×
Superblocks CEO: How to find a unicorn idea by studying AI system prompts

Superblocks CEO: How to find a unicorn idea by studying AI system prompts

Brad Menezes, CEO of enterprise vibe coding startup Superblocks, believes the next crop of billion-dollar startup ideas are hiding in almost plain sight: the system prompts used by existing unicorn AI startups.

System prompts are the lengthy prompts — over 5,000-6,000 words — that AI startups use to instruct the foundational models from companies like OpenAI or Anthropic on how to generate their application-level AI products. They are, in Menezes view, like a master class in prompt engineering.

“Every single company has a completely different system prompt for the same [foundational] model,” he told TechCrunch. “They’re trying to get the model to do exactly what’s required for a specific domain, specific tasks.”

System prompts aren’t exactly hidden. Customers can ask many AI tools to share theirs. But they aren’t always publicly available.

So as part of his own startup’s new product announcement of an enterprise coding AI agent named Clark, Superblocks offered to share a file of 19 system prompts from some of the most popular AI coding products like Windsurf, Manus, Cursor, Lovable and Bolt. 

Menezes’s tweet went viral, viewed by almost 2 million including big names in the Valley like Sam Blond, formerly of Founders Fund and Brex, and Aaron Levie, a Superblocks investor. Superblocks announced last week that it raised a $23 million Series A, bringing its total to $60 million for its vibe coding tools geared to non-developers at enterprises. 

So we asked Menezes to walk us through how to study other’s system prompts to glean insights.

“I’d say the biggest learning for us building Clark and reading through the system prompts is that the system prompt itself is maybe 20% of the secret sauce,” Menezes explained. This prompt gives the LLM the baseline of what to do.

The other 80% is “prompt enrichment” he said, which is the infrastructure a startup builds around the calls to the LLM. That part includes instructions it attaches to a user’s prompt, and actions taken when returning the response, such as checking for accuracy.

Roles, context and tools

He said there are three parts of system prompts to study: role prompting, contextual prompting, and tool use.

The first thing to notice is that, while system prompts are written in natural language, they are exceptionally specific. “You basically have to speak as if you would to a human co-worker,” Menezes said. “And the instructions have to be perfect.”

Role prompting helps the LLMs be consistent, giving both purpose and personality. For instance, Devin’s begins with, “You are Devin, a software engineer using a real computer operating system. You are a real code-wiz: few programmers are as talented as you at understanding codebases, writing functional and clean code, and iterating on your changes until they are correct.”

Contextual prompting gives the models the context to consider before acting. It should provide guardrails that can, for instance, reduce costs and ensure clarity on tasks.

Cursor’s instructs, “Only call tools when needed, and never mention tool names to the user — just describe what you’re doing. … don’t show code unless asked. … Read relevant file content before editing and fix clear errors, but don’t guess or loop fixes more than three times.”

Tool use enables agentic tasks because it instructs the models how to go beyond just generating text. Replit’s, for instance, is long and describes editing and searching code, installing languages, setting up and querying PostgreSQL databases, executing shell commands and more.

Studying others’ system prompts helped Menezes see what other vibe coders emphasized. Tools like Loveable, V0, and Bolt focus on fast iteration,” he said, whereas “Manus, Devin, OpenAI Codex, and Replit” help users create full-stack applications but “the output is still raw code.” 

Menezes saw an opportunity to let non-programmers write apps, if his startup could handle more, such as security and access to enterprise data sources like Salesforce.

While he’s not yet running the multi-billion startup of his dreams, Superblock has landed some notable companies as customers, it said, including Instacart and Paypaya Global. 

Menezes is also dogfooding the product internally. His software engineers are not allowed to write internal tools; they can only build the product. So his business folks have built agents for all their needs, like one that uses CRM data to identify leads, one that tracks support metrics, another that balance the assignments of the human sales engineers.

“This is basically a way for us to build the tools and not buy the tools,” he sais.

Source link
#Superblocks #CEO #find #unicorn #idea #studying #system #prompts

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