Abrindo a semana — ontem foi feriado, então não conta! 😛 — de evento da Apple com a nossa seleção de promoções na App Store!

ELOH, criado pela Broken Rules, é um puzzle perfeito para relaxar e se divertir.

Trata-se de um quebra-cabeça no qual você deve escutar o groove e deixar que ele o guie pelas 98 fases. Controles intuitivos, belíssimas animações e uma trilha sonora desenvolvida especialmente por SCNTFC fazem parte deste jogo.

Confira um vídeo:

Aproveite o bom desconto e boa diversão!

---

Abaixo outros jogos/apps que, juntos, somam mais de R$60 em descontos:

Jogos

Puzzles.

Jogo de aventura.

Jogo de ação.

Aplicativos

Calendário com fotos.

Temporizador culinário.

Utilitário para escrita.

---

Aproveite as ofertas e até amanhã, com a nossa cobertura especial dos lançamentos da Maçã! Lembrando que elas são sempre por tempo limitado, então é bom correr. 🦖

Thomas Claburn:

Anthropic will embed watermarks in the text and files generated by future models it launches in the EU, as part of its effort to comply with content and transparency rules in the bloc’s AI Act.

[…]

The move may further amplify the appeal of open weight models and alienate Claude customers, who don’t necessarily want consumers of their AI-generated content to know its provenance.

[…]

Anthropic itself is already hedging about the utility of its marking method, noting that detected marks are not conclusive evidence that Claude produced the content and that the absence of marks cannot guarantee that AI wasn’t involved in the creation of a particular piece of content.

Anthropic (Hacker News):

Claude models launched in the EU on or after August 2, 2026 will support machine-readable marking at launch. Generated text will carry embedded watermarks, and generated files will include digitally signed provenance metadata where supported.

[…]

Marks will apply to output from supported Claude models across Claude Platform (API), Claude, Claude Code, Claude Cowork, and Claude Tag, and wherever Claude is offered, worldwide. Some platforms or features may not support certain marking types.

[…]

We’ll support users and other third parties to detect Claude’s marks, as the Code requires, and we’ll share details in forthcoming documentation.

John Gruber:

Anthropic is claiming this is for compliance with an EU law but that “Marking will apply to output from supported models wherever Claude is offered, worldwide.”

This is infuriatingly opaque. I won’t speak to the “signed provenance metadata” they say they’ll be embedding in generated files like PDFs, SVGs, PNGs, and JPEGs. That’s important but it’s complex. Plain text is simple. A string of text is just one character followed by another. I presume that Claude is going to start “embedding” invisible characters/byte sequences between visible characters? What they’re claiming to do here seems impossible, frankly, and anything they attempt to embed invisibly is going to cause immediate problems.

[…]

If the “watermark” is not comprised of invisible characters but rather visible ones, how in the world does this jibe with their claim that it’s “imperceptible”? (This Reddit thread claims that’s how it will work — “It’s a form of steganography where the model subtly biases its word choice to create a statistical pattern that can be detected later.” How in the world can that be squared with “it doesn’t change the meaning, quality, or readability”?) And any sort of semantic detection like this is going to cause false-positive problems.

Previously:

• Hiding Vulnerabilities in Source Code
• Hiding Data in Emoji
• A Vatican-Sized Flag Mystery
• Unicode and Copying and Pasting Code
• Hiding Easter Eggs in Maps
• Genius Accuses Google of Copying Its Lyrics Data
• Fingerprinting Swift Code Using Spacecrypt
• Xerox Scanners and  Photocopiers Randomly Alter Numbers

Update (2026-08-17): Anthropic provides more details:

Watermarking won’t be specific to Claude. As of August 2, the EU requires AI providers serving its market to mark AI-generated content. Other major model developers have signed the same Code of Practice and will be implementing their own watermarks.

[…]

In internal testing, we’ve seen no impact of watermarking on the content, level of creativity, or readability of Claude’s text. In the SynthID-Text paper, which introduced the technique we use, Google DeepMind tested this impact by serving a model that used watermarking to a portion of their Gemini traffic and comparing thumbs-up and thumbs-down ratings. They found no statistically significant differences from the unwatermarked model. And in a controlled study, human raters comparing watermarked and unwatermarked answers side-by-side saw no difference in quality.

[…]

There are limitations to the effectiveness of watermarking. Using our key, one can only answer the question “What is the likelihood this was partly written by Claude?” It doesn’t confirm whether the text was human-written, and it can’t tell whether the text was written by a different AI (even if that other AI uses watermarking, it would have a different key; it might also use a different watermarking method altogether). Detecting a watermark also doesn’t work well on small samples, where there are fewer word choices and thus less information to go on. As a passage increases in length, confidence about Claude’s involvement increases too.

Watermarking is sparser on factual passages where there are fewer choices that can be made without decreasing the accuracy of the text. […] For the same reason, code—which in very many cases has to be exact—has generally less watermarking than some other forms of text.

John Gruber (Mastodon, Bluesky, Hacker News):

I initially guessed “invisible characters” not because I didn’t think of the semantic word-choice technique, but because I was a fool who took Anthropic at its word in their description of what they would do.

[…]

They say “imperceptible” and “doesn’t change the meaning, quality, or readability”. Their words. Not almost imperceptible. Not slightly changes the meaning, quality, or readability.

There seems to be a slight of hand here, where Google studied whether humans saw a difference in quality but then Anthropic claimed that there was no difference in meaning. Changing words will almost always change the meaning. Perhaps not in an important way, but a change is a change. Pretending otherwise is offensive to a writer. The response to this line of argument seems to be that LLMs already have randomness and that the marking changes will be within the level noise that’s already there. To me, this presents a pessimistic view of the capabilities of LLMs, contrary to Anthropic’s normal claims. The Google study was published in 2024 and didn’t test Claude. The models have changed a lot since then, but they are assuming that the precision hasn’t advanced enough to be affected, nor will it in the future. Or that when there is a tension between watermarking and quality they will pick the former. And perhaps you won’t be able to tell because everyone else will be watermarking, too.

But the very best description of the general idea behind the technique is an interactive essay by James Padolsey, “How AI Text Watermarking Works”.

[…]

This isn’t just about text one might generate with the intention of passing it off as their own natural work. This isn’t even about LLM proofreading of work written by hand. Anthropic is saying that all new Claude models are going to adulterate every single bit of text longer than 200 tokens (~150 words) they generate, including everything it presents to its users to read. So even in a private conversation between a user and Claude, which will never be read by anyone other than the user, Claude will begin making word choices in the name of marking its output in statistically predictable ways rather than maximizing clarity and precision.

[…]

Taken literally, compliant LLM terms of service must forbid users from rephrasing the output from models that comply with this regulation, because the word choices are the marks. But it’s not the European Union that is trying to impose their absurd, impractical, witch-hunt-fueling regulation on the entire world. That falls on Anthropic.

Complying with this, particularly with regard to text, is only going to create problems for honest users. Dishonest users attempting to pass off AI-generated text as their own writing (students, employees, whoever) will simply circumvent detection through non-compliant AI paraphrasing tools.

I don’t love that checking for a watermark requires submitting the text to the AI provider, and all you get back is an opaque result with no way to verify it.

James Padolsey (via John Gruber):

The move is Anthropic’s response to Article 50(2) of the EU AI Act, which requires providers to ensure that outputs are “marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated”.

[…]

The Act exempts standard editing, but many legitimate assistive uses require more substantial rewriting while leaving the ideas, judgment and responsibility with the human. The same thought that led to this law could have applied to calculators at the time of their inception, had their outputs revealed themselves through artefacts. Thankfully, a sum borne of the brain is treated no differently from one produced by a calculator. Likewise with spellcheckers. To make assistance suspect only once the tool becomes capable enough to compose a whole sentence is not a principled boundary. It is a moral premium placed on difficulty itself.

Anthropic has nevertheless chosen a blanket, model-level implementation that appears broader than the law’s minimum requirement. That may be convenient compliance engineering, but it discards distinctions the law expressly attempted to preserve. The result is a signal broad enough to implicate harmless and assistive use, yet fragile enough to be removed by a motivated person through substantial recomposition. It risks concentrating suspicion on ordinary and assistive users while remaining weakest against deliberate deception.

Update (2026-08-20): See also:

• Supplementary Information for the SynthID-Text paper
• Jason Anthony Guy
• Daniel Jalkut (Mastodon)
• John Gruber (Mastodon)
• Greg Titus
• Allie

Without getting into the weeds, I still think Anthropic’s claim of their being no change in the meaning, quality, or readability is not accurate, using the plain meanings of those terms. If you read the papers, there are ways of ensuring that the frequencies of individual tokens or sequences of them are not affected in aggregate. But this is a different claim, and Anthropic does not specify which tradeoffs they’ve chosen there. I’m willing to grant that they can make the effect very small.

At this point, I think the most interesting question is, what will be the effects of these watermarks?

Steve Troughton-Smith:

AI watermarking is security theater. There is absolutely nothing to prevent people from removing any possible watermark in text, images, video or other data. There is no way to prevent false positives, or false negatives, in detectors, either. It’s all superficial nonsense.

I find it interesting to be able to test a particular passage of text, but what am I supposed to do with that information? Even without watermark removal, a negative for a given model doesn’t tell you whether another model was used. And I’m uncomfortable with convicting someone based on a watermark given that false positives are possible and independent verification is not.

I asked Gemini about the benefits, and it said:

Regulatory Compliance and Policy

• Legal adherence: Helps major tech platforms satisfy emerging mandates requiring automated systems to label machine-generated media.
• Ecosystem tracking: Gives platforms and enterprises a high-level telemetry signal to monitor the spread of synthetic content across public channels.

Triage and Risk Mitigation

• Mass moderation: Assists automated filters in flagging bulk, unvetted bot content or spam networks where statistical trends matter more than single-file perfection.
• Provenance auditing: Provides an extra layer of metadata for digital media archives, helping investigators spot obvious clusters of AI-generated assets.

In other words, it’s not so much about individual pieces of content.

Update (2026-08-24): John Gruber:

Also, more and more, I do think this has little to do with the EU regulation and everything to do with Anthropic and Google wanting to watermark the text that Claude and Gemini generate for their own purposes, to identify text to avoid training future models on to avoid model collapse/AI inbreeding.

See also: Accidental Tech Podcast.

Ryan Merket (Hacker News, Wikipedia):

Om Malik (@Om), the journalist, GigaOm founder, photographer and True Ventures partner whose work tracked the commercial internet from dial-up optimism to AI saturation, died on June 24 at Stanford Hospital after what his family described as a long health journey with his heart, according to a post on On my Om. He was 59.

[…]

That exchange was small. It was also the whole system in miniature. A founder could reach the editor directly. The editor was awake. The story was not filtered through a communications department, a conference stage or a banked embargo calendar. Malik helped build that operating system for Silicon Valley media: fast, conversational, porous, technically literate and dangerously close to the companies it covered.

Malik was not just one of the people who covered Silicon Valley. He became one of the people Silicon Valley used to understand itself. That was the gift and the complication of his career. He was a reporter, then a founder, then a venture investor, and he never entirely gave up any of those identities. He could spot a network shift early because he had spent decades watching pipes, protocols, business models and human ego interact at close range. He could also be too close to the machine he covered, a tension that defined the blog era he helped build.

[…]

On my Om, became less about scoops and more about judgment. He wrote about technology, photography, business cycles, health, memory and the human cost of living inside the network. He preferred the long arc to the launch post.

We were mutual readers for many years, and I respected him as a thoughtful writer, but I didn’t know him well. He always seemed like a kind soul, and reading the many comments about his passing that really comes across. When he announced the break recently, I hoped he was off to take some more wonderful photos.

Benjamin Clymer:

Through it all, Om Malik was just a kind, warm, funny (af), true, and honest friend who helped me get to the good times and ride out the bad. He’d been through a lot and wasn’t afraid to tell you all about it. He was a rare breed indeed in many ways, but having the confidence to show kindness and vulnerability in the world of venture capital is something that should be studied.

Om Malik (2020):

Given that I have been writing three decades, including eighteen-plus years a blogger, I am hardly surprised that I am repeatedly asked: how should I write? And my answer is always the same — write like a human.

Update (2026-06-29): See also:

• John Gruber (Mastodon, Hacker News)
• Dave Winer
• Daniel Agee
• Adam Chandler
• Rui Carmo
• Jim Nielsen
• Jesper
• Matt Mullenweg
• Rene Ritchie
• Ben Thompson
• Jim Dalrymple
• Clay Risen
• M.G. Siegler

Update (2026-07-13): John Gruber has a great roundup of remembrances.

A joint expedition to the ancient Egyptian city of Elkab has unearthed several previously unknown ancient rock art inscriptions, including what the team believes are the earliest known monumental Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Written over 1,000 years before the Great Pyramid of Giza was constructed, these ancient Egyptian writings, discovered by archaeologists from Yale University and the Royal Museums of Art and History (Brussels), laid the foundation for the later, better-known hieroglyphic writing system.

Yale Professor John Coleman Darnell, the expedition’s leader and the co-director of the Elkab Desert Survey Project, said the newly discovered inscriptions, which were not recorded by any previous scientific expedition, include samples as far back as 4,000 BCE.

Although the team concedes that these are not the first examples of this specific style of rock art, they are the first of this ancient age and “monumental” scale, making them of great significance in the history of ancient Egyptian writing systems.

“This was not what I was expecting to find when I set out on this period of work on the expedition,” Professor Darnell said of the historic find. “It was completely shocking to me.”

Earliest Monumental Egyptian Hieroglyphs Depict Cosmological Concepts

In a Yale news story announcing the discovery, Professor Darnell noted that the newly discovered rock art site of El-Khawy preserved some of the earliest and largest signs “from the formative stages of the hieroglyphic script.” The professor added that the discovery includes “rare” evidence for how this enigmatic ancient society invented its internationally recognized ancient writing system.

The expedition, which was directed by Darnell and Dirk Huyge, was undertaken in cooperation with the Ministry of Antiquities and the Aswan and Edfu inspectorates.

After photographing the newly discovered inscription, Darnell and Alberto Urcia, a digital archaeologist and associate research scientist in the University’s Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, created a series of three-dimensional (3D) images. Darnell said the new technology allows archaeologists to record ancient sites and artworks “at a level of accuracy and detail that was absolutely impossible before.”

“It also means that we can record the site as a place, or a location, and not just as a series of inscriptions,” the professor added.

One of the more noteworthy examples of ancient monumental hieroglyphs, carved sometime between 4,000 and 3,500 BCE, depicted a herd of elephants. A closer examination also revealed that one of the elephants had an image of a smaller elephant inside of it, which Professor Darnell described as “an incredibly rare way of representing a pregnant female animal.”

A second discovery detailed by the joint expedition, which consists of four separate panels, was likely created sometime around 3,250 BCE. Written right to left, which ultimately became the dominant writing form in later Egyptian hieroglyphic languages, the panels show animal images of a bull’s head on a short pole, followed by two back-to-back saddlebill storks with a bald ‘ibis’ bird above and between them.

The research team said this arrangement of symbols is common in Egyptian representations created centuries after the newly discovered panels depicting the solar cycle. These same depictions typically include imagery of luminosity. Darnell suggested that the images may also express “the concept of royal authority over the ordered cosmos.”

“This is the First Time That Anyone Has Seen Them on Such a Massive Scale”

When discussing the importance of the new find, Professor Darnell noted the immense size of the individual tableaus and their elements. For example, each individual hieroglyph identified by the Yale-led team measures over half a meter in height. The professor also noted that the entire tableau “is about 70 centimeters (27.5 inches) in height,” whereas previously discovered signs of early Egyptian hieroglyphs were “only one or two centimeters in size.”

“This discovery isn’t new in the sense that this is the first time that anyone has seen these hieroglyphs,” Darnell explained, “this is the first time that anyone has seen them on such a massive scale.”

To offer a perspective on the discovery’s significance, the professor said a modern-world equivalent would be seeing smaller text displayed on your computer screen, “and then suddenly seeing very large ones made the same way,” only displayed up on a highway billboard.

When discussing the site’s location in the northeastern desert hinterland of Elkab, Darnell noted that it was a “very important” center in ancient Egypt, which demonstrates that the area’s budding communicative system “is not limited to the more commonly found small tokens or labels.”

The professor also said the study shows that ancient writing did not develop slowly “for bureaucratic use,” as researchers had previously believed. Instead, Darnell suggested that the discovery shows hieroglyphic-style writing “was more geographically widespread and topically diverse at the time of or shortly after its development.”

“This also suggests that there is a much more expansive use of the early writing system than is indicated from other surviving archaeological material,” the professor added.

Christopher Plain is a Science Fiction and Fantasy novelist and Head Science Writer at The Debrief. Follow and connect with him on X, learn about his books at plainfiction.com, or email him directly at christopher@thedebrief.org.