Apple's annual gross profit was $195B last year against an R&D budget of around $35B. So, they've got more than enough spare change to throw around. I'm sure whatever they're spending on foldables isn't impairing them financially in any way.

I'm more concerned for what it means for focus, fragmented ecosystems, user experience, etc.

From Jobs: "People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I'm actually as proud of many of the things we haven't done as the things we have done."

> The new valuation is nearly three times higher than the company’s February valuation, when Anthropic was estimated to be worth around $380 billion.

> In March, OpenAI was valued at $852 billion following a record $122 billion funding round.

Basically, today (Late May) we're declaring Anthropic the most valuable. They've nearly tripled in value since February. But also, OpenAI was $852B in March and presumably has grown since then.

In a few weeks we'll either have a new rounding of funding for OpenAI or they'll announce their IPO and the hype train will be abuzz that they're now the most valuable.

>”This is why you can still ask an AI to tell you about the scene in VS Naipaul’s Dashed Against the Rocks in which a donkey is thrown from a hot air balloon”

Well, I did ask Gemini (3.1 Pro) that question verbatim and it wasn’t fooled in the least. People who rail against LLMs for hallucinations like that always read to me like people who haven’t used it since writing off chat got 2.5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox

The entire tone is pure AI slop.

Keyboard buttons would be better or slightly more windup to the attacks to allow more reaction time.

But, I still found some tactics. Similar to OP, I'd send two sacrificial lambs up and focus entirely on a single decently-high (say, 70+) leveled-up number (minimum level 3). Let the other two numbers die, block on the focused number, heal as needed and hit that Divide as soon as possible. With 6 or 7 hearts I was able to finish levels 10 and 11 that way.

This is the only (very small) blemish on an otherwise fantastic game.

I know this game is a satirical sendup of gacha, but in the same way that Universal Paperclips subverted the clicker game genre and made something fantastic, I find this stripped-down gacha utterly charming. Thank you to the dev!

But, I did think the adversarial review (while not novel at all and talked about much in HN circles) is interesting and distinct, at least. I need to put this to work in more of workflows. I think it could be beneficial for non-coding tasks, too.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/cyber-frontier-models/#what-a-ha...

General awareness campaigns are not in vogue these days, especially for CPG companies. You're not seeing a lot of billboards or train wraps for these brands anymore. Instead, you're probably just not deemed by the all-knowing models to be a likely buyer (count yourself lucky--it's probably a good sign for your diet and health).

But it's not inconceivable at all that the $2B spend it invisible to a high portion or even a large majority of the population if they can get more ROAS by targeting specific subsets.

Edit: one more ps that I thought was funny. The one brand you called out (Kit Kat) is only owned by Hershey in the US so it's entirely possible that the online ads you've seen are actually Nestlé's, depending on what sites you're viewing and/or where you live.

I guess what I'm saying is: Couldn't a world model with targeted training and thoughtfully tuned system prompts be directionally similar to the layered systems to produce specific patterns of outcome?

Many of the most popular games in the past decade are procedurally generated and have nothing “intentionally” placed (apart from tuning/tweaking the balance of the seeding algorithms).

The advancements in shoes have made a measurable impact, but there are lots of optimizations being worked on.