagon to use its AI for “any lawful government purpose.” Roughly 600 US-based Google employees reportedly signed a letter protesting the permissive terms of the deal. The US Department of Defense later confirmed that it had reached deals with seven leading AI companies—including Google, SpaceX, OpenAI, and Microsoft—to use their models on classified networks.
Google has previously defended its deals with government organizations. “We are proud to be part of a broad consortium of leading AI labs and technology and cloud companies providing AI services and infrastructure in support of national security,” Jenn Crider, a Google spokeswoman, told The New York Times in April. “We remain committed to the private and public sector consensus that AI should not be used for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weaponry without appropriate human oversight.”
In 2021, Google employees in the US formed the Alphabet Workers Union. The union is not recognized by Alphabet for collective bargaining purposes but has previously succeeded in negotiating agreements on behalf of Google contractors.
If negotiations in London do not progress, says Chadfield, the CWU representative, employees will ask an arbitration committee to force Google to recognize the unions.
“We’re hoping that Google genuinely comes to the table and we can agree something amicably,” claims Chadfield. “[But] both sides have to come to the table with some concessions. Google is coming with no concessions whatsoever.”
Friday, July 03, 2026
Why Older Cameras Still Make Great Photos | Fstoppers
Five Older Cameras That Prove Great Photography Isn't About Technology
There's this idea going around that the newest cameras, with the latest sensor or faster processor, will give you the best image quality. I say to that, what absolute twaddle! (They wouldn't let me use the "B" word).
Every year we're fed a long list of features designed to convince us that our current camera is now inadequate. Sure, camera technology has undoubtedly improved over the past twenty years, but those improvements have become increasingly incremental. For most photographers, a camera that is ten, fifteen, or even twenty years old is still capable of producing outstanding images. But most photographers don't know that!
It's easy to forget, while being bombarded with the latest specs, that the limiting factor isn't the camera—it's the photographer.
The Great Camera Image Quality Myth
From my experience, image quality doesn't improve dramatically with every new generation of cameras. The reality is that photography reached a point of technological maturity quite some time ago.
When I compare images shot on my 18-year-old Nikon D700 to images I shot on my new Nikon Z6 III, there is no real difference. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that in some situations, the sensor on the old D700 has a nicer, more organic quality about it.
It's true that many early digital cameras often struggled with high ISO performance and dynamic range when shooting in low light or scenes with both very bright and very dark areas. Older digital sensors had fewer megapixels too, although that has little to do with image quality, just the size of the image you can print. I shot photos on my D700 that appeared on the cover of magazines or in glossy brochures. They looked great. A well-exposed image from this, and many other cameras from back then, can still be printed large, published professionally, displayed in galleries, and shared online without anyone questioning its quality.
Below are some comparison photos. The first in the sequence was shot on an 18-year-old Nikon D700, and the second was shot on a brand-new Nikon Z6 III. The same lens was used on both cameras to keep things fair. Can you really see a difference in image quality? Nope, didn't think so.
A used D700 can be purchased for around $485, and a new Z6 III will cost you $2,000. Maybe it's worth penny-peeping instead of pixel-peeping?
Nobody Looks at a Great Photograph and Asks About the Sensor
When you look at the most memorable photographs you've ever seen, what stands out? What do you remember? The emotion, feeling, story, great lighting, or the dynamic range the sensor was able to capture?
Viewers do not respond to camera specifications. This is irrelevant the moment a photograph connects with us emotionally. I've said this on my YouTube videos, and many times in my articles on Fstoppers, and I'll keep saying it: a photograph succeeds because of what it says, not because of the equipment used to create it.
Older Cameras Often Have More Character
Something rarely discussed is that older cameras often possess a unique rendering that many photographers find appealing. Older CCD sensors like those found in the Leica M9 rendered colors much better than modern stacked CMOS sensors do. Reds, greens, and skin tones are much richer and more natural looking.
Early digital sensors could be less clinically accurate, less aggressively processed, and more distinctive in their output. Some say they can be more analog and film-like in their rendering. I have to agree.
Older sensors require a little more care in getting the right exposure, as highlights can blow out more easily. There is less dynamic range, which means a more contrasty, expressive image—perfect for street photography. Or the requirement to take a couple of exposure-bracketed shots and merge them together in post. Newer sensors are clean, precise, and clinical. Someone recently said it's the difference between listening to a vinyl record versus a high-resolution digital audio file.
My take is that older sensors are better for expressive artistic photography, whereas modern sensors are more practical and superior for commercial work.
The reason photographers romanticize CCD cameras is the same reason many photographers romanticize vintage lenses. It's not because they're better. It's because they're different. Like modern lenses, modern cameras are designed to remove flaws.
Many photographers eventually discover that some of those flaws were actually part of the charm in the first place.
More Megapixels Means Better Photographs, Right?
Wrong. The megapixel race has convinced many photographers that resolution is everything.
Yet for most real-world applications, it isn't. As you've seen with the samples above, a 12-megapixel camera can produce excellent results, the same as a 24-megapixel camera. Making prints from these two cameras is no different, up to a point. Many of the photographs hanging in galleries were created using cameras with far fewer megapixels than modern cameras.
Unless you're making enormous prints, cropping heavily, or working in specialized commercial fields, the difference between 24 megapixels and 45 megapixels is often far less important than manufacturers would like you to believe.
Modern Cameras Solve Problems Most Photographers Don't Have
Today's cameras are remarkable. Eye-tracking autofocus using subject recognition. 20 frames per second shooting with AI-driven processing. There is no doubt that wildlife photographers and sports photographers will find these features useful. But if you're photographing architecture, landscapes, travel, street photography, portraits, or everyday life—well, I certainly don't need any of it, how about you? Why pay for something you don't use? Why carry around incredibly sophisticated—and often bigger—cameras while photographing subjects that could be captured perfectly well with a camera released a decade ago?
Final Thoughts and Recommendations
Camera manufacturers need to sell cameras; that's obviously their business. So it's no surprise that with each new release, they have to hype up a game-changing advancement that will somehow transform your photography.
Come on though, when you look at photographic history, the images we remember were rarely created because of cutting-edge technology. They were created because someone had something to say and knew how to say it with a camera.
Modern cameras are wonderful tools, but older cameras remain remarkably capable. They are still as relevant today as the day they were released. A well-maintained camera from ten or twenty years ago can still produce professional-quality images, as good as any new camera can.
I've chosen five cameras that have achieved almost legendary status and are still actively used by enthusiasts and professionals today.
1. Nikon D700 (2008)
When this camera was launched, it was a game-changer for me and my professional work. I would go so far as to say it sits alongside the D850 as the best digital Nikon ever made. I'm not including the D850 in this list, as it's a larger pro-bodied camera, not really necessary for everyday/hobbyist photography use.
I chose the D700 over the D850 because I used it for travel and lifestyle photography and wanted the smaller form factor. Even then, it's a bit of a beast, a hefty piece of metal weighing a little over 1 kg! This is the only negative this camera has. It's otherwise perfect. If it were 300 g lighter and a little smaller, I'd still be using it today.
- Full frame, 12.1 megapixels, but capable of producing professional results. It's still perfect for documentary, portrait, and wedding photography. And if you reallymust have a larger image file for large-format printing, you can always use Generative Upscale in an app like Photoshop.
- The color rendition and tonal range are a pure delight.
- Pricing: Expect to pay $320–$615.
The D700 has developed a cult following; get one with a low shutter count before it's too late!
2. Canon EOS 5D (2005)
This was the first camera that made full-frame digital photography accessible.
- Full-frame CMOS 12.8-megapixel sensor.
- Weighs just over 900 g.
- Has a distinctive color palette and rendering.
- Many Canon enthusiasts still prefer its files to those of modern cameras.
- Not as well built to withstand extreme conditions as Nikons, but equally as capable image-quality-wise.
- Pricing: Expect to pay $160–$250.
Another camera that has developed a cult following.
3. Fujifilm X-Pro1 (2012)
This little puppy is a highly regarded rangefinder-style camera, perfect for street and travel photography. It's known for its unique 16.3 MP APS-C X-Trans CMOS sensor rendering, which lacks a low-pass filter, resulting in very sharp images.
- Weighs just 450 g.
- Beautiful color and tonal response.
- Sluggish focus and processing.
- Encourages a slower, more deliberate style of photography. The all-metal camera feels good to hold and use, and offers a great user experience.
- Produces images many photographers describe as film-like.
Pricing: Expect to pay $500–$620.
Many street photographers have discovered this camera since the newer X100V and X100VI became hard to buy new.
4. Sony a7 (2014)
This is the hybrid camera that started the mirrorless revolution. This was because it had good video capability and became a popular choice for hybrid content creators during the early days of YouTube's increasing popularity.
- 24.3-megapixel full-frame BSI CMOS sensor.
- Weighs 475 g.
- Video: the ability to shoot 10-bit 4:2:2 internally, in addition to 5-axis IBIS, was the main factor this camera shot to fame with hybrid creators. Nothing else could touch it at the time.
- Excellent image quality by modern standards, although not the best option for portraits, as skin tones were yellow-green and muddy.
- Huge adaptability for vintage lenses.
- Pricing: Expect to pay $330–$550.
This camera shows that a decade-old mirrorless camera is still more than capable of holding its own against newer mirrorless models.
5. Leica M9 (2009)
This early digital M rangefinder is the most antiquated camera of this bunch, with limitations similar to those of using a film camera. ISO is the big one; things start to look grainy after ISO 800. So you need good lighting and/or fast lenses. The sensor is said to be "magic," giving film-like results, with lovely highlight roll-off.
The big elephant in the room with the M9 is the corrosion issues the sensor had. You need to find an example that had Leica's recall upgrade, or you're taking a huge risk.
- 18-megapixel Kodak CCD sensor has a very distinctive look.
- Weighs 585 g.
- One of the most sought-after and affordable digital Leica cameras, often the gateway drug to the world of Leica M!
- Not technically perfect, but renowned for its rich color and rendering.
- Pricing: Expect to pay $3,400–$3,850.
This popular camera demonstrates that character and user experience often matter more than specifications.
The next time you're tempted by the latest release, ask yourself a simple question: would that latest new camera genuinely improve your photography over an older model? For most of us, the answer is obvious.
I'd rather buy an older camera and put that money saved into some vintage lens or a photographic travel adventure."
Wednesday, July 01, 2026
The A.I.-Design Aesthetic That’s Taking Over the Internet
The A.I.-Design Aesthetic That’s Taking Over the Internet
“Anthropic’s new A.I. design tool, Claude Design, is creating a generic design aesthetic across the internet. This aesthetic, characterized by beige and cream backgrounds, rusty orange accents, and large serif typefaces, is becoming as noticeable as text-based A.I. tics.
How Anthropic’s new tool, Claude Design, is creating overnight web-design clichés.
%2520(1).jpg)
Matt Ström-Awn, an independent designer, works mostly with startups in their early stages. Recently, two different clients proudly showed him sales decks that they had produced to court customers. Both decks had a bright-colored first slide with a mission statement, written in three declarative bullet points. Both had second slides featuring four rectangles laying out “the playing field”—the market in which the startup was operating—and both had third slides with a centered line of text reading “our move” and describing the startup’s disruptive tactic. “They actually look like they were generated by the same company,” Ström-Awn told me. “The logo is different, but the design is the same.” The decks looked the same because both were made using Claude Design, an A.I. tool that Anthropic launched in April. The new technology, Ström-Awn said, “defaults to the same aesthetic for every single person that’s using it.”
As Claude Design catches on among Anthropic users, a generic-design aesthetic is emerging that’s as noticeable as text-based A.I. tics such as overenthusiastic em-dash usage or “not X . . . but Y” constructions. In slide decks and on website interfaces, there’s a predominance of beige- and cream-colored backgrounds, rusty orange-hued accents, and large serif typefaces that are italicized and highlighted in zealous attempts to emphasize. Subheadings are often “tracked out,” in design parlance, with spaces between the letters, and there’s an inexplicable prevalence of ticker-like text bars, as if the website were a cable-news show. Another designer I spoke to, David McGillivray, pointed out how Claude often creates dashboard elements with multiple rounded rectangular outlines, sometimes with a neon glow underneath for good measure. The designer and writer Celine Nguyen identified a combination of “tasteful, slightly askew primary colors,” desaturated hues redolent of mid-century modernist design. Such qualities might be unobjectionable, even desirable, in and of themselves, but their ubiquitous appearance across the internet has turned them into instant design clichés. “Now I find myself instinctively repulsed by the warm tones even though I love this kind of color palette,” Nguyen said.“
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)