There has been a new update to the ongoing Stratasys v. Bambu Lab patent infringement lawsuit.  Both parties have agreed to consolidate the lead and member cases (2:24-CV-00644-JRG and 2:24-CV-00645-JRG) into a single case under Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG.  Industrial 3D printing OEM Stratasys filed the request late last month. According to an official court document, Shenzhen-based Bambu Lab did not oppose the motion. Stratasys argued that this non-opposition amounted to the defendants waiving their right to challenge the request under U.S. patent law 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). On June 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, ordered Bambu Lab to confirm in writing whether it agreed to the proposed case consolidation. The court took this step out of an “abundance of caution” to ensure both parties consented to the procedure before moving forward. Bambu Lab submitted its response on June 12, agreeing to the consolidation. The company, along with co-defendants Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., and Tuozhu Technology Limited, waived its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). The court will now decide whether to merge the cases. This followed U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s decision last month to deny Bambu Lab’s motion to dismiss the lawsuits.  The Chinese desktop 3D printer manufacturer filed the motion in February 2025, arguing the cases were invalid because its US-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, was not named in the original litigation. However, it agreed that the lawsuit could continue in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas, where a parallel case was filed last year.  Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, ruling that the cases properly target the named defendants. He concluded that Bambu Lab USA isn’t essential to the dispute, and that any misnaming should be addressed in summary judgment, not dismissal.        A Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry. Another twist in the Stratasys v. Bambu Lab lawsuit  Stratasys filed the two lawsuits against Bambu Lab in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, in August 2024. The company claims that Bambu Lab’s X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini 3D printers violate ten of its patents. These patents cover common 3D printing features, including purge towers, heated build plates, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities. Stratasys has requested a jury trial. It is seeking a ruling that Bambu Lab infringed its patents, along with financial damages and an injunction to stop Bambu from selling the allegedly infringing 3D printers. Last October, Stratasys dropped charges against two of the originally named defendants in the dispute. Court documents showed that Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co., Ltd were removed. Both defendants represent the company Tiertime, China’s first 3D printer manufacturer. The District Court accepted the dismissal, with all claims dropped without prejudice. It’s unclear why Stratasys named Beijing-based Tiertime as a defendant in the first place, given the lack of an obvious connection to Bambu Lab.  Tiertime and Stratasys have a history of legal disputes over patent issues. In 2013, Stratasys sued Afinia, Tiertime’s U.S. distributor and partner, for patent infringement. Afinia responded by suing uCRobotics, the Chinese distributor of MakerBot 3D printers, also alleging patent violations. Stratasys acquired MakerBot in June 2013. The company later merged with Ultimaker in 2022. In February 2025, Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss the original lawsuits. The company argued that Stratasys’ claims, focused on the sale, importation, and distribution of 3D printers in the United States, do not apply to the Shenzhen-based parent company. Bambu Lab contended that the allegations concern its American subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, which was not named in the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the case is invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. It argued that any party considered a “primary participant” in the allegations must be included as a defendant.    The court denied the motion on May 29, 2025. In the ruling, Judge Gilstrap explained that Stratasys’ allegations focus on the actions of the named defendants, not Bambu Lab USA. As a result, the official court document called Bambu Lab’s argument “unavailing.” Additionally, the Judge stated that, since Bambu Lab USA and Bambu Lab are both owned by Shenzhen Tuozhu, “the interest of these two entities align,” meaning the original cases are valid.   In the official court document, Judge Gilstrap emphasized that Stratasys can win or lose the lawsuits based solely on the actions of the current defendants, regardless of Bambu Lab USA’s involvement. He added that any potential risk to Bambu Lab USA’s business is too vague or hypothetical to justify making it a required party. Finally, the court noted that even if Stratasys named the wrong defendant, this does not justify dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7). Instead, the judge stated it would be more appropriate for the defendants to raise that argument in a motion for summary judgment. The Bambu Lab X1C 3D printer. Image via Bambu Lab. 3D printing patent battles  The 3D printing industry has seen its fair share of patent infringement disputes over recent months. In May 2025, 3D printer hotend developer Slice Engineering reached an agreement with Creality over a patent non-infringement lawsuit.  The Chinese 3D printer OEM filed the lawsuit in July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. The company claimed that Slice Engineering had falsely accused it of infringing two hotend patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,875,244 and 11,660,810. These cover mechanical and thermal features of Slice’s Mosquito 3D printer hotend. Creality requested a jury trial and sought a ruling confirming it had not infringed either patent. Court documents show that Slice Engineering filed a countersuit in December 2024. The Gainesville-based company maintained that Creaility “has infringed and continues to infringe” on both patents. In the filing, the company also denied allegations that it had harassed Creality’s partners, distributors, and customers, and claimed that Creality had refused to negotiate a resolution.   The Creality v. Slice Engineering lawsuit has since been dropped following a mutual resolution. Court documents show that both parties have permanently dismissed all claims and counterclaims, agreeing to cover their own legal fees and costs.  In other news, large-format resin 3D printer manufacturer Intrepid Automation sued 3D Systems over alleged patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, accused 3D Systems of using patented technology in its PSLA 270 industrial resin 3D printer. The filing called the PSLA 270 a “blatant knock off” of Intrepid’s DLP multi-projection “Range” 3D printer.   San Diego-based Intrepid Automation called this alleged infringement the “latest chapter of 3DS’s brazen, anticompetitive scheme to drive a smaller competitor with more advanced technology out of the marketplace.” The lawsuit also accused 3D Systems of corporate espionage, claiming one of its employees stole confidential trade secrets that were later used to develop the PSLA 270 printer. 3D Systems denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The company called the lawsuit “a desperate attempt” by Intrepid to distract from its own alleged theft of 3D Systems’ trade secrets. Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards? Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.Featured image shows a Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry.

Donald Trump’s military parade in Washington this weekend — a show of force in the capital that just happens to take place on the president’s birthday — smacks of authoritarian Dear Leader-style politics (even though Trump actually got the idea after attending the 2017 Bastille Day parade in Paris).Yet as disconcerting as the imagery of tanks rolling down Constitution Avenue will be, it’s not even close to Trump’s most insidious assault on the US military’s historic and democratically essential nonpartisan ethos.In fact, it’s not even the most worrying thing he’s done this week.On Tuesday, the president gave a speech at Fort Bragg, an Army base home to Special Operations Command. While presidential speeches to soldiers are not uncommon — rows of uniformed troops make a great backdrop for a foreign policy speech — they generally avoid overt partisan attacks and campaign-style rhetoric. The soldiers, for their part, are expected to be studiously neutral, laughing at jokes and such, but remaining fully impassive during any policy conversation.That’s not what happened at Fort Bragg. Trump’s speech was a partisan tirade that targeted “radical left” opponents ranging from Joe Biden to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. He celebrated his deployment of Marines to Los Angeles, proposed jailing people for burning the American flag, and called on soldiers to be “aggressive” toward the protesters they encountered.The soldiers, for their part, cheered Trump and booed his enemies — as they were seemingly expected to. Reporters at Military.com, a military news service, uncovered internal communications from 82nd Airborne leadership suggesting that the crowd was screened for their political opinions.“If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don’t want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out,” one note read.To call this unusual is an understatement. I spoke with four different experts on civil-military relations, two of whom teach at the Naval War College, about the speech and its implications. To a person, they said it was a step towards politicizing the military with no real precedent in modern American history.“That is, I think, a really big red flag because it means the military’s professional ethic is breaking down internally,” says Risa Brooks, a professor at Marquette University. “Its capacity to maintain that firewall against civilian politicization may be faltering.”This may sound alarmist — like an overreading of a one-off incident — but it’s part of a bigger pattern. The totality of Trump administration policies, ranging from the parade in Washington to the LA troop deployment to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s firing of high-ranking women and officers of color, suggests a concerted effort to erode the military’s professional ethos and turn it into an institution subservient to the Trump administration’s whims. This is a signal policy aim of would-be dictators, who wish to head off the risk of a coup and ensure the armed forces’ political reliability if they are needed to repress dissent in a crisis.Steve Saideman, a professor at Carleton University, put together a list of eight different signs that a military is being politicized in this fashion. The Trump administration has exhibited six out of the eight.“The biggest theme is that we are seeing a number of checks on the executive fail at the same time — and that’s what’s making individual events seem more alarming than they might otherwise,” says Jessica Blankshain, a professor at the Naval War College (speaking not for the military but in a personal capacity).That Trump is trying to politicize the military does not mean he has succeeded. There are several signs, including Trump’s handpicked chair of the Joint Chiefs repudiating the president’s claims of a migrant invasion during congressional testimony, that the US military is resisting Trump’s politicization.But the events in Fort Bragg and Washington suggest that we are in the midst of a quiet crisis in civil-military relations in the United States — one whose implications for American democracy’s future could well be profound.The Trump crisis in civil-military relations, explainedA military is, by sheer fact of its existence, a threat to any civilian government. If you have an institution that controls the overwhelming bulk of weaponry in a society, it always has the physical capacity to seize control of the government at gunpoint. A key question for any government is how to convince the armed forces that they cannot or should not take power for themselves.Democracies typically do this through a process called “professionalization.” Soldiers are rigorously taught to think of themselves as a class of public servants, people trained to perform a specific job within defined parameters. Their ultimate loyalty is not to their generals or even individual presidents, but rather to the people and the constitutional order.Samuel Huntington, the late Harvard political scientist, is the canonical theorist of a professional military. In his book The Soldier and the State, he described optimal professionalization as a system of “objective control”: one in which the military retains autonomy in how they fight and plan for wars while deferring to politicians on whether and why to fight in the first place. In effect, they stay out of the politicians’ affairs while the politicians stay out of theirs.The idea of such a system is to emphasize to the military that they are professionals: Their responsibility isn’t deciding when to use force, but only to conduct operations as effectively as possible once ordered to engage in them. There is thus a strict firewall between military affairs, on the one hand, and policy-political affairs on the other.Typically, the chief worry is that the military breaches this bargain: that, for example, a general starts speaking out against elected officials’ policies in ways that undermine civilian control. This is not a hypothetical fear in the United States, with the most famous such example being Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s insubordination during the Korean War. Thankfully, not even MacArthur attempted the worst-case version of military overstep — a coup.But in backsliding democracies like the modern United States, where the chief executive is attempting an anti-democratic power grab, the military poses a very different kind of threat to democracy — in fact, something akin to the exact opposite of the typical scenario.In such cases, the issue isn’t the military inserting itself into politics but rather the civilians dragging them into it in ways that upset the democratic political order. The worst-case scenario is that the military acts on presidential directives to use force against domestic dissenters, destroying democracy not by ignoring civilian orders, but by following them.There are two ways to arrive at such a worst-case scenario, both of which are in evidence in the early days of Trump 2.0.First is politicization: an intentional attack on the constraints against partisan activity inside the professional ranks.Many of Pete Hegseth’s major moves as secretary of defense fit this bill, including his decisions to fire nonwhite and female generals seen as politically unreliable and his effort to undermine the independence of the military’s lawyers. The breaches in protocol at Fort Bragg are both consequences and causes of politicization: They could only happen in an environment of loosened constraint, and they might encourage more overt political action if gone unpunished.The second pathway to breakdown is the weaponization of professionalism against itself. Here, Trump exploits the military’s deference to politicians by ordering it to engage in undemocratic (and even questionably legal) activities. In practice, this looks a lot like the LA deployments, and, more specifically, the lack of any visible military pushback. While the military readily agreeing to deployments is normally a good sign — that civilian control is holding — these aren’t normal times. And this isn’t a normal deployment, but rather one that comes uncomfortably close to the military being ordered to assist in repressing overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations against executive abuses of power.“It’s really been pretty uncommon to use the military for law enforcement,” says David Burbach, another Naval War College professor (also speaking personally). “This is really bringing the military into frontline law enforcement when. … these are really not huge disturbances.”This, then, is the crisis: an incremental and slow-rolling effort by the Trump administration to erode the norms and procedures designed to prevent the military from being used as a tool of domestic repression. Is it time to panic?Among the experts I spoke with, there was consensus that the military’s professional and nonpartisan ethos was weakening. This isn’t just because of Trump, but his terms — the first to a degree, and now the second acutely — are major stressors.Yet there was no consensus on just how much military nonpartisanship has eroded — that is, how close we are to a moment when the US military might be willing to follow obviously authoritarian orders.For all its faults, the US military’s professional ethos is a really important part of its identity and self-conception. While few soldiers may actually read Sam Huntington or similar scholars, the general idea that they serve the people and the republic is a bedrock principle among the ranks. There is a reason why the United States has never, in over 250 years of governance, experienced a military coup — or even come particularly close to one.In theory, this ethos should also galvanize resistance to Trump’s efforts at politicization. Soldiers are not unthinking automatons: While they are trained to follow commands, they are explicitly obligated to refuse illegal orders, even coming from the president. The more aggressive Trump’s efforts to use the military as a tool of repression gets, the more likely there is to be resistance.Or, at least theoretically.The truth is that we don’t really know how the US military will respond to a situation like this. Like so many of Trump’s second-term policies, their efforts to bend the military to their will are unprecedented — actions with no real parallel in the modern history of the American military. Experts can only make informed guesses, based on their sense of US military culture as well as comparisons to historical and foreign cases.For this reason, there are probably only two things we can say with confidence.First, what we’ve seen so far is not yet sufficient evidence to declare that the military is in Trump’s thrall. The signs of decay are too limited to ground any conclusions that the longstanding professional norm is entirely gone.“We have seen a few things that are potentially alarming about erosion of the military’s non-partisan norm. But not in a way that’s definitive at this point,” Blankshain says.Second, the stressors on this tradition are going to keep piling on. Trump’s record makes it exceptionally clear that he wants the military to serve him personally — and that he, and Hegseth, will keep working to make it so. This means we really are in the midst of a quiet crisis, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.“The fact that he’s getting the troops to cheer for booing Democratic leaders at a time when there’s actually [a deployment to] a blue city and a blue state…he is ordering the troops to take a side,” Saideman says. “There may not be a coherent plan behind this. But there are a lot of things going on that are all in the same direction.”See More: Politics

Published June 5, 2025 10:00am EDT close Don’t be so quick to click that Google calendar invite. It could be a hacker’s trap Cybercriminals are sending fake meeting invitations that seem legitimate. NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! Americans’ personal data is now spread across more digital platforms than ever. From online shopping habits to fitness tracking logs, personal information ends up in hundreds of company databases. While most people worry about social media leaks or email hacks, a far less visible threat comes from data brokers.I still find it hard to believe that companies like this are allowed to operate with so little legal scrutiny. These firms trade in personal information without our knowledge or consent. What baffles me even more is that they aren’t serious about protecting the one thing that is central to their business model: data. Just last year, we saw news of a massive data breach at a data broker called National Public Data, which exposed 2.7 billion records. And now another data broker, LexisNexis, a major name in the industry, has reported a significant breach that exposed sensitive information from more than 364,000 people. A hacker at work (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)LexisNexis breach went undetected for months after holiday hackLexisNexis filed a notice with the Maine attorney general revealing that a hacker accessed consumer data through a third-party software development platform. The breach happened on Dec. 25, 2024, but the company only discovered it months later. LexisNexis was alerted on April 1, 2025, by an unnamed individual who claimed to have found sensitive files. It remains unclear whether this person was responsible for the breach or merely came across the exposed data.MASSIVE DATA BREACH EXPOSES 184 MILLION PASSWORDS AND LOGINSA spokesperson for LexisNexis confirmed that the hacker gained access to the company’s GitHub account. This is a platform commonly used by developers to store and collaborate on code. Security guidelines repeatedly warn against storing sensitive information in such repositories; however, mistakes such as exposed access tokens and personal data files continue to occur.The stolen data varies from person to person but includes full names, birthdates, phone numbers, mailing and email addresses, Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers. LexisNexis has not confirmed whether it received any ransom demand or had further contact with the attacker. An individual working on their laptop (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)Why the LexisNexis hack is a bigger threat than you realizeLexisNexis isn’t a household name for most people, but it plays a major role in how personal data is harvested and used behind the scenes. The company pulls information from a wide range of sources, compiling detailed profiles that help other businesses assess risk and detect fraud. Its clients include banks, insurance companies and government agencies.In 2023, the New York Times reported that several car manufacturers had been sharing driving data with LexisNexis without notifying vehicle owners. That information was then sold to insurance companies, which used it to adjust premiums based on individual driving behavior. The story made one thing clear. LexisNexis has access to a staggering amount of personal detail, even from people who have never willingly engaged with the company.Law enforcement also uses LexisNexis tools to dig up information on suspects. These systems offer access to phone records, home addresses and other historical data. While such tools might assist in investigations, they also highlight a serious issue. When this much sensitive information is concentrated in one place, it becomes a single point of failure. And as the recent breach shows, that failure is no longer hypothetical. A hacker at work (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)7 expert tips to protect your personal data after a data broker breachKeeping your personal data safe online can feel overwhelming, but a few practical steps can make a big difference in protecting your privacy and reducing your digital footprint. Here are 7 effective ways to take control of your information and keep it out of the wrong hands:1. Remove your data from the internet: The most effective way to take control of your data and avoid data brokers from selling it is to opt for data removal services. While no service promises to remove all your data from the internet, having a removal service is great if you want to constantly monitor and automate the process of removing your information from hundreds of sites continuously over a longer period of time. Check out my top picks for data removal services here.Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web.2. Review privacy settings: Take a few minutes to explore the privacy and security settings on the services you use. For example, limit who can see your social media posts, disable unnecessary location-sharing on your phone and consider turning off ad personalization on accounts like Google and Facebook. Most browsers let you block third-party cookies or clear tracking data. The FTC suggests comparing the privacy notices of different sites and apps and choosing ones that let you opt out of sharing when possible.3. Use privacy-friendly tools: Install browser extensions or plugins that block ads and trackers (such as uBlock Origin or Privacy Badger). You might switch to a more private search engine (like DuckDuckGo or Brave) that doesn’t log your queries. Consider using a browser’s "incognito" or private mode when you don’t want your history saved, and regularly clear your cookies and cache. Even small habits, like logging out of accounts when not in use or using a password manager, make you less trackable.GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE4. Beware of phishing links and use strong antivirus software: Scammers may try to get access to your financial details and other important data using phishing links. The best way to safeguard yourself from malicious links is to have antivirus software installed on all your devices. This protection can also alert you to phishing emails and ransomware scams, keeping your personal information and digital assets safe. Get my picks for the best 2025 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android and iOS devices.5. Be cautious with personal data: Think twice before sharing extra details. Don’t fill out online surveys or quizzes that ask for personal or financial information unless you trust the source. Create separate email addresses for sign-ups (so marketing emails don’t go to your main inbox). Only download apps from official stores and check app permissions.6. Opt out of data broker lists: Many data brokers offer ways to opt out or delete your information, though it can be a tedious process. For example, there are sites like Privacy Rights Clearinghouse or the Whitepages opt-out page that list popular brokers and their opt-out procedures. The FTC’s consumer guide, "Your Guide to Protecting Your Privacy Online," includes tips on opting out of targeted ads and removing yourself from people-search databases. Keep in mind you may have to repeat this every few months.7. Be wary of mailbox communications: Bad actors may also try to scam you through snail mail. The data leak gives them access to your address. They may impersonate people or brands you know and use themes that require urgent attention, such as missed deliveries, account suspensions and security alerts.Kurt’s key takeawayFor many, the LexisNexis breach may be the first time they realize just how much of their data is in circulation. Unlike a social media platform or a bank, there is no clear customer relationship with a data broker, and that makes it harder to demand transparency. This incident should prompt serious discussion around what kind of oversight is necessary in industries that operate in the shadows. A more informed public and stronger regulation may be the only things standing between personal data and permanent exposure.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPShould companies be allowed to sell your personal information without your consent? Let us know by writing us atCyberguy.com/Contact.For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/Newsletter.Ask Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved. Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on "FOX & Friends." Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

Limited-time offer: Get more than 30% off a Vox Membership. Join today to support independent journalism. Federal civil servants are supposed to enjoy robust protections against being fired or demoted for political reasons. But President Donald Trump has effectively stripped them of these protections by neutralizing the federal agencies that implement these safeguards.An agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hears civil servants’ claims that a “government employer discriminated against them, retaliated against them for whistleblowing, violated protections for veterans, or otherwise subjected them to an unlawful adverse employment action or prohibited personnel practice,” as a federal appeals court explained in an opinion on Tuesday. But the three-member board currently lacks the quorum it needs to operate because Trump fired two of the members.Trump also fired Hampton Dellinger, who until recently served as the special counsel of the United States, a role that investigates alleged violations of federal civil service protections and brings related cases to the MSPB. Trump recently nominated Paul Ingrassia, a far-right podcaster and recent law school graduate to replace Dellinger.The upshot of these firings is that no one in the government is able to enforce laws and regulations protecting civil servants. As Dellinger noted in an interview, the morning before a federal appeals court determined that Trump could fire him, he’d “been able to get 6,000 newly hired federal employees back on the job,” and was working to get “all probationary employees put back on the job [after] their unlawful firing” by the Department of Government Efficiency and other Trump administration efforts to cull the federal workforce. These and other efforts to reinstate illegally fired federal workers are on hold, and may not resume until Trump leaves office.Which brings us to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision in National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, which proposes an innovative solution to this problem.As the Owen opinion notes, the Supreme Court has held that the MSPB process is the only process a federal worker can use if they believe they’ve been fired in violation of federal civil service laws. So if that process is shut down, the worker is out of luck.But the Fourth Circuit’s Owen opinion argues that this “conclusion can only be true…when the statute functions as Congress intended.” That is, if the MSPB and the special counsel are unable to “fulfill their roles prescribed by” federal law, then the courts should pick up the slack and start hearing cases brought by illegally fired civil servants.For procedural reasons, the Fourth Circuit’s decision will not take effect right away — the court sent the case back down to a trial judge to “conduct a factual inquiry” into whether the MSPB continues to function. And, even after that inquiry is complete, the Trump administration is likely to appeal the Fourth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court if it wants to keep civil service protections on ice.If the justices agree with the circuit court, however, that will close a legal loophole that has left federal civil servants unprotected by laws that are still very much on the books. And it will cure a problem that the Supreme Court bears much of the blame for creating.The “unitary executive,” or why the Supreme Court is to blame for the loss of civil service protectionsFederal law provides that Dellinger could “be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and members of the MSPB enjoy similar protections against being fired. Trump’s decision to fire these officials was illegal under these laws.But a federal appeals court nonetheless permitted Trump to fire Dellinger, and the Supreme Court recently backed Trump’s decision to fire the MSPB members as well. The reason is a legal theory known as the “unitary executive,” which is popular among Republican legal scholars, and especially among the six Republicans that control the Supreme Court.If you want to know all the details of this theory, I can point you to three different explainers I’ve written on the unitary executive. The short explanation is that the unitary executive theory claims that the president must have the power to fire top political appointees charged with executing federal laws – including officials who execute laws protecting civil servants from illegal firings.But the Supreme Court has never claimed that the unitary executive permits the president to fire any federal worker regardless of whether Congress has protected them or not. In a seminal opinion laying out the unitary executive theory, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the president must have the power to remove “principal officers” — high-ranking officials like Dellinger who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under Scalia’s approach, lower-ranking government workers may still be given some protection.The Fourth Circuit cannot override the Supreme Court’s decision to embrace the unitary executive theory. But the Owen opinion essentially tries to police the line drawn by Scalia. The Supreme Court has given Trump the power to fire some high-ranking officials, but he shouldn’t be able to use that power as a back door to eliminate job protections for all civil servants.The Fourth Circuit suggests that the federal law which simultaneously gave the MSPB exclusive authority over civil service disputes, while also protecting MSPB members from being fired for political reasons, must be read as a package. Congress, this argument goes, would not have agreed to shunt all civil service disputes to the MSPB if it had known that the Supreme Court would strip the MSPB of its independence. And so, if the MSPB loses its independence, it must also lose its exclusive authority over civil service disputes — and federal courts must regain the power to hear those cases.It remains to be seen whether this argument persuades a Republican Supreme Court — all three of the Fourth Circuit judges who decided the Owen case are Democrats, and two are Biden appointees. But the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning closely resembles the kind of inquiry that courts frequently engage in when a federal law is struck down.When a court declares a provision of federal law unconstitutional, it often needs to ask whether other parts of the law should fall along with the unconstitutional provision, an inquiry known as “severability.” Often, this severability analysis asks which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that the one provision is invalid.The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is essentially a severability opinion. It takes as a given the Supreme Court’s conclusion that laws protecting Dellinger and the MSPB members from being fired are unconstitutional, then asks which law Congress would have enacted if it had known that it could not protect MSPB members from political reprisal. The Fourth Circuit’s conclusion is that, if Congress had known that MSPB members cannot be politically independent, then it would not have given them exclusive authority over civil service disputes.If the Supreme Court permits Trump to neutralize the MSPB, that would fundamentally change how the government functionsThe idea that civil servants should be hired based on merit and insulated from political pressure is hardly new. The first law protecting civil servants, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which President Chester A. Arthur signed into law in 1883.Laws like the Pendleton Act do more than protect civil servants who, say, resist pressure to deny government services to the president’s enemies. They also make it possible for top government officials to actually do their jobs.Before the Pendleton Act, federal jobs were typically awarded as patronage — so when a Democratic administration took office, the Republicans who occupied most federal jobs would be fired and replaced by Democrats. This was obviously quite disruptive, and it made it difficult for the government to hire highly specialized workers. Why would someone go to the trouble of earning an economics degree and becoming an expert on federal monetary policy, if they knew that their job in the Treasury Department would disappear the minute their party lost an election?Meanwhile, the task of filling all of these patronage jobs overwhelmed new presidents. As Candice Millard wrote in a 2011 biography of President James A. Garfield, the last president elected before the Pendleton Act, when Garfield took office, a line of job seekers began to form outside the White House “before he even sat down to breakfast.” By the time Garfield had eaten, this line “snaked down the front walk, out the gate, and onto Pennsylvania Avenue.” Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker, a fact that likely helped build political support for the Pendleton Act.By neutralizing the MSPB, Trump is effectively undoing nearly 150 years worth of civil service reforms, and returning the federal government to a much more primitive state. At the very least, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is likely to force the Supreme Court to ask if it really wants a century and a half of work to unravel.See More:

In a chilling sign of how far law enforcement surveillance has encroached on personal liberties, that a sheriff’s office in Texas searched data from more than 83,000 automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to track down a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion. The officer searched 6,809 different camera networks maintained by surveillance tech company Flock Safety, including states where abortion access is protected by law, such as Washington and Illinois. The search record listed the reason plainly: “had an abortion, search for female.” Screenshot of data After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned Roe v. Wade, states were given sweeping authority to ban and even criminalize abortion. In Texas—where the officer who conducted this search is based—abortion is now almost entirely banned. But in Washington and Illinois, where many of the searched Flock cameras are located, abortion remains legal and protected as a fundamental right up to fetal viability. The post-Dobbs legal landscape has also opened the door for law enforcement to exploit virtually any form of data—license plates, phone records, geolocation data—to pursue individuals across state lines. has documented more than 1,800 agencies have deployed ALPRs, but at least 4,000 agencies are able to run searches through some agencies in Flock's network. Many agencies share the data freely with other agencies across the country, with little oversight, restriction, or even standards for accessing data.  While this particular data point explicitly mentioned an abortion, scores of others in the audit logs released through public records requests simply list "investigation" as the reason for the plate search, with no indication of the alleged offense. That means other searches targeting someone for abortion, or another protected right in that jurisdiction, could be effectively invisible. This case underscores our growing concern: that the mass surveillance infrastructure—originally sold as a tool to find stolen cars or missing persons—is now being used to target people seeking reproductive healthcare. This unchecked, warrant-less access that allows law enforcement to surveil across state lines blurs the line between “protection” and persecution. From Missing Cars to Monitoring Bodies EFF has long warned about the dangers of ALPRs, which scan license plates, log time and location data, and build a detailed picture of people's movements. Companies like Flock Safety and Motorola Solutions offer law enforcement agencies access to nationwide databases of these readers, and in some cases, allow them to stake out locations like abortion clinics, or create “hot lists” of license plates to track in real time. Flock's technology also allows officers to search for a vehicle based on attributes like color, make and model, even without a plate number. The threat is compounded by how investigations often begin. A report published by If/When/How on the criminalization of self-managed abortion found that about a quarter of adult cases (26%) were reported to law enforcement by acquaintances entrusted with information, such as “friends, parents, or intimate partners” and another 18% through “other” means. This means that with ALPR tech, a tip from anyone can instantly escalate into a nationwide manhunt. And as Kate Bertash of the Digital Defense Fund explained to 404 Media, anti-abortion activists have long been documenting the plates of patients and providers who visit reproductive health facilities—data that can now be easily cross-referenced with ALPR databases. The 404 Media report proves that this isn’t a hypothetical concern. In 2023, a months-long EFF investigation involving hundreds of public records requests uncovered that many California police departments were sharing records containing detailed driving profiles of local residents with out-of-state agencies, despite state laws explicitly prohibiting this. This means that even in so-called “safe” states, your data might end up helping law enforcement in Texas or Idaho prosecute you—or your doctor.  That’s why we demanded that 75 California police departments stop sharing ALPR data with anti-abortion states, an effort that has largely been successful. Surveillance and Reproductive Freedom Cannot Coexist We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Lawmakers who support reproductive rights must recognize that abortion access and mass surveillance are incompatible.  The systems built to track stolen cars and issue parking tickets have become tools to enforce the most personal and politically charged laws in the country. What began as a local concern over privacy has escalated into a national civil liberties crisis. Yesterday’s license plate readers have morphed into today’s reproductive dragnet. Now, it’s time for decisive action. Our leaders must roll back the dangerous surveillance systems they've enabled. We must enact strong, enforceable state laws to limit data sharing, ensure proper oversight, and dismantle these surveillance pipelines before they become the new normal–or even just eliminate the systems altogether.

Customer feedback analysis: understanding the hidden truth Customer feedback seems to reflect preferences, but deeper analysis reveals a different reality. While tools like surveys and focus groups provide structured insights, they frequently fail to capture real customer behaviour. Social desirability, hypothetical scenarios, and the gap between reported preferences and actual decisions create a misleading picture of customer needs and expectations.Take the case of an electronics company testing new colours for CD players in a focus group. Participants enthusiastically selected vibrant colours. But when they could take a CD player home, every participant chose the standard black or grey version.This example shows that what customers claim to want and what they actually choose, can be two different things. That is why the analysis of customer feedback needs to go beyond just listening to what people say. Pitfalls of NPS surveys Another example of customer feedback is Net Promoter Score. NPS is a widely used tool in customer feedback analysis, measuring satisfaction and loyalty. We strongly believe in the value of NPS, but only if customers share their scores voluntarily and without pressure.Sadly, many businesses aggressively push for high scores, sometimes even pressuring participants to rate them a 9 or 10, suggesting bonuses, commissions, and company targets depend on a great rating. This manipulation distorts the results and reduces the reliability of NPS. The real value of NPS lies in the follow-up question: Why did you give a certain score? A 3/10 rating without an explanation offers little actionable insight.Additionally, relying solely on NPS scores without any context can be misleading. A high score might indicate satisfaction, but does it correlate with repeat purchases or customer engagement? Similarly, a low score without behavioural context might not mean you’re losing customers. To get a clearer picture, effective customer feedback analysis should integrate multiple data sources. Beware of SINGLE-SOURCE FEEDBACK One of the most common mistakes in customer feedback analysis is relying on a single data source. Many companies base their insights exclusively on survey responses without integrating other crucial data points such as:Customer service interactionsPurchase history and brand engagementWebsite and app behaviourSocial media engagementFor example, consider survey participants who gave feedback but have not interacted with your brand in over a year. How valuable is their input? Without cross-referencing different sources, it is quite challenging to:Determine which research method is most appropriate for a specific questionIntegrate multiple insights into a coherent strategyTake meaningful action based on the feedbackPrioritise which feedback is truly valuableA thorough customer feedback analysis ensures that brands don’t make decisions based on isolated responses but instead consider real behavioural patterns and trends. "Customer feedback alone isn’t enough, you need behavioural data to truly understand what drives decisions and loyalty." Hans Palmers, Managing Partner and Digital & e-Commerce Strategist Keep it SIMPLE Traditional surveys often make respondents overthink their answers, leading to biased results. A smarter approach is to use implicit A/B testing or pairwise comparison to gather more reliable insights. For example: instead of asking customers to evaluate multiple options at once, you can present them two choices at a time (pairwise comparison). This makes decision-making easier and more instinctive while reducing the pressure of finding the ‘right’ answer. To much data, NOT ENOUGH INSIGHT The rise of new tools and methodologies, like eye tracking, behavioural data, feedback forms, and focus groups, has led to an overwhelming amount of data. However, more data does not automatically translate to better insights. Without structured customer feedback analysis, businesses often find themselves drowning in numbers without clear direction on how to act.The paradox is that in challenging times, the thirst for knowledge increases. Businesses collect more data in search of clarity, but all too often, they end up with noise instead of answers. That’s why it’s essential to refocus on the core of the brand and its true customer experience. "Collecting customer feedback is easy. The real challenge is turning it into meaningful actions." Hans Palmers, Managing Partner and Digital & e-Commerce Strategist How can June2O help you? At June20, we believe customer feedback can be a great source to drive growth. We like to focus on methodology and insight rather than just tools. The key to unlocking valuable feedback isn’t the tool you use, it’s in how you frame the question, interpret responses, and integrate findings into a broader strategy. Our approach ensures that:The right methodologies are applied to gather meaningful insightsData sources are integrated logically to form a complete pictureInsights are transformed into clear, actionable recommendations with maximum impactRather than getting lost in data overload, we help brands cut through the noise and make informed, strategic decisions.Want useful customer feedback? Let’s talk BiographyHans Palmers Hans began his professional journey as a Web Developer and Mentor. After three years, he joined TBWA, where he led a team in digital solutions for a decade. Following this, he shared his digital expertise at KUL, EHSAL and Thomas More for over ten years, as one of the founding partners. Embarking on a new venture, Hans founded Mundo Digitalis, specialised in digital solutions, and successfully led the agency for over 11 years. Over all these years, Hans did pioneering work in e-commerce and online banking. Recently Mundo Digitalis has integrated with June20, where Hans holds the position of Managing Partner & E-Commerce Strategist. The post Customer feedback analysis: understanding the hidden truth appeared first on June20.

Reading Time: 9 minutes Email provides a direct, two-way communication line to your target audience, which makes it, in a sense, more social than marketing channels like Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok. However, this doesn’t automatically lead to high open rates or email engagement. You need to know when the best time to send an email is and how often you should send them. Without a well-thought-out schedule, you’ll likely overwhelm your customers’ inboxes. In this post, we’ll discuss email scheduling and cadence best practices, along with the best day and time to send email marketing messages. Let’s jump in.   What is Email Cadence? Email cadence is the ideal frequency and most impactful time for your business to send marketing emails to your subscribers. It’s a process that involves experimentation, testing, and adjustments, as you’ll need to understand your subscribers’ preferences and modify your email schedule accordingly. It matters because it will greatly impact the success of email marketing campaigns, specifically engagement and your relationship with your subscriber list. Send too many emails, and they’ll likely unsubscribe. Get the timing wrong, and you’ll see an impact in your open rates.   The Best Time to Send an Email: By Industry and Day There isn’t a universal email cadence to replicate, as it varies by industry. That said, the best time to send an email is typically at the start of the workday between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. on weekdays, with Tuesdays and Thursdays being the most effective days. This is why it’s crucial that you dig into the averages for your industry, conveniently set out for you in this table based on the data collected. It’s a good place to start, especially if you’re new to email marketing and don’t have your own data yet. Industry Best Day To Send Emails Best Time To Send Emails Retail and Ecommerce Monday (for conversions) and Sunday (for opens) 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. and again 7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. Financial  Friday (for conversions) and Sunday (for opens) 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. and again 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Media and entertainment Thursday (for conversions and opens) 12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. and again 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.   An Ideal Sales Cadence Email Template (by MoEngage) Once you’ve identified the best time to send emails for your industry, you can plan your email marketing campaign around these times. We’ve created this sales cadence email template for a hypothetical brand, StrideGo, a subscription-based fitness app, to help you see how this will look in practice. It shows how to plot out your emails so you can balance frequency with the best times to send an email.   From sales to subscriber re-engagement, there are various ways you can tweak this template to match your campaign goal, as the following examples from well-known B2C brands illustrate.   Email Cadence Examples From Top Brands Some of the best email cadence examples come from brands that have turned email into one of their most effective channels. From limited-time flash sales to regular content updates that help build your brand as a thought leader, here are some ways you can approach email cadence, timing, and content. 1. Grammarly | Flash Sale Campaign goal: Promote a flash sale Grammarly’s email campaign serves as a good example of how to strike the right balance between staying top of mind without becoming an annoyance. The first email succinctly links the offer with their subscribers’ pain point, which increases their chance of opening it. They then wait two days before sending a follow-up email to remind subscribers that the offer will soon end. To capitalize on the powerful effect of urgency, they wait until the day the offer ends to send their final reminder. What this email campaign does well: Grammarly doesn’t solely rely on the massive discount to drive subscriptions. They take it one step further by linking their software with their potential new subscribers’ pain points. It’s a great example of a customer relationship email. 2. Airbnb | Announcing New Updates Source: https://reallygoodemails.com/emails/host-news-updates-to-our-review-policy-new-sustainability-resources-and-more   Campaign goal: Highlight new blog content and product updates Airbnb sends monthly email newsletters that share industry news, product updates, and learning resources. On the surface, it functions as an email newsletter, but it’s also an effective tool for establishing thought leadership. Industry news isn’t as exciting or time-sensitive as sales, so it makes sense for this type of email to be scheduled on a monthly basis only. What this email campaign does well: The newsletter helps to build brand awareness and encourages product discovery. The strategic placement of several calls to action (CTAs) per email also helps to generate website traffic. 3. McDonald’s | Personalized Updates Source: https://reallygoodemails.com/emails/smiles-davis-your-january-account-in-review Campaign goal: Update customers about their loyalty points See how they’re proudly announcing their email marketing cadence? Each month, McDonald’s sends a statement that summarizes loyalty program members’ activity for the past month and current status. It’s an effective tool for engaging their most loyal customers to grow their customer loyalty even further. What this email campaign does well: The personalized content makes regular diners feel special. Plus, the fact that it visualizes how many points they’re away from a reward, along with the only-once-a-month email cadence, serves as good encouragement to visit McDonald’s more often. How? Well, when customers receive the email once a month stating the reward, it serves as a slight nudge to pay a visit in the hope of winning more rewards!   5 Best Practices for Email Marketing Cadence Here are five email cadence best practices that will help you drive noteworthy results for you to replicate (and let you get the best use out of your email cadence tool). 1. Create a Customer Journey Each email marketing campaign should have a specific goal, whether that’s to create brand awareness or drive webinar registrations. Creating and mapping the customer journey will ensure that you know where your target audience typically starts and what type of message they’ll need at which point to move them toward your goal. If you have clarity on the typical steps your target audience takes and their behavior, your email communication will improve the customer experience. Each message will be relevant and valuable. 2. Segment Your List Email preferences differ from one segment to the next. For example, your frequent shoppers generally like to receive regular promotional emails with exclusive deals. On the other hand, occasional buyers would rather receive fewer emails and resonate better with educational emails. Segmenting your email list allows you to send daily emails to those in your most engaged group, while weekly emails are reserved for another group. 3. Personalize Content One of the most crucial email cadence best practices is content personalization. In addition to adjusting your email frequency to your segment’s preferences, you should also tailor the actual content so that it’s relevant to specific recipients. Generic content quickly gets ignored, while location-based product recommendations feel useful. For your email cadence to click, you need recipients to click on the CTAs, and personalized content will encourage engagement. The added benefit of using email personalization is that once your open and click-through rates improve, you can also increase your email frequency. 4. Test and Tweak Like with virtually anything in life, it takes time before you find your rhythm. The same applies to email cadence. A/B testing will allow you to see if your frequency and timing work and give you the data you need to improve your campaigns. You can, for example, send specials to half of your frequent shoppers daily, while the other half receive specials only weekly. Alternatively, you can send the whole segment the same email on the same days at the same time, and then experiment with the best time to send an email. 5. Let Subscribers Select Email Preferences While you still need to do your own rigorous testing, give your email subscribers the option to choose how often they want to receive emails from your brand. It’s as easy as adding a link in your email signature that takes them to a page where they can select which emails they choose to receive. You can even take it one step further and let them choose the frequency by type of message. For example, they might want to hear about deals weekly, while company news is best served only once a month. This also allows them to change the frequency at a later stage, should their needs change. Aside from making your job easier, it also gives your subscribers an alternative to unsubscribing from your emails altogether.   Top 3 Email Cadence Software and Tools There are several great email cadence tools that can automate much of the labor involved in identifying the best time to send an email campaign. Here’s a quick look that highlights the core and unique features of three such software solutions. 1. Best for Cross-Channel Customer Engagement: MoEngage   MoEngage’s enterprise-ready, cross-channel customer engagement platform gives your team the data and insight they need to personalize customer experiences. For help specifically with email cadence, you can use it to design relevant emails that match your customers’ preferences and meet them where they’re at in their journey. What makes it such a unique email cadence tool is its deep focus on customer engagement. It doesn’t just send emails but also helps you understand the why and when behind engagement. For example, it has a “Best Time to Send” feature that uses advanced data analysis to make sense of historical customer interactions. How pricing works: MoEngage keeps pricing simple and flexible by offering only two plans (Growth and Enterprise) and dozens of features available to be purchased as add-ons. What makes it stand out: MoEngage’s impressive predictive capabilities let you tailor your emails to your customers’ next best action, ensuring they receive timely, relevant content time and again. 2. Best for Email Scheduling for Small Businesses: Klaviyo Klaviyo’s marketing automation platform offers tools for email and SMS marketing. With its built-in data platform and drag-and-drop editor, you can easily create customizable templates and send personalized emails. You can, for example, use data like browsing history, past purchases, and subscription status to send relevant and timely updates. It also has a Smart Send Time feature to help specifically with the best time to send an email. How pricing works: Plans start at $45 per month based on features and the number of monthly emails you want to send. What makes it stand out: As it integrates with platforms like Shopify, you can use real-time customer data to personalize your communication. 3. Best for Inbound Marketing: HubSpot HubSpot is an all-in-one solution that businesses can use to attract and engage their target audience across the entire journey. It offers various hubs (like sales, marketing, and operations) built to work together and integrations with more than 1,000 third-party apps that expand its capabilities even further. To help with email cadence, you can check out Cadence, a multi-channel sales prospecting tool available in its app marketplace. It will tell you who to email and allow you to automate sequence steps. How pricing works: Depending on the platform solutions you need, pricing ranges from $15 per month per seat to $4,700 per month per seat for seven seats. What makes it stand out: HubSpot is built around inbound marketing and combines everything you’ll need for lead nurturing to customer support into one interface.   Manage Your Email Cadence With MoEngage When you’re creating your email marketing strategy, you should also plan for the best time to send an email. If you send your email at 4 a.m. on a Saturday, it will only be buried with dozens of other emails when your recipients finally make time to check their inbox. You want to find out at what time your subscribers are most likely going to open their inbox and ensure your email reaches them at this time. In addition to the day and time, you also need to consider the email cadence. Here’s an idea: why not remove the guesswork altogether? With MoEngage’s Best Time to Send (BTS) feature, you can reach out to your customers at just the right moment. What’s more, MoEngage’s AI engine, Sherpa AI, keeps updating the best time to send an email based on changing customer behavior. Want to see this super-cool feature in action? Schedule a 1:1 demo today. The post When is the Best Time to Send an Email? appeared first on MoEngage.

We're bringing back something a lot of you told us you missed – the Weekend Open Forum. It's a chance to unwind a little, step away from the news cycle, and just chat, joke, and share your thoughts with the rest of the TechSpot community. We'll come back to it once every month or so (maybe more if you like it), and each one will pose a fun, geeky, or thought-provoking question to kick off the conversation. So, without further ado, here's the first topic – inspired by a spicy little meme that's been making the rounds: You have 30 minutes to hide a USB drive in your house. Your house will then be raided by police, detectives, and FBI agents – all looking for that one USB. Where do you hide it so that it won't be found? We want to hear your most clever, outrageous, (legal-ish?) ideas. Think like a spy. Think like a hacker. Think like someone who's watched just enough heist movies to be dangerously imaginative. Would you stash it inside a hollowed-out bar of soap? Tape it under the fridge coils? Disguise it as a dead battery? Bury it in the litter box? Or go full 4D chess and leave it in plain sight? Bonus points for creativity, plausibility, and absurdity. Drop your ideas in the comments below and let's see who can outwit a full FBI search team. We'll highlight our favorite replies in next month's WOF! Have fun – and remember: this is all hypothetical… probably.

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. This giant microwave may change the future of war Imagine: China deploys hundreds of thousands of autonomous drones in the air, on the sea, and under the water—all armed with explosive warheads or small missiles. These machines descend in a swarm toward military installations on Taiwan and nearby US bases, and over the course of a few hours, a single robotic blitzkrieg overwhelms the US Pacific force before it can even begin to fight back.The proliferation of cheap drones means just about any group with the wherewithal to assemble and launch a swarm could wreak havoc, no expensive jets or massive missile installations required.The US armed forces are now hunting for a solution—and they want it fast. Every branch of the service and a host of defense tech startups are testing out new weapons that promise to disable drones en masse.  And one of these is microwaves: high-powered electronic devices that push out kilowatts of power to zap the circuits of a drone as if it were the tinfoil you forgot to take off your leftovers when you heated them up. Read the full story. —Sam Dean This article is part of the Big Story series: MIT Technology Review’s most important, ambitious reporting that takes a deep look at the technologies that are coming next and what they will mean for us and the world we live in. Check out the rest of them here. What will power AI’s growth? Last week we published Power Hungry, a series that takes a hard look at the expected energy demands of AI. Last week in this newsletter, I broke down its centerpiece, an analysis I did with my colleague James O’Donnell.But this week, I want to talk about another story that I also wrote for that package, which focused on nuclear energy. As I discovered, building new nuclear plants isn’t so simple or so fast. And as my colleague David Rotman lays out in his story, the AI boom could wind up relying on another energy source: fossil fuels. So what’s going to power AI? Read the full story. —Casey Crownhart This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 Elon Musk is leaving his role in the Trump administration To focus on rebuilding the damaged brand reputations of Tesla and SpaceX. (Axios)+ Musk has complained that DOGE has become a government scapegoat. (WP $)+ Tesla shareholders have asked its board to lay out a succession plan. (CNN)+ DOGE’s tech takeover threatens the safety and stability of our critical data. (MIT Technology Review) 2 The US will start revoking the visas of Chinese studentsIncluding those studying in what the US government deems “critical fields.” (Politico)+ It’s also ordered US chip software suppliers to stop selling to China. (FT $) 3 The US is storing the DNA of migrant childrenIt’s been uploaded into a criminal database to track them as they age. (Wired $)+ The US wants to use facial recognition to identify migrant children as they age. (MIT Technology Review) 4 RFK Jr is threatening to ban federal scientists from top journalsInstead, they may be forced to publish in state-run alternatives. (The Hill)+ He accused major medical journals of being funded by Big Pharma. (Stat) 5 India and Pakistan are locked in disinformation warfareFalse reports and doctored images are circulating online. (The Guardian)+ Fact checkers are working around the clock to debunk fake news. (Reuters) 6 How North Korea is infiltrating remote jobs in the USWith the help of regular Americans. (WSJ $) 7 This Discord community is creating its own hair-growth drugsMen are going to extreme lengths to reverse their hair loss. (404 Media) 8 Inside YouTube’s quest to dominate your living room It wants to move away from controversial clips and into prestige TV. (Bloomberg $) 9 Sergey Brin threatens AI models with physical violenceThe Google co-founder insists that it produces better results. (The Register) 10 It must be nice to be a moving day influencer They reap all of the benefits, with none of the stress. (NY Mag $) Quote of the day “I studied in the US because I loved what America is about: it’s open, inclusive and diverse. Now my students and I feel slapped in the face by Trump’s policy.” —Cathy Tu, a Chinese AI researcher, tells the Washington Post why many of her students are already applying to universities outside the US after the Trump administration announced a crackdown on visas for Chinese students. One more thing The second wave of AI coding is hereAsk people building generative AI what generative AI is good for right now—what they’re really fired up about—and many will tell you: coding.Everyone from established AI giants to buzzy startups is promising to take coding assistants to the next level. Instead of providing developers with a kind of supercharged autocomplete, this next generation can prototype, test, and debug code for you. The upshot is that developers could essentially turn into managers, who may spend more time reviewing and correcting code written by a model than writing it from scratch themselves.But there’s more. Many of the people building generative coding assistants think that they could be a fast track to artificial general intelligence, the hypothetical superhuman technology that a number of top firms claim to have in their sights. Read the full story. —Will Douglas Heaven We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.) + If you’ve ever dreamed of owning a piece of cinematic history, more than 400 of David Lynch’s personal items are going up for auction.+ How accurate are those Hollywood films based on true stories? Let’s find out.+ Rest in peace Chicago Mike: the legendary hype man to Kool & the Gang.+ How to fully trust in one another.