10 interesting stories served every morning and every evening.

openai.com

Your First API Call | DeepSeek API Docs

api-docs.deepseek.com

The DeepSeek API uses an API for­mat com­pat­i­ble with OpenAI/Anthropic. By mod­i­fy­ing the con­fig­u­ra­tion, you can use the OpenAI/Anthropic SDK or soft­wares com­pat­i­ble with the OpenAI/Anthropic API to ac­cess the DeepSeek API.

* The model names deepseek-chat and deepseek-rea­soner will be dep­re­cated on 2026/07/24. For com­pat­i­bil­ity, they cor­re­spond to the non-think­ing mode and think­ing mode of deepseek-v4-flash, re­spec­tively.

Invoke The Chat API​

Once you have ob­tained an API key, you can ac­cess the DeepSeek model us­ing the fol­low­ing ex­am­ple scripts in the OpenAI API for­mat. This is a non-stream ex­am­ple, you can set the stream pa­ra­me­ter to true to get stream re­sponse.

For ex­am­ples us­ing the Anthropic API for­mat, please re­fer to Anthropic API.

curl

python

nodejs

curl https://​api.deepseek.com/​chat/​com­ple­tions \ -H Content-Type: ap­pli­ca­tion/​json” \ -H Authorization: Bearer ${DEEPSEEK_API_KEY}” \ -d { model”: deepseek-v4-pro”, messages”: [ {“role”: system”, content”: You are a help­ful as­sis­tant.“}, {“role”: user”, content”: Hello!“} ], thinking”: {“type”: enabled”}, reasoning_effort”: high”, stream”: false }’

Palantir Employees Are Starting to Wonder if They’re the Bad Guys

www.wired.com

It took just a few months of President Donald Trump’s sec­ond term for Palantir em­ploy­ees to ques­tion their com­pa­ny’s com­mit­ments to civil lib­er­ties. Last fall, Palantir seemed to be­come the tech­no­log­i­cal back­bone of Trump’s im­mi­gra­tion en­force­ment ma­chin­ery, pro­vid­ing soft­ware iden­ti­fy­ing, track­ing, and help­ing de­port im­mi­grants on be­half of the Department of Homeland Security, when cur­rent and for­mer em­ploy­ees started ring­ing the alarm.

Around that time, two for­mer em­ploy­ees re­con­nected by phone. Right as they picked up the call, one of them asked, Are you track­ing Palantir’s de­scent into fas­cism?”

That was their greet­ing,” the other for­mer em­ployee says. There’s this feel­ing not of Oh, this is un­pop­u­lar and hard,’ but This feels wrong.’”

Palantir was founded—with ini­tial ven­ture cap­i­tal in­vest­ment from the CIA—at a mo­ment of na­tional con­sen­sus fol­low­ing the September 11, 2001, at­tacks, when many saw fight­ing ter­ror­ism abroad as the most crit­i­cal mis­sion fac­ing the US. The com­pany, which was co­founded by tech bil­lion­aire Peter Thiel, sells soft­ware that acts as a high-pow­ered data ag­gre­ga­tion and analy­sis tool pow­er­ing every­thing from pri­vate busi­nesses to the US mil­i­tary’s tar­get­ing sys­tems.

For the past 20 years, em­ploy­ees could ac­cept the in­tense ex­ter­nal crit­i­cism and awk­ward con­ver­sa­tions with fam­ily and friends about work­ing for a com­pany named af­ter J. R. R. Tolkien’s cor­rupt­ing all-see­ing orb. But a year into Trump’s sec­ond term, as Palantir deep­ens its re­la­tion­ship with an ad­min­is­tra­tion that many work­ers fear is wreak­ing havoc at home, em­ploy­ees are fi­nally rais­ing these con­cerns in­ter­nally, as the USs war on im­mi­grants, war in Iran, and even com­pany-re­leased man­i­festos has forced them to re­think the role they play in it all.

We hire the best and bright­est tal­ent to help de­fend America and its al­lies and to build and de­ploy our soft­ware to help gov­ern­ments and busi­nesses around the world. Palantir is no mono­lith of be­lief, nor should we be,” a Palantir spokesper­son said in a state­ment. We all pride our­selves on a cul­ture of fierce in­ter­nal di­a­logue and even dis­agree­ment over the com­plex ar­eas we work on. That has been true from our found­ing and re­mains true to­day.”

The broad story of Palantir as told to it­self and to em­ploy­ees was that com­ing out of 9/11 we knew that there was go­ing to be this big push for safety, and we were wor­ried that that safety might in­fringe on civil lib­er­ties,” one for­mer em­ployee tells WIRED. And now the threat’s com­ing from within. I think there’s a bit of an iden­tity cri­sis and a bit of a chal­lenge. We were sup­posed to be the ones who were pre­vent­ing a lot of these abuses. Now we’re not pre­vent­ing them. We seem to be en­abling them.”

Palantir has al­ways had a se­cre­tive rep­u­ta­tion, for­bid­ding em­ploy­ees from speak­ing to the press and re­quir­ing alumni to sign non-dis­par­age­ment agree­ments. But through­out the com­pa­ny’s his­tory, man­age­ment has al­ways at least ap­peared to be open to en­gage­ment and in­ter­nal crit­i­cism, mul­ti­ple em­ploy­ees say. Over the last year, how­ever, much of that feed­back has been met by philo­soph­i­cal so­lil­o­quies and redi­rec­tion. It’s never been re­ally that peo­ple are afraid of speak­ing up against Karp. It’s more a ques­tion of what it would do, if any­thing,” one cur­rent em­ployee tells WIRED.

While in­ter­nal ten­sions within Palantir have grown over the last year, they reached a boil­ing point in January af­ter the vi­o­lent killing of Alex Pretti, a nurse who was shot and killed by fed­eral agents dur­ing protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minneapolis. Employees from across the com­pany com­mented in a Slack thread ded­i­cated to the news de­mand­ing more in­for­ma­tion about the com­pa­ny’s re­la­tion­ship with ICE from man­age­ment and CEO Alex Karp.

Our in­volve­ment with ice has been in­ter­nally swept un­der the rug un­der Trump2 too much,” one per­son wrote in a Slack mes­sage WIRED re­ported at the time. We need an un­der­stand­ing of our in­volve­ment here.”

Around this time, Palantir started wip­ing Slack con­ver­sa­tions af­ter seven days in at least one chan­nel where most of the in­ter­nal de­bate takes place, #palantir-in-the-news. Because the de­ci­sion was­n’t for­mally an­nounced be­fore the pol­icy rolled out, one worker who no­ticed the dele­tions asked in the chan­nel why the com­pany was re­mov­ing relevant in­ter­nal dis­course on cur­rent events.”

A mem­ber of Palantir’s cy­ber­se­cu­rity team re­sponded, writ­ing that the de­ci­sion was made in re­sponse to leaks.

This pe­riod led Palantir man­age­ment to re­lease an up­dated wiki, or a col­lec­tion of blog posts ex­plain­ing the ICE con­tract, where the com­pany de­fended its work with Homeland Security. Management wrote that the tech­nol­ogy the com­pany pro­vides is mak­ing a dif­fer­ence in mit­i­gat­ing risks while en­abling tar­geted out­comes.”

Palantir man­age­ment ran de­fense by hold­ing a hand­ful of AMA (ask me any­thing) fo­rums across the com­pany with lead­er­ship like chief tech­nol­ogy of­fi­cer Shyam Sankar and mem­bers of its pri­vacy and civil lib­er­ties (PCL) teams.

At least one of these AMAs was or­ga­nized in­de­pen­dently of PCL lead­er­ship by two team leads, in­clud­ing one who worked di­rectly on the ICE con­tract for a pe­riod of time. This was very rogue,” a PCL em­ployee who worked on the ICE con­tract said in a February AMA, a record­ing of which was ob­tained by WIRED. Courtney [Bowman, head of the pri­vacy and civil lib­er­ties team] does­n’t know that I’m spend­ing three hours this week talk­ing to IMPLs [Palantir ter­mi­nol­ogy for its client-fac­ing prod­uct teams], but I think this is the only real way to start go­ing in the right di­rec­tion.”

Throughout the lengthy call, em­ploy­ees work­ing on a va­ri­ety of Palantir’s de­fense pro­jects posed hard ques­tions. Could ICE agents delete au­dit logs in Palantir’s soft­ware? Could agents cre­ate harm­ful work­flows on their own with­out the com­pa­ny’s help? What is the most ma­li­cious thing that could come out of this work?

Answering these ques­tions, the PCL em­ployee who worked on the ICE con­tract said that a suf­fi­ciently ma­li­cious cus­tomer is, like, ba­si­cally im­pos­si­ble to pre­vent at the mo­ment” and could only be con­trolled through auditing to prove what hap­pened” and le­gal ac­tion af­ter the fact if the cus­tomer breached the com­pa­ny’s con­tract.

At one point dur­ing the call, one of the em­ploy­ees tried to level with the group, ex­plain­ing that Palantir’s work with ICE was a pri­or­ity for Karp and some­thing that likely would­n’t change any time soon.

Karp re­ally wants to do this and con­tin­u­ously wants this,” they said. We’re largely at the role of try­ing to give him sug­ges­tions and try­ing to redi­rect him, but it was largely un­suc­cess­ful and we seem to be on a very sharp path of con­tin­u­ing to ex­pand this work­flow.”

Around the time of these fo­rums, Karp sat down for a pre­re­corded in­ter­view with Bowman, seem­ingly to dis­cuss Palantir’s con­tracts with ICE, but re­fused to broach the topic di­rectly. Instead, Karp sug­gested that em­ploy­ees in­ter­ested in the work sign nondis­clo­sure agree­ments be­fore re­ceiv­ing more de­tailed in­for­ma­tion.

Then came the deadly February 28 mis­sile strike on an Iranian el­e­men­tary school on the first full day of the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion and Israel’s war in Iran. The US is the only known coun­try in the con­flict to use that spe­cific type of mis­sile. More than 120 chil­dren were killed when a Tomahawk mis­sile struck the school, kick­ing off a se­ries of in­ves­ti­ga­tions that con­cluded that the US was re­spon­si­ble and that sur­veil­lance tools like Palantir’s Maven sys­tem had been used dur­ing that day’s strikes. For a com­pany full of em­ploy­ees al­ready reel­ing over its work with ICE, pos­si­ble in­volve­ment in the death of chil­dren was a break­ing point.

I guess the root of what I’m ask­ing is … were we in­volved, and are do­ing any­thing to stop a re­peat if we were,” one em­ployee asked in the Palantir news Slack chan­nel. Some em­ploy­ees posed sim­i­lar ques­tions in the thread, while oth­ers crit­i­cized them for dis­cussing what could be con­sid­ered clas­si­fied in­for­ma­tion in a Slack chan­nel open to the en­tire com­pany. The in­ves­ti­ga­tion is on­go­ing.

The Palantir spokesper­son said the com­pany was proud” to sup­port the US mil­i­tary across Democratic and Republican ad­min­is­tra­tions.”

In March, Karp gave an in­ter­view to CNBC claim­ing that AI could un­der­mine the power of humanities-trained—largely Democratic—voters” and in­crease the power of work­ing-class male vot­ers. While crit­ics re­acted to the piece, call­ing the state­ments con­cern­ing, so did em­ploy­ees in­ter­nally: Is it true that AI dis­rup­tion is go­ing to dis­pro­por­tion­ately neg­a­tively af­fect women and peo­ple who vote Democrat? and if it is, why are we cool with that?” one worker asked on Slack in a chan­nel ded­i­cated to news about Palantir.

Palantir’s lead­er­ship in­censed work­ers yet again this week af­ter the com­pany posted a Saturday af­ter­noon man­i­festo re­duc­ing Karp’s re­cent book, The Technological Republic, to 22 points. The post—which in­cludes many of Karp’s long-stand­ing be­liefs on how Silicon Valley could bet­ter serve US na­tional in­ter­ests—goes as far as sug­gest­ing that the US should con­sider re­in­stat­ing the draft. Critics called the man­i­festo fas­cist.

Internally, the post alarmed some work­ers who hud­dled in a Slack thread on Monday morn­ing, ques­tion­ing lead­er­ship over its de­ci­sion to post it in the first place.

I’m cu­ri­ous why this had to be posted. Especially on the com­pany ac­count. On the prac­ti­cal level every time stuff like that gets posted it gets harder for us to sell the soft­ware out­side of the US (for sure in the cur­rent po­lit­i­cal cli­mate), and I doubt we need this in the US?” wrote one frus­trated em­ployee. The mes­sage re­ceived more than 50 +1” emo­jis.

Wether [sic] we ac­knowl­edge it or not, this im­pacts us all per­son­ally,” an­other worker wrote on Monday. I’ve al­ready had mul­ti­ple friends reach out and ask what the hell did we post.” This mes­sage re­ceived nearly two dozen +1” emoji re­ac­tions.

Yeah it turns out that short-form sum­maries of the book’s long-form ideas are easy to mis­rep­re­sent. It’s like we taped a kick me’ sign on our own backs,” a third worker wrote. I hope no one who de­cided to put this out is sur­prised that we are, in fact, get­ting kicked.”

These con­ver­sa­tions in­volv­ing shame and un­cer­tainty from work­ers have seem­ingly popped up in in­ter­nal chan­nels when­ever Palantir has been in the news over the last year. I think the only thing not dif­fer­ent is a lot of folks are still in­cred­i­bly wary about leaks and talk­ing to the press,” one cur­rent em­ployee tells WIRED, de­scrib­ing how the in­ter­nal com­pany cul­ture has evolved over the last year.

All of this dis­sent does­n’t seem to bother Karp, who re­cently told work­ers that the com­pany is behind the curve in­ter­nally” when it comes to pop­u­lar­ity. Here, he’s been con­sis­tent; in March 2024 Karp told a CNBC re­porter that if you have a po­si­tion that does not cost you ever to lose an em­ployee, it’s not a po­si­tion.”

But for em­ploy­ees, the cul­ture shift feels in­ten­tional. I don’t want to as­sert that I have knowl­edge of what’s go­ing on in their in­ter­nal mind,” one for­mer worker tells WIRED. But maybe it’s got­ten to a place where en­cour­ag­ing in­de­pen­dent thought and ques­tion­ing leads to some bad con­clu­sions.”

An update on recent Claude Code quality reports

www.anthropic.com

Over the past month, we’ve been look­ing into re­ports that Claude’s re­sponses have wors­ened for some users. We’ve traced these re­ports to three sep­a­rate changes that af­fected Claude Code, the Claude Agent SDK, and Claude Cowork. The API was not im­pacted.

All three is­sues have now been re­solved as of April 20 (v2.1.116).

In this post, we ex­plain what we found, what we fixed, and what we’ll do dif­fer­ently to en­sure sim­i­lar is­sues are much less likely to hap­pen again.

We take re­ports about degra­da­tion very se­ri­ously. We never in­ten­tion­ally de­grade our mod­els, and we were able to im­me­di­ately con­firm that our API and in­fer­ence layer were un­af­fected.

After in­ves­ti­ga­tion, we iden­ti­fied three dif­fer­ent is­sues:

On March 4, we changed Claude Code’s de­fault rea­son­ing ef­fort from high to medium to re­duce the very long la­tency—enough to make the UI ap­pear frozen—some users were see­ing in high mode. This was the wrong trade­off. We re­verted this change on April 7 af­ter users told us they’d pre­fer to de­fault to higher in­tel­li­gence and opt into lower ef­fort for sim­ple tasks. This im­pacted Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6.

On March 26, we shipped a change to clear Claude’s older think­ing from ses­sions that had been idle for over an hour, to re­duce la­tency when users re­sumed those ses­sions. A bug caused this to keep hap­pen­ing every turn for the rest of the ses­sion in­stead of just once, which made Claude seem for­get­ful and repet­i­tive. We fixed it on April 10. This af­fected Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6.

On April 16, we added a sys­tem prompt in­struc­tion to re­duce ver­bosity. In com­bi­na­tion with other prompt changes, it hurt cod­ing qual­ity and was re­verted on April 20. This im­pacted Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.6, and Opus 4.7.

Because each change af­fected a dif­fer­ent slice of traf­fic on a dif­fer­ent sched­ule, the ag­gre­gate ef­fect looked like broad, in­con­sis­tent degra­da­tion. While we be­gan in­ves­ti­gat­ing re­ports in early March, they were chal­leng­ing to dis­tin­guish from nor­mal vari­a­tion in user feed­back at first, and nei­ther our in­ter­nal us­age nor evals ini­tially re­pro­duced the is­sues iden­ti­fied.

This is­n’t the ex­pe­ri­ence users should ex­pect from Claude Code. As of April 23, we’re re­set­ting us­age lim­its for all sub­scribers.

A change to Claude Code’s de­fault rea­son­ing ef­fort

When we re­leased Opus 4.6 in Claude Code in February, we set the de­fault rea­son­ing ef­fort to high.

Soon af­ter, we re­ceived user feed­back that Claude Opus 4.6 in high ef­fort mode would oc­ca­sion­ally think for too long, caus­ing the UI to ap­pear frozen and lead­ing to dis­pro­por­tion­ate la­tency and to­ken us­age for those users.

In gen­eral, the longer the model thinks, the bet­ter the out­put. Effort lev­els are how Claude Code lets users set that trade­off—more think­ing ver­sus lower la­tency and fewer us­age limit hits. As we cal­i­brate ef­fort lev­els for our mod­els, we take this trade­off into ac­count in or­der to pick points along the test-time-com­pute curve that give peo­ple the best range of op­tions. In the prod­uct layer, we then choose which point along this curve we set as our de­fault, and that is the value we send to the Messages API as the ef­fort pa­ra­me­ter; we then make the other op­tions avail­able via /effort.

In our in­ter­nal evals and test­ing, medium ef­fort achieved slightly lower in­tel­li­gence with sig­nif­i­cantly less la­tency for the ma­jor­ity of tasks. It also did­n’t suf­fer from the same is­sues with oc­ca­sional very long tail la­ten­cies for think­ing, and it helped max­i­mize users’ us­age lim­its. As a re­sult, we rolled out a change mak­ing medium the de­fault ef­fort, and ex­plained the ra­tio­nale via in-prod­uct di­a­log.

Soon af­ter rolling out, users be­gan re­port­ing that Claude Code felt less in­tel­li­gent. We shipped a num­ber of de­sign it­er­a­tions to make the cur­rent ef­fort set­ting clearer in or­der to alert peo­ple they could change the de­fault (notices on startup, an in­line ef­fort se­lec­tor, and bring­ing back ul­tra­think), but most users re­tained the medium ef­fort de­fault.

After hear­ing feed­back from more cus­tomers, we re­versed this de­ci­sion on April 7. All users now de­fault to xhigh ef­fort for Opus 4.7, and high ef­fort for all other mod­els.

A caching op­ti­miza­tion that dropped prior rea­son­ing

When Claude rea­sons through a task, that rea­son­ing is nor­mally kept in the con­ver­sa­tion his­tory so that on every sub­se­quent turn, Claude can see why it made the ed­its and tool calls it did.

On March 26, we shipped what was meant to be an ef­fi­ciency im­prove­ment to this fea­ture. We use prompt caching to make back-to-back API calls cheaper and faster for users. Claude writes the in­put to­kens to the cache when it makes an API re­quest, then af­ter a pe­riod of in­ac­tiv­ity the prompt is evicted from cache, mak­ing room for other prompts. Cache uti­liza­tion is some­thing we man­age care­fully (more on our ap­proach).

The de­sign should have been sim­ple: if a ses­sion has been idle for more than an hour, we could re­duce users’ cost of re­sum­ing that ses­sion by clear­ing old think­ing sec­tions. Since the re­quest would be a cache miss any­way, we could prune un­nec­es­sary mes­sages from the re­quest to re­duce the num­ber of un­cached to­kens sent to the API. We’d then re­sume send­ing full rea­son­ing his­tory. To do this we used the clear_­think­ing_20251015 API header along with keep:1.

The im­ple­men­ta­tion had a bug. Instead of clear­ing think­ing his­tory once, it cleared it on every turn for the rest of the ses­sion. After a ses­sion crossed the idle thresh­old once, each re­quest for the rest of that process told the API to keep only the most re­cent block of rea­son­ing and dis­card every­thing be­fore it. This com­pounded: if you sent a fol­low-up mes­sage while Claude was in the mid­dle of a tool use, that started a new turn un­der the bro­ken flag, so even the rea­son­ing from the cur­rent turn was dropped. Claude would con­tinue ex­e­cut­ing, but in­creas­ingly with­out mem­ory of why it had cho­sen to do what it was do­ing. This sur­faced as the for­get­ful­ness, rep­e­ti­tion, and odd tool choices peo­ple re­ported.

Because this would con­tin­u­ously drop think­ing blocks from sub­se­quent re­quests, those re­quests also re­sulted in cache misses. We be­lieve this is what drove the sep­a­rate re­ports of us­age lim­its drain­ing faster than ex­pected.

Two un­re­lated ex­per­i­ments made it chal­leng­ing for us to re­pro­duce the is­sue at first: an in­ter­nal-only server-side ex­per­i­ment re­lated to mes­sage queu­ing; and an or­thog­o­nal change in how we dis­play think­ing sup­pressed this bug in most CLI ses­sions, so we did­n’t catch it even when test­ing ex­ter­nal builds.

This bug was at the in­ter­sec­tion of Claude Code’s con­text man­age­ment, the Anthropic API, and ex­tended think­ing. The changes it in­tro­duced made it past mul­ti­ple hu­man and au­to­mated code re­views, as well as unit tests, end-to-end tests, au­to­mated ver­i­fi­ca­tion, and dog­food­ing. Combined with this only hap­pen­ing in a cor­ner case (stale ses­sions) and the dif­fi­culty of re­pro­duc­ing the is­sue, it took us over a week to dis­cover and con­firm the root cause.

As part of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion, we back-tested Code Review against the of­fend­ing pull re­quests us­ing Opus 4.7. When pro­vided the code repos­i­to­ries nec­es­sary to gather com­plete con­text, Opus 4.7 found the bug, while Opus 4.6 did­n’t. To pre­vent this from hap­pen­ing again, we are now land­ing sup­port for ad­di­tional repos­i­to­ries as con­text for code re­views.

We fixed this bug on April 10 in v2.1.101.

A sys­tem prompt change to re­duce ver­bosity

Our lat­est model, Claude Opus 4.7, has a no­table be­hav­ioral quirk rel­a­tive to its pre­de­ces­sor: as we wrote about at launch, it tends to be quite ver­bose. This makes it smarter on hard prob­lems, but it also pro­duces more out­put to­kens.

A few weeks be­fore we re­leased Opus 4.7, we started tun­ing Claude Code in prepa­ra­tion. Each model be­haves slightly dif­fer­ently, and we spend time be­fore each re­lease op­ti­miz­ing the har­ness and prod­uct for it.

We have a num­ber of tools to re­duce ver­bosity: model train­ing, prompt­ing, and im­prov­ing think­ing UX in the prod­uct. Ultimately we used all of these, but one ad­di­tion to the sys­tem prompt caused an out­sized ef­fect on in­tel­li­gence in Claude Code:

Length lim­its: keep text be­tween tool calls to ≤25 words. Keep fi­nal re­sponses to ≤100 words un­less the task re­quires more de­tail.”

After mul­ti­ple weeks of in­ter­nal test­ing and no re­gres­sions in the set of eval­u­a­tions we ran, we felt con­fi­dent about the change and shipped it along­side Opus 4.7 on April 16.

As part of this in­ves­ti­ga­tion, we ran more ab­la­tions (removing lines from the sys­tem prompt to un­der­stand the im­pact of each line) us­ing a broader set of eval­u­a­tions. One of these eval­u­a­tions showed a 3% drop for both Opus 4.6 and 4.7. We im­me­di­ately re­verted the prompt as part of the April 20 re­lease.

Going for­ward

We are go­ing to do sev­eral things dif­fer­ently to avoid these is­sues: we’ll en­sure that a larger share of in­ter­nal staff use the ex­act pub­lic build of Claude Code (as op­posed to the ver­sion we use to test new fea­tures); and we’ll make im­prove­ments to our Code Review tool that we use in­ter­nally, and ship this im­proved ver­sion to cus­tomers.

We’re also adding tighter con­trols on sys­tem prompt changes. We will run a broad suite of per-model evals for every sys­tem prompt change to Claude Code, con­tin­u­ing ab­la­tions to un­der­stand the im­pact of each line, and we have built new tool­ing to make prompt changes eas­ier to re­view and au­dit. We’ve ad­di­tion­ally added guid­ance to our CLAUDE.md to en­sure model-spe­cific changes are gated to the spe­cific model they’re tar­get­ing. For any change that could trade off against in­tel­li­gence, we’ll add soak pe­ri­ods, a broader eval suite, and grad­ual roll­outs so we catch is­sues ear­lier.

We re­cently cre­ated @ClaudeDevs on X to give us the room to ex­plain prod­uct de­ci­sions and the rea­son­ing be­hind them in depth. We’ll share the same up­dates in cen­tral­ized threads on GitHub.

Finally, we’d like to thank our users: the peo­ple who used the /feedback com­mand to share their is­sues with us (or who posted spe­cific, re­pro­ducible ex­am­ples on­line) are the ones who ul­ti­mately al­lowed us to iden­tify and fix these prob­lems. Today we are re­set­ting us­age lim­its for all sub­scribers.

We’re im­mensely grate­ful for your feed­back and for your pa­tience.

Meta to cut 10% of jobs, or 8,000 employees, report says

techcrunch.com

In Brief

Posted:

11:08 AM PDT · April 23, 2026

Meta is plan­ning to cut 10% of its work­force, amount­ing to 8,000 em­ploy­ees, ac­cord­ing to a re­port from Bloomberg. Meta also will not hire for 6,000 roles that are cur­rently open.

According to an in­ter­nal memo sent to em­ploy­ees Thursday and viewed by Bloomberg, Meta told staff that the cuts will be­gin on May 20. Reuters had ear­lier re­ported on Meta’s plans for sweep­ing lay­offs.

TechCrunch has reached out to Meta for com­ment.

We’re do­ing this as part of our con­tin­ued ef­fort to run the com­pany more ef­fi­ciently and to al­low us to off­set the other in­vest­ments we’re mak­ing,” chief peo­ple of­fice Janelle Gale told em­ploy­ees, ac­cord­ing to the memo. This is not an easy trade­off and it will mean let­ting go of peo­ple who have made mean­ing­ful con­tri­bu­tions to Meta dur­ing their time here.”

Meta spent tens of bil­lions on its meta­verse ef­forts, which largely failed. The com­pany has also had to make ma­jor in­vest­ments in its AI ef­forts in or­der to keep up with com­peti­tors in the space — ear­lier this month, it de­buted a com­pletely over­hauled AI prod­uct called Muse Spark.

Topics

Subscribe for the in­dus­try’s biggest tech news

Latest in Social

Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

Please make sure your browser sup­ports JavaScript and cook­ies and that you are not block­ing them from load­ing. For more in­for­ma­tion you can re­view our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy.

US special forces soldier arrested after allegedly winning $400,000 on Maduro raid

www.cnn.com

A US spe­cial forces sol­dier in­volved in the cap­ture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was ar­rested and charged for al­legedly bet­ting on that op­er­a­tion, net­ting him $400,000 in prof­its.

According to an in­dict­ment un­sealed Thursday, Master Sgt. Gannon Ken Van Dyke opened an ac­count in late December on Polymarket, one of the best-known pre­dic­tion mar­kets. He wa­gered about $32,000 that Maduro would be out” by January. The bet was a long-shot.

But Van Dyke was in­volved in the plan­ning and ex­e­cu­tion of Operation Absolute Resolve, pros­e­cu­tors al­lege, and had ac­cess to clas­si­fied in­for­ma­tion be­fore he placed the bet. His win­nings, though anony­mous, caught the at­ten­tion of law en­force­ment al­most im­me­di­ately.

Van Dyke, an ac­tive duty sol­dier sta­tioned at Fort Bragg, faces five crim­i­nal charges for steal­ing and mis­us­ing con­fi­den­tial gov­ern­ment in­for­ma­tion, theft and fraud. He will make his first court ap­pear­ance in North Carolina. No at­tor­ney has been listed for him on the court docket.

He al­legedly made 13 bets from December 27 to January 2, the last be­ing hours be­fore the overnight cap­ture. Prosecutors said Van Dyke sent his more than $400,000 in prof­its to a for­eign cryp­tocur­rency vault be­fore he de­posited them in an on­line bro­ker­age ac­count.

A mas­ter sergeant in the Army is a se­nior non­com­mis­sioned of­fi­cer, con­sid­ered a key tac­ti­cal leader and tech­ni­cal ex­pert and serv­ing as the prin­ci­pal NCO typ­i­cally at the Army bat­tal­ion level. Senior NCOs are of­ten looked to for set­ting and up­hold­ing the stan­dard for more ju­nior sol­diers in the unit.

Video Ad Feedback

US spe­cial forces sol­dier ar­rested af­ter al­legedly win­ning $400,000 on Maduro raid

0:40

• Source:

CNN

US spe­cial forces sol­dier ar­rested af­ter al­legedly win­ning $400,000 on Maduro raid

0:40

Those en­trusted to safe­guard our na­tion’s se­crets have a duty to pro­tect them and our armed ser­vice mem­bers, and not to use that in­for­ma­tion for per­sonal fi­nan­cial gain,” said Jay Clayton, US at­tor­ney for the Southern District of New York.

Van Dyke was pho­tographed just af­ter the op­er­a­tion — and from when he placed his fi­nal bet — on what ap­pears to be the deck of a ship at sea, at sun­rise wear­ing U.S. mil­i­tary fa­tigues, and car­ry­ing a ri­fle, stand­ing along­side three other in­di­vid­u­als wear­ing U.S. mil­i­tary fa­tigues,” court doc­u­ments say.

Van Dyke prof­ited more than $400,000, pros­e­cu­tors say. He then al­legedly moved those win­nings to a for­eign cryp­tocur­rency vault be­fore he de­posited them in an on­line bro­ker­age ac­count in what pros­e­cu­tors called an at­tempt to con­ceal their ori­gin.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a re­lated com­plaint against Van Dyke on Thursday, seek­ing resti­tu­tion, dis­gorge­ment and civil mon­e­tary penal­ties.

CNN re­ported last month that fed­eral pros­e­cu­tors were in­ves­ti­gat­ing the Maduro trade, ac­cord­ing to a per­son fa­mil­iar with the mat­ter. The chiefs of the se­cu­ri­ties and com­mod­ity fraud unit at the US at­tor­ney’s of­fice in Manhattan met with rep­re­sen­ta­tives at Polymarket last month.

After the bets were placed, the US mil­i­tary launched a covert op­er­a­tion that ex­tra­dited Maduro from the pres­i­den­tial palace in Caracas in an overnight cap­ture while com­ing un­der heavy fire. Maduro was trans­ported to New York to face fed­eral drug-traf­fick­ing re­lated charges. He has pleaded not guilty.

Polymarket in a post on X said, When we iden­ti­fied a user trad­ing on clas­si­fied gov­ern­ment in­for­ma­tion, we re­ferred the mat­ter to the DOJ & co­op­er­ated with their in­ves­ti­ga­tion. Insider trad­ing has no place on Polymarket. Today’s ar­rest is proof the sys­tem works.”

ABC News first re­ported Thursday’s ar­rest.

Trading on pre­dic­tion mar­kets has ex­ploded the past year, with users now spend­ing a few bil­lion dol­lars each week on such sites.

Lawmakers in Congress have in­tro­duced more than a dozen new bills this year to fur­ther reg­u­late pre­dic­tion mar­kets. Some of the bills, which gained bi­par­ti­san sup­port, would stiffen penal­ties against gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials who en­gage in in­sider trad­ing.

Trump told re­porters Thursday he is con­cerned about the grow­ing trend of bet­ting on geopo­lit­i­cal events. Asked about the charges against the US sol­dier, the pres­i­dent said he was not fa­mil­iar with the specifics of the in­ci­dent but com­pared it to base­bal­l’s all-time hit leader Pete Rose.

That’s like Pete Rose bet­ting on his own team,” Trump said, re­fer­ring to the late base­ball player who was banned from base­ball for gam­bling.

Pressed on whether he is con­cerned about bet­ting tied to the war with Iran, Trump said it’s a global is­sue.

Well I think that the whole world, un­for­tu­nately, has be­come some­what of a casino,” Trump said, adding that such bet­ting is hap­pen­ing all over the world, and every place they’re do­ing these bet­ting things.”

Now, I think that I’m not happy with it,” he con­cluded.

The Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion ap­proved Polymarket last year to start of­fer­ing trades for American cus­tomers, but its US-facing site is­n’t fully op­er­a­tional yet. The Maduro-related trades oc­curred on Polymarket’s highly pop­u­lar in­ter­na­tional site.

That site op­er­ates out of the reach of US reg­u­la­tions — which is how it’s able to of­fer mar­kets re­lated to war, which is il­le­gal un­der fed­eral law. But ex­perts say Americans can eas­ily ac­cess the off­shore site with a vir­tual pri­vate net­work, or VPN.

There is a de­bate in the pre­dic­tion mar­ket in­dus­try over the role of in­sid­ers in pre­dic­tion mar­kets. Some ex­perts see these mar­kets as a ve­hi­cle for in­for­ma­tion to flow more freely from in­sid­ers to the gen­eral pub­lic.

Asked about in­sider trad­ing risks, Polymarket’s CEO told Axios in November it was super cool” that his plat­form creates this fi­nan­cial in­cen­tive for peo­ple to go and di­vulge the in­for­ma­tion to the mar­ket,” in­clud­ing in­sid­ers.

Polymarket rolled out new rules in March, to clarify three core cat­e­gories of pro­hib­ited in­sider trad­ing con­duct.”

They banned trades based on in­for­ma­tion that users were legally re­quired to keep con­fi­den­tial, and trades based on tips from some­one with the same oblig­a­tion. They also said peo­ple in a po­si­tion of au­thor­ity or in­flu­ence” to af­fect the out­come of an event can­not par­tic­i­pate in any re­lated mar­kets.

This story has been up­dated with ad­di­tional de­tails.

CNNs Marshall Cohen, Haley Britzky and Alejandria Jaramillo con­tributed to this re­port.

French govt agency confirms breach as hacker offers to sell data

www.bleepingcomputer.com

France Titres, the gov­ern­ment agency in France for is­su­ing and man­ag­ing ad­min­is­tra­tive doc­u­ments has dis­closed a data breach af­ter a threat ac­tor claimed the at­tack and steal­ing cit­i­zen data.

Also known as Agence na­tionale des titres sécurisés (ANTS), the ad­min­is­tra­tive body op­er­ates un­der the French Ministry of the Interior, serv­ing as the man­ag­ing au­thor­ity for of­fi­cial iden­tity and reg­is­tra­tion doc­u­ments in France. This in­cludes dri­ver’s li­censes, na­tional ID cards, pass­ports, and im­mi­gra­tion doc­u­ments.

According to an an­nounce­ment the agency pub­lished yes­ter­day, the at­tack oc­curred last week, and while the in­ves­ti­ga­tion is still on­go­ing, sev­eral data types for an undis­closed num­ber of in­di­vid­u­als may have been ex­posed.

On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, the National Agency for Secure Documents (ANTS) de­tected a se­cu­rity in­ci­dent that may in­volve the dis­clo­sure of data from in­di­vid­ual and pro­fes­sional ac­counts on the ants.gouv.fr por­tal,” reads ANTSs an­nounce­ment.

The types of data that may have been ex­posed are:

Login ID

Full name

Email ad­dress

Date of birth

Unique ac­count iden­ti­fier

Postal ad­dress (for some)

Place of birth (for some)

Phone num­ber (for some)

ANTS stated that it is cur­rently in the process of no­ti­fy­ing those iden­ti­fied as im­pacted.

The agency noted that the ex­posed in­for­ma­tion does not al­low unau­tho­rized ac­cess to its elec­tronic por­tals. However, the same data can be used in phish­ing and so­cial en­gi­neer­ing at­tacks.

No ac­tion is re­quired from users. However, they are ad­vised to re­main highly vig­i­lant re­gard­ing any sus­pi­cious or un­usual mes­sages they may re­ceive (SMS, phone calls, emails, etc.) that ap­pear to come from ANTS,” the agency warned.

ANTS has no­ti­fied the data pro­tec­tion au­thor­ity (CNIL), the Paris Public Prosecutor, and has also in­volved the na­tional cy­ber­se­cu­rity agency (ANSSI) in the re­sponse ef­fort. The agency warned that the sale or dis­sem­i­na­tion of the data is il­le­gal.

19 mil­lion records claimed stolen

On April 16, a threat ac­tor us­ing the moniker breach3d’ claimed the at­tack on hacker fo­rums claimed the at­tack on ANTS, al­leg­ing to be hold­ing up to 19 mil­lion records.

The threat ac­tor claims that the stolen data con­tains full names, con­tact de­tails, birth data, home ad­dresses, ac­count meta­data, and gen­der and civil sta­tus.

The data has been of­fered for sale for an undis­closed amount, so it has not been broadly leaked yet.

ANTS saus that user do not need to take any ac­tion but rec­om­mends ex­er­cis­ing extreme cau­tion” about sus­pi­cious or un­usual com­mu­ni­ca­tion over SMS, voice, and emails ap­pear­ing to come from the agency.

BleepingComputer has con­tacted ANTS to ask about the threat ac­tor’s al­le­ga­tions, but we have not re­ceived a re­sponse as of pub­lish­ing.

Update 4/24 - ANTS pub­lished an up­date on the in­ci­dent where the agency con­firmed that 11.7 mil­lion ac­counts were im­pacted.

99% of What Mythos Found Is Still Unpatched.

AI chained four zero-days into one ex­ploit that by­passed both ren­derer and OS sand­boxes. A wave of new ex­ploits is com­ing.

At the Autonomous Validation Summit (May 12 & 14), see how au­tonomous, con­text-rich val­i­da­tion finds what’s ex­ploitable, proves con­trols hold, and closes the re­me­di­a­tion loop.

Claim Your Spot

Ubuntu 26.04 LTS released

lwn.net

Ubuntu 26.04 (“Resolute Raccoon”) LTS has been re­leased

on sched­ule.

This re­lease brings a sig­nif­i­cant up­lift in se­cu­rity, per­for­mance,

and us­abil­ity across desk­top, server, and cloud en­vi­ron­ments. Ubuntu

26.04 LTS in­tro­duces TPM-backed full-disk en­cryp­tion, ex­panded use of

mem­ory-safe com­po­nents, im­proved ap­pli­ca­tion per­mis­sion con­trols, and

Livepatch sup­port for Arm sys­tems, help­ing re­duce down­time and

strengthen sys­tem re­silience. […]

The newest Edubuntu, Kubuntu, Lubuntu, Ubuntu Budgie, Ubuntu Cinnamon,

Ubuntu Kylin, Ubuntu Studio, Ubuntu Unity, and Xubuntu are also be­ing

re­leased to­day. For more de­tails on these, read their in­di­vid­ual re­lease

notes un­der the Official fla­vors sec­tion:

https://​doc­u­men­ta­tion.ubuntu.com/​re­lease-notes/​26.04/#​of­fi­cial-fla­vors

Maintenance up­dates will be pro­vided for 5 years for Ubuntu Desktop, Ubuntu

Server, Ubuntu Cloud, Ubuntu WSL, and Ubuntu Core. All the re­main­ing fla­vors

will be sup­ported for 3 years.

This re­lease brings a sig­nif­i­cant up­lift in se­cu­rity, per­for­mance,

and us­abil­ity across desk­top, server, and cloud en­vi­ron­ments. Ubuntu

26.04 LTS in­tro­duces TPM-backed full-disk en­cryp­tion, ex­panded use of

mem­ory-safe com­po­nents, im­proved ap­pli­ca­tion per­mis­sion con­trols, and

Livepatch sup­port for Arm sys­tems, help­ing re­duce down­time and

strengthen sys­tem re­silience. […]

The newest Edubuntu, Kubuntu, Lubuntu, Ubuntu Budgie, Ubuntu Cinnamon,

Ubuntu Kylin, Ubuntu Studio, Ubuntu Unity, and Xubuntu are also be­ing

re­leased to­day. For more de­tails on these, read their in­di­vid­ual re­lease

notes un­der the Official fla­vors sec­tion:

https://​doc­u­men­ta­tion.ubuntu.com/​re­lease-notes/​26.04/#​of­fi­cial-fla­vors

Maintenance up­dates will be pro­vided for 5 years for Ubuntu Desktop, Ubuntu

Server, Ubuntu Cloud, Ubuntu WSL, and Ubuntu Core. All the re­main­ing fla­vors

will be sup­ported for 3 years.

See the re­lease

notes for a list of changes, sys­tem re­quire­ments, and more.

Incident with multiple GitHub services

www.githubstatus.com

To add this web app to your iOS home screen tap the share button and select "Add to the Home Screen".

10HN is also available as an iOS App

If you visit 10HN only rarely, check out the the best articles from the past week.

If you like 10HN please leave feedback and share

Visit pancik.com for more.