reMarkable’s newest E-Ink writing tablet is a 7.3-inch, $449 handheld slab

New device stays laser-focused on the writing experience, for better or worse.

Fans of reMarkable's series of notepad-like note-taking E-Ink tablets have something new to get excited about today: a new version of the devices called the reMarkable Paper Pro Move, which takes the features of a typical reMarkable tablet and puts them in a smaller 7.3-inch device that can be carried one-handed and easily slid into a pocket or bag.

The Paper Pro Move is available to order now and starts at $449 for a version with reMarkable's standard Marker accessory and no case. Adding a Marker Pro accessory, which includes a built-in eraser and a nicer-to-hold texture, adds another $50. Folio cases for the device range from $69 to $139, or you can order the tablet without one.

Like the full-size reMarkable Paper Pro we reviewed a year ago, the Move uses a Canvas Color E-Ink display to support note-taking and highlighting in multiple colors—according to the spec sheet, it can render 20,000 distinct shades. Both the Paper Pro and the Paper Pro move advertise up to two weeks of battery life, similar 12 ms writing latency, 64GB of storage, a USB-C port for data and charging, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, and 2GB of RAM. The Pro Move is somewhat thicker (0.26 inches, up from 0.2 inches for the Paper Pro) and uses a dual-core Arm processor instead of a quad-core model. But the Pro Move also weighs less than half as much as the Paper Pro, making it much more portable.

Read full article

Comments

Beyond technology? How Bentley is reacting to the 21st century.

With China set to dominate, where does that leave a brand like Bentley?

MONTEREY, Calif.—If the Tesla Model S prodded the legacy car companies to get on top of battery production and introduce iPad-like screens in cars, Chinese car companies are bringing the heat for what's left of the 2020s in all segments. Much of the media coverage has rightly been on how this trend will affect mass-market vehicles. But what does it mean at the high end of the market?

"Well, the first question would be 'Are the Chinese manufacturers really competitive?'" said Bentley Chairman and CEO Dr. Frank-Steffen Walliser in an interview during Monterey Car Week. In the bucolic coastal setting, surrounded by the rarest of rare cars, the competition from the other side of the world appeared far off.

"I don't want to be arrogant, but having what is considered a car in the luxury segment needs more than just technology. It's honestly only Germany, Italy, and the UK. You need heritage, you need the craftsmanship behind it, you need the storytelling and everything with it. That builds up an actual brand."

Read full article

Comments

Beyond technology? How Bentley is reacting to the 21st century.

With China set to dominate, where does that leave a brand like Bentley?

MONTEREY, Calif.—If the Tesla Model S prodded the legacy car companies to get on top of battery production and introduce iPad-like screens in cars, Chinese car companies are bringing the heat for what's left of the 2020s in all segments. Much of the media coverage has rightly been on how this trend will affect mass-market vehicles. But what does it mean at the high end of the market?

"Well, the first question would be 'Are the Chinese manufacturers really competitive?'" said Bentley Chairman and CEO Dr. Frank-Steffen Walliser in an interview during Monterey Car Week. In the bucolic coastal setting, surrounded by the rarest of rare cars, the competition from the other side of the world appeared far off.

"I don't want to be arrogant, but having what is considered a car in the luxury segment needs more than just technology. It's honestly only Germany, Italy, and the UK. You need heritage, you need the craftsmanship behind it, you need the storytelling and everything with it. That builds up an actual brand."

Read full article

Comments

“Mockery of science”: Climate scientists tear into new US climate report

Department of Energy is not serious about engaging with the scientific community.

More than 85 climate scientists declared the Department of Energy’s new climate report unfit for policymaking in a comprehensive review released Tuesday. The DOE’s report cherry-picked evidence, lacked peer-reviewed studies to support its questioning of the detrimental effects of climate change in the US and is “fundamentally incorrect,” the authors concluded.

Scientists have accurately modeled and predicted the volume and impact of excess CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere since the 1970s, when Exxon workers first began measuring the impacts of their product on the planet’s atmosphere. Since then, climate science has matured into a crucial tool to help humans gauge how a warming planet may affect everything from weather and crops to the economy and mental health.

“This report makes a mockery of science. It relies on ideas that were rejected long ago, supported by misrepresentations of the body of scientific knowledge, omissions of important facts, arm waving, anecdotes, and confirmation bias,” said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, in a statement accompanying the review.

Read full article

Comments

“Mockery of science”: Climate scientists tear into new US climate report

Department of Energy is not serious about engaging with the scientific community.

More than 85 climate scientists declared the Department of Energy’s new climate report unfit for policymaking in a comprehensive review released Tuesday. The DOE’s report cherry-picked evidence, lacked peer-reviewed studies to support its questioning of the detrimental effects of climate change in the US and is “fundamentally incorrect,” the authors concluded.

Scientists have accurately modeled and predicted the volume and impact of excess CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere since the 1970s, when Exxon workers first began measuring the impacts of their product on the planet’s atmosphere. Since then, climate science has matured into a crucial tool to help humans gauge how a warming planet may affect everything from weather and crops to the economy and mental health.

“This report makes a mockery of science. It relies on ideas that were rejected long ago, supported by misrepresentations of the body of scientific knowledge, omissions of important facts, arm waving, anecdotes, and confirmation bias,” said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, in a statement accompanying the review.

Read full article

Comments