xAi partnerships with Anthropic is new. Anthropic gets more compute power and they doubled quotas for Pro/Max tier subscriptions. xAI recently partnered with Cursor too, this looks good for Grok to get all that data on coding from Cursor

GitHub Copilot is switching from flat-rate to per-token AI Credits on June 1st — and if you're using agents like Cursor or Claude Code, your bill could jump 5-10x. The GitHub Copilot vs Claude pricing shift means agentic coding sessions that cost pennies under the old model now burn real money at GPT-5.5's $30/million token rate. GitHub Copilot's weekly costs nearly doubled since January as agentic workflows consumed 10-100x more tokens than simple autocomplete. Under the new AI Credits model, code completion stays free but chat and agent sessions are billed per token at model-specific rates — GPT-5.4 Mini at $4.50/million vs GPT-5.5 at $30/million output tokens. Anthropic is rationing Claude Code access during peak hours and removing volume discounts. The optimization: route cheap models for routine work, expensive models only for hard problems — 80% capability at 20% cost.

Anthropic just tested removing Claude Code from the $20/month Pro plan — and it could change everything for indie developers. In this video, I break down what actually happened, why Anthropic is considering this change, and what it means for your coding workflow. What coding agents do you use?

SpaceX's S-1 IPO filing reveals an option to acquire Cursor for $60 billion — a 30x premium over Cursor's planned $2B funding round and eight times Microsoft's $7.5B GitHub acquisition. The deal makes sense in context: Google's CEO says 75% of Google's new code is AI-generated (up from 50% last fall), and Anthropic writes 70-90% of its own code with Claude Code. SpaceX merged with xAI in 2025 and is building GPUs with Intel through Terafab — buying Cursor gives them the dominant position in AI-assisted development to fuel their full stack. The biggest risk isn't Cursor disappearing; it's the model-agnostic IDE tilting toward Grok as the default, the same way Azure became the default after Microsoft bought GitHub. Are you worried about this?

Still early but the direction is clear enough that I wanted to get some outside eyes on it before going deeper. The concept: a browser game where the interface itself is the puzzle. No enemies, no physics — just you and your assumptions about how UI works. Every stage looks familiar. A loading screen. A form. A leaderboard. Except none of them behave the way you expect. The core question I keep asking myself while building it: where's the line between "ha, got me" and "this is just annoying"? I have opinions but I'm probably too close to it at this point. It's playable right now, maybe 5–10 minutes, clearly unfinished in places: https://goa.nootcode.de Two things I'd love feedback on: 1. Does the concept feel fresh enough to stand out in a jam, or is the "subverted UI" space too crowded? 2. Which stage felt unfair vs. which felt like a fair surprise in hindsight? Be harsh. It's a prototype.