Ford Pays Its Respects to a Classic, Yet Divisive, Muscle Car
Ford revisits the 'Fox body' Mustang. Plus, a bona fide Steam Deck rival and more.
Every product is carefully selected by our editors. If you buy from a link, we may earn a commission. Learn more
Welcome to 'Today in Gear,' your daily snapshot of the most important releases in style, watches, tech, motoring, fitness, home and the outdoors.
Today in Gear: The most important news in the product world, independently curated by our editors. Catch up on other key releases across all the topics you care about.
Learn More
$350 at POC
Learn More
$3,550 at Rado
$99 at End
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You Can Only Buy 1 Cathie Wood Stock in 2025, It Should Be This
Cathie Wood, founder, CEO and chief investment officer of Ark Invest, continues to make headlines for her high-conviction approach to disruptive innovation. Her flagship fund, the Ark Innovation ETF (ARKK), has posted a 52.9% return in the past 52 weeks, reflecting investor confidence. Known for identifying transformational themes early, Wood maintains focused exposure to industries like genomics, autonomous technology, and blockchain. Within this context, Natera (NTRA) has drawn sharp relevance. The company leads in cell-free DNA testing and precision medicine, aligning directly with Ark's long-term thesis. CoreWeave Just Revealed the Largest-Ever Nvidia Blackwell GPU Cluster. Should You Buy CRWV Stock? AMD Is Gunning for Nvidia's AI Chip Throne. Should You Buy AMD Stock Now? The Saturday Spread: Statistical Signals Flash Green for CMG, TMUS and VALE Tired of missing midday reversals? The FREE Barchart Brief newsletter keeps you in the know. Sign up now! For investors seeking a stock that fits the Ark playbook, Natera may represent one of the most fundamentally aligned additions under Wood's current investment lens. Based in Austin, Texas, stands Natera (NTRA), a pioneer in the field of cell-free DNA and genetic testing. The $23.3 billion biotech firm's arsenal includes powerful offerings like Panorama for prenatal screening, Signatera for real-time cancer surveillance, and Prospera, which sharpens the lens on transplant rejection. Over the last three months, the stock has climbed 16.9%, leaving the broader S&P 500 Index's ($SPX) 5.4% gain behind. On May 8, Natera opened the books on its first-quarter, and the results exceeded Wall Street expectations. Investors responded swiftly, with the stock inching up 1.5% the same day. Natera posted $501.8 million in total revenues, a 36.5% year-over-year increase that soared past Wall Street's $443.3 million forecast. Behind those numbers were powerhouse operations. The company processed 855,100 tests during the quarter, up 16.2% year over year. Women's health volumes climbed meaningfully over the fourth quarter, but it was Signatera that stole the spotlight. The personalized, tumor-informed molecular residual disease test reached new heights, recording its highest volume quarter ever. Clinical volumes for Signatera grew 52% year over year, with a sequential gain of roughly 16,005 units over Q4, marking the most significant quarter-on-quarter growth to date. Gross margins landed at 63.1%, reflecting solid cost discipline. Moreover, Natera's net loss narrowed 1% from the year-ago period to $66.9 million. Also, the company managed to trim its loss per share by 10.7% to $0.50, outperforming analysts' projections of a $0.59 loss per share. As for liquidity, the balance sheet remained in good shape. Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash climbed to $973.8 million, up from $945.6 million on Dec 31, 2024. CEO Steve Chapman has made no secret of the firm's long-term vision. He believes Signatera could ultimately generate over $5 billion in annual revenue, and he emphasized that they are still playing in the shallow end of a much deeper market pool. In a move that reinforced this optimism, Natera has raised its full-year revenue guidance to between $1.94 billion and $2.02 billion. That is a $70 million boost from the midpoint of its earlier outlook, pointing to a 26% year-over-year growth. On the other hand, analysts expect the Q2 2025 loss per share to widen 100% year over year to $0.60. For FY25, the loss per share is projected to increase 37% to $2.10, but FY26 could bring relief, with a forecast 64.8% narrowing to $0.74, hinting that profitability may finally be within reach. Analysts seem to be singing in harmony when it comes to NTRA, marking it with a firm 'Strong Buy' rating. Out of 19 analysts following the stock, 16 have given it an enthusiastic 'Strong Buy' rating, and the remaining three have placed their bets on a 'Moderate Buy.' The average price target of $200.42 represents potential upside of 17.6%. Meanwhile, the Street-High target of $251 hints at a 48% climb from current levels. Such projections do not come lightly and often reflect deep-rooted confidence in future earnings momentum and strategic execution. On the date of publication, Aanchal Sugandh did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Company makes game-changing breakthrough that could solve common issue with plant-based food — here's what you need to know
Let's be honest: Plant-based protein doesn't always taste great. Even if you love the idea of eating less meat for your health and the planet, the weird aftertaste of some plant-based meats can be hard to ignore. But that might be about to change. According to FoodNavigator USA, the flavor company T. Hasegawa USA has developed a high-tech, natural flavor that tackles the unpleasant "off" notes of plant proteins such as pea and soy. The whole technology (and science) behind it is pretty impressive. When meat sizzles in a pan or bread gets crispy in the toaster, the Maillard reaction creates craveable aromas and flavors. But plant proteins such as soy and pea don't react the same way during cooking, which can leave them tasting bland or, worse, beany and bitter. If companies want people to go for meat alternatives, there's a need to focus on options that taste good and have pleasant textures. As Mark Webster, vice president of sales and marketing at T. Hasegawa, said, "That is where the headwind is." The T. Hasegawa team tackled this problem by developing a natural flavor technology called Plantreact that increases Maillard reactions — the chemical processes that give so-called browned foods their flavors. This innovation doesn't stop with fake meats. The same flavor solution can also recreate creamy, dairy-like notes in alternative milks and other nondairy products. That's huge for people who love the idea of oat or almond milk but miss the full-bodied taste of cow's milk. Plantreact has been in the works for a while, but it's now ready to hit the market. T. Hasegawa is already working with food brands to roll it out in products. Better flavor means plant-based foods are more enjoyable, which makes it easier for more people to cut back on animal products and reduce pollution, conserve water, and shrink their carbon footprints. This tech is already being explored by plant-based brands looking to improve their products, and it may soon appear in alternative meat and dairy products at your local grocery store. Combined with the work of companies such as Meati and Perfect Day, this kind of innovation helps build a future in which eating more sustainably doesn't mean compromising on taste. Why do you eat plant-based foods? The health benefits It's cheaper It's good for the planet I prefer the taste Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for easy tips to save more and waste less, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Tesla Misses Robotaxi Launch Date, Goes With Safety Drivers
A vehicle Tesla is using for robotaxi testing purposes in Austin, Texas, US, on Friday, June 20, ... More 2025.. Photographer: Eli Hartman/Bloomberg Tesla's much-anticipated June 22 'no one in the vehicle' Robotaxi launch in Austin is not ready. Instead, Tesla has announced to its invite-only passengers that it will operate a limited service with Tesla employees on board the vehicle to maintain safety. Tesla will use an approach that was used in 2019 by Russian robotaxi company Yandex, putting the safety driver in the passengers seat rather than the driver's seat. (Yandex's robotaxi was divested from Russian and now is called AVRide.) Having an employee on board, commonly called a safety driver, is the approach that every robocar company has used for testing, including testing of passenger operations. Most companies spend many years (Waymo spent a decade) testing with safety drivers, and once they are ready to take passengers, there are typically some number of years testing in that mode, though the path to removing the safety driver depends primarily on evaluation of the safety case for the vehicle, and less on the presence of passengers. Tesla has put on some other restrictions--rides will be limited to 6am to midnight (the opposite of Cruise's first operations, which were only at night) and riders come from an invite-only list (as was also the case for Waymo, and Cruise and others in their early days.) Rides will be limited to a restricted service area (often mistakenly called a 'geofence') which avoids complex and difficult streets and intersections. Rides will be unavailable in inclement weather, which also can happen with other vehicles, though fairly rarely today. Tesla FSD is known to disable itself if rain obscures some of its cameras--only the front cameras have a rain wiper. The fleet will be small. Waymo started testing with safety drivers in 2009, gave rides to passengers with safety drivers in 2017, and without safety drivers in 2020 in the Phoenix area. Cruise had a much shorter period with passengers and safety drivers. Motional has given rides for years but has never removed the safety driver. Most Chinese companies spent a few years doing it. Giving passengers rides requires good confidence in the safety of the system+safety driver combination, but taking the passengers does not alter how well the vehicle drives, except perhaps around pick-up and drop-off. (While a vehicle is more at liberty to make hard stops with no passengers on board, I am aware of no vehicle which takes advantage of this.) As such we have no information on whether Tesla will need their safety drivers for a month or a several years, or even forever with current hardware. Passenger's Seat vs. Driver's Seat Almost all vehicles use a safety driver behind the wheel. Tesla's will be in the passenger seat, in a situation similar to that used by driving instructors for student human drivers. While unconfirmed by Tesla, the employee in the passenger seat can grab the wheel and steer. Because stock Teslas have fully computer controlled brake and acceleration, they might equip the driver with electronic pedals. Some reports have suggested they have a hand controller or other ways to command the vehicle to brake. There is no value to putting the safety driver on the passengers side. It is no safer than being behind the wheel, and believed by most to be less safe because of the unusual geometr20 November 2024, Berlin: A prototype of the Tesla Cybercab stands in a showroom in the Mall of Berlin. Photo: Hannes P. Albert/dpa (Photo by Hannes P Albert/picture alliance via Getty Images)y. It's hard to come up with any reason other than just how it looks. Tesla can state the vehicles have 'nobody in the driver's seat' in order to attempt to impress the public. The driving school system works, so it's not overtly dangerous, but in that case there's an obvious reason for it that's not optics. Tesla Cybercab concept. With only 2 seats and no controls, not very suitable for a safety driver. ... More These are not being used in Tesla's Austin pilot. That said, most robocar prototypes, including Tesla supervised FSD, are reasonably safe with capable safety drivers. A negligent and poorly managed safety driver in an Uber ATG test vehicle killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona when the safety driver completely ignored her job, but otherwise these systems have a good record. The combination of Tesla Autopilot and a supervising driver has a reasonable record. (The record is not nearly as good as some people think Tesla claims. Every quarter, Tesla publishes a deeply misleading report comparing the combination of Tesla Autopilot plus supervisor to the general crash rate, but they report airbag deployments for the Teslas mostly on freeways and compare it without general crash numbers on all roads for general drivers. This makes it seem Autopilot is many times safer than regular drivers when it's actually similar, a serious and deceitful misrepresentation.) As noted, Yandex, now AVRide, has used safety drivers in the passenger seat, and has done so in Austin--also speculated to be mostly for optics, though there are some legal jurisdictions where companies shave made this move because the law requires safety drivers and they hope to convey an aura of not needing them. This has also been the case in China.) When Cruise did their first 'driverless' demo ride in San Francisco, they had an employee in the passengers seat. So Tesla has been ready to run with safety drivers for years. What's tested here isn't the safety of the cars, but all the complexity of handling passengers, including the surprising problems of good PuDo (Pick-up/Drop-off.) Whether Teslas can operate a safe robotaxi with nobody onboard, particularly with their much more limited sensor hardware, remains to be seen. Other Paths To Launch Tesla apparently experimented with different paths to getting out on the road before they are ready to run unsupervised. In particular, vehicles were seen with the passenger seat safety driver, and also being followed by a 'chase car' with two on board. Reports also came of Tesla planning for 'lots of tele-ops' including not just remote assistance (as all services do) but remote supervision including remote driving. We may speculate that Tesla evaluated many different approaches: Because Elon Musk promised 'nobody in the car' and 'unsupervised' in the most recent Tesla earnings call, there was great pressure to produce #1, but the Tesla team must have concluded they could not do that yet, and made the right choice, though #3 is a better choice than #4. They also did not feel up to #2, which is commonly speculated to be what other companies have done on their first launch, later graduating to #1 #5 just looks goofy, I think the optics would not work, and it's also challenging. Remote driving is real and doable--in spite of the latency and connectivity issues of modern data networks--but perhap Tesla could not get it ready in time. All teams use remote assistance operators who do not drive the cars, but can give them advice when they get confused by a situation, and stop and ask for advice. Even Waymo recently added a minor remote driving ability for low-speed 'get the car out off the road' sort of operations. I have recommended this for some time. It is worth noting the contrast beween Cruise's 'night only' launch and Tesla's mostly-daytime one. Cruise selected the night because there is less traffic and complexity. LIDARs see very well at night. Tesla's camera-based system has very different constraints at night and many fear it's inferior then. On the other hand Tesla will operate in some night hours and with more cars and pedestrians on the street. The question for Tesla will be whether the use of safety drivers is a very temporary thing, done just because they weren't quite ready but needed to meet the announced date, or a multi-year program as it has been for most teams. Tesla is famous for not meeting the forecast ship dates for its FSD system, so it's not shocking that this pattern continues. The bigger question is whether they can do it at all. Tesla FSD 13, the version available to Tesla owners, isn't even remotely close to robotaxi ready. If Tesla has made a version which is closer, through extra work, training and severe limitations of the problem space, it's still a big accomplishment. This will be seen in the coming months. Two robocar teams had severe interactions with pedestrians. Both those teams, and one pedestrian, are dead. Tesla knows they must not make mistakes.
