标签：#ai

Fox is paying $22 billion for Roku, its streaming devices and its ecosystem.

In April, for the first time ever, an Earth observation satellite found what it was looking for, all on its own.

Fox has announced that it's acquiring Roku outright, in a deal that values the streaming company at $22 billion. Once the deal is complete, Fox content will be promoted more heavily than before on Roku streamers and smart TVs. The deal will see Fox's TV networks and Tubi streamer combine with Roku's network of streaming […]

In this article, the author outlines a practical approach to AI governance in the cloud, covering discovery of shadow AI, data classification at creation, IAM-based enforcement, policy-as-code, and operational controls. The article shows how organizations can embed governance into delivery pipelines, balancing security, compliance, and developer productivity without relying on manual processes. By Dave Ward

As AI systems become more powerful, the conversation is shifting. The biggest challenge is no longer whether AI can write code, solve problems, or accelerate scientific discovery. The real question is: How do we safely govern systems that may eventually become more capable than the institutions built to regulate them? This is where my research on Universal Biometric Identification (UBID) and Universal Digital Credits (UDC) becomes interesting. The Problem Modern AI systems operate in a world where identity is increasingly difficult to verify. A powerful AI model can be accessed through: Anonymous accounts Disposable email addresses VPNs Automated bot networks Fake identities As AI capabilities increase, this creates a growing governance challenge. If a future AI system could discover software vulnerabilities, design advanced technologies, or perform high-impact research, how would organizations determine who should have access? Today, they largely cannot. The internet was designed around connectivity, not verified human identity. What Is UBID? In my paper, I propose Universal Biometric Identification (UBID), a framework where every person receives a globally unique identity based on multiple biometric factors such as: Fingerprints Facial recognition Iris patterns Voice recognition Behavioral characteristics These biometric signals are combined with cryptographic security and distributed ledger technologies to create a secure digital identity framework. The goal is not surveillance. The goal is to create a trusted proof-of-personhood system. A system capable of answering a simple question: Is this a real, verified human? What Is UDC? Universal Digital Credits (UDC) extend this identity layer into a global transaction framework. Instead of relying entirely on traditional banking systems, transactions can be linked directly to verified digital identities. This creates: Reduced fraud Better accountability Financial inclusion Transparent transaction records Global access

Hey developers! I have been working on a side project to help people discover the best AI tools in one place. It is a curated directory designed to be clean, fast, and user-friendly. You can check it out live here: GetNexusAI Tech Stack Used: Next.js / React Tailwind CSS Vercel for hosting Why I Built This: Finding the right AI tool among thousands of options can be overwhelming. I wanted to create a simple dashboard where users can easily filter and find exactly what they need without the clutter. I Need Your Help! Since I just launched it, I would love to get your honest feedback: How is the loading speed and UI/UX? What features should I add next (e.g., user reviews, bookmarking tools)? If you have built an AI tool, let me know so I can feature it! Check the website here: https://getnexusai.tech

Check this out: i run four monetization channels side by side. Sponsored posts, display ads, YouTube ad revenue, and affiliate links. After eighteen months of tracking every dollar in a spreadsheet I built myself, I can tell you with brutal honesty: affiliate income is the only one that scales without me having to constantly produce more content or chase the next brand deal. But the math only works if you pick the right program. Most affiliates I know are promoting garbage with terrible retention, and they have no idea they're burning their audience's trust for a $9 one-time payout. Let me walk you through how I evaluate affiliate programs, what I've learned from running real funnels, and why the AI API category has quietly become the most lucrative vertical for tech creators in 2026. My Monetization Stack After 18 Months of Testing Here's a snapshot of my monthly revenue from a tech newsletter with around 34,000 subscribers and a YouTube channel sitting at 88,000 subscribers: Sponsored posts: $2,100 per placement, but I can only land maybe 2-3 per month without annoying my list Display ads: $1,800 per month from Mediavine, but this number barely moves regardless of how hard I work YouTube ad revenue: $2,400 per month, capped by watch time and RPMs Affiliate income: $6,800 per month, and it grows every single month even when I publish nothing That last number is what got my attention. Affiliate income compounds. When I published a tutorial in February recommending a tool, that single piece of content still earned me $340 in May because users stayed subscribed. No other channel behaves like that. No other channel lets a piece of content from four months ago keep paying you. But here's the catch that took me a while to figure out: not all affiliate programs are built the same way. And the difference between a good program and a bad one can be 10x in lifetime earnings per referred user. # # How I Score an Affiliate Program (The Growth Hacker Scorecard) Before I promote

Most explanations of atomic swaps stop at the spot case: two parties lock funds, one reveals a secret, both legs clear in the same short window. Clean, but it quietly assumes the trade settles right now . A lot of real agent activity isn't spot. It's a forward: two agents agree on terms today - asset pair, size, price - and settle at some future point, T+24h or T+48h. Procurement agents pre-committing to a delivery. A treasury agent locking tomorrow's FX-equivalent rate. A market-making agent quoting a forward to offload inventory risk. The economics are old; what's new is that the counterparties are anonymous software that will never meet. That raises a question spot swaps don't have to answer: what holds the trade together in the gap between agreement and settlement? In traditional markets the answer is a chain of intermediaries - a clearing house, posted margin, a credit desk that decides whether your counterparty is good for it. Strip those away, as you must in a market of anonymous agents, and the naive version of a forward collapses. If nothing binds the trade, either side can simply not show up when the price has moved against them. That's counterparty risk, and it's exactly the thing a forward is supposed to manage. This post is about how the HTLC primitive - the same hashlock plus timelock most people only associate with same-block atomic swaps - can encode a forward obligation that's binding without anyone custodying the funds in between. The timelock is doing more work than you think Recall the two parameters of a hash-time-lock contract: Hashlock: funds can only be claimed by revealing a preimage s such that hash(s) == H . The same H is used on both legs, so the act of claiming one leg reveals the secret that unlocks the other. That's what makes the swap atomic - both clear or neither does. Timelock: if the preimage isn't revealed before a deadline, the funds refund to their original owner. No third party decides this; the contract enforces it. In the sp

Introduction It's crazy to me that some GitHub repos, that were just created in the last...

What makes this combustible: at the very moment that tens of thousands of workers are being shown the door, a small cohort of AI insiders is becoming wealthy on a scale that's hard to comprehend.

After posting several articles about the impact of AI on developers and sharing resources to help...

Obsidian prompts beat open-ended reflection every time: median review time across 6 weeks was 14 minutes, fastest was 9, slowest was 22 (and that week genuinely deserved 22). I ran the GTD-adjacent version faithfully for six weeks — 90 minutes, full capture sweep, energy audit, the works. Then less faithfully for two months. Then I stopped entirely and didn't notice for three weeks. That last part is the failure mode nobody writes about. The format wasn't wrong; it was sized for a version of my week that rarely existed. The fix wasn't a better framework. It was shorter, closed questions. My Obsidian template has seven prompts, none of them open-ended: what shipped, what didn't, what I avoided and why, one thing to drop, one thing to protect. One-to-three sentence answer ceiling per prompt, hard stop. Open questions like "how was your week?" generate rumination. Closed questions generate decisions. That distinction is doing almost all the work. The Notion version I ran before this taught me something useful about tool selection too. I built rollups — tasks closed this week, open tasks by project, inbox count, stalled for 7+ days — and they worked exactly as designed. What Notion couldn't do was get out of its own way during actual reflection. Every time I tried to think through what went wrong, I'd end up reorganizing a database instead. Forty minutes later, new linked database, zero review completed. The same flexibility that makes Notion a good data layer makes it a bad "close the loop and move on" environment. Obsidian's plain-file simplicity is the right call for the thinking layer — and completely wrong for the data layer. Neither tool alone is the honest answer. There's also a cautionary note from my automation setup: a Zapier zap that pushed completed tasks into Notion for weekly rollup ran cleanly for two months, then silently broke when my task manager updated their API response format. Modified tasks started logging as completed. My rollup became noise befo

Do you know Pulled Pork recipes and snakes games are being blocked by Claude Fable’s safety features? We will discuss this later in the article. Claude Fable 5 is the most capable AI model made till date, and it is generally ranked top by nearly every benchmark. The company Avidclan Technologies has a blog already covering the full Claude Fable 5 timeline from Project Glasswing to launch day, if you want to gather more information. But today in this blog we will be discussing about its safety classifiers, designed to stop bioweapon synthesis and cyberattacks, which are currently flagging... pulled pork. Fable 5 vs Mythos 5, what’s the difference in simple terms? Quick context: We can say that Fable 5 is the child of Claude Mythos 5. Now the question is, what is this Mythos 5? According to Anthropic, it is a system that is capable of finding software vulnerabilities that Anthropic restricts to vetted cyber-defence partners only. Anthropic bolted on two-stage classifiers monitoring four categories to release the public version, the four categories are cybersecurity, biology, chemistry, and model distillation, and this distilled model is Fable 5* ( This is what Anthropic says, not us) * This is what grabs attention: Fable 5 will not refuse flagged prompts. It will silently send your request to Claude Opus 4.8 (the previous flagship), which answers instead. You will get a notification, the conversation continues, and nobody hits a brick wall. Anthropic says “this triggers in less than 5% of sessions and that against 30 public jailbreaks on cyberattack planning, Fable 5 compiled exactly zero times.” On paper, it looks elegant, right? But in practice? Oh my god.. Can Claude Fable 5 give wrong answers? Yes, False Positive Every one of these is a documented, real example from the first two days: A Costco shopping list. A user asked for portion sizes for pulled pork sandwiches. Flagged as a biology/cybersecurity concern. Sheep RNA data. A researcher working with RNA sequenci

That's the reality of what I've been testing - whether you can actually run a micro SaaS from a phone. Not as a gimmick, but as a real workflow. The key is prompting discipline. When I want a changelog section added to my delivery page, I'm not just asking. I'm structuring the task: queue it up, do QA after each step, create the build, update the OTA link, ping me on Telegram, then move to the next one. If something breaks, take notes and continue - I'll deal with it later. The AI handles the repetitive loop. I handle the decisions. Most of my dev ops now fits in a chat thread. Is this the future of solo building? Maybe. Or maybe it's just a useful edge case for when your laptop is in for repair and you have a deadline. Either way, it's worth knowing what's actually possible.

Three days into November, a disapproval cascade pulled 40% of active SKUs from Shopping and Performance Max simultaneously — on day one of a promotional window we'd spent six weeks building. No feed changes on our side triggered it. Here's the part most guides miss: Google's automated review threshold for certain policy categories (health claims, price accuracy, before/after imagery) tightens as platform ad volume increases heading into Q4. I've watched this happen across accounts running ₩50M–₩120M/month in combined Google spend, three years in a row, with zero feed-side changes preceding it. Same feed that sailed through August catches 15–20% disapprovals on recheck in September. The products didn't change. The enforcement did. When it hits during a live window, fix order matters more than fix speed. Price mismatches go first — not because they're the most dramatic, but because they cascade silently. One bestseller disapproved during a flash sale means Performance Max quietly reallocates budget to lower-performing products. By the time ROAS visibly drops, you've lost 48 hours of peak traffic. The specific failure mode I've seen twice on Cafe24 with direct API feeds: a site-wide price update propagates to the feed before the landing page CDN cache clears. Google crawls the feed, sees the new price, crawls the landing page, sees the old cached price. Mismatch. Disapproval. Fixing it is one line — force a manual fetch and verify sale_price_effective_date formatting — but finding it at 2am during a live sale is a different problem. Prohibited content disapprovals are deprioritized by most teams because they're rare. That's exactly wrong. A single escalation during Black Friday week can trigger account-level review, not just product suspension. Pull the SKU yourself within the hour if you can't fix the content immediately. Suspending your own SKU is recoverable. A suspended account during peak is not. GTIN and identifier issues — despite getting the most attention in s

On June 9, 2026, Anthropic launched Claude Fable 5, a model designed for long-horizon tasks, but it was taken offline shortly after due to a U.S. government export directive. It shares architecture with Claude Mythos 5, supporting extensive token usage. The model includes mandatory data retention requirements, which have affected its deployment with partners like Microsoft. By Andrew Hoblitzell

Orbio announces $21 Million Series A in round led by Dawn Capital.

AI Builder Notes - Week of June 14, 2026 My thoughts and my twitter’s feeds thoughts This week was all about the ‘loop’ and Fable . The Loop The best way I can describe it is: design the flowchart. Think of the deterministic flowchart on how you want your agents to work. Aim to have: more deterministic bits - this keeps things more predictable more verification bits - this is agent feedback more agent tool calls - this, on a frontier LLM, makes it perform better. The ‘loop’ is essentially: goal -> agent acts -> verifier checks -> state/memory updates -> policy decides next action -> repeat/stop/escalate now the specific implementation of this - will differ based on what you’re working on. Fable Fable capabilities are absolutely insane, I tried it myself and it is entirely worth it for you to spend 2 minutes looking at this. There are a few projects that I fire up a new model into to see what’s it gonna do. A project I wanted to build was a way to teach and demonstrate ‘spin’ in table tennis, every frontier model before Fable fumbled hard. But Fable outshined them with ease: https://srijanshukla.com/artifacts/spin-lab/ If you personally did not experience a big shift in capability, you are probably not asking it a complex enough or ambitious enough task. Fable came, and Fable was taken away. The United States Government(USG) was reported with a jailbreak or sorts - which Anthropic considers not significant. The USG anyway banned Fable just after few days of release. Big drama. Fable was very pricey $$$$ Hence, people developed some patterns of work on those few golden days of Fable being available. - use Fable as planner/architect/taste/spatial/front-end judge. - use GPT-5.5/DeepSeek/Kimi as executor/worker. Other things Openrouter released their Fusion feature as a model on their platform, accessible via API. Fusion is basically council-of-LLMs pattern - providing results that can rival the frontier Fable 5 solo. Google Open Knowledge Format - https://github.com/Goo

On June 9, Anthropic shipped Claude Fable 5 — the most capable coding model the industry had ever seen. Three days later, the U.S. government ordered it offline for every user on Earth . No warning. No transition period. One directive, and the frontier vanished overnight. 📖 Read the full version with charts and embedded sources on ComputeLeap → The same week, Z.ai (Zhipu AI) released GLM-5.2 — a 744-billion-parameter coding model with a one-million-token context window, MIT-licensed open weights arriving within days. The timing was not lost on the developer community. ℹ️ The message landed clearly on Hacker News: as user Reubend put it, they're "grateful to Chinese labs for being open with their work" — especially after "the Fable 5 fiasco." Open weights aren't just a cost play anymore. They're insurance. This guide walks you through actually running GLM-5.2 on your own hardware — the VRAM you need, the quantization that fits, and the exact commands for llama.cpp, Ollama, and LM Studio. No API keys. No cloud dependency. No one can pull the plug. What GLM-5.2 Actually Is GLM-5.2 is the third major iteration in Z.ai's GLM-5 line, purpose-built for agentic coding and long-horizon software engineering . Here is what you are working with: Spec Value Architecture Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) Total Parameters 744 billion Active Parameters ~40 billion per token Context Window 1,000,000 tokens Max Output 131,072 tokens Training Data 28.5 trillion tokens License MIT (open weights) Thinking Modes High and Max The MoE architecture is the key to local viability. Only ~40 billion parameters fire per token — the rest sit idle. That is what makes aggressive quantization work: you are compressing 744B weights, but inference only touches a fraction of them at any given time. GLM-5.2 supports two thinking-effort presets: High and Max. Z.ai recommends Max as the default for coding work — it produces longer reasoning chains before generating output. The model launched on June 13 on Z.ai's C

We open sourced Centaur last month—a Slack agent we built for our own investing and engineering work. Over the past few months it's grown to 100-150 daily power users across a few organizations, handling both judgment-heavy tasks like investment research and raw horsepower work like searching massive codebases. The interesting part isn't just our internal use. We've been running a small Slack Connect with external orgs using it, and the feedback has been consistent: most SaaS tools don't cut it because companies need too much customization and their critical integrations aren't supported out of the box. Our roadmap is getting clearer as we tackle the tricky parts of multi-org collaboration. We're working on scoping Slackbot access by channel, which would finally let different organizations' agents coexist safely in the same space—almost like an Enterprise Matrixbook. But the real challenge isn't the vision, it's execution. Keeping costs low while staying self-hostable for smaller teams has forced us to rethink everything. The hard problems only become obvious once you're deep in the implementation. That said, I do think Slack has won in one sense: it's the best place for a coworker agent to emerge, rather than a standalone application. Curious whether others are seeing this pattern too.