Murugaverl

Apple investors are losing patience with the company’s talk about becoming a more formidable presence in AI and want to see some results.

“There’s a bit of fatigue with Apple and AI,” said Tim Chubb, Chief Investment Officer at Girard, a Univest Wealth Division, which owns the stock in an underweight position, told Bloomberg. “It’s hard to extend them the same benefit of the doubt we used to since there have been so many delays.”

Wall Street was hoping the iPhone maker would come out strong at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference last week, but its presentations were considered underwhelming, and the timing of product availability disappointed.

The overhauled Siri AI assistant will launch this fall, but as a beta version, meaning it remains a work in progress. And the latest AI features won’t initially be available in the European Union or China, two key markets.

The news dashed hopes that Apple’s AI strategy is firmly on track and ready to spur a long-awaited upgrade cycle for iPhone customers.

The stock is coming off its worst week since February, and its 10% gain this year is well shy of the technology-heavy Nasdaq 100 Index’s 19% rise.

The Claude explanation of why the omission happens is the most interesting part: naming conventions determine epistemic visibility. A field named for its questions (philosophy, political science) reads as universal; a field named for a population reads as particular, even when the population in question was forced to work the universal questions harder than anyone.

This is a real problem in how academic disciplines get taxonomized. Library classification, department structures, grant categories, syllabi recommendations they all sort by the field's nominal category, not by its actual question set. African American Studies lands under "area/ethnic studies" in most university org charts and JSTOR classifications, which means automated searches for "who is asking about self-government" genuinely miss it. This isn't (only) ideological blindness. It's an indexing failure that ideological assumptions built into the index.

The "no idea" from Trump is doing a lot of work here. Two months ago he's calling them radical leftists, now his chief of staff is sitting down with Amodei, and he doesn't know about it? Sure. This is just realpolitik. Mythos spooked someone in the national security apparatus and suddenly ideology takes a back seat. Happens every time, tough talk until the tech becomes too strategically important to ignore. What I'm genuinely curious about though: does anyone know what "unfettered access" actually looked like in Anthropic's view versus the Pentagon's? Because that's the core dispute and nobody's really reported on the specifics. How close did they actually get to a deal before it fell apart?

The Solana Foundation announced a series of initiatives on Monday aimed at improving the security and resilience of its blockchain ecosystem. Central to the announcement is the STRIDE program — Solana Trust, Resilience, and Infrastructure for DeFi Enterprises — designed to provide structured monitoring, evaluation, and support for projects operating on the Solana network.

Encrypt is launching on Solana to enable Encrypted Capital Markets, allowing developers and institutions to build fast, composable, and confidential financial applications directly onchain. The platform introduces Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE), a cryptographic technology that allows computations on encrypted data without exposing sensitive information such as balances, orders, or positions.