×
Pair Your Mac Mini With One of These Great Monitors

Pair Your Mac Mini With One of These Great Monitors

Just about any monitor can work with a Mac Mini. It doesn’t need to be made by Apple or have any official certification. There’s a case to be made for using a cheap 1080p monitor with the Mac Mini, but most Mac users will want something a bit more premium. As you can see by options like the Dell 27 Plus 4K, that doesn’t have to mean overly expensive. Either way, here are the four elements to consider when shopping for a good monitor to go with your Mac Mini.

Size and resolution: 27-inch and 32-inch monitors are the most common sizes these days, and there are larger options. I would also consider a 34-inch ultrawide monitor if you like the wider, 21:9 aspect ratio with the curved shape. With Apple, resolution is king. There’s a reason it invests so much in high pixel density for every screen it sells, even down to the entry-level options like the MacBook Air. Pixel density is what gives a screen its sharpness, and you need a lot more pixels when they’re stretched out across a large, external monitor. If you want to keep the fidelity up, I wouldn’t buy anything under 4K, and bumping up to 5K or 6K on a 32-inch monitor can be helpful. You also want to consider the refresh rate here. A 120-Hz refresh rate is what the MacBook Pro has, offering smoother animation, especially in games.

Adjustability: Apple monitors and iMacs aren’t exactly known for adjustability. They often have none at all, and cost more when they do. That isn’t the best for your posture and ergonomics. Famously, the Pro Display XDR charges an extra $1,000 to add a Pro Stand with proper adjustability. For ergonomic purposes, the top of the screen you’re working on should be as close to eye level as possible, and that ranges depending on someone’s height. If a monitor doesn’t have height adjustability, you’ll have to depend on a separate monitor stand or arm. Other than height adjustment, many monitors also have a stand that can swivel, tilt, and rotate, all of which are important when using multiple monitors together. This is also needed if you want to use a second monitor vertically, which has become increasingly popular.

Ports: Even the cheapest monitors will always have HDMI as a connection, which is all you need to connect directly to the back of the Mac Mini. Some monitors have USB-C that support display, which will let you connect to one of the Mac Mini’s Thunderbolt ports. The M4 Mac Mini comes with three Thunderbolt 4 ports, HDMI, and an Ethernet jack. The M4 Pro model has the same ports, except the ports are Thunderbolt 5 instead of 4. You’ll need to use at least one of these Thunderbolt ports if you want to connect more than one external monitor. These monitors also tend to have other ports, such as USB-A. These can be useful, as the Mac Mini doesn’t have any on its own.

Image quality: Apple prides itself on the image quality of its Macs, so in the case of the Mac Mini, you’ll likely want to get something worthy of your Mac. This is especially important for content creators, photographers, and designers. So, you’ll want to consider a monitor’s brightness, color accuracy, color coverage, and contrast. While some IPS displays offer decent color and contrast, mini-LED or OLED displays will guarantee better image quality. These also have significantly higher peak brightness in HDR content, which really brings games and movies to life.

Source link
#Pair #Mac #Mini #Great #Monitors

Lego-style propaganda videos alleging war crimes are flooding online feeds, echoing the White House’s own turn toward cryptic teaser clips and meme-native visuals. This is not just content drift. It is a new front in the information war, one where speed, ambiguity, and algorithmic reach matter as much as accuracy.

One Iran-linked outlet, Explosive News, can reportedly turn around a two-minute synthetic Lego segment in about 24 hours. The speed is the point. Synthetic media does not need to hold up forever; it only needs to travel before verification catches up.

Last month, the White House added to that confusion when it posted two vague “launching soon” videos, then removed them after online investigators and open source researchers began dissecting them.

The reveal turned out to be anticlimactic: a promotional push for the official White House app. But the episode demonstrated how thoroughly official communication has absorbed the aesthetics of leaks, virality, and platform-native intrigue. Even when official accounts adopt the aesthetics of a leak, questioning whether a record is real or synthetic is the only defensive move left.

Real vs. Synthetic: The New Friction

A zero digital footprint used to signal authenticity. Now, it can signal the opposite. The absence of a trail no longer means something is original—it may mean it was never captured by a lens at all. The signal has inverted. Truth lags; engagement leads.

Automated traffic now commands an estimated 51 percent of internet activity, scaling eight times faster than human traffic according to the 2026 State of AI Traffic & Cyberthreat Benchmark Report. These systems don’t just distribute content, they prioritize low-quality virality, ensuring the synthetic record travels while verification is still catching up.

Open source investigators are still holding the line, but they are fighting a volume war. The rise of hyperactive “super sharers,” often backed by paid verification, adds a layer of false authority that traditional open source intelligence (OSINT) now has to navigate.

“We’re perpetually catching up to someone pressing repost without a second thought,” says Maryam Ishani, an OSINT journalist covering the conflict. “The algorithm prioritizes that reflex, and our information is always going to be one step behind.”

At the same time, the surge of war-monitoring accounts is beginning to interfere with reporting itself. Manisha Ganguly, visual forensics lead at The Guardian and an OSINT specialist investigating war crimes, points to the false certainty created by the flood of aggregated content on Telegram and X.

“Open source verification starts to create false certainty when it stops being a method of inquiry—through confirmation bias, or when OSINT is used to cosmetically validate official accounts or knowingly misapplied to align with ideological narratives rather than interrogate them,” Ganguly says.

While this plays out, the verification toolkit itself is becoming harder to access. On April 4, Planet Labs—one of the most relied-upon commercial satellite providers for conflict journalism—announced it would indefinitely withhold imagery of Iran and the broader Middle East conflict zone, retroactive to March 9, following a request from the US government.

The response from US defense secretary Pete Hegseth to concerns about the delay was unambiguous: “Open source is not the place to determine what did or did not happen.”

That shift matters. When access to primary visual evidence is restricted, the ability to independently verify events narrows. And in that narrowing gap, something else expands: Generative AI doesn’t just fill the silence—it competes to define what’s seen in the first place.

Generative AI Is Getting Harder to Spot

Generative AI platforms have been learning from their mistakes. Henk van Ess, an investigative trainer and verification specialist, says many of the classic tells—incorrect finger counts, garbled protest signs, distorted text—have largely been fixed in the latest generation of models. Tools like Imagen 3, Midjourney, and Dall·E have improved in prompt understanding, photorealism, and text-in-image rendering.

But the harder problem is what van Ess calls the hybrid.

#Internet #Broke #Everyones #Bullshit #Detectorspropaganda,artificial intelligence,open source,satellite images,iran,war,politics">How the Internet Broke Everyone’s Bullshit DetectorsLego-style propaganda videos alleging war crimes are flooding online feeds, echoing the White House’s own turn toward cryptic teaser clips and meme-native visuals. This is not just content drift. It is a new front in the information war, one where speed, ambiguity, and algorithmic reach matter as much as accuracy.One Iran-linked outlet, Explosive News, can reportedly turn around a two-minute synthetic Lego segment in about 24 hours. The speed is the point. Synthetic media does not need to hold up forever; it only needs to travel before verification catches up.Last month, the White House added to that confusion when it posted two vague “launching soon” videos, then removed them after online investigators and open source researchers began dissecting them.The reveal turned out to be anticlimactic: a promotional push for the official White House app. But the episode demonstrated how thoroughly official communication has absorbed the aesthetics of leaks, virality, and platform-native intrigue. Even when official accounts adopt the aesthetics of a leak, questioning whether a record is real or synthetic is the only defensive move left.Real vs. Synthetic: The New FrictionA zero digital footprint used to signal authenticity. Now, it can signal the opposite. The absence of a trail no longer means something is original—it may mean it was never captured by a lens at all. The signal has inverted. Truth lags; engagement leads.Automated traffic now commands an estimated 51 percent of internet activity, scaling eight times faster than human traffic according to the 2026 State of AI Traffic & Cyberthreat Benchmark Report. These systems don’t just distribute content, they prioritize low-quality virality, ensuring the synthetic record travels while verification is still catching up.Open source investigators are still holding the line, but they are fighting a volume war. The rise of hyperactive “super sharers,” often backed by paid verification, adds a layer of false authority that traditional open source intelligence (OSINT) now has to navigate.“We’re perpetually catching up to someone pressing repost without a second thought,” says Maryam Ishani, an OSINT journalist covering the conflict. “The algorithm prioritizes that reflex, and our information is always going to be one step behind.”At the same time, the surge of war-monitoring accounts is beginning to interfere with reporting itself. Manisha Ganguly, visual forensics lead at The Guardian and an OSINT specialist investigating war crimes, points to the false certainty created by the flood of aggregated content on Telegram and X.“Open source verification starts to create false certainty when it stops being a method of inquiry—through confirmation bias, or when OSINT is used to cosmetically validate official accounts or knowingly misapplied to align with ideological narratives rather than interrogate them,” Ganguly says.While this plays out, the verification toolkit itself is becoming harder to access. On April 4, Planet Labs—one of the most relied-upon commercial satellite providers for conflict journalism—announced it would indefinitely withhold imagery of Iran and the broader Middle East conflict zone, retroactive to March 9, following a request from the US government.The response from US defense secretary Pete Hegseth to concerns about the delay was unambiguous: “Open source is not the place to determine what did or did not happen.”That shift matters. When access to primary visual evidence is restricted, the ability to independently verify events narrows. And in that narrowing gap, something else expands: Generative AI doesn’t just fill the silence—it competes to define what’s seen in the first place.Generative AI Is Getting Harder to SpotGenerative AI platforms have been learning from their mistakes. Henk van Ess, an investigative trainer and verification specialist, says many of the classic tells—incorrect finger counts, garbled protest signs, distorted text—have largely been fixed in the latest generation of models. Tools like Imagen 3, Midjourney, and Dall·E have improved in prompt understanding, photorealism, and text-in-image rendering.But the harder problem is what van Ess calls the hybrid.#Internet #Broke #Everyones #Bullshit #Detectorspropaganda,artificial intelligence,open source,satellite images,iran,war,politics

flooding online feeds, echoing the White House’s own turn toward cryptic teaser clips and meme-native visuals. This is not just content drift. It is a new front in the information war, one where speed, ambiguity, and algorithmic reach matter as much as accuracy.

One Iran-linked outlet, Explosive News, can reportedly turn around a two-minute synthetic Lego segment in about 24 hours. The speed is the point. Synthetic media does not need to hold up forever; it only needs to travel before verification catches up.

Last month, the White House added to that confusion when it posted two vague “launching soon” videos, then removed them after online investigators and open source researchers began dissecting them.

The reveal turned out to be anticlimactic: a promotional push for the official White House app. But the episode demonstrated how thoroughly official communication has absorbed the aesthetics of leaks, virality, and platform-native intrigue. Even when official accounts adopt the aesthetics of a leak, questioning whether a record is real or synthetic is the only defensive move left.

Real vs. Synthetic: The New Friction

A zero digital footprint used to signal authenticity. Now, it can signal the opposite. The absence of a trail no longer means something is original—it may mean it was never captured by a lens at all. The signal has inverted. Truth lags; engagement leads.

Automated traffic now commands an estimated 51 percent of internet activity, scaling eight times faster than human traffic according to the 2026 State of AI Traffic & Cyberthreat Benchmark Report. These systems don’t just distribute content, they prioritize low-quality virality, ensuring the synthetic record travels while verification is still catching up.

Open source investigators are still holding the line, but they are fighting a volume war. The rise of hyperactive “super sharers,” often backed by paid verification, adds a layer of false authority that traditional open source intelligence (OSINT) now has to navigate.

“We’re perpetually catching up to someone pressing repost without a second thought,” says Maryam Ishani, an OSINT journalist covering the conflict. “The algorithm prioritizes that reflex, and our information is always going to be one step behind.”

At the same time, the surge of war-monitoring accounts is beginning to interfere with reporting itself. Manisha Ganguly, visual forensics lead at The Guardian and an OSINT specialist investigating war crimes, points to the false certainty created by the flood of aggregated content on Telegram and X.

“Open source verification starts to create false certainty when it stops being a method of inquiry—through confirmation bias, or when OSINT is used to cosmetically validate official accounts or knowingly misapplied to align with ideological narratives rather than interrogate them,” Ganguly says.

While this plays out, the verification toolkit itself is becoming harder to access. On April 4, Planet Labs—one of the most relied-upon commercial satellite providers for conflict journalism—announced it would indefinitely withhold imagery of Iran and the broader Middle East conflict zone, retroactive to March 9, following a request from the US government.

The response from US defense secretary Pete Hegseth to concerns about the delay was unambiguous: “Open source is not the place to determine what did or did not happen.”

That shift matters. When access to primary visual evidence is restricted, the ability to independently verify events narrows. And in that narrowing gap, something else expands: Generative AI doesn’t just fill the silence—it competes to define what’s seen in the first place.

Generative AI Is Getting Harder to Spot

Generative AI platforms have been learning from their mistakes. Henk van Ess, an investigative trainer and verification specialist, says many of the classic tells—incorrect finger counts, garbled protest signs, distorted text—have largely been fixed in the latest generation of models. Tools like Imagen 3, Midjourney, and Dall·E have improved in prompt understanding, photorealism, and text-in-image rendering.

But the harder problem is what van Ess calls the hybrid.

#Internet #Broke #Everyones #Bullshit #Detectorspropaganda,artificial intelligence,open source,satellite images,iran,war,politics">How the Internet Broke Everyone’s Bullshit Detectors

Lego-style propaganda videos alleging war crimes are flooding online feeds, echoing the White House’s own turn toward cryptic teaser clips and meme-native visuals. This is not just content drift. It is a new front in the information war, one where speed, ambiguity, and algorithmic reach matter as much as accuracy.

One Iran-linked outlet, Explosive News, can reportedly turn around a two-minute synthetic Lego segment in about 24 hours. The speed is the point. Synthetic media does not need to hold up forever; it only needs to travel before verification catches up.

Last month, the White House added to that confusion when it posted two vague “launching soon” videos, then removed them after online investigators and open source researchers began dissecting them.

The reveal turned out to be anticlimactic: a promotional push for the official White House app. But the episode demonstrated how thoroughly official communication has absorbed the aesthetics of leaks, virality, and platform-native intrigue. Even when official accounts adopt the aesthetics of a leak, questioning whether a record is real or synthetic is the only defensive move left.

Real vs. Synthetic: The New Friction

A zero digital footprint used to signal authenticity. Now, it can signal the opposite. The absence of a trail no longer means something is original—it may mean it was never captured by a lens at all. The signal has inverted. Truth lags; engagement leads.

Automated traffic now commands an estimated 51 percent of internet activity, scaling eight times faster than human traffic according to the 2026 State of AI Traffic & Cyberthreat Benchmark Report. These systems don’t just distribute content, they prioritize low-quality virality, ensuring the synthetic record travels while verification is still catching up.

Open source investigators are still holding the line, but they are fighting a volume war. The rise of hyperactive “super sharers,” often backed by paid verification, adds a layer of false authority that traditional open source intelligence (OSINT) now has to navigate.

“We’re perpetually catching up to someone pressing repost without a second thought,” says Maryam Ishani, an OSINT journalist covering the conflict. “The algorithm prioritizes that reflex, and our information is always going to be one step behind.”

At the same time, the surge of war-monitoring accounts is beginning to interfere with reporting itself. Manisha Ganguly, visual forensics lead at The Guardian and an OSINT specialist investigating war crimes, points to the false certainty created by the flood of aggregated content on Telegram and X.

“Open source verification starts to create false certainty when it stops being a method of inquiry—through confirmation bias, or when OSINT is used to cosmetically validate official accounts or knowingly misapplied to align with ideological narratives rather than interrogate them,” Ganguly says.

While this plays out, the verification toolkit itself is becoming harder to access. On April 4, Planet Labs—one of the most relied-upon commercial satellite providers for conflict journalism—announced it would indefinitely withhold imagery of Iran and the broader Middle East conflict zone, retroactive to March 9, following a request from the US government.

The response from US defense secretary Pete Hegseth to concerns about the delay was unambiguous: “Open source is not the place to determine what did or did not happen.”

That shift matters. When access to primary visual evidence is restricted, the ability to independently verify events narrows. And in that narrowing gap, something else expands: Generative AI doesn’t just fill the silence—it competes to define what’s seen in the first place.

Generative AI Is Getting Harder to Spot

Generative AI platforms have been learning from their mistakes. Henk van Ess, an investigative trainer and verification specialist, says many of the classic tells—incorrect finger counts, garbled protest signs, distorted text—have largely been fixed in the latest generation of models. Tools like Imagen 3, Midjourney, and Dall·E have improved in prompt understanding, photorealism, and text-in-image rendering.

But the harder problem is what van Ess calls the hybrid.

#Internet #Broke #Everyones #Bullshit #Detectorspropaganda,artificial intelligence,open source,satellite images,iran,war,politics

Today’s Connections: Sports Edition is tricky! There are some red herrings you’ll have to avoid.

As we’ve shared in previous hints stories, this is a version of the popular New York Times word game that seeks to test the knowledge of sports fans.

Like the original Connections, the game is all about finding the “common threads between words.” And just like Wordle, Connections resets after midnight and each new set of words gets trickier and trickier — so we’ve served up some hints and tips to get you over the hurdle.

If you just want to be told today’s puzzle, you can jump to the end of this article for the latest Connections solution. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.

What is Connections: Sports Edition?

The NYT‘s latest daily word game has launched in association with The Athletic, the New York Times property that provides the publication’s sports coverage. Connections can be played on both web browsers and mobile devices and require players to group four words that share something in common.

Each puzzle features 16 words, and each grouping of words is split into four categories. These sets could comprise anything from book titles, software, country names, etc. Even though multiple words will seem like they fit together, there’s only one correct answer.

If a player gets all four words in a set correct, those words are removed from the board. Guess wrong and it counts as a mistake — players get up to four mistakes before the game ends.

Players can also rearrange and shuffle the board to make spotting connections easier. Additionally, each group is color-coded with yellow being the easiest, followed by green, blue, and purple. Like Wordle, you can share the results with your friends on social media.

Here’s a hint for today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Want a hint about the categories without being told the categories? Then give these a try:

Here are today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Need a little extra help? Today’s connections fall into the following categories:

  • Yellow: MLB Teams, Colloquially

  • Green: UCLA

  • Blue: Can Follow Minnesota

  • Purple: Starts With Part of the Body

Looking for Wordle today? Here’s the answer to today’s Wordle.

Ready for the answers? This is your last chance to turn back and solve today’s puzzle before we reveal the solutions.

Drumroll, please!

The solution to today’s Connections: Sports Edition #565 is…

What is the answer to Connections: Sports Edition today?

  • MLB Teams, Colloquially — D-BACKS, JAYS, PHILS, SOX

  • UCLA — ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, LOS, UNIVERSITY

  • Can Follow Minnesota — LYNX, UNITED, VIKINGS, WILD

  • Starts With Part of the Body — ARMY, EARTHQUAKES, LEGACY, LIVERPOOL

Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be new sports Connections for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints.

Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.

If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.

Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Connections.

#NYT #Connections #Sports #Edition #hints #answers #April #Tips #solve #Connections">NYT Connections Sports Edition hints and answers for April 11: Tips to solve Connections #565
                                                            Today’s Connections: Sports Edition is tricky! There are some red herrings you’ll have to avoid.As we’ve shared in previous hints stories, this is a version of the popular New York Times word game that seeks to test the knowledge of sports fans. Like the original Connections, the game is all about finding the “common threads between words.” And just like Wordle, Connections resets after midnight and each new set of words gets trickier and trickier — so we’ve served up some hints and tips to get you over the hurdle.If you just want to be told today’s puzzle, you can jump to the end of this article for the latest Connections solution. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.
        SEE ALSO:
        
            Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more: Play games on Mashable
            
        
    
What is Connections: Sports Edition?The NYT‘s latest daily word game has launched in association with The Athletic, the New York Times property that provides the publication’s sports coverage. Connections can be played on both web browsers and mobile devices and require players to group four words that share something in common.
    
        This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
    


Each puzzle features 16 words, and each grouping of words is split into four categories. These sets could comprise anything from book titles, software, country names, etc. Even though multiple words will seem like they fit together, there’s only one correct answer.If a player gets all four words in a set correct, those words are removed from the board. Guess wrong and it counts as a mistake — players get up to four mistakes before the game ends.
    
        This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
    


Players can also rearrange and shuffle the board to make spotting connections easier. Additionally, each group is color-coded with yellow being the easiest, followed by green, blue, and purple. Like Wordle, you can share the results with your friends on social media.
        
            Mashable Top Stories
        
        
    

        SEE ALSO:
        
            Wordle-obsessed? These are the best word games to play IRL.
            
        
    
Here’s a hint for today’s Connections: Sports Edition categoriesWant a hint about the categories without being told the categories? Then give these a try:Here are today’s Connections: Sports Edition categoriesNeed a little extra help? Today’s connections fall into the following categories:Yellow: MLB Teams, ColloquiallyGreen: UCLABlue: Can Follow MinnesotaPurple: Starts With Part of the BodyLooking for Wordle today? Here’s the answer to today’s Wordle.Ready for the answers? This is your last chance to turn back and solve today’s puzzle before we reveal the solutions.Drumroll, please!The solution to today’s Connections: Sports Edition #565 is…What is the answer to Connections: Sports Edition today?MLB Teams, Colloquially — D-BACKS, JAYS, PHILS, SOXUCLA — ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, LOS, UNIVERSITYCan Follow Minnesota — LYNX, UNITED, VIKINGS, WILDStarts With Part of the Body — ARMY, EARTHQUAKES, LEGACY, LIVERPOOLDon’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be new sports Connections for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints.Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Connections.

                    
                                            
                            
                        
                                    #NYT #Connections #Sports #Edition #hints #answers #April #Tips #solve #Connections

New York Times word game that seeks to test the knowledge of sports fans.

Like the original Connections, the game is all about finding the “common threads between words.” And just like Wordle, Connections resets after midnight and each new set of words gets trickier and trickier — so we’ve served up some hints and tips to get you over the hurdle.

If you just want to be told today’s puzzle, you can jump to the end of this article for the latest Connections solution. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.

What is Connections: Sports Edition?

The NYT‘s latest daily word game has launched in association with The Athletic, the New York Times property that provides the publication’s sports coverage. Connections can be played on both web browsers and mobile devices and require players to group four words that share something in common.

Each puzzle features 16 words, and each grouping of words is split into four categories. These sets could comprise anything from book titles, software, country names, etc. Even though multiple words will seem like they fit together, there’s only one correct answer.

If a player gets all four words in a set correct, those words are removed from the board. Guess wrong and it counts as a mistake — players get up to four mistakes before the game ends.

Players can also rearrange and shuffle the board to make spotting connections easier. Additionally, each group is color-coded with yellow being the easiest, followed by green, blue, and purple. Like Wordle, you can share the results with your friends on social media.

Here’s a hint for today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Want a hint about the categories without being told the categories? Then give these a try:

Here are today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Need a little extra help? Today’s connections fall into the following categories:

  • Yellow: MLB Teams, Colloquially

  • Green: UCLA

  • Blue: Can Follow Minnesota

  • Purple: Starts With Part of the Body

Looking for Wordle today? Here’s the answer to today’s Wordle.

Ready for the answers? This is your last chance to turn back and solve today’s puzzle before we reveal the solutions.

Drumroll, please!

The solution to today’s Connections: Sports Edition #565 is…

What is the answer to Connections: Sports Edition today?

  • MLB Teams, Colloquially — D-BACKS, JAYS, PHILS, SOX

  • UCLA — ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, LOS, UNIVERSITY

  • Can Follow Minnesota — LYNX, UNITED, VIKINGS, WILD

  • Starts With Part of the Body — ARMY, EARTHQUAKES, LEGACY, LIVERPOOL

Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be new sports Connections for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints.

Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.

If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.

Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Connections.

#NYT #Connections #Sports #Edition #hints #answers #April #Tips #solve #Connections">NYT Connections Sports Edition hints and answers for April 11: Tips to solve Connections #565

Today’s Connections: Sports Edition is tricky! There are some red herrings you’ll have to avoid.

As we’ve shared in previous hints stories, this is a version of the popular New York Times word game that seeks to test the knowledge of sports fans.

Like the original Connections, the game is all about finding the “common threads between words.” And just like Wordle, Connections resets after midnight and each new set of words gets trickier and trickier — so we’ve served up some hints and tips to get you over the hurdle.

If you just want to be told today’s puzzle, you can jump to the end of this article for the latest Connections solution. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.

What is Connections: Sports Edition?

The NYT‘s latest daily word game has launched in association with The Athletic, the New York Times property that provides the publication’s sports coverage. Connections can be played on both web browsers and mobile devices and require players to group four words that share something in common.

Each puzzle features 16 words, and each grouping of words is split into four categories. These sets could comprise anything from book titles, software, country names, etc. Even though multiple words will seem like they fit together, there’s only one correct answer.

If a player gets all four words in a set correct, those words are removed from the board. Guess wrong and it counts as a mistake — players get up to four mistakes before the game ends.

Players can also rearrange and shuffle the board to make spotting connections easier. Additionally, each group is color-coded with yellow being the easiest, followed by green, blue, and purple. Like Wordle, you can share the results with your friends on social media.

Here’s a hint for today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Want a hint about the categories without being told the categories? Then give these a try:

Here are today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Need a little extra help? Today’s connections fall into the following categories:

  • Yellow: MLB Teams, Colloquially

  • Green: UCLA

  • Blue: Can Follow Minnesota

  • Purple: Starts With Part of the Body

Looking for Wordle today? Here’s the answer to today’s Wordle.

Ready for the answers? This is your last chance to turn back and solve today’s puzzle before we reveal the solutions.

Drumroll, please!

The solution to today’s Connections: Sports Edition #565 is…

What is the answer to Connections: Sports Edition today?

  • MLB Teams, Colloquially — D-BACKS, JAYS, PHILS, SOX

  • UCLA — ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, LOS, UNIVERSITY

  • Can Follow Minnesota — LYNX, UNITED, VIKINGS, WILD

  • Starts With Part of the Body — ARMY, EARTHQUAKES, LEGACY, LIVERPOOL

Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be new sports Connections for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints.

Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.

If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.

Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Connections.

#NYT #Connections #Sports #Edition #hints #answers #April #Tips #solve #Connections

Post Comment