Linked List: September 12, 2026

Saturday, 12 September 2026

John Brayton:

Unread 5.0 is available now from the App Store. This update adds these improvements and more:

Improvements around hero images, article list thumbnails, and widget thumbnails

Syncing with FreshRSS and Miniflux

The ability to quickly mark old articles read

I’m a NetNewsWire man personally, but I’ve long admired Unread as a different, very good take on a feed reader. Just a gorgeous app. One of the very best things about RSS is that feed readers take such different shapes and approaches.

Post Peek – Litterbox-Inspired Tweet Viewing Extension for Chrome ★

Tim VanBenschoten:

Post Peek is an independent, open-source project inspired by Litterbox, the Safari extension by Zhenyi Tan (And a Dinosaur).

Where Are the AI-Generated Killer Apps? ★

Paul Ford, writing for The New York Times (gift link):

For a while, I must admit, it looked as if software developer roles like mine were done for. How could we fight against tireless robots? But our industry is slowly realizing that making truly cutting-edge software still requires humans to think and work together, to maximize their skill sets and to practice their respective crafts. A.I. can write very good software, but it also makes it easy to do someone else’s job badly, which is part of why all those projects fail. Now that everyone can code, it’s become clearer why many shouldn’t.

Ford, linking to his own column on Bluesky:

I just want one killer app before we get a killer robot.

Yours Truly on Off Protocol With Jim Ray ★

My old friend Jim Ray now runs developer relations at Bluesky, and part of that gig is hosting a podcast, Off Protocol (“a show about building a better Internet”). I was delighted to appear as his latest guest. I generally don’t like talking about my career, but I did enjoy talking about it with Jim. He has that effect on people.

T-Mobile Is Charging $5/Month for iPhone Handoff ★

T-Mobile, in their iPhone 18 Pro / iPhone Duo press release:

Plus, T‑Mobile is one of the first to support Apple’s new iPhone Handoff feature, where customers with two compatible iPhone models can use their T‑Mobile number across both devices and choose which phone is active at any given time. The secondary iPhone works seamlessly, including essential T‑Mobile services like calls, texts, data, mobile hotspot, Scam Shield and T-Satellite on eligible plans, allowing customers to get the most from two devices without clunky handoffs or the hassle of managing another number. iPhone Handoff is available on any iPhone with iOS 27 via iPhone settings and ready to use from day one on the new iPhone 18 Pro lineup and iPhone Duo. T‑Mobile is introducing the feature at $5/month.

This seems like a ridiculous thing to charge for. It’s not adding a separate device to your plan, like adding a cellular iPad or even an Apple Watch. It’s just switching your active eSIM between two iPhones. You can do this for free, now, on any carrier via Settings → Cellular — but it takes a bunch of taps, confirmation on both iPhones, and a few minutes for the carrier to register the eSIM transfer. iPhone Handoff just eliminates all the annoying friction and waiting.

But, it’s utterly unsurprising that a carrier will charge a ridiculous monthly fee. I’ll be very surprised (pleasantly) if Verizon doesn’t do the same. Verizon charges for everything.

Still curious to me why AT&T isn’t yet announced as supporting iPhone Handoff at all. I have no idea why anyone remains on that turd of a network unless they live or work in a location where only AT&T provides a good signal, but even then, if it were me, I’d use AT&T by way of US Mobile. AT&T is the worst company I’ve ever dealt with, and I live in Kabletown.

Tristan Buckmaster’s Statement on Getting Scooped by OpenAI on the Navier–Stokes Problem ★

Tristan Buckmaster, professor of mathematics at NYU, in his own statement, regarding his and Levent Alpöge’s interactions with employees at OpenAI regarding this week’s math-proof controversy:

I asked when the first prompt had been sent by them. This question was not answered directly by OpenAI for some time. Eventually it was agreed that it had been sent in the past few days, after information about our work had reached OpenAI.

I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer.

Two proposals were offered to me. The first was that we post our Euler result, and that OpenAI post its Navier–Stokes result the next day. The second was that, after posting Euler, I alone write a paper presenting the Navier–Stokes result, acknowledging that an internal OpenAI model had resolved it. Sebastien twice asserted that he wanted Levent removed from authorship, and said it would all be simple if only it were not the case that, and it was so annoying that, Levent works at Anthropic. It was also said that if OpenAI posted after us, they would say that we deserved the Clay Prize, and that we were the “closest humans to the problem”. I declined both offers.

I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin my career. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.”

“Sebastien” is Sebastien Bubeck, who came to OpenAI by way of Microsoft (shocker).

Gary Marcus on This Week in AI Drama ★

I have been busy with new-iPhone-week stuff, so I haven’t been able to follow either of these stories closely, but Marcus summarizes them both well. First: the drama regarding OpenAI claiming a solution to the Navier–Stokes math problem. In short, OpenAI continues to prove itself to be a company full of cheaters. In this case, they seemingly were willing to tank the company’s reputation to first claim the solution to one of mathematics’ top unsolved problems. Apparently they spent $23 million in compute to win a $1 million prize, and admit they used a model that might have trained on the work mathematicians Tristan Buckmaster and Levent Alpöge had been working on for months, who had been using a combination of tools from OpenAI and Anthropic (where Alpöge is employed). With no hyperbole, the message here seems to be “Don’t use Codex or ChatGPT unless you’re OK with OpenAI stealing your work if it’s of interest to them.”

As for Anthropic, the news of the week is this guy Jacob Coxon, who quit the company in a public huff (on X, where most of this public drama is taking place), because he thinks they’re increasingly reckless despite everyone inside Anthropic believing that there’s a good chance LLMs will destroy humanity (or at least civilization?) in the next few years. Here’s Evan Hubinger, still at Anthropic, not dismissing Coxon as an alarmist but agreeing with him:

Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.

This is crazy talk. Put aside whatever the actual risks are. If you truly believe there’s a greater than 10 percent chance that “AI could kill all humans ... within the next decade”, this is not how a reasonable person in their right mind would talk about it. Coxon thinks he’s blowing the whistle that Anthropic is a threat to the world. What he’s actually done is confirm that Anthropic is a cult, and its employees can’t really be talked to rationally, because they’re cultists. Sometimes members leave cults and they reveal to the world details about what’s going on inside the cult. But a lot of the time you can tell those whistleblowers still aren’t hooked up right, because they’re still people who joined and spent years inside a cult. They leave the cult not because they suddenly snap back to sanity but for other reasons.