Strands is the NYT’s latest word game after the likes of Wordle, Spelling Bee and Connections – and it’s great fun. It can be difficult, though, so read on for my Strands hints.

Want more word-based fun? Then check out my NYT Connections today and Quordle today pages for hints and answers for those games, and Marc’s Wordle today page for the original viral word game.

It doesn’t sound like Crimson Desert, the recently released prequel to Black Desert Online, will support Intel Arc GPUs anytime soon, if at all. On the game’s FAQ page, its developer Pearl Abyss advised players expecting Arc support to apply for a refund. “If you purchased the game expecting Intel Arc support, please refer to the refund policy of the platform where the game was purchased for available options,” the company wrote. Apparently, though, it’s not from lack of guidance from Intel. The chipmaker told Wccftech that it reached out to Pearl Abyss “many times” over the past several years.

The Intel spokesperson said that the company has tried to help the developer “test, validate, and optimize support for Intel graphics” for years. Intel also tried to provide the developer “early hardware, drivers, and engineering resources” across several generations of GPUs, “including Alchemist, Battlemage, Meteor Lake, and Lunar Lake.” The chipmaker said it’s “hugely disappointed that players using Intel graphics hardware” can’t play the game, but that it remains “ready to assist Pearl Abyss” however it can. It also advised players to reach out directly to the developer for “details on the choice not to enable Intel support at launch.”

Pearl Abyss, of course, doesn’t have the obligation to tweak the game so that it runs on PCs with Intel Arc GPUs. The good news is that since the title came out just a few days ago, it will still be easy to get a refund. Steam, where Crimson Desert is now one of the top-selling games, issues refunds within two weeks of purchase.

Samsung’s decision to quietly pull the plug on its most futuristic foldable might sound like a step backwards, but I don’t think it is. 

The Galaxy Z TriFold has always been less a mainstream gadget and more a very expensive proof of concept – a flashy way for Samsung to show off what its foldable tech can do. That’s why the news that Samsung is reportedly winding down production, just months after launch, shouldn’t be seen purely as a loss. 

Yes, it’s frustrating for fans who’ve no doubt been refreshing product pages only to watch restocks vanish within minutes, but with skyrocketing component prices, supply chain chaos and a mobile division under pressure to justify every penny it spends, the TriFold was always going to be first on the chopping block.

In reality, shelving the TriFold now could be exactly what Samsung needs: a chance to refocus on devices that more people can actually buy, that developers will actually support, and that move foldables forward in ways that matter – like the rumoured ‘Wide Fold’ and the next-gen Z Fold. 

Losing the snazzy TriFold might sting right now, but it could make Samsung’s foldable future all the stronger for it.

Advertisement

Samsung is reportedly winding down production of the Galaxy Z TriFold

A new report from South Korean publication Donga claimed this week that Samsung is preparing to wind down sales of the Galaxy Z TriFold, just months after its initial launch – a surprising move considering how quickly it sells out whenever stock does drop.

Per the report, Samsung is expected to release a final batch of TriFolds in its home region of South Korea this week, after which, sales could come to an end. Now it’s worth noting that the report is explicitly about sales in South Korea, with no word on whether the same pattern will play out in regions like the US – but it seems increasingly likely.

Advertisement

After all, Samsung has always been transparent about the TriFold and how it wasn’t a mass-market product, rather a showcase of what the company’s foldable tech is truly capable of. 

That explains not only the incredibly high $2,899 price tag in the States, but also comments from those who have used it on build quality not quite matching that of the comparatively cheaper, mass-produced Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7. 

While that news will be disappointing for those still waiting to get their hands on the tri-folding 10-inch smartphone, the decision to stop sales isn’t all that surprising if you’ve been keeping an eye on Samsung more broadly recently. 

Advertisement

Not a surprise given soaring costs

A separate report that also surfaced this week, this time from the South Korean outlet FNNews, claims that despite a record number of Galaxy S26 range pre-orders, the Device eXperience (DX) division is essentially in crisis mode. That includes not only Samsung’s smartphones, but also wearables, smart TVs and home appliances. 

Advertisement

Of course, just like every other tech issue surfacing in 2026, it all seems to be down to the rapidly rising costs of components. The all-important RAM needed to power most tech has surged in the past nine months or so, with some estimates putting the rise as high as 850%, as AI data centres hoover up as much RAM as possible. 

There’s also the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which has reportedly increased logistics costs. 

A Samsung spokesperson who spoke to FNNews explained that “with raw material costs under extreme pressure from rising semiconductor prices, and logistics costs increasing on top of that, we ultimately had no choice but to put the MX division under emergency management.”

With the DX division under such tight constraints, it makes sense for Samsung to stop production of the TriFold – it’s expensive and, no doubt, more difficult to manufacture than the flip- and book-style foldables the company has cranked out over the past few years – and double down on smartphones that it knows will sell well.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Samsung can now focus on more consumer-ready foldable tech – like the ‘Wide Fold’

It might sound like it’s all doom and gloom over at Samsung, but honestly, it’s probably for the best. Tighter purse strings should force Samsung to double down on its core products – both foldable and non-foldable – rather than putting increasingly limited resources into niche, hyper-expensive products like the TriFold that aren’t ready for prime time just yet. 

That’s more important than usual right now, with Samsung rumoured to be working on not one but two book-style foldables for mass consumer release later this year. 

The most recent reports claim that, in addition to a successor to the Galaxy Z Fold 7 that’s expected to offer a similarly slimline design and a boxy inner aspect ratio, the company is working on a second foldable, unofficially dubbed the ‘Z Wide Fold’. 

The key difference, as the unofficial moniker suggests, is the shape of the foldable. While Samsung’s regular Z Fold offers a thin and narrow aspect ratio, even with big improvements on this front with the Fold 7, and an almost perfectly 1:1 inner display, the ‘Wide’ Fold is said to be more passport-shaped.

Advertisement

Advertisement

That’s not a new idea – it was used by the original Oppo Find N, as well as Google’s first-gen Pixel Fold – but it has fallen out of trend in recent times. 

Samsung looks to revive it, and the foldable experience will be all the better for it; I’ve long been a fan of the passport-shaped foldable, not only because of the shorter, wider outer panel, but also because the inner screen more closely resembles a regular 4:3 tablet-sized screen. 

That should hopefully put an end to apps that, even after all this time, still can’t quite handle the boxy aspect ratio of foldables. With an aspect ratio closer to a tablet or even a smartphone in horizontal orientation, it becomes almost trivial to support, with no major rejigging of the UI required.  

If there were a choice between Samsung putting effort into its extremely expensive, not-quite-polished TriFold or the Wide Fold, especially under the new budget constraints, I know which I’d go for. 

Advertisement

The technology is being piloted in 40 secondary schools and is expected to impact 20,000 students from September.

Psychotherapist, broadcaster and former professional footballer Richie Sadlier has launched Let’s Talk SPHE (social personal and health education), which is reportedly Ireland’s first digital solution aligned with the updated SPHE curriculum. 

By 2027, SPHE will be a mandatory subject for fifth and sixth year students. Figures from the Department of Education suggest that only 18pc of Ireland’s more than 700 secondary schools previously timetabled SPHE in fifth year. 

Designed to support schools using the reformed course, Let’s Talk SPHE is being piloted in more than 40 schools and is expected to reach roughly 20,000 students from September. Established by Sadlier, as well as guidance counsellor and SPHE teacher Pam O’Leary, the subscription-based teaching solution provides structured SPHE lessons, multimedia learning and teacher guidance.

Commenting on the launch, Sadlier said: “When you introduce a requirement for 60 hours of structured delivery in every secondary school, that’s a significant shift for the system. It’s not a short-term initiative. By 2027, every post-primary school will be delivering a senior cycle SPHE. The question now is how prepared schools are to deliver it.

“For a long time, most education technology focused on examinable academic subjects. What this reform does is recognise that wellbeing and relationships education are just as important. That creates a responsibility to ensure schools have the right supports in place.”

The launch comes at a time when the media, via shows such as Adolescence and Louis Theroux’s Inside the Manosphere, have put an increased focus on the importance of having complex conversations with young people. 

Sadlier has spent more than 10 years working with young people in workshops covering issues such as relationships, masculinity, consent and mental health. He also previously led an RTÉ documentary exploring Ireland’s sex education landscape. 

In late February, Educate.ie, an Irish-owned publishing company, announced the creation of a new digital learning platform for the classroom called EdPal. The aim is to reduce the administrative burden for teachers, improve clarity for parents and give students a more consistent learning experience. 

Developed specifically for post-primary and secondary school students, users will have access to interactive e-books, educational resources and tools to support lesson delivery, engagement and assessment.

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.

When Amazon first announced the Echo smart speaker and Alexa, it felt as though the future that Star Trek had promised us was finally upon us. Here was a computer we could interact with naturally, faster and more convenient than apps or traditional interfaces.

 Unsurprisingly, Amazon sold a bucket load of Echo devices, and soon expanded the range with devices to fit in everywhere. Only, it turned out that perhaps the future wasn’t really here.

Alexa speak

As noted in my column from a few weeks ago, I largely use physical controls over voice commands alongside automated routines: it’s faster to turn a light on with a button, or to have my alarm turn off and blinds open when the office door unlocks, than it is to use a voice command for either job.

A lot of that was down to how Alexa (and other voice assistants) expected commands to be phrased. While Alexa is still the best of the bunch, its required terminology gave birth to the phrase, “Alexa speak”. 

It’s that slightly unnatural way that you must phrase a command, such as, “Alexa, set the living room radiator temperature to 20°C.” That phrase doesn’t seem so bad, but it’s fraught with potential problems.

Get the order slightly wrong, and Alexa might not work; name the device you want to control incorrectly, and the command doesn’t work; or just pause while you try and think of the right words to use, and the command doesn’t work. 

Outside of voice control, Alexa is good for basic requests or for answering simple questions, but it often can’t understand more complicated requests, can’t take actions on your behalf, and you still must phrase things as though you’re talking to a computer. 

Natural conversations and context

Alexa+ promises to change that and, from what I’ve seen of it, delivers the end of Alexa speak, switching to natural language, so you can ask a question or issue a command as though you were talking to a real person. And Alexa+ remembers context and allows itself to be corrected.

At the Alexa+ UK launch event, I saw a demo where Alexa+ gave the latest Arsenal result; it knew the presenter was a fan, so it recounted the score with a positive tone.

Next, the presenter asked Alexa+ to tell someone else the Chelsea score. Alexa began retelling the loss with excitement, since the presenter hadn’t mentioned that the other person was a Chelsea fan.

A quick interruption to say that the other person was a Chelsea fan had Alexa+ start again, but with a neutral voice. There was no need to rephrase the entire question with something like, “Alexa, my friend is a Chelsea fan, tell him the latest score” or something similar.

Alexa+ understood that the change applied to the current request and adjusted its response accordingly. In addition, Alexa+ would then remember who’s a Chelsea fan for future requests.

Alexa+ is also agentic, which means it can take actions on your behalf. In the demo, Alexa+ could book a table at a restaurant using OpenTable, based on a few simple bits of information, all spoken naturally, and where the order of information was unimportant (the name of the restaurant, how many people the table was for, the date and when there was at least two hours free in the diary).

That kind of interaction seems better, easier and faster than having to search for the restaurant and do the job manually.

Not perfect, but certainly better

As part of Alexa+ launching in the UK, Amazon has fine-tuned the system to understand a wide range of British accents and to understand the way we speak. This information is also used in how Alexa+ responds. Is it perfect? No.

Particularly with responses about football, Alexa+ seemed to like using the word ‘mate’ a lot, which feels a bit false and over-friendly. I’m not sure I want Alexa+ to be my friend; I just want it to do what I want, when I want, with clear replies. I’ll have to see, once I have access to Alexa+ soon, if I can tone down its replies.

Then, there was a demonstration where Alexa+ was asked when the next match was for a football club. The result was right, but when asked to add the game to the diary, Alexa+ added it in for one hour from the start time.

Surely, if Alexa+ is so smart and understands context, it should know that a football match is 90 minutes, plus 15-minutes of halftime, plus extra time. That’s a minimum of one hour and 45 minutes, but two hours would be a safer bet.

I was told that because there was lots of background noise, Alexa+ might be struggling to work out what was said. It did get the match details right, and it did understand to add a calendar appointment, so we’ll have to see if Alexa+ can be smarter than this in real life.

Likewise, context can be hard to understand. When asked, on a Fire TV device, who won the Best Actress Oscar, Alexa+ correctly replied that it was Jessie Buckley for Hamnet. Next, what asked, “Can we watch it?”, I thought that would mean that Alexa+ would find a clip of the Oscar ceremony and show that. Instead, Alexa+ started to stream Hamnet from Prime Video (currently £15.99 to rent or £19.99 to buy).

Either response is correct, but does Alexa+ have a bias towards trying to sell you things, or is it just picking one option because that’s what it thinks is the right one? It’s hard to tell, as even humans can struggle with context and ambiguity.

Too many clichés?

Alexa+ also seemed to like its clichés and longer responses. When asked to recommend some coffee machines (all on Amazon, of course), it described one’s price as something that “won’t break the bank”. 

Training any AI means pulling data in from lots of resources, but the issue is that lots of people use clichés, and there’s a horrible chance that any system will reinforce that behaviour.

When I used to work on a print title, our sub editor banned all clichés and had a list of banned phrases, opting for brevity, to deliver clarity. One example was ‘value for money’, as what else would something be value for? Value for cheese? Value for magic beans? 

Likewise, there’s no ‘make use of’. It’s just use. You don’t say, make drive of my car, do you?

Nor should you overexplain and add filler words. It’s quite common to see reviews that say something like, “the best phone on the market”. What market? Portobello Road? Are you Del Boy? Are there better phones not on the market, but in shops? It’s word slop.

Commonly, people will use adjectives over a strong verb. As Stephen King explained in On Writing, you shouldn’t use “angrily closed the door” and should write “slammed the door”. 

Good writing and good speech are noticeable. Lots of people may use too many words when writing or speaking, or fall back on clichés, but I want Alexa+ to be better, clearer, and more direct.

Let’s see whether that’s the case, and if it’s not, whether Alex+ can be fine-tuned not to spout clichés and if it can be made less Verbose. The original Alexa system had a Brief Mode, although this would replace a voice response with a short chime for simple request, such as asking Alexa to turn a light on. That’s too far, but a brief mode that makes Alexa+ less chatty and more to the point would be good.

Improvements will come

While there are things that I don’t like, my overall impression from seeing Alexa+ in live demonstrations is that the voice assistant is a big improvement over the old. Simply being able to talk naturally and have Alexa+ understand is a big improvement, while the ability to tweak a response partway through makes it all feel a lot more natural. As I get to try it out over the coming weeks, I’ll see if this is the future of voice communication. I do hope so.

Go big or go home. The Instax Wide’s larger image has always made it the Instax of choice for photographers. Ingenious enthusiasts even figured out how to mod older models (the Wide 300) with custom lenses for even better quality images. The Instax Wide 400 is similar in most ways to the 300 that preceded it. It uses the same lens and the same full auto exposure system. If you want full exposure control, this is not the Instax for you. That said, I love this format and hence this camera.

It’s a rather chunky thing. The film is pretty good sized, so the camera is as well, but for me that just makes it easier to hold than some of the others here. There’s a nice big grip, which holds the 4 AA batteries, enough to shoot 100 images according to Fujifilm’s specs. Design-wise, the single color look is reminiscent of the SQ1 (see above), spare and simple. The 95mm f/14 lens is made of two elements (both plastic) and gives you the equivalent of a 35mm focal length on a full frame camera. Fujifilm did add a new close focus option to go with the 10 foot to infinity focus. I wish Fuji had reversed the order, as I sometimes forgot to turn the lens of the second click and ended up with out-of-focus images. Once you get used to it, though, it’s fine.

There’s not a lot to this camera, and that’s part of its appeal. The lens produces decent images, and large format makes it more fun to share with friends. I do wish there were a way to manually control … something, anything, as that would open up some more possibilities, but if you like this format this is the best camera to get.

Other Instax Wide Cameras:

Lomography Lomo’Instant Wide for $200: If you want to spend a bit more, Lomography’s Instant Wide shoots Instax Wide film and has some extra lenses you can add on. It shoots in both full auto and offers a programmatic shutter mode. I haven’t tested this one yet, so I can’t speak to the image quality, but the built-in 90mm Lens is roughly the same field of view.

Fujifilm Wide Evo for $409: At first glance the Wide Evo looks like a clone of our top pick, the Mini Evo, but for the wider format Instax film. Would that it were so. There are some similarities. You get the filter effects, a couple of new lens filters, and the “intensity” ring, which allows you to dial in how strong the various effects are. The lens can switch between wide angle (16-mm full-frame equivalent) and standard (28-mm full-frame equivalent), and there’s dials for controlling all the effects. The shutter button is an annoying lever-style shutter, where you flip down, rather than a button you press. This head-scratching design decision is, um, not good. It’s awkward and mars the experience of shooting in irredeemable ways in my experience. Combine that with a nasty shutter lag (even by Instax standards) and the price tag, and this one is hard to recommend. If you want a printer, go for the Instax Wide. If you want a camera, either the Wide 400 or the Lomography Lomo’Instant Wide are better deals and better cameras.