Author Archives: Carol Edwards

Roast Tinder bios that say “6’1,” since that matters” all you want, but a good portion of us are goddamn thankful for online dating.

Somehow, people still insist that online dating can’t hold a candle to that raw connection you’ll find in person. Even putting aside the fact that online dating technically fosters many more face-to-face interactions with people that you probably wouldn’t have met otherwise, it seems safe to say that finding a genuine connection is more reliant on the person than the medium where you meet the person. And let’s be real: As much as we all want a romance novel meet cute, they just don’t happen that often. It also doesn’t help that we’re now verging on a full two years of isolation and social distancing thanks to the pandemic.

At any rate, dating apps are a helpful step to mitigate the pressure of meeting someone new, especially for introverts or people following social distancing rules. The modern serendipity that is coming across your soulmate out of millions of profiles is more likely than you think: Two Stanford sociologists found that online dating is officially the most popular way for U.S. couples to connect. The 2017 survey found that 39 percent of heterosexual couples and 60 percent of same-sex couples originally met online, beating the numbers of older, traditional methods like meeting through friends or at work or school.

Other recent studies about the types of connections being made deliver a swift blow to the antiquated arguments about online dating being solely rooted in superficial factors, like how hot someone’s profile picture is: People who meet online are more likely to be compatible and, if they decide to tie the knot, have a higher chance of a healthy marriage — that is, according to this study cited in the MIT Technology Review. Dating Sunday may have already come and gone, but as we head into 2022, dating experts anticipate that more and more people are looking for long-term commitments, and are more likely to prioritize someone’s emotional maturity over their physical attractiveness. That’s right — finally, people are realizing nothing is quite as sexy as honesty, open communication, and emotional availability.

Of course, meeting online doesn’t guarantee that a couple won’t break up or that everyone with a profile is trying to move at that pace. No one is assuming online dating is the variable that guarantees riding off into the sunset. But research does suggest that people who are willing to put effort and honesty into compatibility tests and open-ended profile questions might be more ready to get serious.

The variety and quality of information on your profile matters

In many cases, the amount of information you can get from these detailed profiles is more than what would be covered in the “traditional” period of getting to know someone. The whole “do you want to have babies” thing is a huge piece of information that could decide your future with someone, but it’s very possible that such a weighty subject won’t be brought up until you’ve caught feelings.

However, many dating sites ask about kids — whether you want them or already have them — during the sign-up process (as well as other potentially-awkward questions), and probably won’t match you with someone who has different goals than you do. Similarly, some of OkCupid’s matching is rooted in political and social justice views. Will you find out if someone keeps guns in the house or opposes vaccinations on the first date? Probably not, but OkCupid sure as hell won’t send you to get a beer with someone you’d start a fight with on Facebook. Two years into the pandemic, most dating apps allow users to indicate on their profile that they’re vaccinated, so you don’t have to worry about finding out several dates in you’ve been hanging out with someone who has some pretty opposing ideological views from you.

Plus, it’s always nice when your current booty call doesn’t suck as a person. Even if you’re just in it for something frisky and fleeting, the personality you can gather from a simple bio or a few of Hinge’s ice breakers might let you know who’s worthy of your time — even if that time is strictly within “You up?” hours.

SEE ALSO: How to make your dating profile stand out

Know that you have options

Julie Spira, dating expert and CEO of cyberdatingexpert.com, says it wasn’t always so easy to meet people online. She would know — she’s been helping clients find love online since 1994.

“People didn’t have mobile phones and laptops, and the process was people would go home, log on slowly, see who had written to them and write back,” she says. “The courtship process was a lot slower, so it took quite a while to get from the first interaction to actually going on a date. Plus in those days, there was a stigma associated with online dating. You did not tell people you met your spouse, or partner, or even a date online.”

The rhetoric has clearly come a long way since then, and the digital dating landscape has evolved with people’s changing needs. OkCupid realized that the way a potential match votes matters romantically to a lot of people. Women were tired of men blowing up their messages with creepy first-liners, so Bumble came along. On Coffee Meets Bagel, only people you’ve liked back can message you, and swiping through people won’t take up all your free time. “Tindering” is now a verb, but it’s far from your only option.

Online dating takes time and effort

If you’re lucky, you’ll find a perfect match right away, but that’s not usually how it works out. While you do know more about online matches than you would a stranger you met in person, there’s only so much a quick dating profile can tell you.

Dating sites and apps can make finding a compatible potential partner easier, but it’s still dating. Not everyone is going to be a gem. While apps like Bumble let you display what kind of relationship you’re looking for, others don’t, so you might end up going out with someone only to realize you’re not looking for the same thing.

That said, there will be people on dating sites who are looking for the same thing as you. And using a dating app to find them is a hell of a lot easier than going up to strangers on the street or in bars and asking if they’re looking for a relationship. Apps and dating websites expand your dating pool and allow you to meet people with similar interests you might not run into naturally in your everyday life. You just might need a little patience to find The One. In the meantime, don’t be afraid to tell your dates what you’re looking for — evaluating what you really want and being upfront with your intentions is kind of the new name of the dating game.

We haven’t reached full AI-based or gene matchmaking just yet, but many modern features facilitating more meaningful matches (or quicker, safer hookups) have sprung up even in the past five years. If you’re fed up with the dating site or app you use now or just don’t know where to start, check out our top picks for the dating sites and apps most worth your time:

Today’s five-letter word is WORRY.

Josh Wardle, the creator of the popular word-puzzle game Wordle, announced Monday that he’d sold the game to the New York Times for a “low seven figures” payout.

“I am incredibly pleased to announce that I’ve reached an agreement with the New York Times for them to take over running Wordle going forward,” wrote Wardle. “If you’ve followed along with the story of Wordle, you’ll know the NYT games play a big part in its origins and so this step feels very natural to me.”

Tweet may have been deleted

In response to the news, Wordle fans expressed both happiness for Wardle and concern about what the sale bodes for the game’s future. That’s because, at least in part, the Times reports that the game will only “initially remain free” — aka, that could change at some undetermined future date.

Tweet may have been deleted

Tweet may have been deleted

Or simply that the Times will just figure out a way to ruin the game in general.

Tweet may have been deleted

Tweet may have been deleted

Either way, Wordle was beautiful while it lasted. TEARS.

TL;DR: As of Jan. 31, a personalized trial with Geologie, a customized skincare service, is available for as low as $20. Plus, users can save up to 40% on a new 30-day subscription.

Guys, ya gotta do better. Case in point — a third of men don’t wash their face on a daily basis. Even more alarmingly, that number jumps to 50 percent among guys under 24 years old.

Oh boy.

Considering findings like those, it’s no wonder that most men have absolutely no idea where to even start with addressing their individual skincare problems. Thankfully, Geologie has a little better handle on the ins and outs of men’s skincare than most men do, offering a carefully formulated set of products that can help every guy enjoy healthy skin without spending hours uncovering the right mix of products on their own.

Because we all know how that would turn out.

With Geologie, users begin with a simple 10-question diagnostic quiz. After answering those questions about their specific skincare problem areas, Geologie gets to work, crafting a set of clinically proven ingredients that not only get right to the heart of each guy’s skin needs, but handle that task with remarkable simplicity.

Arriving on their doorstep, users get a basic 4-product package. Use two — the Everyday Face Wash and the Vital Morning Face Cream — every morning to clean up dead skin, moisturize, and protect for the day ahead. Then use two more — the Repairing Night Cream and the Nourishing Eye Cream — every night to help restore healthy oils and knock out dark eye circles and bags.

From dry or oily skin to blemishes to anti-aging worries, this simple regimen attacks the particular issues that each user faces. Throw in the fact that the entire process is done with 120 seconds in the morning and another 120 seconds at night, and it’s a personally calibrated skincare solution.

Get started with a personalized trial set for as low as $20. With a new 30-day subscription, users can save up to 40% off.

Even WhatsApp thinks Facebook Messenger is creepy.

That’s one takeaway from a new advertisement from the Facebook-owned (aka Meta) messaging app. In the short Jan. 28 spot, dubbed “Doubt Delivered,” a mail carrier delivers opened mail and argues that not using end-to-end encryption is akin to letting strangers read your mail.

“Everyday over 5.5. billion messages are sent without the protection of end-to-end encryption,” reads the ad’s caption. “Messages are exposed as these deliveries.”

While explicitly taking aim at SMS text messages, what’s left unsaid is that Messenger doesn’t end-to-end encrypt messages by default. And, according to Facebook’s Head of Global Safety Antigone Davis, Messenger likely won’t until 2023.

Instead, users must opt-in to the confusingly named “secret conversations.”

The short WhatsApp ad convincingly makes the case that end-to-end encryption is a basic requirement for privacy, and users should settle for nothing less. Too bad its corporate sibling didn’t get the message.

Spotify would like everyone to think its policy issues have been solved.

The company is currently facing a double-edged exodus as, on the one hand, celebrated artists like Neil Young and Joni Mitchell are pulling their work off the platform while, on the other hand, so many users are canceling their paid Premium subscriptions that the unsubscribe feature is reportedly struggling to keep up. It’s certainly possible that the twin happenings aren’t directly linked, but Young laid his decision (which Mitchell supported in solidarity) at the feet of Joe Rogan, the controversial Spotify-exclusive podcaster who speaks to a millions-strong audience.

In the midst of all this upheaval, Spotify responded on Sunday with a publicly available version of its platform rules and a clarification on how it will treat podcast discussions of COVID-19 moving forward.

The reason for the move is articulated best in an open letter that circulated recently in which more than 250 “scientists, medical professionals, professors, and science communicators” signed off on a call for the company to clarify its policies and “take action against the mass-misinformation events which continue to occur on its platform.” The letter specifically cites the Joe Rogan Experience podcast and its host, who has perpetuated inaccurate or false information about the ongoing global pandemic.

Tweet may have been deleted

Spotify’s Sunday announcement, which co-founder and CEO Daniel Ek shared on Twitter, makes no mention of Rogan or his podcast nor does it address the specifics of any recent events that led to the move.

“You’ve had a lot of questions over the last few days about our platform policies and the lines we have drawn between what is acceptable and what is not,” the post reads. “We have had rules in place for many years but admittedly, we haven’t been transparent around the policies that guide our content more broadly. This, in turn, led to questions around their application to serious issues including COVID-19.”

The post goes on to acknowledge that Spotify has “an obligation to do more to provide balance and access to widely-accepted information from the medical and scientific communities guiding us through this unprecedented time.” In that spirit, the company landed on one concrete step aimed at COVID specifically.

“We are working to add a content advisory to any podcast episode that includes any discussion about COVID-19. This advisory will direct listeners to our dedicated COVID-19 Hub, a resource that provides easy access to data-driven facts, up-to-date information as shared by scientists, physicians, academics, and public health authorities around the world, as well as links to trusted sources.” The post goes on to note that the advisories mark a “new effort to combat misinformation” on the platform.

The COVID-19 Hub, which is already live, is something akin to a Spotify playlist. Rather than linking to outside sources, the hub gathers together podcast series from BBC World Service, Politico, CNN en Español, ABC News, and Bloomberg that all focus on public health matters generally and the pandemic specifically. Rogan’s podcast is not included, obviously.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with directing users toward educational content that has the potential to clear up misunderstandings about the facts of the pandemic. But Spotify’s approach is eyebrow-raising nonetheless, since this would-be “new effort to combat misinformation” doesn’t… really… do that?

By flagging every single COVID-related podcast discussion with an advisory, Spotify is implicitly putting Rogan’s proclivity for junk science on the same footing as any deeply researched, science-first podcast tackling the same topic. It’s a dodge: By lumping all COVID discussions together under one umbrella, Spotify gets to say, essentially, “Some of this is right and some of this isn’t, and we’re giving you the tools to decide for yourself.”

Spotify is implicitly putting Rogan’s proclivity for junk science on the same footing as any deeply researched, science-first podcast tackling the same topic.

A noble idea, perhaps, but one that doesn’t quite live up to its ideal in reality. This might not be true of every listener in Rogan’s audience, but plenty of people are willing to simply take what’s said by him and his guests at face value. Many of those same people have spent years, whether they realize it or not, as soldiers in a war on truth and reality. And since they’ve already bought into Rogan’s ignorance-fueled worldview, sticking a bunch of fact-filled audio hours in front of them ain’t it.

Spotify’s newly published platform rules don’t exactly promise a safer and more truth-centric environment, either. The “dangerous content” section of the rules that govern COVID-19 is filled with vague, easily subverted language that reads like a bunch of loopholes for people like Rogan to leap through.

Content creators are barred from calling COVID-19 or certain other diseases “a hoax or not real.” They’re not permitted to encourage “the consumption of bleach products to cure various illnesses and diseases.” They also can’t suggest that approved vaccines “are designed to cause death” nor can they encourage people to get themselves infected on purpose, to build immunity.

It all sounds great until you look closer. Content creators may not be able to call COVID a hoax, but that doesn’t prevent them from, say, drawing an equivalency between the illness at the heart of our global pandemic and the seasonal flu. (Only one of those has killed more than 5.6 million people since 2019, and it ain’t the flu.) Similarly, disallowing any suggestion that the vaccines are “designed to cause death” won’t actually disrupt efforts to make people doubt vaccine effectiveness or safety. And the bleach thing… that was one dumb news moment of many for Donald Trump, but it’s also something that was quickly denounced pretty much everywhere.

The calls for Spotify to take action may be framed around the company’s sorely lacking public-facing platform rules and policies, but the intent behind those calls when it comes to purveyors of bullshit like Rogan is much simpler and more straightforward: de-platforming. Young made it clear when he called for his own music to be taken down: “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both.”

That’s a step Spotify is apparently unwilling to take, and it’s left the company dealing with a mess of its own making. Content advisories do little to clean that up. Rogan could easily bounce back from a de-platforming; his podcast was massively popular before the Spotify deal, and it’s not like he’s the only podcaster who preys on people’s ignorance. Steve Bannon’s show, for example, can still be found on Apple Podcasts, iHeart, and elsewhere — ironically, Spotify kicked out Bannon in 2020.

Rogan’s commitment to spreading harmful ideas and false understandings is a public menace. Even if a de-platforming fails to shut him down completely, the controversial host who commands a loyal audience that brings in millions of weekly listeners will continue to be treated like a serious person for as long as platforms like Spotify continue to give him oxygen.

In all likelihood, you’ve used low power mode if you have an iPhone. Heck, my phone is a few years old, so I practically live in low power mode.

But while you’re likely familiar with the iPhone’s low power mode, it also exists for Macs. That’s right, you just might be able to put your laptop in low power mode if it’s running low on juice.

The only catch? Your machine has to be running macOS 12 Monterey or newer, because that’s when the low power mode update was introduced.

The good news is, it’s super easy to do. Apple has a good run-down on conserving battery life on its website, including how to use low power mode. But here’s how to do it in three easy steps.

1. Open system preferences

Start by clicking on the gear icon, or by clicking the Apple logo in the upper left corner of your screen. Then click System Preferences.

Click away.
Credit: Mashable

2. Click Battery

This will open battery preferences, where you’ll find low power mode.

3. Select low power mode

The button for low power mode should be pretty easy to spot on the battery preferences page. Here’s what the page should look like, via Apple’s website.

Easy peasy.
Credit: Apple / Mashable

This should help your computer last a bit longer — hopefully long enough to find your missing cord and start charging again.

Janet Jackson is doing her best to move past the 2004 Super Bowl “wardrobe malfunction” controversy that damaged her skyrocketing career. And she’d like all of us to do the same.

That’s what the pop icon said in her four-part Lifetime and A&E documentary, which began airing on Jan 28. In the third and most recent part of Janet, Jackson — a notoriously private person, especially on this particular topic — gave what should probably be the final word on what tabloids at the time crudely labeled “Nipplegate.”

“Honestly, this whole thing was blown way out of proportion,” Jackson said, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “Of course, it was an accident. That should not have happened, but everyone is looking for someone to blame, and that’s got to stop. Justin and I are very good friends, and we will always be very good friends. We spoke just a few days ago, and he and I have moved on, and it’s time for everyone else to do the same.”

Jackson fans will likely struggle with her request to just let Justin Timberlake off the hook. But as we saw in Malfunction: The Dressing Down of Janet Jackson, a 2021 Hulu documentary about the whole Super Bowl affair, the one perspective on all of this that’s been sorely lacking is Jackson’s herself. Now we have that missing piece.

Many looks back on the incident have shined a spotlight on the sexism and racism embedded into the unequal consequences Jackson faced afterward, while Timberlake got off almost scot-free. Jackson states in Janet that she was indeed “disinvited” to the Grammys that same year. Timberlake not only attended but won two awards. Though she avoided confirming the rumor that powerful entertainment industry and NFL figures “blacklisted” Jackson’s music in the years following the Super Bowl scandal, informed speculation tells us that getting the brunt of the blame stagnated her previously thriving career.

In contrast, Timberlake, who’s now widely judged for having left Jackson out to dry by not publicly defending her more, only saw his stardom and support from the industry grow. Yet Jackson insisted that people’s interpretations and assumptions about what happened were unfounded. For one, she said he did reach out to her at the time to ask about publicly commenting on the Grammys controversy.

“We talked once, and he said, ‘I don’t know if I should come out and make a statement,'” she shared. “I said, ‘Listen, I don’t want any drama for you. They’re aiming all of this at me.’ So I just said if I were you, I wouldn’t say anything.”

Ever since Timberlake returned to perform at the 2018 Super Bowl halftime show, the injustice has proved just too much for Jackson fans. They made hashtags defending her trend worldwide, to the point of outshining his performance. The Super Bowl is now low-key considered a day for Timberlake’s yearly shaming, despite the fact that Jackson appeared to encourage a more compassionate response in 2021.

In yet another new revelation from the documentary, Jackson said that Timberlake’s team also did in fact ask if she would like to participate in his 2018 return to the Super Bowl halftime show. But she chose not to.

“When I think about it, would it be nice to be able to perform? Yes,” she said. “Our family, we love entertaining. But on the flip side of it, it’s stretching out the past, reliving something that happened over 10 years ago.”

Janet is the second recent documentary to relitigate the 2004 Super Bowl, after Malfunction. The New York Times-produced retrospective does important work to set the record straight on Jackson’s mistreatment (by the public, the NFL, the music industry, Timberlake, etc), but her absence from the proceedings is impossible to ignore.

In the first part of Janet, she seems to imply that this lack of consideration for her own perspective is part of what motivated this new biographical documentary from Lifetime and A&E.

“It’s just something that needs to be done. It’s never … You’ve had someone write this unauthorized biography or someone else do something. Or they’ll do a movie and it’s candy-coated,” Jackson said, according to a recap from Billboard.

Janet Jackson is, at the end of the day an iconic, multifaceted star. But too much recent discourse focuses on only this one flashpoint in her career, rather than focusing any other aspect of her as a person or an important cultural figure in entertainment. So while it might not be what fans want to do, if the goal is to support Janet Jackson, then listening to what she wants and needs in her own words would appear to be a good place to start.

That doesn’t mean everyone needs to forgive Justin Timberlake for all transgressions, though.

Tweet may have been deleted

Tweet may have been deleted

Tweet may have been deleted

Timberlake is often criticized for capitalizing on the appropriation of Black culture, which remains a valid critique that goes beyond the Jackson incident. After the third part of Janet debuted on Saturday, the phrase “Black Twitter” trended on Twitter, mostly from posts humorously rejecting her request that fans leave the Man of the Woods singer alone.

Then there’s the Brittany Spears of it all. Timberlake also stands accused of throwing her under to bus too — yet another more famous woman caught in the crosshairs of a PR nightmare with him in the early 2000s — by fanning the flames of their breakup to boost his career. Despite Timberlake issuing a public apology to both Jackson and Spears in Feb. 2021, Spears has yet to request anyone leave the man alone for crying his river back in 2003.

Regardless, Jackson fans can at the very least look forward to catching the fourth and final installment of Janet on Feb. 13.

Despite video game adaptations not having a great track record, Hollywood is still trying to make it happen with a new live-action Halo TV series.

Our first full trailer for the Paramount+ Halo series offers an extended look at not only Master Chief, but other beloved and iconic characters like Cortana from the video game franchise that launched in 2001. There are certainly enough explosions to go around, but no personality for the Master Chief to speak of just yet. So check it out for yourself to see if the hype is real for you or not.

The Halo series is set to premiere on Paramount+ on March 24, 2022.

Researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara have developed a new, cheaper method for possible home COVID-19 testing that involves a smartphone camera and app.

The new testing system, which is the subject of a research paper printed in the journal JAMA Network Open, uses some basic lab equipment and the app Bacticount to detect possible pathogens in a person’s saliva. To use it, you load your saliva sample into a test kit sitting on a hot plate. You then add in a specific reactive solution that amplifies viral RNA that might be in that spit, similar to the solution process that current at-home COVID tests use.

This specific process is called “Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification,” or LAMP for short.

The sample would go inside the box on the left, where an LED would shine.
Credit: University of California, Santa Barbara

Once any potential viral RNA is amplified, you place a cardboard box with an LED light over the top. Then, a smartphone’s camera can look into the LED-lit box, where it should be able to see any color reactions that indicate the presence of COVID-19. If a viral load is present, the solution should create a bright red light. If the viral load is larger, aka more contagious, the red light should appear quicker. The app will estimate your viral load based on how quickly that light appears and registers.

According to Gizmodo, the cost of using this new test setup would be “less than $100, plus the price of the smartphone you’d need to run the app.” For each subsequent test, which would presumably require a new test kit, you’d be out about $7 – a bargain compared to the hundreds that insurance companies have been charging for certain PCR and rapid tests.

The researchers say this testing method could have the same accuracy rate as a PCR test, and being able to conduct the test at home could potentially allow for much quicker results than a PCR test taken at a doctor’s office that handles hundreds of samples a day. However, it is important to note that this study did have a relatively small sample size of 50 people, so further research will be needed before it can be implemented widely.

The test kit was originally designed for “resource-limited settings,” but its head researcher told Gizmodo that it could be easily adapted for home testing as well. The only caveat is that the Bacticount app is currently only compatible with the Samsung Galaxy S9 due to its specific camera calibrations. This could change in the future as research continues, and allow for more smartphone cameras to tap into the testing technology.

Switching audio streaming services is a pain.

Whether you’re saving on subscription fees or taking a stand against platform policies, changing from one music app to another almost always means losing part of your library.

Yes, you can manually rebuild your current collection on your new app of choice. But not every track is available on every service. You’ll rarely be able to achieve a 100 percent recreation. What’s worse, you can waste hours, even days, trying to make the impossible possible if you’ve curated a lot of content.

So save yourself the time, heartache, and sore thumbs by taking advantage of a “playlist transfer tool.” Here’s how to use the third-party apps, including both desktop and mobile options, that save your favorite music and (sometimes) podcasts before you delete Spotify, Apple Music, or whatever audio streaming service it is that you’re planning to pause.

What are playlist transfer tools?

You can make your transition between two streaming services easier by turning to a third party for help. Playlist transfer tools are usually free services that facilitate the transfer of audio collections between streaming services. Here’s how they generally work.

Most of the options start you out by having you select and sign into both the service you want to transfer your library “from” and the service you want to transfer your library “to.” You’re then prompted to select the specific playlists you want to transfer. The app may also make some suggestions of its own automatically.

These apps are usually free services that facilitate the transfer of audio collections between streaming services.

Users’ “liked” or “loved” collections are typically treated like playlists and can be transferred, meaning most of your library will be brought over that way. Playlists you follow — as opposed to the ones you’ve authored — can also be transferred; this may even include playlists curated by the service you’re leaving (think Spotify’s various “Moods” playlists or Apple Music’s trending selections). Though it’s worth noting that these transfers merely copy the playlist at the moment the copying happens; so if you’re transferring a playlist that is updated with any regularity, you’ll need to manually add new tracks moving forward — or just re-transfer the whole thing.

Podcast feeds are harder to copy, but if they’re put in playlist form they can sometimes be brought over. Depending on how many podcasts you follow, however, it may be easier to just find the show on the new app. Broadly speaking, playlist transfer tools work better with music.

Once your “to” and “from” are connected, the playlist transfer tool will cross-check all of the tracks against what’s available on the new service and recreate as much of each transferred playlist as possible. This process can take minutes or a few hours, depending on the transfer service you go with, your connection, and the size of your library.

How do you choose the right app to transfer your library?

There are a lot of audio streaming services, and seemingly just as many playlist transfer tools. Reviews indicate they mainly vary in terms of accuracy and speed. But some are also better for certain services, phones, and content types.

Your best best for finding the right fit for your collection will be researching options available to you via your phone’s app store. SongShift, FreeYourMusic, Playlisty, Soundiiz, and Tune My Music are among some of the most popular options. There are plenty to choose from and they largely do the same thing.

Most playlist transfer tools are free or offer an upgraded version for a minimal subscription fee. Keep yourself subscribed if you switch services a lot, but more likely than not you can make it a one-time thing.