Anyone looking to upgrade to the next Mac Studio or MacBook Pro might have to wait a little longer, thanks to the ongoing global memory shortage. As reported by Bloomberg‘s Mark Gurman, “at least two of the company’s upcoming machines … could debut a little later than the company initially planned,” referencing the refreshes to Apple’s desktop and its laptop that’s expected to get a touchscreen.

Bloomberg reported that the upcoming Mac Studio, which follows up the current lineup in the M4 Max and M3 Ultra configurations, was first expected to release in the middle of the year. However, Apple is already dealing with shortages of its existing Mac Studio stock, likely due to the device being a popular choice for anyone running local AI models. With no stop to the shortage in sight, Gurman predicted that the refreshed Mac Studio’s release could be postponed to around October instead.

It’s not just Apple’s desktop offerings being affected. Gurman also reported that the release of the next MacBook Pro could be delayed. While Gurman said the release timeline of the touchscreen MacBook Pro could be between the end of 2026 to early 2027, he’s now predicting that it would arrive toward the later end of that timeline. Of course, Apple isn’t the only consumer tech company heavily affected by the RAM shortage. However, Apple can at least take advantage of its successful MacBook Neo release amidst the memory shortage crisis affecting all laptop makers.

Live Science spoke with physicist David Gross, who today received the $3 million “Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics”. He was part of a trio that won the 2004 physics Nobel prize for research that helped complete the Standard Model of particle physics. But when asked if physics will reach a unified theory of the fundamental forces of nature within 50 years, Gross has a surprising answer. “Currently, I spend part of my time trying to tell people… that the chances of you living 50 [more] years are very small.”

Cold War estimates for a 1% chance of nuclear war each year seem low, Gross says. “The chances are more likely 2%. So that’s a 1-in-50 chance every year.”

David Gross: The expected lifetime, in the case of 2% [per year], is about 35 years. [The expected lifetime is the average time it would take to have had a nuclear war by then. It is calculated using similar equations as those used to determine the “half-life” of a radioactive material.]

Live Science: So what do you suggest as remedies to lower that risk?

Gross: We had something called the Nobel Laureate Assembly for reducing the risk of nuclear war in Chicago last year. There are steps, which are easy to take — for nations, I mean. For example, talk to each other. In the last 10 years, there are no treaties anymore. We’re entering an incredible arms race.

We have three super nuclear powers. People are talking about using nuclear weapons; there’s a major war going on in the middle of Europe; we’re bombing Iran; India and Pakistan almost went to war. OK, so that’s increased the chance [of nuclear war]. I would really like to have a solid estimate — it might be more, and I think I’m being conservative — but a 2% estimate [of nuclear war] in today’s crazy world.

Live Science: Do you think we’ll ever get to a place where we get rid of nuclear weapons?

Gross: We’re not recommending that. That’s idealistic, but yes, I hope so. Because if you don’t, there’s always some risk an AI 100 years from now [could launch nuclear weapons], but chances of [humanity] living, with this estimate, 100 years, is very small, and living 200 years is infinitesimal. So [the answer to] Fermi’s question of “Where are the civilizations, all the intelligent organisms around the galaxy, and why don’t they talk to us?” is that they’ve killed themselves…

There are now nine nuclear powers. Even three is infinitely more complicated than two. The agreements, the norms between countries, are all falling apart. Weapons are getting crazier. Automation, and perhaps even AI, will be in control of those instruments pretty soon… It’s going to be very hard to resist making AI make decisions because it acts so fast.
He points out that with the threat of climate change, “people have done something,” even though “It’s a much harder argument to make than about nuclear weapons.

“We made them; we can stop them.”

Thanks to hwstar (Slashdot reader #35,834) for sharing the article.

To make up for an incredibly laughable inaugural event, Beijing is running back its humanoid robot half-marathon. Fortunately, the event that pits humanoid robots made by Chinese companies against each other across 13 miles went a lot smoother this year.

This year’s half-marathon hosted more than 100 competitors, with first place going to Honor, better known for its smartphones, and its red-clad robot named Lightning. Living up to the name, the gold medalist finished the race in 50 minutes and 26 seconds. That’s several minutes faster than the human record that was recently set by Uganda’s Jacob Kiplimo last month.

Honor swept the other podium spots, with the important caveat that they all navigated the course autonomously, according to the state-sponsored television news agency CCTV. That’s a massive improvement over last year, where the fastest time among 21 robots was achieved by Tiangong Ultra with a record of two hours and 40 minutes. Last year’s event saw many of the bipedal robots receiving assistance from human operators who ran alongside them, as well as some comical mishaps, like falling at the starting line.

However, the BBC reported that around 40 percent of the robots competed autonomously this year, while the rest were remote-controlled. Despite the rapid improvements, this year’s event still had its fair share of crashes, even from Honor’s robots.

Looking for the most recent Wordle answer? Click here for today’s Wordle hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Mini Crossword, Connections, Connections: Sports Edition and Strands puzzles.

Today’s Wordle puzzle has a couple of rare letters in it. If you need a new starter word, check out our list of which letters show up the most in English words. If you need hints and the answer, read on.

Read more: New Study Reveals Wordle’s Top 10 Toughest Words of 2025

Today’s Wordle hints

Before we show you today’s Wordle answer, we’ll give you some hints. If you don’t want a spoiler, look away now.

Wordle hint No. 1: Repeats

Today’s Wordle answer has one repeated letter.

Wordle hint No. 2: Vowels

Today’s Wordle answer has two vowels, and then one of those is repeated, so you will see that one twice.

Wordle hint No. 3: First letter

Today’s Wordle answer begins with W.

Wordle hint No. 4: Last letter

Today’s Wordle answer ends with E.

Wordle hint No. 5: Meaning

Today’s Wordle answer can refer to forming fabric by interlacing long threads, perhaps on a loom.

TODAY’S WORDLE ANSWER

Today’s Wordle answer is WEAVE.

Yesterday’s Wordle answer

Yesterday’s Wordle answer, April 19, No. 1765, was STAND.

Recent Wordle answers

April 15, No. 1761: BEGUN

April 16, No. 1762: CUBIT

April 17, No. 1763: BELLE

April 18, No. 1764: TOADY

OpenAI has been all over the news recently, whether that news is about acquisitions, competition with Anthropic, or bigger debates about AI’s impact on society.

On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I did our best to round up all the latest OpenAI news. While the company’s latest acquisitions seem to be classic acqui-hires, Sean suggested they also address “two big existential problems that OpenAI is trying to solve right now.”

First, with the team behind personal finance startup Hiro, the company may be hoping to  come up with a product that has “more hooks than just a chatbot, and maybe something worth paying more for.” And with new media startup TBPN, OpenAI could be looking to “better shape its image in the public eye, which lately has not been great.”

Read a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity below.

Anthony: [We have] two deals that are worth mentioning, one is that OpenAI acquired this personal finance startup called Hiro. And that comes after another deal that was literally announced when we were recording our last episode of Equity, so we didn’t get to talk about it: OpenAI had also acquired TBPN — a business talk show, like a new media company.

And I think both of these deals are pretty small compared to the scale of OpenAI. These are not things that people expect to really change the course of their business or anything like that, but they’re interesting because it suggests that there’s still this [attitude of,] “Let’s try out different things.”

Especially [with] the TBPN deal […] particularly at this time when it feels like OpenAI, from all the reporting we’re reading, is also trying to really refocus on making ChatGPT and its GPT models really competitive in an enterprise context with programmers.

Is running a tech talk show, should that really be on the to-do list?

Kirsten: No, this should not be on the to-do list. That’s it. 

I do want to mention Hiro because to me, that’s an interesting one, because Julie Bort, our venture editor, super talented, she wrote about this and was I think the first to write about it. She dug in a little bit and basically this looks like an acqui-hire. The company is folding. They basically said, “By this date, you won’t be able to access this anymore.”

This is a personal finance startup. And they only launched two years ago. So this absolutely is about getting talent on board. So I’m very curious to see if OpenAI is going to be just absorbing them into the ether at OpenAI, or if they’re actually interested in some sort of personal finance product that they want to work on. To me, it’s not really clear.

Sean: I think you look at both of these as acqui-hires to a certain extent. I mean, the TBPN acquisition, allegedly they are going to retain their editorial independence on the show that they make every day. And all respect to those guys who’ve put that out there and gotten it off the ground so quickly and grown it into what it has become.

I think any person who follows the media should have a healthy dose of skepticism that when you acquire something like that and you put the people who make the show under the org of the public policy people and comms or marketing adjacent people higher up at the company making the acquisition, that you could have good questions about whether or not saying “editorial independence” is enough. It’s not an incantation that just works.

But you know, what’s interesting to me about these two, while they are similar in their acqui-hire-ness, I think they both represent two major problems that OpenAI is facing.

One is Hiro. OpenAI has a very successful product in ChatGPT. As far as whether or not that will actually ever make them enough money to become a sustainable business that’s not raising the largest private rounds in the world, ever, to keep things going, is a big question. And they also seem to be struggling to keep up on the enterprise side of things where the real money seems to be, so bringing in a team like this seems like taking a shot at, “What else can we do?” 

The guy who founded Hiro seems to have a serial entrepreneur streak of creating consumer apps, and so this seems to me like a bet on them being able to come up with something else that may have more hooks than just a chatbot, and maybe something worth paying more for.

And then TBPN is an acquisition made to help better represent what the company does and better shape its image in the public eye, which lately has not been great and certainly is under more questions now than just a few weeks ago, because Ronan Farrow just led a report at The New Yorker that dropped suspiciously right around the time that this and a couple other announcements from OpenAI came out last week. 

I think those are two big existential problems that OpenAI is trying to solve right now.

Kirsten: So the thing that you didn’t say is, there’s Anthropic kind of looming in — not in the shadows, I mean, they’re very much taking up a lot of space here — but they’re having a lot of success on the enterprise side of things.

It feels like these guys are competitors and they also feel like very different companies in a lot of ways. Anthony, I’m wondering if you see them as direct competition to OpenAI? Or [are they] just finding their stride in enterprise and in a way, these two companies are clearly going to coexist and they’re really not directly competing with each other — maybe on talent, but not necessarily as we initially thought of them?

Anthony: I think they’re directly competing with each other. There’s definitely a scenario where if AI as an industry, as a technology, is as successful as its proponents hope for, they could both be very successful companies, they could just be the one and two. And the success of one does not necessarily mean that the other will just fade into obscurity. 

And again, none of this is official, but there’s just been a lot of reporting around how it seems like OpenAI, more than anyone, is obsessed with and upset about Anthropic’s rise. 

Our reporter Lucas [Ropek], he did a great piece over the weekend about the HumanX conference, where he was talking to everyone there and they’re sort of like, “Yeah, ChatGPT is fine, too,” but like they were all about Claude Code. And I think that is exactly what OpenAI is worried about.

Because again, in theory, there could be many other opportunities for generative AI, but it feels like the big growth area, the area where the most money is and where they could at least see a path to having a sustainable business in the future, is in these enterprise and coding tools.