CoreFX founder and CEO Denis Neville is a food science graduate from University College Cork.

Irish-founded US biotech CoreFX has chosen Cork’s Teagasc Moorepark as its European headquarters for R&D and commercial expansion efforts.

CoreFX develops additive powders for the health and wellness sector that claims to improve nutrient availability, absorption and impact. The business operates across North America and Europe, with three facilities in Illinois and Wisconsin, US.

The new operation in Cork will help CoreFX accelerate technologies that improve shelf life in nutritional supplements, the company said. Details of the company’s investment were undisclosed. CoreFX, however, said that the new Irish facility represents a “significant milestone” in its long-term global strategy.

Ireland was selected for its globally recognised strengths in food science, biotechnology and access to scientific talent, CoreFX said.

“Returning to Ireland to establish our European headquarters is personally meaningful, but this decision was driven by much more than my own roots,” said CoreFX founder and CEO Denis Neville. Neville is a University College Cork graduate in food science and technology who previously served as a commercial director at Kerry Americas.

“Ireland has become one of the world’s leading centres for food science, biotechnology, and innovation.

“By combining the scientific excellence of Teagasc Moorepark with Enterprise Ireland’s vision and support, we are creating an innovation platform that will accelerate how breakthrough nutritional technologies move from research into commercial reality for customers across Europe and beyond.” The Irish operation launches with a team of three scientists.

“This is a strategically important investment for Ireland,” said Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment Peter Burke, TD. “CoreFX’s decision to invest and open this facility further positions Ireland internationally as a hub for biotechnology and food science”.

Mark Christal, the executive director at Enterprise Ireland said: “Since 2023, Enterprise Ireland has supported the company’s growth strategy, and this new European headquarters – developed alongside Teagasc Moorepark – represents the next stage of that journey. We look forward to seeing the team and business grow from here.”

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Looking for the most recent NYT Connections: Sports Edition puzzle answers? CNET publishes daily answers and hints for Wordle, The New York Times Mini Crossword, Connections, Connections: Sports Edition and Strands puzzles. Connections: Sports Edition might not be as popular as the regular Connections puzzle, but it’s a fun game that challenges sports fans since the categories are all over the map. You’re as likely to find an Olympics category as you are to find one on the NFL, the WNBA or Premier League soccer.

Today’s NYT Connections: Sports Edition puzzle is a bit tricky. The purple category is a fun one today if you know a certain alphabet. If you’re struggling with the puzzle but still want to solve it, read on for hints and the answers.

Hints for today’s Connections: Sports Edition groups

Yellow group hint: The Old Line State.

Green group hint: There used to be a team here.

Blue group hint: New to the pros.

Purple group hint: Alpha Bravo Charlie.

Read more: We Need to Talk About That One Doggone Connections Puzzle

Answers for today’s Connections: Sports Edition groups

Yellow group: Maryland teams.

Green group: Former NHL cities.

Blue group: NFL rookie WRs.

Purple group: Sports terms in the NATO phonetic alphabet.

What are today’s Connections: Sports Edition answers?

The yellow words in today’s Connections

The theme is Maryland teams.

The four answers are Midshipmen, Orioles, Ravens and Terrapins.

The green words in today’s Connections

The theme is former NHL cities.

The four answers are Atlanta, Hartford, Phoenix and Quebec City.

The blue words in today’s Connections

The theme is NFL rookie WRs.

The four answers are Boston, Lemon, Tate and Tyson.

The purple words in today’s Connections

The theme is sports terms in the NATO phonetic alphabet.

The four answers are golf, uniform, victor and bravo.

CNET editor Gael Fashingbauer Cooper, a journalist and pop-culture junkie, is co-author of “Whatever Happened to Pudding Pops? The Lost Toys, Tastes and Trends of the ’70s and ’80s,” as well as “The Totally Sweet ’90s.” She’s been a journalist since 1989, working at Mpls.St.Paul Magazine, Twin Cities Sidewalk, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and NBC News Digital. She’s Gen X in birthdate, word and deed. If Marathon candy bars ever come back, she’ll be first in line.

See full bio

TRIBIT might not have the brand recognition of JBL, Sony, Bose, or Soundcore in the U.S., but the company is hardly new to affordable wireless audio. Founded in 2017, TRIBIT started with portable Bluetooth speakers before expanding into true wireless earbuds a year later, building its reputation around products that offer a lot of hardware and features without demanding premium-brand money.

The company first got our attention with the StormBox 2 Bluetooth speaker, which earned our Best Bang for Your Buck recommendation in the 2026 Best Budget Bluetooth Speakers Under $150 guide. We found it delivered unusually strong sound quality and battery life for its $80 asking price, which makes TRIBIT considerably harder to dismiss as just another inexpensive audio brand.

Now the company is back with the FlyBuds C3 Wireless Earbuds, a sub-$40 model aimed squarely at buyers who want everyday convenience without paying premium TWS prices. That part of the market is already crowded, so the interesting question is whether TRIBIT can repeat what it did with the StormBox 2 and make the low price feel like a bargain rather than a compromise.

FlyBuds C3

Priced at $39.99, the FlyBuds C3 are true wireless earbuds that weigh just 4 grams each and incorporate hybrid ANC, six microphones with AI-assisted noise reduction for calls, Bluetooth 6.0, app-based EQ controls, and an IP55 rating for resistance to sweat, dust, and splashes. Battery life is rated at up to 8 hours from the earbuds and 35 hours total with the charging case when ANC is switched off.

TRIBIT is positioning the FlyBuds C3 as an everyday pair of earbuds for commuting, workouts, calls, and listening around the house. Their 4-gram weight should help with longer listening sessions, while the IP55 rating makes them better suited to workouts and outdoor use than earbuds without comparable protection.

FlyBuds C3 Feature Round-Up

Hybrid ANC: The FlyBuds C3 incorporate hybrid active noise cancellation rated to reduce external noise by up to 45 dB. TRIBIT positions the feature for reducing common distractions during commuting, travel, and everyday listening. The earbuds also include a transparency mode for situations where hearing your surroundings is more important than shutting them out.

Lightweight Design: Each earbud weighs just 4 grams, which should help with comfort during longer listening sessions. TRIBIT includes three sizes of ear tips to provide a more secure fit for commuting, workouts, and extended use.

IP55 Rating: The FlyBuds C3 carry an IP55 rating for protection against sweat, splashes, and light rain, making them suitable for workouts and everyday outdoor use. TRIBIT also says the antibacterial ear tips achieved 99.9% antibacterial effectiveness in Intertek testing, with no bacteria detected after 28 days.

Calling: The FlyBuds C3 use six microphones with AI-assisted noise reduction to help isolate the user’s voice from surrounding noise during calls. TRIBIT positions the system for use in cafés, offices, and other noisy environments, while hands-free calling and automatic reconnection after initial pairing are designed to make everyday use more convenient.

Battery: The FlyBuds C3 are rated for up to 8 hours of playback on a single charge with ANC switched off, with the charging case extending total listening time to 35 hours. TRIBIT lists up to 22 hours of total playback with ANC enabled in its published specifications, although actual battery life will vary with volume, ANC use, and other settings.

Gaming: A low-latency Game Mode reduces audio delay to a claimed 55 ms, helping keep sound better synchronized with on-screen action. The mode can be enabled through the TRIBIT app.

Bluetooth: The FlyBuds C3 incorporates Bluetooth 6.0 that also provides multipoint connection support. Multipoint enables users to use the FlyBuds C3 to switch smoothly between two devices, laptop to phone and back, without re-pairing.

Sound and Control: Sound settings and additional controls are available through the TRIBIT app (Android, iOS). The app includes 10 preset EQ modes, a customizable EQ, and TRIBIT’s XBass processing for additional low-frequency emphasis. Users can also choose between five manual ANC levels, three noise-control modes, and three ANC scenes to tailor the amount of outside sound they want to hear.

TRIBIT Flybuds C3 Specifications

The Bottom Line 

The wireless earbud market is so overcrowded that picking a first pair can feel like choosing toothpaste from an entire supermarket aisle. At $39.99, the TRIBIT FlyBuds C3 make that decision somewhat easier by concentrating on features that matter for everyday use rather than pretending to be inexpensive audiophile earbuds.

What stands out is the combination. You get hybrid ANC rated for up to 45 dB of noise reduction, Bluetooth 6.0 with multipoint connectivity, six microphones with AI-assisted noise reduction for calls, app-based EQ, IP55 protection, and earbuds that weigh just 4 grams each. TRIBIT also rates battery life at up to 35 hours with the charging case and ANC switched off. That is a fairly complete package for $40.

There are compromises. TRIBIT does not list support for higher-bitrate Bluetooth codecs such as LDAC or aptX, and there is no advertised spatial audio support. Those omissions probably will not matter to someone looking for inexpensive earbuds for commuting, workouts, calls, or Spotify on the train, but listeners more interested in higher-resolution wireless playback have alternatives.

The SOUNDPEATS Air6 HS, which also sells for $39.99 and adds LDAC and spatial audio, Bluetooth 6.0 multipoint connectivity, and up to 45 hours of total battery life. However, it semi-in-ear design does not provide active noise cancellation.

Spend roughly twice as much for the SOUNDPEATS Air5 Pro+ that’s now on sale for expanded codec support with adaptive ANC, LDAC, aptX Adaptive, aptX Lossless, and LC3.

That leaves the FlyBuds C3 in a sensible position. They are not trying to turn $40 earbuds into a replacement for premium Sony, Bose, or Sennheiser models. They are aimed at someone who wants ANC, multipoint connectivity, decent battery life, workout-friendly protection, and enough app control to tailor the sound without spending much more than dinner for two at Five Guys. At this price, losing them will probably hurt your pride more than your credit card.

Where to Buy:

Related Reading:

Chrome and Firefox can both use proxies, but they expose control differently. Chrome normally starts from the operating system’s proxy configuration and can be changed by policy, extensions, PAC rules, or explicit overrides, while Firefox gives you a visible browser-level choice between system, manual, automatic, PAC, and no-proxy modes.

Chrome vs Firefox Proxy Settings at a Glance

The useful comparison is not simply “system proxy versus browser proxy.” Instead, compare where each browser gets its proxy configuration, how easily it can replace the operating-system setting, and which other layers can change the route for a particular request.

Chrome vs Firefox proxy behavior

Neither browser has a universally better proxy model. Chrome fits naturally into environments where the browser should inherit platform or centrally managed network settings, while Firefox makes browser-specific proxy control easier to see and change.

How Chrome Decides Which Proxy to Use

Chrome performs proxy resolution at the URL level. For each requested URL, the browser decides whether to connect through one or more proxy servers or directly to the destination.

Chromium’s current Chrome proxy documentation describes three major proxy-resolution approaches: manual proxy rules, a proxy auto-configuration (PAC) script, and automatic discovery through Web Proxy Auto-Discovery (WPAD).

Manual rules map requests to proxy endpoints and can define destinations that should bypass those proxies. PAC evaluates routing logic for individual URLs. Automatic discovery attempts to locate PAC configuration from the network.

The operating system is therefore Chrome’s normal starting point, not its only possible source of proxy behavior. Chrome can also receive effective proxy settings from command-line options, managed policy, extensions, or PAC configuration.

Chrome can route individual requests directly

Chromium treats DIRECT as a valid proxy-resolution result. A request that receives this result is sent directly to the destination rather than to a proxy.

For example, a PAC script can send an internal application through a corporate proxy while returning DIRECT for another website. Seeing both routes during one Chrome session does not necessarily indicate a configuration failure.

How Firefox Decides Which Proxy to Use

Firefox exposes the configuration source more directly. Instead of relying only on the operating system’s network controls, Firefox provides its own selector for deciding how connections should be proxied.

Mozilla’s current Firefox connection settings documentation provides these modes:

• No proxy, which tells Firefox not to use a proxy from this connection setting.
• Auto-detect proxy settings for this network, which attempts automatic discovery.
• Use system proxy settings, which tells Firefox to use the operating system’s proxy configuration.
• Manual proxy configuration, which lets Firefox use browser-specific proxy endpoints.
• Automatic proxy configuration URL, which loads routing rules from a PAC file.

These are informational configuration modes, not ranked choices. The correct mode depends on whether Firefox should inherit the computer’s network policy or use browser-specific behavior.

Firefox also exposes No Proxy For, which allows selected hostnames or IP addresses to bypass the configured proxy.

The Biggest Difference: Inheritance vs Explicit Browser Control

The practical difference is where that control is surfaced.

Chrome normally begins with platform network settings. Its proxy engine supports manual mappings, PAC, bypass rules, several proxy schemes, extension control, command-line configuration, and policy, but many of those controls live outside an ordinary Chrome settings screen.

Firefox makes the decision explicit inside the browser. It can inherit the same system proxy Chrome uses, or deliberately switch to no proxy, a separate manual endpoint, automatic discovery, or its own PAC configuration.

The broader difference between system proxy and browser-specific proxy behavior is therefore about inheritance and configuration scope, not a simple rule that one browser “has a proxy” and the other does not.

A more accurate shorthand is:

Chrome normally inherits platform proxy configuration unless another supported layer changes it; Firefox lets you explicitly choose whether to inherit or replace that configuration.

PAC Files Behave Differently From a Fixed Proxy

A proxy auto-configuration (PAC) file contains routing logic instead of one fixed proxy address. The browser evaluates that logic for requested destinations and can receive a proxy endpoint or a direct-connection result.

Chromium documents PAC as one of its standard proxy-resolution methods, while Firefox exposes an Automatic proxy configuration URL mode in its connection settings.

This means a browser using PAC cannot always be described accurately as simply “proxied” or “not proxied.” The route can change from one destination to another.

The mechanics of proxy auto-configuration explain why two requests from the same browser can follow different routes without any setting being changed between them.

Proxy Bypass Rules Can Make the Browsers Look Inconsistent

A bypass rule tells the browser or networking layer to connect directly to selected destinations even though a proxy is otherwise configured.

Firefox provides No Proxy For. Chromium supports explicit proxy bypass rules and also applies implicit bypass behavior for certain local destinations.

For example, Chromium documents implicit bypass behavior for loopback destinations such as local addresses. A development service running on the same machine can therefore connect directly while external websites use the configured proxy.

This behavior can look inconsistent only because the exception is not obvious until you inspect the effective routing rules.

SOCKS and DNS: A Technical Difference That Matters

SOCKS is a transport-level proxy protocol rather than an HTTP-specific proxy. Both Chrome and Firefox support SOCKS, but name resolution is an important difference.

Chromium’s current documentation states that with a SOCKSv5 proxy, Chrome performs target-host name resolution on the proxy side. Chrome does not provide an equivalent switch for moving SOCKSv5 target-name resolution back to the client.

Firefox exposes configurable behavior here. Mozilla’s current Firefox Proxy policy reference includes UseProxyForDNS for SOCKS v5, along with SOCKS version and proxy endpoint controls.

The distinction matters when local DNS and proxy-side DNS would resolve a hostname differently, such as an internal hostname that exists only from one side of the proxy connection.

The deeper interaction between SOCKS5 proxy DNS and local name resolution depends on the proxy protocol and configuration rather than browser branding alone.

Extensions and Enterprise Policies Can Override Expectations

Browser behavior can also come from management or extension layers rather than the settings visible at first glance.

Chrome extensions and policy

Chrome provides a dedicated proxy API for extensions. That API can use direct, system, automatic-detection, PAC, or fixed-server modes, and Chrome can report which layer currently controls the setting.

Managed Chrome environments can also impose proxy configuration through policy. As a result, an organization’s Chrome installation may behave differently from an unmanaged browser even on the same operating system.

Firefox extensions and policy

Mozilla notes that Firefox’s Connection Settings interface can show extensions that control how the browser connects to the internet.

Firefox’s enterprise Proxy policy can also define system, manual, auto-detect, or PAC modes and control HTTP, SSL, SOCKS, passthrough, SOCKS version, and proxy-DNS behavior.

If Chrome or Firefox behaves differently from the visible operating-system proxy setting, extensions and managed policy therefore belong in the diagnostic path rather than being treated as rare exceptions.

If you need the actual platform-specific setup paths rather than the diagnostic model, you can configure a proxy on Windows, macOS and Firefox using the relevant system and browser controls.

Which Browser Gives You the Right Proxy Scope?

Firefox is useful when one browser needs proxy behavior that differs from the operating system. Its visible connection selector makes system inheritance, manual proxying, PAC, automatic detection, and no-proxy behavior easy to distinguish.

Chrome fits naturally when the browser should follow operating-system or centrally managed network policy. That does not mean Chrome lacks browser-specific proxy capability: Chromium supports detailed routing rules, PAC, extensions, command-line configuration, and managed policy, but many of those controls are supplied outside an ordinary Chrome settings screen.

Neither approach is universally superior. The appropriate model depends on whether you need explicit browser-specific control or consistent inheritance from device or organization network settings.

Bottom Line

Chrome and Firefox differ mainly in how proxy control is surfaced, not in whether they can use proxies. Chrome normally begins with platform settings and can be changed by several configuration layers, while Firefox lets you explicitly choose whether to inherit those settings or replace them with browser-specific behavior.

When the two browsers take different routes, check the effective configuration source, PAC decisions, bypass rules, SOCKS behavior, extensions, and managed policy before assuming that one browser is ignoring the proxy.

Big quote: Tom Marieb has a visceral reaction when he sees an iPhone owner put on a screen protector. “Personally, when I see someone put a screen protector on their iPhone, it makes my skin crawl, because we work so hard to make beautiful front screens,” he told TechRadar. The remark from Apple’s new vice president of hardware engineering reflects the company’s confidence in Ceramic Shield 2, its latest display material.

Apple introduced the material with the iPhone 17 lineup and also uses it on the new iPhone 18 Pro and the outer screen of the new iPhone Duo foldable.

Marieb said Apple set out to solve a familiar problem for smartphone owners: screens that pick up scratches through normal use. But scratch resistance alone wasn’t the whole goal; the company also wanted the coating to stay durable as the device aged, since the two properties tend to work against each other in most materials.

Apple said Ceramic Shield 2 provides three times the scratch resistance of the previous generation. The company’s position is that its display technology is strong enough that users should be able to enjoy the appearance of the front glass without immediately covering it with another layer.

Not everyone finds that argument persuasive, and the reaction to Marieb’s comments online suggests the disagreement isn’t really about how tough Ceramic Shield 2 is. For a lot of iPhone owners, a protector is less about preventing scratches on great glass and more about not paying for a screen repair at all: out-of-warranty replacements can run into the hundreds of dollars, so a cheap, disposable layer functions as insurance regardless of how durable the glass underneath happens to be.

Others use protectors for reasons that have nothing to do with scratch resistance in the first place, like privacy filtering or extra glare reduction, features no amount of Ceramic Shield toughness would replace.

That same focus on long-term durability extends to the iPhone Duo. The foldable introduces an inner display and hinge system that Apple had to design around issues that don’t affect standard slab-style phones.

Marieb said the company spent significant time refining the hinge so that it feels secure in every position, including open, closed, and partially folded. Apple wanted the mechanism to close with the solid feel of a high-end car door, rather than feeling loose or “floppy.”

“A lot of blood, sweat, and tears went into that,” Marieb said. The Duo’s inner screen has a matte finish intended to make any changes around the fold less noticeable than they’d be on a glossy display. Marieb said Apple should be judged on how well that claim holds up over time.

“Hold us accountable to that,” he said.

Ceramic Shield 2 and the Duo’s hinge represent two sides of the same durability push: one limits scratches on Apple’s conventional iPhones, the other addresses the mechanical and display challenges unique to a foldable design.

Anthropic has a wet biology lab in the Bay Area where it can use its AI models to run physical experiments, it has confirmed to TechCrunch.

AI leaders have been promising that AI is the key to curing human disease. Dario Amodei opined just last week: “I believe that AI could cure most major diseases in the next 5–10 years.” To do that, an LLM would have to have methods to test its theories in real life.

“We believe that to do biology, the final test is still, and will be for a while, in real lab work,” Anthropic’s head of life sciences, Eric Kauderer-Abrams, told Reuters. “We absolutely are doing that today.” He added that the lab operates like most biotech labs: Anthropic conducts some research there while also working with external partners.

This news probably shouldn’t be shocking. Anthropic bought Coefficient Bio, a stealth AI biotech, in April.

While Anthropic declined to give specifics on what the wet lab is working on, it did say the main focus was fundamental biology, not drug discovery.

Anthropic doesn’t want to give the appearance of competing with the pharma industry, where it has numerous major customers and partners (e.g., it just announced a deal to work with Novo Nordisk on joint drug discovery). Anthropic has already faced backlash for launching products perceived to compete with those of its customers.

To that end, Anthropic also launched a Life Sciences Verification Program this week, to give vetted bio researchers access to its most powerful models. It has also published recent reports on some of the research it’s doing to support drug discovery. This includes one report on accelerating protein design and one on uplifting bimolecular modeling.

But the world is still reeling from the resignation of Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, who warned that “the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.” Anthropic’s own alignment lead gave the odds at greater than 10% that AI could exterminate humanity within the next decade.

The fervor has grown so intense that CEO Dario Amodei published a post last weekend calling on the industry to slow down and institute self-regulation. He has repeatedly called bioterrorism one of AI’s biggest risks.

The juxtaposition of these dire warnings and the wet lab has not gone unnoticed in the tech industry. As investor and AI coding startup founder Chamath Palihapitiya posted on X, somewhat tongue in cheek: “The group behind such hits as: ‘We’re All Going To Die’ and ‘Regulate Me Now’ are building a wet lab in SF. I do not recommend this.”

As AI becomes an ever-present in many businesses, most will now be looking to determine not just when AI will genuinely make a difference – as opposed to when it might just add cost and complexity.

So does every business process really need AI, or should companies be focusing on specific needs which will help them the most?

Google’s Gemini assistant is now built directly into a smartwatch, and it has just gotten £109 cheaper.

The Google Pixel Watch 4 (41mm) has dropped to £240 at Amazon, down from its usual £349 asking price, which gives you a straightforward saving of 31% off the smartwatch’s original cost.