As companies stay private longer, VC firms, like Spark, Gigafund, and Greenoaks, are investing in companies later on and buying stakes without seeking influence (Wall Street Journal)
https://www.wsj.com/finance/venture-capita
A look at Apple's ongoing strategy to repurpose "binned" chips for cheaper devices; sources: Apple placed new A18 Pro orders for MacBook Neo amid its popularity (Wall Street Journal)
https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-is-making-h…
#TIL that the #FAT #filesystem doesn't really store anywhere whether it's #FAT12, #FAT16 and #FAT32. What you're supposed to do is to look at the number of clusters, and determine which range it falls into. More specifically, you're supposed to look at the partition size and divide it by the number of sectors per cluster (which is stored in consistent position irrespective of FAT type).
The obvious implication of that is that the volume sizes are limited by possible cluster size ranges. There's some overlap here, though: you get more clusters (and therefore use a "longer" FAT) by using a smaller cluster size, or fewer clusters by using a larger cluster size.
https://elm-chan.org/docs/fat_e.html#fat_determination
However, there's a curious trick: there's a 16-bit "FAT size" field that indicates how many sectors are used for FAT on FAT12/FAT16 filesystems. On FAT32 this field is zero (there is a separate field for 32-bit FAT size there), and apparently some tools recognize the filesystem as FAT32 in that case, irrespective of number of clusters. This is what mkfs.vfat does when you force FAT32 on a small block device.
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/1590cf0329716306e948a8fc29f1d3ee87d3989f/fs/fat/inode.c#L1675-L1680
Why did I learn all this? Because a friend tried to make a very small EFI partition and was surprised it didn't work. I was compelled to get to a bottom of this!
M6 wird übersprungen: MacBook Ultra mit älteren Chips?
Apples neues MacBook-Topmodell mit OLED-Touchscreen könnte beim älteren M5-Chip bleiben. Der Grund ist Apples allgemeine SoC-Strategie.
https://www.
🔊 #NowPlaying on #BBCRadio3:
#SaturdayMorning
- Conductor Ryan Wigglesworth on Aldeburgh Festival
Tom Service introduces the best classical music and the latest stories from the arts world. Tom meets conductor Ryan Wigglesworth to chat about this year's Aldeburgh Festival.
Relisten now 👇
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002x5vx
Teile des #Malerweges verlaufen durch dichten Wald oder #Schluchten. Selbst bei 30 Grad ist es dort angenehm kühl. Es ist dennoch ratsam, an heißen Tagen zeitig mit der Tour zu starten.
#Wanderempfehlungen
Ok, I was thinking I didn’t have anything for this, but then I was reminded by a couple of posts that folks have made that my focus on maintaining the house climate is extremely “Dad” energy 😂, making sure windows are closed or that we start cooling early in the day so we have thermal inertia.
https://
Should Demand Models Incorporate Competitor Prices? Oblivious Learning and Algorithmic Collusion
Yuhang Wu, Assaf Zeevi
https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05363 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.05363 https://arxiv.org/html/2606.05363
arXiv:2606.05363v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: On a platform with many sellers, should a pricing algorithm explicitly model competitors' prices when learning demand? Classical learning arguments suggest an affirmative answer: ignoring competitors induces model misspecification and inefficiency. In contrast, recent work on algorithmic collusion suggests that strategic obliviousness -- deliberately ignoring competitor prices -- may facilitate collusive outcomes and improve profits. We study this modeling choice in a stylized competitive market with unknown noisy demand, in which multiple sellers repeatedly set prices and estimate demand via iterated least squares, and either incorporate competitors' prices into their demand models (informed) or ignore them (oblivious). We first show that, relative to a monopolist, an oblivious seller in a competitive market must explore more aggressively to compensate for the loss of dynamic competitor information. Building on this insight, we characterize market dynamics when all sellers are oblivious and show that prices converge to the competitive outcome under sufficient exploration, while a continuum of pseudo-equilibria arises when exploration decays. Analyzing the resulting price trajectories, we uncover an excursion phenomenon that gives rise to transient collusive patterns that dissipate as learning progresses. In markets with both oblivious and informed sellers, the informed strictly out-earn the oblivious. Read as a strategy game, the modeling choice has a unique Nash equilibrium: the all-informed market, in which prices converge to the competitive outcome efficiently. Overall, our results indicate that collusive patterns are not robust and are not sustained by oblivious modeling; therefore, incorporating competitor information, together with sufficient price exploration, remains a reliable strategy for sellers in competitive markets.
toXiv_bot_toot
A look at the scourge of smartphone thefts in London, as victims describe receiving texts threatening them into unlinking Apple IDs from stolen iPhones (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/23/world/e