Last week I got the chance to review not one, but two laptops from Sharp’s laptop division Dynabook. The first of these two laptops is the Tecra A40-M laptop. The specific variant that I have comes with these specs:
- Intel Core Ultra 7 Processor 255U
- Windows 11 Pro
- 14″ diagonal widescreen that is also a touchscreen
- 16 GB DDR5 5600
- 512 GB PCIe NVMe SSD
- Fingerprint Reader
- Thunderbolt 4
- 60Wh battery to give you up to 8 hours of battery life
- Wi-Fi 6E and Bluetooth 5.2
- Intel ARC Graphics
- Weighs 3.18 pounds
These seem like decent specs on paper. And they are as I will highlight in a moment. But what got my attention is the build quality. This laptop felt really solid because of the fact that it is built to MIL STD 810-H. Every part of the laptop that I touched felt like it could take a beating if required. I point that out because a lot of PC laptops that I pick up do not come even close to feeling that way. In fact some laptops from some big name companies feel flimsy at times. Thus I am often concerned about how long they would last during a trip or the like. I would have none of those concerns if I was carrying this laptop.
Speaking of the laptop, you haven’t seen it yet. Here’s a few pictures:
The one thing that stands out to me is this 14″ screen. It’s sharp and clear. The other thing that stands out is the keyboard. I liked the typing feel and touch typists will really love it. I was not as enamoured with the track pad. But that’s like a “me” problem as I am used to Mac trackpads which are not diving board designs like this one. Thus the clicks on those feel consistent unlike this one. Die hard Windows users however will not care because they are used to this sort of feel.
On the left side of the laptop is the Kensington lock slot, a power connector (why isn’t it USB-C/Thunderbolt 4 to make life easier for users who want to go USB-C all the things including chargers), a HDMI port, two USB-C/Thunderbolt 4 ports and a headphone jack.
On the right is an Ethernet jack, USB-A port and an micro SD card slot.
What I was really interested in is how fast is this laptop. To find out I ran Geekbench 6 on it. Now synthetic benchmarks aren’t a definitive measure of how fast a computer is because how fast a computer is or isn’t is dependent on your use case. Having said that, it will give you a pretty good idea of what you can expect. I did two runs of the GPU and CPU tests. Once on power and once on battery as PC laptops perform worse when on battery to save battery. Here’s what I got. First here’s the results while on battery:
- Single Core: 1750
- Multi Core: 6928
- GPU (OpenCL): 16747
And here’s the results while on AC Power:
- Single Core: 2277
- Multi Core: 8656
- GPU (OpenCL): 18893
To put that in perspective, my M1 Pro MacBook Pro hit these numbers (both on battery and on AC power) for the CPU:
- Single Core: 1762
- Multi Core: 12431
That makes the Dynabook’s numbers more than respectable. In terms of disk speed, I ran Crystal Disk Mark both on battery and on AC power. Here’s the results that I got in both scenarios:
- Read: 5280.89 MB/s
- Write: 3072.29 MB/s
Whatever SSD that was chosen to be used in this Dnynabook, it’s a pretty quick one.
Finally there’s battery life. It’s rated for 8 hours. In testing the best that I did was 6.5 hours. Not bad for a PC laptop. Also give its size, it’s not surprising as you can only shove in so much batter for something thin and light.
Here’s the bottom line. The Dynabook A40-M is a well built reasonably fast laptop that is light and easy to tote around. It will survive your daily activities and come back for more while providing ample amounts of CPU and GPU power. The A40-M starts at around $1800, and in my opinion is well worth the money.
Guest Post: How Meta and TikTok Turn User Rage into Revenue, While Pretending to Keep You Safe
Posted in Commentary with tags Cybernews on March 16, 2026 by itnerdBy Jurgita Lapienytė, Editor-in-Chief at Cybernews
A new BBC report revealed what we suspected all along – big tech platforms turn a blind eye to harmful content for the sake of profit. Platforms allow so-called borderline content – misogynistic, sexist, racist, conspiracy-driven – that is harmful yet legal.
According to the report, based on accounts from a dozen whistleblowers and insiders, Meta engineers were instructed to allow more borderline content to compete with TikTok. Meanwhile, TikTok is said to have prioritized several user complaints involving politicians to “avoid threats of regulation or bans.”
Unsurprisingly, big tech platforms denied any wrongdoing, insisting that they do not amplify harmful content.
Algorithms are allegedly designed to better understand user interests and needs, and cater to them accordingly. Unfortunately, most of what a user “wants” turns out to be conspiracy theories, AI slop, deepfakes, and pro-Nazi content. Or at least the algorithm seems to think so – because most of this is so-called ragebait content, designed to provoke a strong response from the user.
And since users engage with it, the algorithm is tricked into “thinking” this is what people want. Humans behind the algorithm must clearly understand this is not the case, but clicks translate to cash. So why would Big Tech cut the branch it’s sitting on?
In 2024, Meta earned $16 billion, or 10% of its annual revenue, from scam ads and banned goods. The information comes not from a third-party analytics firm but from Meta’s own documents, proving that the tech giant is well aware of how much harm it can spread – and how much money it can make along the way.
While platforms and lawmakers take their sweet time debating what borderline content is, people are left to deal with the psychological fallout of social media addiction. From the inability to tell right from wrong or fake from real, loss of concentration, sleep, and even sense of self, to radicalization, depression, and self harm – the consequences of companies toying with their algorithms to meet business goals are dire for humanity.
It’s not only our mental health that’s at stake. Adversaries, well aware of algorithmic logic, abuse it to spread misinformation and straightforward lies, sowing division to influence elections all over the world – making us wonder just how much harm performative compliance has already done to democracy.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jurgita Lapienytė is the Editor-in-Chief at Cybernews, where she leads a team of journalists and security experts dedicated to uncovering cyber threats through research, testing, and data-driven reporting. With a career spanning over 15 years, she has reported on major global events, including the 2008 financial crisis and the 2015 Paris terror attacks, and has driven transparency through investigative journalism. A passionate advocate for cybersecurity awareness and women in tech, Jurgita has interviewed leading cybersecurity figures and amplifies underrepresented voices in the industry. Recognized as the Cybersecurity Journalist of the Year and featured in Top Cyber News Magazine’s 40 Under 40 in Cybersecurity, she is a thought leader shaping the conversation around cybersecurity. Jurgita has been quoted internationally.
ABOUT CYBERNEWS
Cybernews is a globally recognized independent media outlet where journalists and security experts debunk cyber by research, testing, and data. Founded in 2019 in response to rising concerns about online security, the site covers breaking news, conducts original investigations, and offers unique perspectives on the evolving digital security landscape. Through white-hat investigative techniques, Cybernews research team identifies and safely discloses cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities, while the editorial team provides cybersecurity-related news, analysis, and opinions by industry insiders with complete independence. For more, visit www.cybernews.com.
Leave a comment »