Basically your arguments are: 1) The CEO said there was a JS engine, but it didn't work. 2) It didn't build when they published the blog post. Therefore it l

Basically your arguments are: 1) The CEO said there was a JS engine, but it didn't work. 2) It didn't build when they published the blog post. Therefore it lacks integrity! Except that it built (I took Simon's words for it), and building a browser is beside the point, there are a few other big projects listed (Java LSP, Windows 7 emulator, Excel, etc.) The blog stated: "Our goal is to understand how far we can push the frontier of agentic coding for projects that typically take human teams months to complete. This post describes what we've learned from running hundreds of concurrent agents on a single project, coordinating their work, and watching them write over a million lines of code and trillions of tokens." They didn't set the goal of building a browser. It's an experiment about coordinating AI agents within a context of a complex software project, yet you complained they exaggerating about a JS engine? The blog post itself is one of the first that describes a large scale experiment of agents, what works, what doesn't. There is very little hype. They didn't say it's game changing or Cursor is the best AI tool.