Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

“Centrally🥋Peripheral” Attacking This At An Entirely Different Level 📈 CNS & PNS firing on all cylinders 🔥 Its not easy by far 🏋️‍♂️ Extra… Challenge🥷Accepted 🏇💨🍃 -CSO- 🇺🇸🏆🇲🇽 # Fight🔜News 🤝🦹‍♂️

TonyFergusonXT's profile picture

Tony Ferguson

1,435,310 subscribers

127,363 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

Gesundheit & WellnessSport
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

9 Kommentare

Profilbild von BlackMarket MMA 🇿🇦🇺🇸
BlackMarket MMA 🇿🇦🇺🇸vor 1 Jahr

Tony, maybe you haven't heard but GFL's gone to shit, the company's bankrupt. Cut the crap, stop training. Spend some damn time with your family.🔥💩🛑

Profilbild von Akula
Akulavor 1 Jahr

Anything but training how to fight. Dude retire. You’ve been embarrassing yourself so long now it can only get worse

Profilbild von Blaze Deshotel
Blaze Deshotelvor 1 Jahr

Tony.. bruh just retire 😭

Profilbild von Sweet Lou Brown
Sweet Lou Brownvor 1 Jahr

other fighters are terrified seeing Tony still at this level!

Profilbild von Basecamp
Basecampvor 1 Jahr

Hard to watch😂

Profilbild von Barcinho🇧🇷🇿🇦🇦🇺🇬🇪🇺🇸
Barcinho🇧🇷🇿🇦🇦🇺🇬🇪🇺🇸vor 1 Jahr

Your in peak shape sir Tony

Profilbild von მმმმმგ
მმმმმგvor 1 Jahr

“Throwing Sand, No Apologies” ⚾💨🍃 Levels Up Every Mat Time 🥋🔝 farketmez no block ☝️☝️ “Waitin’ for that… Satisfaction” 🎶🕺 ⚔️🕶️ — CSO Way — 🇺🇸🏅🇲🇽 BeCSOcialCrew 🍃 — Champ Mode: On 🦹‍♂️ systemaCucuy 🌮

Profilbild von Michael Gallegos
Michael Gallegosvor 1 Jahr

It’s like a like action metaphor for his last decade of fights.

Profilbild von rico_truth69
rico_truth69vor 1 Jahr

No mames n with that training u wuld have definitely beaten khabib n conor on the same night 😂

Ähnliche Videos

“Make It Look Easy” 🥊💨🍃 Thank You Sir For The Work 🤝🦹‍♂️ Teamwork Makes The Dreamwork 📈 ⚔️🕶️ -CSO- 🇺🇸🏆🇲🇽 # 🔥 # TeamElCucuy 🎶🥷🎶 Misfits Boxing DAZN Boxing ♨️
0:28

“Make It Look Easy” 🥊💨🍃 Thank You Sir For The Work 🤝🦹‍♂️ Teamwork Makes The Dreamwork 📈 ⚔️🕶️ -CSO- 🇺🇸🏆🇲🇽 # 🔥 # TeamElCucuy 🎶🥷🎶 Misfits Boxing DAZN Boxing ♨️

Tony Ferguson

12,416 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

“Prime🦹‍♂️Loading” All I Ever Needed Was A Different Reason 🤝 Now This Is My Kinda Scene 😆 Say My Name Three Times Like Candy,… Man🍃- Champ 🥋 - CSO- 🇺🇸🏆🇲🇽 # 🐢💨🍃 #TeamLA 🐺 Global Fight League Back To My🧛‍♂️Wayze # ThatsMyGoodSide 🩸 # GatorsBitchesBeForgettin’ 🐊
0:24

“Prime🦹‍♂️Loading” All I Ever Needed Was A Different Reason 🤝 Now This Is My Kinda Scene 😆 Say My Name Three Times Like Candy,… Man🍃- Champ 🥋 - CSO- 🇺🇸🏆🇲🇽 # 🐢💨🍃 #TeamLA 🐺 Global Fight League Back To My🧛‍♂️Wayze # ThatsMyGoodSide 🩸 # GatorsBitchesBeForgettin’ 🐊

Tony Ferguson

157,100 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Woke up ready to attack the day like it owes me progress 💪🔥 No excuses, no half measures—just pure fire from the moment my feet hit the floor 🚀⚡ Every rep, every set, every decision is an all-out assault from a fitness standpoint 💯 I don’t wait for motivation; I manufacture it by showing up and going harder than yesterday 😤💥 Today that mindset paid off BIG 🏆 Hit a massive PR: 405lbs on the bar, locked in with resistance bands adding another 25lbs of pure tension 🔥💪 The stretch at the bottom, the explosive drive through the mid-range—everything felt heavier, meaner, and more real 😤⚡ That extra resistance forced every muscle fiber to wake up and fight 💪🔥 This is what “getting after it” looks like 🚀 Not just lifting heavy, but attacking life the same way: with intensity, consistency, and zero quit 💯 Stack the wins, chase the discomfort, and watch yourself transform 🏆💥 Ready to reclaim your power and train like a true champion? Join the #ReclaimYourThrone Elite D1 training course and start dominating every session at the highest level 👑🔥 Let’s go!
0:53

Woke up ready to attack the day like it owes me progress 💪🔥 No excuses, no half measures—just pure fire from the moment my feet hit the floor 🚀⚡ Every rep, every set, every decision is an all-out assault from a fitness standpoint 💯 I don’t wait for motivation; I manufacture it by showing up and going harder than yesterday 😤💥 Today that mindset paid off BIG 🏆 Hit a massive PR: 405lbs on the bar, locked in with resistance bands adding another 25lbs of pure tension 🔥💪 The stretch at the bottom, the explosive drive through the mid-range—everything felt heavier, meaner, and more real 😤⚡ That extra resistance forced every muscle fiber to wake up and fight 💪🔥 This is what “getting after it” looks like 🚀 Not just lifting heavy, but attacking life the same way: with intensity, consistency, and zero quit 💯 Stack the wins, chase the discomfort, and watch yourself transform 🏆💥 Ready to reclaim your power and train like a true champion? Join the #ReclaimYourThrone Elite D1 training course and start dominating every session at the highest level 👑🔥 Let’s go!

#ReclaimD1

63,273 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

*** Parodius Demo Update *** After seeing my good friend Pyron amazing Parodius artwork , I could not let that go to waste. Its a crying shame Konami's shooters did not make it to MD at the time , time to rectify that (in time). The video shows some of the progress so far. Stage 1 scrolling using the streaming scroller from lufthoheit to automatically manage the tile management for the scrolling rather than using different sets etc. Its great when I can grab bits of code and apply them to new projects, it speeds things up !! Lufthoheits new stage is coming along well also and has its first enemies in , hopefully show something of that soon. The VRAM view is to the right , we will have plenty of vram left for objects without resorting to much manual management it seems. ~ 1/2 vram left. It looks like the biggest challenge for this level is the Cat Ship mid boss - the end boss seems easier in comparison for a few reasons. I've analysed the way it was done on PCE and SNES and will come up with the best option for MD. More to come on that soon. At present we will target mainly assembly , so performance won't be an issue . I'm not sure we need a sprite multiplexor for > 80 sprites , but we will use one anyway just to not have regrets/changes later on and for the Hint color effects the multiplexor can do also. We have an A level musician volunteering also for those concerned about the audio side of things - it wont dissapoint I'm sure. As this is now my 3rd / 4th project it will be done as time permits so no gaurantees on timelines sorry - we are all hoping to do well by the community however. #SGDK #Konami #Parodius #MegaDrive #SegaGenesis
0:45

*** Parodius Demo Update *** After seeing my good friend Pyron amazing Parodius artwork , I could not let that go to waste. Its a crying shame Konami's shooters did not make it to MD at the time , time to rectify that (in time). The video shows some of the progress so far. Stage 1 scrolling using the streaming scroller from lufthoheit to automatically manage the tile management for the scrolling rather than using different sets etc. Its great when I can grab bits of code and apply them to new projects, it speeds things up !! Lufthoheits new stage is coming along well also and has its first enemies in , hopefully show something of that soon. The VRAM view is to the right , we will have plenty of vram left for objects without resorting to much manual management it seems. ~ 1/2 vram left. It looks like the biggest challenge for this level is the Cat Ship mid boss - the end boss seems easier in comparison for a few reasons. I've analysed the way it was done on PCE and SNES and will come up with the best option for MD. More to come on that soon. At present we will target mainly assembly , so performance won't be an issue . I'm not sure we need a sprite multiplexor for > 80 sprites , but we will use one anyway just to not have regrets/changes later on and for the Hint color effects the multiplexor can do also. We have an A level musician volunteering also for those concerned about the audio side of things - it wont dissapoint I'm sure. As this is now my 3rd / 4th project it will be done as time permits so no gaurantees on timelines sorry - we are all hoping to do well by the community however. #SGDK #Konami #Parodius #MegaDrive #SegaGenesis

Shannon Birt

12,526 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

A Chicago-area man placed four $500 bets on an NBA game at odds of 350-to-1. All six parts of his bet came true, worth $389,000. Minutes before tipoff, BetMGM made his winning tickets disappear. – Mark Aiello, a Navy veteran from Roselle Illinois, opened the BetMGM app on March 2 2025, hours before a Chicago Bulls vs. Indiana Pacers game. – He placed four separate $500 bets on specific players rebounds and assists, needing six different outcomes to all hit for any of it to pay out. – BetMGM's own traders had reviewed and accepted at least one of his bets hours earlier, according to Aiello. By his own tracking, all six legs landed. – Minutes before tipoff, without warning, his BetMGM app showed all four bets grayed out, as if he'd never placed them at all. – BetMGM's message cited an "obvious error," saying the odds had been "incorrect or inflated" under its house rules. – This keeps happening because a casino is the house. It sets the odds, holds the money, and decides after the fact whether your win counts. – A prediction market doesn't work that way. There's no house, you're matched peer-to-peer, and your payout comes from the person who took the other side, not a company deciding whether to honor the number on your screen. – His story aired on CBS News Chicago in March 2025 and went viral, drawing over a million views online. – He filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Gaming Board. – In June 2025, the Board sided entirely with BetMGM, ruling the company had acted within its rights, and confirming BetMGM's own admission that the odds had been the result of an internal pricing glitch. – Even at what BetMGM considers the "correct" odds for the same bet, Aiello would still have been owed roughly $40,000. – BetMGM has given no indication it will pay even that. He watched every single part of an almost impossible bet come true on his own screen, then watched it all disappear before the final whistle.
0:47

A Chicago-area man placed four $500 bets on an NBA game at odds of 350-to-1. All six parts of his bet came true, worth $389,000. Minutes before tipoff, BetMGM made his winning tickets disappear. – Mark Aiello, a Navy veteran from Roselle Illinois, opened the BetMGM app on March 2 2025, hours before a Chicago Bulls vs. Indiana Pacers game. – He placed four separate $500 bets on specific players rebounds and assists, needing six different outcomes to all hit for any of it to pay out. – BetMGM's own traders had reviewed and accepted at least one of his bets hours earlier, according to Aiello. By his own tracking, all six legs landed. – Minutes before tipoff, without warning, his BetMGM app showed all four bets grayed out, as if he'd never placed them at all. – BetMGM's message cited an "obvious error," saying the odds had been "incorrect or inflated" under its house rules. – This keeps happening because a casino is the house. It sets the odds, holds the money, and decides after the fact whether your win counts. – A prediction market doesn't work that way. There's no house, you're matched peer-to-peer, and your payout comes from the person who took the other side, not a company deciding whether to honor the number on your screen. – His story aired on CBS News Chicago in March 2025 and went viral, drawing over a million views online. – He filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Gaming Board. – In June 2025, the Board sided entirely with BetMGM, ruling the company had acted within its rights, and confirming BetMGM's own admission that the odds had been the result of an internal pricing glitch. – Even at what BetMGM considers the "correct" odds for the same bet, Aiello would still have been owed roughly $40,000. – BetMGM has given no indication it will pay even that. He watched every single part of an almost impossible bet come true on his own screen, then watched it all disappear before the final whistle.

Aisar

300,148 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

‼️🚨🔵PRESSER🔵🚨‼️ ‍ 🎙 Enzo Maresca’s Full Post-Wolves Press Conference 🐺⚽️💬 🔹 Enzo Maresca: “Happy with the clean sheet 🧤✅, and making lots of chances 🎯. I’m worried by this kind of game 😬 — you have to win these games 🏆. First half – we didn’t concede 🚫 and created chances ⚡️. Second half, we scored the goals ⚽️💪.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca on Alejandro Garnacho: “He was very good 👏. Not only on the ball ⚽️ but also off it 💨, especially when he was pressing 🔥 — and this is what we need from our wingers 💪. Garnacho is doing well 🌟, Pedro Neto is doing well 💙, Estevão is doing well 🇧🇷. We need them all to be doing well 🙌.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca: “It’s part of my job 👔, it’s part of the game 🎮 [rotation]. At the end, this is a business 💼 — when you don’t win there are problems 😤 but when you win everything is good 😌.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca on Malo Gusto’s goal: “Finally… 😅 Last season, [Marc] Cucurella scored different goals ⚽️ as an attacking full-back 🚀. Malo was close many times ⏱️ but finally he gave us the goal we needed for 1-0 🔥. Malo is one of our main players 💪 because he allows us to be versatile 🔄.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca on progress this season: “It’s more noise from outside 🔊. Inside, we are convinced 💙 that as a club and as a team we are going in the right direction 📈 and doing good things ✅. At the same time, we can do many things better 🔧.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca on Alejandro Garnacho: “He arrived here from another club 🏟️ where he was not training 100% ⚠️. He knows to play with us he has to be good on and off the ball ⚽️💨. We are very happy with him 😊🙌.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca on Estevão being valued at £100m+ 💰 by CIES Football Observatory this week: “You can see that, absolutely 👀. He is top 🌟. For this club in the next five, ten years 📅, he will be a top, top, top player 🔵💎.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca: “Moi was okay 👍 but Pedro Neto and Enzo Fernandez asked for change for groin and knee injuries 🤕🩹.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca: “Our mood is good in any case 😌💙. It’s the noise from outside 🔊 because you drop points against a team doing well ⚔️. People expect Chelsea to win all the games 🏆 but the reality is it’s not like this 🤷‍♂️.” #CFC 💙 | #Chelsea 🔵 | #CHEWOL ⚔️ | #Interviews 🎤 📲 CFC_ChelseaFC VIA TELEGRAM cc: Tom Overend , SHAYEE 𒀭 , Oluwaseun 🇳🇬
5:26

‼️🚨🔵PRESSER🔵🚨‼️ ‍ 🎙 Enzo Maresca’s Full Post-Wolves Press Conference 🐺⚽️💬 🔹 Enzo Maresca: “Happy with the clean sheet 🧤✅, and making lots of chances 🎯. I’m worried by this kind of game 😬 — you have to win these games 🏆. First half – we didn’t concede 🚫 and created chances ⚡️. Second half, we scored the goals ⚽️💪.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca on Alejandro Garnacho: “He was very good 👏. Not only on the ball ⚽️ but also off it 💨, especially when he was pressing 🔥 — and this is what we need from our wingers 💪. Garnacho is doing well 🌟, Pedro Neto is doing well 💙, Estevão is doing well 🇧🇷. We need them all to be doing well 🙌.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca: “It’s part of my job 👔, it’s part of the game 🎮 [rotation]. At the end, this is a business 💼 — when you don’t win there are problems 😤 but when you win everything is good 😌.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca on Malo Gusto’s goal: “Finally… 😅 Last season, [Marc] Cucurella scored different goals ⚽️ as an attacking full-back 🚀. Malo was close many times ⏱️ but finally he gave us the goal we needed for 1-0 🔥. Malo is one of our main players 💪 because he allows us to be versatile 🔄.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca on progress this season: “It’s more noise from outside 🔊. Inside, we are convinced 💙 that as a club and as a team we are going in the right direction 📈 and doing good things ✅. At the same time, we can do many things better 🔧.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca on Alejandro Garnacho: “He arrived here from another club 🏟️ where he was not training 100% ⚠️. He knows to play with us he has to be good on and off the ball ⚽️💨. We are very happy with him 😊🙌.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca on Estevão being valued at £100m+ 💰 by CIES Football Observatory this week: “You can see that, absolutely 👀. He is top 🌟. For this club in the next five, ten years 📅, he will be a top, top, top player 🔵💎.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca: “Moi was okay 👍 but Pedro Neto and Enzo Fernandez asked for change for groin and knee injuries 🤕🩹.” 🔹 Enzo Maresca: “Our mood is good in any case 😌💙. It’s the noise from outside 🔊 because you drop points against a team doing well ⚔️. People expect Chelsea to win all the games 🏆 but the reality is it’s not like this 🤷‍♂️.” #CFC 💙 | #Chelsea 🔵 | #CHEWOL ⚔️ | #Interviews 🎤 📲 CFC_ChelseaFC VIA TELEGRAM cc: Tom Overend , SHAYEE 𒀭 , Oluwaseun 🇳🇬

Miki Djan

27,265 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Very excited to announce that at 12:20am on the 4th of July, Aalo achieved criticality on our first full-scale reactor. We cut it close, but we pulled it off!! Working towards this goal with such an incredible group of humans has been the most fulfilling period of my life. This moment has been three years in the making. Last year, Executive Order 14301 called for at least three new reactors to go critical before July 4th, 2026. As of late last Friday night, that goal has been surpassed! When the EO was announced, we immediately sat down to figure out what the most ambitious scope would be, while still being potentially achievable by July 4th. Some of the team proposed doing simplified designs with smaller fuel loads, or building in existing facilities. One thing was clear: We wouldn't have time to integrate a full-scale sodium heat-removal loop to bring the reactor to its full 30 MWt. So here’s where we landed: ➡️ We purchased the entire commercial-scale fuel load. This is enough fuel to operate at 30 MWt / 10 MWe for 3 years before refueling. To my knowledge, it’s the largest fuel load that’s been taken critical in the DOE pilot program, by far. ➡️ We built a full-scale reactor vessel in our factory, and loaded in our commercial graphite layout. All the dimensions, vessel thickness, and manufacturing techniques are essentially the same as we will use for the imminent commercial version. There will be a few minor tweaks for sodium flow and full-power, but nothing major. ➡️ We built an entirely new reactor facility at the Idaho National Lab. Building a building is easy. Building a new reactor facility comes with a mountain of paperwork, policies, operation and training procedures, security, instrumentation and control, and more. Zero-power criticality might seem like a small step, but I can tell you, going through the exercise of building a reactor and taking it to criticality has been extremely valuable. The learnings on regulatory, ops, manufacturing, supply chain, QA, economics, engineering, and design will accelerate our path through to the final iteration at full-power. America is blessed to have a recent Cambrian explosion of startups in nuclear, all going after different markets, technologies, and strategies. I’m excited that sodium, gas, salt, and new PWRs are all getting pushed forward once again. The best outcome for humanity is to have all these advance in parallel, as quickly as possible, while maintaining safety. Thanks again to our amazing team, DOE, INL, BEA, and everyone else who helped us get to where we are today. This could not have happened anywhere else. Happy birthday, America!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 There has never been a better time for nuclear energy. The Second Atomic Age has begun, and this one will be here to stay.
1:47

Very excited to announce that at 12:20am on the 4th of July, Aalo achieved criticality on our first full-scale reactor. We cut it close, but we pulled it off!! Working towards this goal with such an incredible group of humans has been the most fulfilling period of my life. This moment has been three years in the making. Last year, Executive Order 14301 called for at least three new reactors to go critical before July 4th, 2026. As of late last Friday night, that goal has been surpassed! When the EO was announced, we immediately sat down to figure out what the most ambitious scope would be, while still being potentially achievable by July 4th. Some of the team proposed doing simplified designs with smaller fuel loads, or building in existing facilities. One thing was clear: We wouldn't have time to integrate a full-scale sodium heat-removal loop to bring the reactor to its full 30 MWt. So here’s where we landed: ➡️ We purchased the entire commercial-scale fuel load. This is enough fuel to operate at 30 MWt / 10 MWe for 3 years before refueling. To my knowledge, it’s the largest fuel load that’s been taken critical in the DOE pilot program, by far. ➡️ We built a full-scale reactor vessel in our factory, and loaded in our commercial graphite layout. All the dimensions, vessel thickness, and manufacturing techniques are essentially the same as we will use for the imminent commercial version. There will be a few minor tweaks for sodium flow and full-power, but nothing major. ➡️ We built an entirely new reactor facility at the Idaho National Lab. Building a building is easy. Building a new reactor facility comes with a mountain of paperwork, policies, operation and training procedures, security, instrumentation and control, and more. Zero-power criticality might seem like a small step, but I can tell you, going through the exercise of building a reactor and taking it to criticality has been extremely valuable. The learnings on regulatory, ops, manufacturing, supply chain, QA, economics, engineering, and design will accelerate our path through to the final iteration at full-power. America is blessed to have a recent Cambrian explosion of startups in nuclear, all going after different markets, technologies, and strategies. I’m excited that sodium, gas, salt, and new PWRs are all getting pushed forward once again. The best outcome for humanity is to have all these advance in parallel, as quickly as possible, while maintaining safety. Thanks again to our amazing team, DOE, INL, BEA, and everyone else who helped us get to where we are today. This could not have happened anywhere else. Happy birthday, America!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 There has never been a better time for nuclear energy. The Second Atomic Age has begun, and this one will be here to stay.

Matt Loszak | Aalo Atomics

476,129 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The NFT market needs a reset 🔄 What once was a way of "storing" exceptional and rare goods, available to everyone, has grown to become a pursuit of huge profits, sick valuations. A sphere ruined by bots and hunters 🤖 Reset is here and JungleART will engage it 👇 - A thread 🧵 We are bringing NFTs back to their roots 🌳 Roots that this time can be reached by everyone, regardless of the level of knowledge about crypto. How? By creating an infrastructure focused on putting the initiative in the most creative hands - hands of the crypto community🤝 COMPLETE NFT ECOSYSTEM ⬇ What are the bricks that build this infrastructure? 🧱 🎨 Collection Creator - to design your own NFTs 📑 Minting Page Creator - to sell them to the world 📊 Collection Manager - to give them utility 💰 Marketplace - to trade them on the market! All these NFT products are created with one thing in mind - ease of use and accessibility ✅ NO-CODE ⬇ Each of the blocks that make up the ecosystem is designed in a way that does not require users to have any programming knowledge The dirty work is on us ✊ COMMUNITY FOCUS ⬇ The ultimate goal is to break down all technological barriers, building strong community using NFTs on a daily basis 🔥 A well-though UX/UI makes the JungleART pleasing to the eye, functional and above all, very easy to use its full potential 📈 LAYER ZERO + DIAMONDS ⬇ 0⃣ Based on the LayerZero protocol, JungleART allows for direct, fast, easy and cheap transfer of NFTs between LZ supported chains 🔗 💎 The platform uses the EIP-2535: Diamonds standard offering creators full power of the NFTs and their functionality. NFT UTILITY ⬇ Speaking of functionality. EIP-2535 allows modifying and upgrading NFTs with some utilities ⚙ ➡ Wallet staking ➡ Lending ➡ Royalties Three mysterious-sounding names among tenths of others? More on this soon 🫡 Aw! Real World Assets? We got this covered too! The above mentioned sneak peaks are only small steps into the heart of the jungle 💚 JungleART still has many secrets to discover. One of them is our “whitelabel”. What is it and how can project creators and whole cryptoworld benefit form it? 🌴 Soon you will learn more!
1:00

The NFT market needs a reset 🔄 What once was a way of "storing" exceptional and rare goods, available to everyone, has grown to become a pursuit of huge profits, sick valuations. A sphere ruined by bots and hunters 🤖 Reset is here and JungleART will engage it 👇 - A thread 🧵 We are bringing NFTs back to their roots 🌳 Roots that this time can be reached by everyone, regardless of the level of knowledge about crypto. How? By creating an infrastructure focused on putting the initiative in the most creative hands - hands of the crypto community🤝 COMPLETE NFT ECOSYSTEM ⬇ What are the bricks that build this infrastructure? 🧱 🎨 Collection Creator - to design your own NFTs 📑 Minting Page Creator - to sell them to the world 📊 Collection Manager - to give them utility 💰 Marketplace - to trade them on the market! All these NFT products are created with one thing in mind - ease of use and accessibility ✅ NO-CODE ⬇ Each of the blocks that make up the ecosystem is designed in a way that does not require users to have any programming knowledge The dirty work is on us ✊ COMMUNITY FOCUS ⬇ The ultimate goal is to break down all technological barriers, building strong community using NFTs on a daily basis 🔥 A well-though UX/UI makes the JungleART pleasing to the eye, functional and above all, very easy to use its full potential 📈 LAYER ZERO + DIAMONDS ⬇ 0⃣ Based on the LayerZero protocol, JungleART allows for direct, fast, easy and cheap transfer of NFTs between LZ supported chains 🔗 💎 The platform uses the EIP-2535: Diamonds standard offering creators full power of the NFTs and their functionality. NFT UTILITY ⬇ Speaking of functionality. EIP-2535 allows modifying and upgrading NFTs with some utilities ⚙ ➡ Wallet staking ➡ Lending ➡ Royalties Three mysterious-sounding names among tenths of others? More on this soon 🫡 Aw! Real World Assets? We got this covered too! The above mentioned sneak peaks are only small steps into the heart of the jungle 💚 JungleART still has many secrets to discover. One of them is our “whitelabel”. What is it and how can project creators and whole cryptoworld benefit form it? 🌴 Soon you will learn more!

JungleArt.ai powered by GameSwift 🌴

20,270 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

SISA MALAM (Remnants of the Night) An AI-generated short film by Dan Pradana Made with Seedance 2.0 via Runway Edited with CapCut CapCut CapCut_jp A slice of life. A woman. A man. A flat somewhere in the city. And the quiet hours between afternoon and night where something unspoken slowly finds its way out. No action scenes. No explosions. Just love that finds its way through moments. + + + While AI influencers keep declaring Hollywood is cooked just for clout or engagement, I've been quietly trying to figure out how far Seedance 2.0 can actually go. And it's been one of the most challenging and rewarding things I've made. Fight scenes with Seedance 2.0 are easy. But drama is not. The goal was simple but hard: stop relying on random footage stitched together with a voiceover, and instead build something continuous. Scene by scene. Moment by moment. Reaction by reaction. A love story told through glances, small talk, and the kind of silences that say more than dialogue. Far from perfect, but further than I expected. + + + The characters are entirely AI-generated using Nano Banana. But the souls behind them are real. Risa (Icha) was inspired by a remarkable woman I admire. A middle-aged lady who could not have children of her own adopted an orphan girl at the age of eight. That girl is Icha. She grew up to become someone with a depth of warmth and maternal instinct that is hard to describe. When her adoptive mother later took in two more orphans, Icha, now 24, naturally became both an older sister and a mother figure to them. Through her I wanted to explore something I find genuinely beautiful about Southeast Asian women: that nurturing instinct, so quiet and so deep, it doesn't need to be taught. It simply is. Riandi (Rian) is a reflection of my younger self. Long before I married my wife, we lived in different cities. Every weekend I would take a two hour travel bus just to see her. No WhatsApp back then, no easy communication. Just a longing strong enough to move. We never went anywhere fancy. Cheap warung food, roadside stalls, just sitting together. It was never about the place. It was about needing to see her. That kind of love makes you do things that make no logical sense, and you do them gladly. We eventually got married. She gave me three boys. All of them. And she remains the only woman in the house, an absolute princess surrounded by chaos, and she handles it with more grace than any of us deserve. + + + I hope you enjoy the video. The technology is there. It has come a long way, and it keeps getting better. Looking forward to keep experimenting. 🙂
7:49

SISA MALAM (Remnants of the Night) An AI-generated short film by Dan Pradana Made with Seedance 2.0 via Runway Edited with CapCut CapCut CapCut_jp A slice of life. A woman. A man. A flat somewhere in the city. And the quiet hours between afternoon and night where something unspoken slowly finds its way out. No action scenes. No explosions. Just love that finds its way through moments. + + + While AI influencers keep declaring Hollywood is cooked just for clout or engagement, I've been quietly trying to figure out how far Seedance 2.0 can actually go. And it's been one of the most challenging and rewarding things I've made. Fight scenes with Seedance 2.0 are easy. But drama is not. The goal was simple but hard: stop relying on random footage stitched together with a voiceover, and instead build something continuous. Scene by scene. Moment by moment. Reaction by reaction. A love story told through glances, small talk, and the kind of silences that say more than dialogue. Far from perfect, but further than I expected. + + + The characters are entirely AI-generated using Nano Banana. But the souls behind them are real. Risa (Icha) was inspired by a remarkable woman I admire. A middle-aged lady who could not have children of her own adopted an orphan girl at the age of eight. That girl is Icha. She grew up to become someone with a depth of warmth and maternal instinct that is hard to describe. When her adoptive mother later took in two more orphans, Icha, now 24, naturally became both an older sister and a mother figure to them. Through her I wanted to explore something I find genuinely beautiful about Southeast Asian women: that nurturing instinct, so quiet and so deep, it doesn't need to be taught. It simply is. Riandi (Rian) is a reflection of my younger self. Long before I married my wife, we lived in different cities. Every weekend I would take a two hour travel bus just to see her. No WhatsApp back then, no easy communication. Just a longing strong enough to move. We never went anywhere fancy. Cheap warung food, roadside stalls, just sitting together. It was never about the place. It was about needing to see her. That kind of love makes you do things that make no logical sense, and you do them gladly. We eventually got married. She gave me three boys. All of them. And she remains the only woman in the house, an absolute princess surrounded by chaos, and she handles it with more grace than any of us deserve. + + + I hope you enjoy the video. The technology is there. It has come a long way, and it keeps getting better. Looking forward to keep experimenting. 🙂

MXVDXN // DAN

40,972 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

I normally agree with De Villepin on virtually everything so I was surprised to hear him say this 👇. No, universalism isn't Europe's salvation - it's largely what destroyed it. This way of dealing with the world whereby you proclaim yourself the gatekeepers of values and principles that you deem universal, and insist the rest of the world adopt, is over. And this "great fight to be fought" between different conceptions of humanity that Villepin sees coming is precisely what we need to avoid, because it doesn't need to be fought: we should make our peace with the coexistence of different civilizations and cultures. And not only is this universalist approach over, it is now thoroughly counterproductive as it screams of hypocrisy after Europe's own performance with regards to its stated values and principles. Gaza in particular completely obliterated this, and De Villepin ought to know this given how vocal he's been on the matter. He speaks of Europeans as being "guardians of the law," but he knows all too well that no-one had done more to undermine international law than the West these past few years. The new multipolar world we're entering into is not, as De Villepin suggests, an arena for a "great fight" between competing universal visions - the fight between "American individualism, Chinese collectivism and European citizenship" as he puts it. Instead it must become the age of understanding and managing differences between civilizations and cultures. Europe's biggest challenge going forward is to learn some measure of humbleness. We need to relearn that there is no measuring scale between civilizations and, especially looking at its record these past few decades, that Europe certainly isn't the paragon of anything. And if there's a fight to be fought, Europe needs to fight to avoid the emergence of a civilizational war, a fight to promote coexistence and mutual understanding. Granted, it is undeniable there are such things as universal values and principles. For instance I think we can all agree that killing innocent civilians is bad. We can also all agree that there shouldn't be child soldiers. We can all agree there is but one Earth and that protecting it is important for our collective survival. And, as such, international law has a place. But given its record, if Europe truly believes in these principles it should support them and the institutions that underpin it - like the ICC or the ICJ - in the way an ex-convict promises to behave: with humility and a commitment to do better - not with the sort of misplaced arrogance of presenting itself as their guardian or moral custodian, which would be completely out of order given its own failures to uphold them. Lastly, perhaps more than anything, the way universalism destroyed Europe is by destroying the notion of sovereignty in Europe. Because see, if you're convinced as Europe has been that your values and principles are universal, then the world becomes borderless since any deviation from them within your own borders becomes not just a difference of perspective or a sovereign choice, but a moral failing that must be corrected. When every political or cultural difference is framed as a deviation from universal norms rather than an expression of national sovereignty, the very concept of meaningful self-determination goes away. If a policy is framed as implementing universal values - whether on migration, economic policy, or social issues - then national populations' objections can be dismissed as parochial or even morally suspect. This effectively turned universalism into a tool for circumventing genuine democratic deliberation at the national level, all while claiming to act in democracy's name. The result was a gradual hollowing out of national decision-making power through the implicit assumption that resistance to "universal" norms was itself illegitimate. The tragic irony is that this universalist approach actually always loses out when you have nations out there that actually do act in their sovereign interests, as they should. Because you end up with a deep asymmetry: a bunch of nations in Europe whose leaders are essentially denationalized, seeing themselves as vectors of an ideology often explicitly at odds with their own nations' wellbeing, versus leaders who remain grounded in the concrete reality of national interests and understand their primary duty as protecting and advancing their people's prosperity and security. This mismatch creates an almost absurd dynamic where European leaders regularly sacrifice their nations' vital interests while facing counterparts who view such behavior as nothing more than naïveté to be exploited. The United States, in particular, has masterfully taken advantage of this situation - happy to let European leaders indulge in grand universalist proclamations while systematically advancing American interests, often at Europe's expense. De Villepin correctly identifies this "system of predation and vassalization," but fails to see how Europe's own universalist pretensions enable it. And how could it be otherwise? When one side's leaders fundamentally see themselves as working to transcend and even dismantle their own nation's sovereignty, while the other's remain firmly committed to national advancement, the outcome is predetermined. That's not the way to approach universal values or international law. European nations should approach international institutions and universal principles as sovereign equals entering into mutual commitments, not as self-appointed moral arbiters. The path forward lies in first reclaiming genuine sovereignty, for only sovereign nations can make meaningful choices. From this foundation, European nations can then exemplify their values through concrete actions: by treating other nations with respect rather than condescension, by accepting that different paths of development are legitimate, and most crucially, by focusing first on doing right by their own citizens. This last point is essential - a nation that cannot or will not protect and advance the wellbeing of its own people has no business lecturing others about universal values. True universalism, if it is to exist at all, must emerge organically through the example of nations that successfully balance sovereign self-determination with voluntary participation in a world order, not through moral imperialism disguised as universal principles. The stake isn't, as De Villepin suggests, whether "universal man exists" - it's whether we can respect and coexist with those who see humanity differently.
2:53

I normally agree with De Villepin on virtually everything so I was surprised to hear him say this 👇. No, universalism isn't Europe's salvation - it's largely what destroyed it. This way of dealing with the world whereby you proclaim yourself the gatekeepers of values and principles that you deem universal, and insist the rest of the world adopt, is over. And this "great fight to be fought" between different conceptions of humanity that Villepin sees coming is precisely what we need to avoid, because it doesn't need to be fought: we should make our peace with the coexistence of different civilizations and cultures. And not only is this universalist approach over, it is now thoroughly counterproductive as it screams of hypocrisy after Europe's own performance with regards to its stated values and principles. Gaza in particular completely obliterated this, and De Villepin ought to know this given how vocal he's been on the matter. He speaks of Europeans as being "guardians of the law," but he knows all too well that no-one had done more to undermine international law than the West these past few years. The new multipolar world we're entering into is not, as De Villepin suggests, an arena for a "great fight" between competing universal visions - the fight between "American individualism, Chinese collectivism and European citizenship" as he puts it. Instead it must become the age of understanding and managing differences between civilizations and cultures. Europe's biggest challenge going forward is to learn some measure of humbleness. We need to relearn that there is no measuring scale between civilizations and, especially looking at its record these past few decades, that Europe certainly isn't the paragon of anything. And if there's a fight to be fought, Europe needs to fight to avoid the emergence of a civilizational war, a fight to promote coexistence and mutual understanding. Granted, it is undeniable there are such things as universal values and principles. For instance I think we can all agree that killing innocent civilians is bad. We can also all agree that there shouldn't be child soldiers. We can all agree there is but one Earth and that protecting it is important for our collective survival. And, as such, international law has a place. But given its record, if Europe truly believes in these principles it should support them and the institutions that underpin it - like the ICC or the ICJ - in the way an ex-convict promises to behave: with humility and a commitment to do better - not with the sort of misplaced arrogance of presenting itself as their guardian or moral custodian, which would be completely out of order given its own failures to uphold them. Lastly, perhaps more than anything, the way universalism destroyed Europe is by destroying the notion of sovereignty in Europe. Because see, if you're convinced as Europe has been that your values and principles are universal, then the world becomes borderless since any deviation from them within your own borders becomes not just a difference of perspective or a sovereign choice, but a moral failing that must be corrected. When every political or cultural difference is framed as a deviation from universal norms rather than an expression of national sovereignty, the very concept of meaningful self-determination goes away. If a policy is framed as implementing universal values - whether on migration, economic policy, or social issues - then national populations' objections can be dismissed as parochial or even morally suspect. This effectively turned universalism into a tool for circumventing genuine democratic deliberation at the national level, all while claiming to act in democracy's name. The result was a gradual hollowing out of national decision-making power through the implicit assumption that resistance to "universal" norms was itself illegitimate. The tragic irony is that this universalist approach actually always loses out when you have nations out there that actually do act in their sovereign interests, as they should. Because you end up with a deep asymmetry: a bunch of nations in Europe whose leaders are essentially denationalized, seeing themselves as vectors of an ideology often explicitly at odds with their own nations' wellbeing, versus leaders who remain grounded in the concrete reality of national interests and understand their primary duty as protecting and advancing their people's prosperity and security. This mismatch creates an almost absurd dynamic where European leaders regularly sacrifice their nations' vital interests while facing counterparts who view such behavior as nothing more than naïveté to be exploited. The United States, in particular, has masterfully taken advantage of this situation - happy to let European leaders indulge in grand universalist proclamations while systematically advancing American interests, often at Europe's expense. De Villepin correctly identifies this "system of predation and vassalization," but fails to see how Europe's own universalist pretensions enable it. And how could it be otherwise? When one side's leaders fundamentally see themselves as working to transcend and even dismantle their own nation's sovereignty, while the other's remain firmly committed to national advancement, the outcome is predetermined. That's not the way to approach universal values or international law. European nations should approach international institutions and universal principles as sovereign equals entering into mutual commitments, not as self-appointed moral arbiters. The path forward lies in first reclaiming genuine sovereignty, for only sovereign nations can make meaningful choices. From this foundation, European nations can then exemplify their values through concrete actions: by treating other nations with respect rather than condescension, by accepting that different paths of development are legitimate, and most crucially, by focusing first on doing right by their own citizens. This last point is essential - a nation that cannot or will not protect and advance the wellbeing of its own people has no business lecturing others about universal values. True universalism, if it is to exist at all, must emerge organically through the example of nations that successfully balance sovereign self-determination with voluntary participation in a world order, not through moral imperialism disguised as universal principles. The stake isn't, as De Villepin suggests, whether "universal man exists" - it's whether we can respect and coexist with those who see humanity differently.

Arnaud Bertrand

49,121 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The video statement by Simba Chitando, co-director of the Zimbabwe Anti-Sanctions Movement (ZASM), deserves careful scrutiny - because if his assertions are accurate, they raise a far more damaging question than the one currently dominating public debate. They raise the question of whether Rutendo Matinyarare has been operating not as an activist, but as an extortionist and political communications mercenary who has now successfully collected. Chitando was not a peripheral figure. He was ZASM's legal strategist and co-director - inside the organisation, present for its decisions, party to its finances. His testimony carries weight precisely because of that proximity. Several facts emerge from his statement that cannot be easily dismissed. The Government of Zimbabwe declined to fund ZASM. That single detail collapses the foundational claim that Matinyarare was executing a state-commissioned mandate deserving state-level compensation. Anti-sanctions advocacy in Zimbabwe has never belonged to one organisation - parties, churches, diplomats, academics, traditional leaders, and ordinary citizens have all participated for years. Government had no particular reason to single out ZASM, and it did not. ZASM sought and received support from private donors, including Dr. Kuda Tagwirei, who covered organisational expenses, legal liabilities, and logistical costs. Chitando states categorically that neither ZASM nor its directors are owed anything by Tagwirei or anyone else. The organisation is effectively dormant - no longer litigating, its legal challenge withdrawn, pending deregistration in South Africa. Most significantly, Chitando reveals that additional funding and a vehicle were recently channelled through Matinyarare without his knowledge - despite his being a co-director of the same organisation. That detail is the thread that unravels everything. If previous expenses were already settled, nothing was owed, and the co-director knew nothing about the transaction, then what exactly was being compensated? Why did it require a publicised gifting spectacle rather than a quiet institutional arrangement? The gifter's own argument answers that question - and in answering it, destroys itself. The claim now being advanced is that the gift was necessary to encourage Matinyarare to cease his attacks on the highest office in the land. Set against Chitando's testimony that nothing was owed, that argument does not become an explanation. It becomes a confession. You do not pay someone to stop attacking you unless they have made it clear that continued silence carries a price. That is not gratitude. That is not recognition. That has a much simpler name: extortion. And the person who pays an extortionist does not resolve a problem. They establish a rate. Here is where Matinyarare's own well-documented habits become impossible to separate from the analysis. He is notorious for recording conversations with virtually everyone he engages - politicians, officials, businesspeople, fellow activists. In his trade, that is not due diligence. That is inventory. A man who systematically builds an archive of sensitive recorded material across years, then converts public pressure into tangible assets, has not stumbled into a business model. He has refined one. The gift confirms that the model works. Which raises the question that no one paying attention can honestly avoid: what guarantee exists that this ends here? History is unambiguous on this point. Extortion does not conclude with the first payment. It scales with proof of concept. What assurance does anyone have - the gifter, the institution, the office apparently being threatened - that the cameras will not return, that the social media pressure will not resume, that the recorded archive will not find new applications the moment a new grievance is manufactured or an old one is reframed? The answer is none. There is no assurance. There is only the next negotiation, now better informed by the knowledge of exactly what pressure yields results. What makes this particularly corrosive is that it did not have to be public. Zimbabwe has institutions - political, governmental, security - entirely capable of managing sensitive matters involving proximity to the highest office with discretion, through proper channels, without cameras and without luxury assets becoming social media content. The decision to make this spectacularly public was either a catastrophic miscalculation or a deliberate signal. Neither interpretation reflects well on the judgment of those involved. Chitando's testimony has done something that the weeks of online noise failed to do. It has stripped away the activist framing and forced a clear-eyed look at the underlying mechanics. What those mechanics reveal is a political communications mercenary who identified a pressure point, cultivated it over years, recorded everything along the way as operational collateral, applied sustained public pressure against the highest office in the land, and collected - publicly, luxuriously, and on camera. The only remaining questions are who allowed this to reach this point, whether those responsible for protecting the integrity of Zimbabwe's highest office fully understand what they have now set in motion, and whether the rate has already been noted by others watching carefully from the sidelines. Because if it has, the Matinyarare affair is not a conclusion. It is a template.
7:43

The video statement by Simba Chitando, co-director of the Zimbabwe Anti-Sanctions Movement (ZASM), deserves careful scrutiny - because if his assertions are accurate, they raise a far more damaging question than the one currently dominating public debate. They raise the question of whether Rutendo Matinyarare has been operating not as an activist, but as an extortionist and political communications mercenary who has now successfully collected. Chitando was not a peripheral figure. He was ZASM's legal strategist and co-director - inside the organisation, present for its decisions, party to its finances. His testimony carries weight precisely because of that proximity. Several facts emerge from his statement that cannot be easily dismissed. The Government of Zimbabwe declined to fund ZASM. That single detail collapses the foundational claim that Matinyarare was executing a state-commissioned mandate deserving state-level compensation. Anti-sanctions advocacy in Zimbabwe has never belonged to one organisation - parties, churches, diplomats, academics, traditional leaders, and ordinary citizens have all participated for years. Government had no particular reason to single out ZASM, and it did not. ZASM sought and received support from private donors, including Dr. Kuda Tagwirei, who covered organisational expenses, legal liabilities, and logistical costs. Chitando states categorically that neither ZASM nor its directors are owed anything by Tagwirei or anyone else. The organisation is effectively dormant - no longer litigating, its legal challenge withdrawn, pending deregistration in South Africa. Most significantly, Chitando reveals that additional funding and a vehicle were recently channelled through Matinyarare without his knowledge - despite his being a co-director of the same organisation. That detail is the thread that unravels everything. If previous expenses were already settled, nothing was owed, and the co-director knew nothing about the transaction, then what exactly was being compensated? Why did it require a publicised gifting spectacle rather than a quiet institutional arrangement? The gifter's own argument answers that question - and in answering it, destroys itself. The claim now being advanced is that the gift was necessary to encourage Matinyarare to cease his attacks on the highest office in the land. Set against Chitando's testimony that nothing was owed, that argument does not become an explanation. It becomes a confession. You do not pay someone to stop attacking you unless they have made it clear that continued silence carries a price. That is not gratitude. That is not recognition. That has a much simpler name: extortion. And the person who pays an extortionist does not resolve a problem. They establish a rate. Here is where Matinyarare's own well-documented habits become impossible to separate from the analysis. He is notorious for recording conversations with virtually everyone he engages - politicians, officials, businesspeople, fellow activists. In his trade, that is not due diligence. That is inventory. A man who systematically builds an archive of sensitive recorded material across years, then converts public pressure into tangible assets, has not stumbled into a business model. He has refined one. The gift confirms that the model works. Which raises the question that no one paying attention can honestly avoid: what guarantee exists that this ends here? History is unambiguous on this point. Extortion does not conclude with the first payment. It scales with proof of concept. What assurance does anyone have - the gifter, the institution, the office apparently being threatened - that the cameras will not return, that the social media pressure will not resume, that the recorded archive will not find new applications the moment a new grievance is manufactured or an old one is reframed? The answer is none. There is no assurance. There is only the next negotiation, now better informed by the knowledge of exactly what pressure yields results. What makes this particularly corrosive is that it did not have to be public. Zimbabwe has institutions - political, governmental, security - entirely capable of managing sensitive matters involving proximity to the highest office with discretion, through proper channels, without cameras and without luxury assets becoming social media content. The decision to make this spectacularly public was either a catastrophic miscalculation or a deliberate signal. Neither interpretation reflects well on the judgment of those involved. Chitando's testimony has done something that the weeks of online noise failed to do. It has stripped away the activist framing and forced a clear-eyed look at the underlying mechanics. What those mechanics reveal is a political communications mercenary who identified a pressure point, cultivated it over years, recorded everything along the way as operational collateral, applied sustained public pressure against the highest office in the land, and collected - publicly, luxuriously, and on camera. The only remaining questions are who allowed this to reach this point, whether those responsible for protecting the integrity of Zimbabwe's highest office fully understand what they have now set in motion, and whether the rate has already been noted by others watching carefully from the sidelines. Because if it has, the Matinyarare affair is not a conclusion. It is a template.

Dereck Goto

29,647 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨MUST WATCH: Detailed Visual Timeline Of Charlie Kirk Assassin's ROUTE How Did He Walk In, Shoot, Jump From The Roof & Vanished Unseen!💨 Former UVU student just dropped the most detailed visual map/timeline yet of the Charlie Kirk assassin's movements on the day Charlie was assassinated. Frame by frame, street by street, this breakdown tracks the suspect from parking his car north of campus... through pedestrian tunnels... across grassy lots... up an shockingly accessible rooftop... to the fatal shot at 12:23 PM... then the frantic escape: jumping from the roof, ditching the limp (rifle gone?), vanishing into wooded areas, and disappearing. Key revelations: 🔷Roof access is embarrassingly easy—step over a railing, no security. 🔷Three possible wooded drop spots for the rifle (wrapped in towel?). 🔷Doorbell cams, TMZ footage, FBI stills all mapped precisely. 🔷Suspect returns full circle to his car—no immediate arrest despite campus lockdown. How did a lone 22-year-old with a visible limp (rifle in pants?) navigate a busy university unseen, fire from 200 yards, escape on foot, and vanish? This timeline raises massive questions about security failures, surveillance gaps, and whether the "lone wolf" story holds water. Watch this before it's taken down—the visuals make the official narrative look impossible. We owe Charlie real answers, not rushed conclusions. Drop a 🗺️ if this timeline changed anything for you. Video courtesy of: Chuck Keeler on YT -Go Subscribe and watch his full video where he also has a never before seen witness interview from that tragic day. I'll drop the link to the FULL video in the comments. Share far and wide—truth demands daylight. Don't believe the Fed-Slop 🔥🇺🇸
6:56

🚨MUST WATCH: Detailed Visual Timeline Of Charlie Kirk Assassin's ROUTE How Did He Walk In, Shoot, Jump From The Roof & Vanished Unseen!💨 Former UVU student just dropped the most detailed visual map/timeline yet of the Charlie Kirk assassin's movements on the day Charlie was assassinated. Frame by frame, street by street, this breakdown tracks the suspect from parking his car north of campus... through pedestrian tunnels... across grassy lots... up an shockingly accessible rooftop... to the fatal shot at 12:23 PM... then the frantic escape: jumping from the roof, ditching the limp (rifle gone?), vanishing into wooded areas, and disappearing. Key revelations: 🔷Roof access is embarrassingly easy—step over a railing, no security. 🔷Three possible wooded drop spots for the rifle (wrapped in towel?). 🔷Doorbell cams, TMZ footage, FBI stills all mapped precisely. 🔷Suspect returns full circle to his car—no immediate arrest despite campus lockdown. How did a lone 22-year-old with a visible limp (rifle in pants?) navigate a busy university unseen, fire from 200 yards, escape on foot, and vanish? This timeline raises massive questions about security failures, surveillance gaps, and whether the "lone wolf" story holds water. Watch this before it's taken down—the visuals make the official narrative look impossible. We owe Charlie real answers, not rushed conclusions. Drop a 🗺️ if this timeline changed anything for you. Video courtesy of: Chuck Keeler on YT -Go Subscribe and watch his full video where he also has a never before seen witness interview from that tragic day. I'll drop the link to the FULL video in the comments. Share far and wide—truth demands daylight. Don't believe the Fed-Slop 🔥🇺🇸

Project Constitution

103,090 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

I find this explanation of the Chinese system by Prof Keyu Jin (in a recent lecture at Harvard’s Fairbank center) absolutely fascinating. Keyu Jin is a professor of economics at LSE (London School of Economics) and serves on the board of companies like Credit Suisse. She’s also the daughter of Jin Liqun, former Vice Minister of finance of China so she’s a rare West-based academic (maybe even the only one) who actually has insight into the Chinese system from the inside. Essentially what she’s explaining is that a key reason why China was so successful economically is because of its decentralized nature, which creates two mutually compounding loops of competition, as opposed to one loop in the West. What does that mean? Well, contrary to popular belief that imagines China as being this centrally planned economy where almost everything is decided in Beijing, the inverse is actually true: China is actually one of the most decentralized countries in the world. To illustrate this, a metric that’s always amazed me is the fact that in China local governments (provinces, cities, villages, etc.) control a crazy 85% of the country's expenditures. On average that same metric for OECD countries is 33% (as in 64% of the expenditures are controlled at the federal/national level to China’s 15%). In the US for instance, which is already more decentralized than most given it’s a federation with states, only 45% of the country’s expenditures happen at the state and local level: almost twice less than in China! The effect of this, as Keyu Jin explains, is that provinces and larger municipalities in China have an immense degree of autonomy over the way they run their respective economies and fiercely compete with each other. This is the first loop. And then of course the second loop is that you have companies competing with each other in the market. As a result what constantly evolves in China is not only companies themselves but the environment in which they evolve: you constantly have this or that province running a new policy that proves very effective, making them gain an advantage vs other localities, initiative which is then copied by other localities. This makes the economic environment incredibly dynamic as it allows the state to move in unison with the economy, as opposed to slowing it down as is often the case in other countries. So what’s the role of the central government in all this? The key role, Keyu Jin argues, is setting broad objectives as well as personal management and promotion. And this is what makes the whole system work as therein lies the incentive for localities to compete with each other: because local officials know that if they do a better job than their peers, they’re on track for promotion by the central government. In “China Inc”, the central government is the board of directors and HR, presiding over an army of local CEOs with immense degrees of autonomy over their own “companies”. Keyu Jin gives the example of the solar industry. There was at some point (around 2005) a directive by the central government to develop the solar industry. The graph she shares in her talk is incredible: within a few years you had solar companies as well as patents related to research on solar technology pop up literally everywhere in China. With the result we all know about today: China today completely dominates the solar industry and solar technology (according to the International Energy Agency China's share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels exceeds 80%). As she explains, this makes the Chinese system somewhat paradoxical as it is at the same time incredibly decentralized but also incredibly effective at mobilizing the country for centrally-decided objectives, in fact she goes as far as comparing this effectiveness to the country being in a constant state of “wartime mobilization”. An interesting comparison would be if you had all the countries in North America, the EU and North Africa (altogether roughly the population of China) all united under a common leadership deciding on common objectives and on the career path of all these countries’ officials, based on how well they achieve these objectives in their respective countries. We’re seeing this system being mobilized in its full strength today on leading edge semiconductors after US sanctions, and this is why these sanctions will undoubtedly ultimately prove so self-defeating: once the Chinese “wartime mobilization” machine is given an objective - and you can be sure this objective is prioritized very highly - the fight is essentially over, you can consider it done. Once you have hundreds of thousands of PhDs, companies and officials all at the same time competing and working within the same broad “China Inc” roof to make something happen, it will ultimately get done. If you want China NOT to develop a technology, the very last thing you want is to make them mobilize the full strength of the machine on it. With the sanctions the U.S. effectively told China: “please we beg you, do dedicate your formidable economic mobilization power to becoming a semiconductors powerhouse as fast as possible” 🤦 Another particularity of the system that Keyu Jin highlights - and I’ll end on this - is that this system also allows China to “allocate losses to certain groups of people, interest groups and sectors” in order to “enact system-level changes'', something she says is “very difficult for other governments with more political constraints to do”. For instance we’re seeing this play out in real-time with the real-estate industry: China recognized there was a housing bubble and Xi issued its “houses are for living in, not for speculation” directive. We’re since witnessing an engineered deflating of the bubble, ensuring to the extent possible that the losses are borne out by real estate developers and speculators, and not too much by society as a whole. This is part of the reason why China has never suffered a recession in the modern era: it does controlled demolition when necessary but tries to ensure it doesn’t suffer massive crises like we’ve repeatedly witnessed in the U.S. for instance. Of course no system is perfect. Weaknesses of the Chinese system include for instance local protectionism: there’s a perverse incentive for local officials to protect their local companies in order to give them a leg up vs companies from other provinces, which ultimately comes at the detriment of everyone. Another weakness is corruption, a sempiternal problem in China, where local officials - who are extremely powerful due to the nature of the system - will decide that getting promoted isn’t incentive enough and will try to cash in on their position of power. Cracking down on this is also a key remit of the central government and of course one of the major initiatives of Xi since he came to power. Lastly, another clear weakness is obviously that everything ultimately relies on the wisdom of what the system gets mobilized for, on the wisdom of these broader objectives coming from the central government. If they’re ill-thought, you effectively have a whole country working towards the wrong objectives… On this we’re often told that this problem doesn’t happen in countries where what the economy works towards is set more organically by the “invisible hand of the market” but if you think about it, it actually happens just the same as the “invisible hand of the market” actually equates “what’s good for shareholders” and what’s good for shareholders isn’t exactly always a perfect proxy for what’s good for society, to say the least... For instance it’s absolutely insane that we’ve just had 2-3 generations in the West where the best and brightest went to work for the finance industry to engineer ever more convoluted schemes to make money out of nothing, simply because it’s insanely profitable to do so. Anyone looking at this rationally can see it’s not exactly the best use of our precious human resources as a society… So all things considered, if I had to choose I’d much rather have our broad societal objectives set by human beings rather than by the theoretical concept of “what makes the most money deserves the most focus”. And as it turns out the Chinese system actually fares decently well against capitalism: human beings aren’t evidently too bad at deciding what human beings should work on if they’re being thoughtful and strategic about it.
5:28

I find this explanation of the Chinese system by Prof Keyu Jin (in a recent lecture at Harvard’s Fairbank center) absolutely fascinating. Keyu Jin is a professor of economics at LSE (London School of Economics) and serves on the board of companies like Credit Suisse. She’s also the daughter of Jin Liqun, former Vice Minister of finance of China so she’s a rare West-based academic (maybe even the only one) who actually has insight into the Chinese system from the inside. Essentially what she’s explaining is that a key reason why China was so successful economically is because of its decentralized nature, which creates two mutually compounding loops of competition, as opposed to one loop in the West. What does that mean? Well, contrary to popular belief that imagines China as being this centrally planned economy where almost everything is decided in Beijing, the inverse is actually true: China is actually one of the most decentralized countries in the world. To illustrate this, a metric that’s always amazed me is the fact that in China local governments (provinces, cities, villages, etc.) control a crazy 85% of the country's expenditures. On average that same metric for OECD countries is 33% (as in 64% of the expenditures are controlled at the federal/national level to China’s 15%). In the US for instance, which is already more decentralized than most given it’s a federation with states, only 45% of the country’s expenditures happen at the state and local level: almost twice less than in China! The effect of this, as Keyu Jin explains, is that provinces and larger municipalities in China have an immense degree of autonomy over the way they run their respective economies and fiercely compete with each other. This is the first loop. And then of course the second loop is that you have companies competing with each other in the market. As a result what constantly evolves in China is not only companies themselves but the environment in which they evolve: you constantly have this or that province running a new policy that proves very effective, making them gain an advantage vs other localities, initiative which is then copied by other localities. This makes the economic environment incredibly dynamic as it allows the state to move in unison with the economy, as opposed to slowing it down as is often the case in other countries. So what’s the role of the central government in all this? The key role, Keyu Jin argues, is setting broad objectives as well as personal management and promotion. And this is what makes the whole system work as therein lies the incentive for localities to compete with each other: because local officials know that if they do a better job than their peers, they’re on track for promotion by the central government. In “China Inc”, the central government is the board of directors and HR, presiding over an army of local CEOs with immense degrees of autonomy over their own “companies”. Keyu Jin gives the example of the solar industry. There was at some point (around 2005) a directive by the central government to develop the solar industry. The graph she shares in her talk is incredible: within a few years you had solar companies as well as patents related to research on solar technology pop up literally everywhere in China. With the result we all know about today: China today completely dominates the solar industry and solar technology (according to the International Energy Agency China's share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels exceeds 80%). As she explains, this makes the Chinese system somewhat paradoxical as it is at the same time incredibly decentralized but also incredibly effective at mobilizing the country for centrally-decided objectives, in fact she goes as far as comparing this effectiveness to the country being in a constant state of “wartime mobilization”. An interesting comparison would be if you had all the countries in North America, the EU and North Africa (altogether roughly the population of China) all united under a common leadership deciding on common objectives and on the career path of all these countries’ officials, based on how well they achieve these objectives in their respective countries. We’re seeing this system being mobilized in its full strength today on leading edge semiconductors after US sanctions, and this is why these sanctions will undoubtedly ultimately prove so self-defeating: once the Chinese “wartime mobilization” machine is given an objective - and you can be sure this objective is prioritized very highly - the fight is essentially over, you can consider it done. Once you have hundreds of thousands of PhDs, companies and officials all at the same time competing and working within the same broad “China Inc” roof to make something happen, it will ultimately get done. If you want China NOT to develop a technology, the very last thing you want is to make them mobilize the full strength of the machine on it. With the sanctions the U.S. effectively told China: “please we beg you, do dedicate your formidable economic mobilization power to becoming a semiconductors powerhouse as fast as possible” 🤦 Another particularity of the system that Keyu Jin highlights - and I’ll end on this - is that this system also allows China to “allocate losses to certain groups of people, interest groups and sectors” in order to “enact system-level changes'', something she says is “very difficult for other governments with more political constraints to do”. For instance we’re seeing this play out in real-time with the real-estate industry: China recognized there was a housing bubble and Xi issued its “houses are for living in, not for speculation” directive. We’re since witnessing an engineered deflating of the bubble, ensuring to the extent possible that the losses are borne out by real estate developers and speculators, and not too much by society as a whole. This is part of the reason why China has never suffered a recession in the modern era: it does controlled demolition when necessary but tries to ensure it doesn’t suffer massive crises like we’ve repeatedly witnessed in the U.S. for instance. Of course no system is perfect. Weaknesses of the Chinese system include for instance local protectionism: there’s a perverse incentive for local officials to protect their local companies in order to give them a leg up vs companies from other provinces, which ultimately comes at the detriment of everyone. Another weakness is corruption, a sempiternal problem in China, where local officials - who are extremely powerful due to the nature of the system - will decide that getting promoted isn’t incentive enough and will try to cash in on their position of power. Cracking down on this is also a key remit of the central government and of course one of the major initiatives of Xi since he came to power. Lastly, another clear weakness is obviously that everything ultimately relies on the wisdom of what the system gets mobilized for, on the wisdom of these broader objectives coming from the central government. If they’re ill-thought, you effectively have a whole country working towards the wrong objectives… On this we’re often told that this problem doesn’t happen in countries where what the economy works towards is set more organically by the “invisible hand of the market” but if you think about it, it actually happens just the same as the “invisible hand of the market” actually equates “what’s good for shareholders” and what’s good for shareholders isn’t exactly always a perfect proxy for what’s good for society, to say the least... For instance it’s absolutely insane that we’ve just had 2-3 generations in the West where the best and brightest went to work for the finance industry to engineer ever more convoluted schemes to make money out of nothing, simply because it’s insanely profitable to do so. Anyone looking at this rationally can see it’s not exactly the best use of our precious human resources as a society… So all things considered, if I had to choose I’d much rather have our broad societal objectives set by human beings rather than by the theoretical concept of “what makes the most money deserves the most focus”. And as it turns out the Chinese system actually fares decently well against capitalism: human beings aren’t evidently too bad at deciding what human beings should work on if they’re being thoughtful and strategic about it.

Arnaud Bertrand

193,688 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

I remain absolutely flabbergasted at the level of propaganda on China in France, even on state television. This is a show called CCeSoir on France tv, and the guy speaking is Romain Graziani, supposedly one of France's leading "experts" on China, a Professor of Chinese studies at the École Normale Supérieure of Lyon. The way he narrates the history of Taiwan and why it matters to China is, put politely, a complete fabrication. Listening to him, "Taiwan was only really part of the Chinese nation for only 10 years" (and saying otherwise is "pure revisionism") and it's "only in the 1990s" that China's "obsession" with reuniting Taiwan first arose. He further asserts that it's only nowadays with Xi Jinping that "the predatory voracity of China leads to rewriting all of history as if it had been a lost province in the style of Ukraine with Russia." This is so outrageously wrong that I'm not even sure where to start. For one, as a Frenchman, maybe he should read the book "Quand la Chine s'éveillera" ("When China awakens") by Alain Peyrefitte, a former senior French politician and De Gaulle's confidant. In this book written in 1972 (so long before the 1990s), Peyrefitte - drawing from his extensive discussions with Zhou Enlai in China - describes Taiwan as "China's Alsace–Lorraine", drawing the comparison with France's own historical trauma of losing these provinces to Germany in 1871, showing that China's desire for reunification with Taiwan was already a central national priority decades before the 1990s, not a recent invention as Graziani falsely claims. In the book Peyrefitte also relates how he saw in China so many "Let's free Taiwan" slogans alongside others such as "Let's crush imperialism", demonstrating again how central it was to China back then already. The truth is that China's view of Taiwan as an inseparable part of its territory that needs to be reunited has been a persistent diplomatic stance ever since the creation of the PRC (and even before when it was colonized by Japan), making Graziani's timeline not just revisionism but an outright historical fabrication. Also, in his ridiculously wrong retelling of history, Graziani conveniently omits the central fact of Taiwan's recent history: that it indeed represents an "Alsace-Lorraine" for China in the sense that it is a painful territorial wound inflicted during a period of national weakness. Just as France never accepted the legitimacy of German control over Alsace-Lorraine and spent decades determined to recover it, China has consistently viewed Taiwan as a province temporarily separated by an unfinished civil war and foreign meddling, not as a '10-year' historical footnote as Graziani absurdly suggests. And, at the risk of being a "revisionist" in Graziani's eyes, it's also laughably wrong to suggest that Taiwan was only part of China for 10 years between 1885 and 1895. This deliberately obscures how in 1683, after defeating the forces of Ming loyalist Koxinga (who himself had expelled the Dutch colonizers), the Qing dynasty incorporated Taiwan into its empire. It's at this stage that Taiwan was formally incorporated into the empire and administered as part of Fujian province for over two centuries - not 10 years - before becoming its own province in 1885. The 1885 provincial reorganization that Graziani misrepresents as Taiwan's 'integration' was merely an administrative adjustment within already-established Chinese territory. Lastly, I get how comparing the issue of Taiwan with Ukraine is a convenient rhetorical device for Western commentators seeking to delegitimize China's sovereignty claims, but it's an outrageously dishonest parallel. For one, there is not a single country on earth, not one, that recognizes Taiwan as an independent sovereign country, unlike Ukraine. And, as a Frenchman, Graziani should know that France doesn't either. According to international law, Taiwan is part of China. Heck, Taiwan themselves, in their constitution (a reminder that the country is officially called "The Republic of China") do say that they're part of China, and they haven't declared independence. Granted, the "China" that the "Republic of China" say they're part of is a slightly different "China" than that of the PRC in that both entities claim to be the rightful government of the same Chinese territory—making the fundamental conflict a question of which government legitimately rules China, not whether Taiwan is part of China as Graziani disingenuously frames it. All this makes the Taiwan issue actually the opposite of Ukraine. Whereas Ukraine is a sovereign nation facing external aggression that violates its territorial integrity, Taiwan represents a separatist challenge to China's internationally recognized sovereignty. Supporting Taiwan independence therefore means endorsing the very violation of territorial integrity that is condemned in Ukraine's case, an irreconcilable contradiction. All in all, France allowing such egregious revisionism on state television is exceedingly dangerous. The irony is that this is France doing exactly what Graziani accuses China of: engaging in 'predatory' historical revisionism, with state television platforming blatant propaganda as expert academic analysis, propagating falsehoods that contradict international law and manufacture consent for confrontation.
1:58

I remain absolutely flabbergasted at the level of propaganda on China in France, even on state television. This is a show called CCeSoir on France tv, and the guy speaking is Romain Graziani, supposedly one of France's leading "experts" on China, a Professor of Chinese studies at the École Normale Supérieure of Lyon. The way he narrates the history of Taiwan and why it matters to China is, put politely, a complete fabrication. Listening to him, "Taiwan was only really part of the Chinese nation for only 10 years" (and saying otherwise is "pure revisionism") and it's "only in the 1990s" that China's "obsession" with reuniting Taiwan first arose. He further asserts that it's only nowadays with Xi Jinping that "the predatory voracity of China leads to rewriting all of history as if it had been a lost province in the style of Ukraine with Russia." This is so outrageously wrong that I'm not even sure where to start. For one, as a Frenchman, maybe he should read the book "Quand la Chine s'éveillera" ("When China awakens") by Alain Peyrefitte, a former senior French politician and De Gaulle's confidant. In this book written in 1972 (so long before the 1990s), Peyrefitte - drawing from his extensive discussions with Zhou Enlai in China - describes Taiwan as "China's Alsace–Lorraine", drawing the comparison with France's own historical trauma of losing these provinces to Germany in 1871, showing that China's desire for reunification with Taiwan was already a central national priority decades before the 1990s, not a recent invention as Graziani falsely claims. In the book Peyrefitte also relates how he saw in China so many "Let's free Taiwan" slogans alongside others such as "Let's crush imperialism", demonstrating again how central it was to China back then already. The truth is that China's view of Taiwan as an inseparable part of its territory that needs to be reunited has been a persistent diplomatic stance ever since the creation of the PRC (and even before when it was colonized by Japan), making Graziani's timeline not just revisionism but an outright historical fabrication. Also, in his ridiculously wrong retelling of history, Graziani conveniently omits the central fact of Taiwan's recent history: that it indeed represents an "Alsace-Lorraine" for China in the sense that it is a painful territorial wound inflicted during a period of national weakness. Just as France never accepted the legitimacy of German control over Alsace-Lorraine and spent decades determined to recover it, China has consistently viewed Taiwan as a province temporarily separated by an unfinished civil war and foreign meddling, not as a '10-year' historical footnote as Graziani absurdly suggests. And, at the risk of being a "revisionist" in Graziani's eyes, it's also laughably wrong to suggest that Taiwan was only part of China for 10 years between 1885 and 1895. This deliberately obscures how in 1683, after defeating the forces of Ming loyalist Koxinga (who himself had expelled the Dutch colonizers), the Qing dynasty incorporated Taiwan into its empire. It's at this stage that Taiwan was formally incorporated into the empire and administered as part of Fujian province for over two centuries - not 10 years - before becoming its own province in 1885. The 1885 provincial reorganization that Graziani misrepresents as Taiwan's 'integration' was merely an administrative adjustment within already-established Chinese territory. Lastly, I get how comparing the issue of Taiwan with Ukraine is a convenient rhetorical device for Western commentators seeking to delegitimize China's sovereignty claims, but it's an outrageously dishonest parallel. For one, there is not a single country on earth, not one, that recognizes Taiwan as an independent sovereign country, unlike Ukraine. And, as a Frenchman, Graziani should know that France doesn't either. According to international law, Taiwan is part of China. Heck, Taiwan themselves, in their constitution (a reminder that the country is officially called "The Republic of China") do say that they're part of China, and they haven't declared independence. Granted, the "China" that the "Republic of China" say they're part of is a slightly different "China" than that of the PRC in that both entities claim to be the rightful government of the same Chinese territory—making the fundamental conflict a question of which government legitimately rules China, not whether Taiwan is part of China as Graziani disingenuously frames it. All this makes the Taiwan issue actually the opposite of Ukraine. Whereas Ukraine is a sovereign nation facing external aggression that violates its territorial integrity, Taiwan represents a separatist challenge to China's internationally recognized sovereignty. Supporting Taiwan independence therefore means endorsing the very violation of territorial integrity that is condemned in Ukraine's case, an irreconcilable contradiction. All in all, France allowing such egregious revisionism on state television is exceedingly dangerous. The irony is that this is France doing exactly what Graziani accuses China of: engaging in 'predatory' historical revisionism, with state television platforming blatant propaganda as expert academic analysis, propagating falsehoods that contradict international law and manufacture consent for confrontation.

Arnaud Bertrand

226,502 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

$NWBO #𝗗𝗖𝗩𝗮𝘅-𝗟: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗺𝘀 A short, plain-language reading of the survival evidence for DCVax-L in #glioblastoma, and what it means under the MHRAgovuk guideline on external control arms. 📊 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗢𝗡𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗙𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗗, 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗜𝗧 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗦 DCVax-L more than doubled five-year survival, and the benefit is durability: a subset gets lasting disease control and simply stays alive. 💉 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴 𝗶𝘀 DCVax-L is a personalized cancer vaccine for glioblastoma, the deadliest form of brain cancer and a designated orphan disease. It is a living drug: its active ingredient is the patient's own immune cells, primed with proteins from that patient's surgically removed tumor, so the immune system learns to attack the cancer. Unlike a chemical drug that is metabolized and cleared, it switches on a living immune response that keeps working long after the injection. Glioblastoma comes back in almost everyone: even with the full standard of surgery, radiation, and temozolomide chemotherapy, most patients live under two years, and only about one in twenty reaches five. DCVax-L is given on top of that standard care, not in place of it: every patient in the trial received surgery, radiation, and temozolomide, and the vaccine was added to it, so the comparison measures what the vaccine adds. For two decades, nearly every new drug tried in this disease has failed. That is the backdrop against which any positive result must be judged. 📈 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 In a Phase 3 trial of 331 patients, those who received DCVax-L lived longer. At the median the gain looks modest, about three months (19.3 versus 16.5). The number that matters sits at the far end of the survival curve: more than twice as many vaccine patients were alive at five years, 13.0% versus 5.7%, and a few reached ten years in a disease that usually kills within three. In patients whose tumor had already returned, the effect was larger still, cutting the risk of death by about 42%. 👥 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 The benefit was not confined to the easy cases. Of the six prespecified subgroups the trial examined, every single one favored DCVax-L, and there was no group in which it did worse than standard care. The largest gains came in patients whose tumors carry MGMT methylation, who reached a median survival of 30.2 months from randomization against 21.3 for the controls. But even the hardest-to-treat patients, whose tumors lack that methylation, resist standard chemotherapy, and carry the worst prognosis in this disease, still came out ahead with the vaccine, at a hazard ratio of 0.93. A treatment that helps across the whole population, and helps most where the biology is most favorable, is acting like a real drug. 📉 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 That five-year number is the whole story, and the median buries it. Almost every treatment that ever helped in glioblastoma did the same modest thing: it slid the survival curve a few months to the right, then let it fall back. Doubling five-year survival is different in kind. A three-month gain at the median cannot, by itself, double the fraction alive at five years. The only shape that produces both numbers is a split: most patients get the small delay the median measures, while a subset gets durable disease control that lasts for years, well past where glioblastoma should have ended them. That subset is the long tail of the curve, and it is where the benefit lives. A median ignores extremes, the way a town's median income tells you nothing about its millionaires. The real story is not a longer delay; it is that a meaningful share of patients simply stay alive. 🧬 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲 The tail is not luck. It is what this biology is built to produce. The vaccine carries proteins from the patient's own tumor, so it aims the immune system at whatever that tumor is made of, not a fixed short list of targets. And it amplifies: one trained immune cell drives many others that multiply into cancer-killers. Andres Salazar, the neurologist who developed poly-ICLC into the clinical adjuvant given with the vaccine, puts it in a line: you start the fire, and you keep it burning. A response like that does not produce a one-time bump. It builds and widens over time. What matters is not just that a response forms, but what kind. Dendritic cells are the immune system's master switch for that, the cells that set what kind of attack the body mounts, and this vaccine is built from them. It drives what immunologists call a type 1 polarized response: an interferon-driven, cytotoxic program aimed squarely at the tumor. That direction comes from the vaccine itself; the poly-ICLC adjuvant given with it drives the same interferon program and sustains it. That is the active ingredient, and it has been measured. In UCLA studies of this approach, the patients whose immune systems mounted the strongest interferon response lived the longest. The response also spreads. In a different cancer, a vaccine carried on this same poly-ICLC adjuvant drove more than 70% of a patient's cancer-killing T cells to target proteins that were never in the vaccine: the immune system outgrew its original targets and went after the rest of the tumor on its own. This is called epitope spreading, and it is not particular to one tumor; it is what this kind of response does, and it is the kind of response DCVax-L builds. That breadth is the likeliest thing separating the long-term survivors from everyone else, a response that breaks past its targets and clears the disease rather than one that stays caged and stops. There is even a tell in who benefits most: the effect is largest in tumors whose biology builds up more mutations under chemotherapy, and more mutations mean more targets for a whole-tumor vaccine to find. The same logic explains what the vaccine is not, and what it does not need. Checkpoint inhibitors, the drugs that release the immune system's brakes, have failed on their own in glioblastoma because there was no active response to release; the vaccine supplies that response first. That makes the vaccine the natural foundation for combination therapy. Combining it with its poly-ICLC adjuvant, made by Oncovir, has already shown meaningful survival gains in a published analysis. In the pivotal trial, the vaccine's proven benefit came added on top of standard chemotherapy and radiation; the newer question is how much the immune response can carry on its own. A UCLA trial is now testing that in patients whose tumors have returned, adding #Keytruda (pembrolizumab), the checkpoint antibody from $MRK, in a regimen built entirely around the immune response with no chemotherapy or radiation in it at all. Its interim survival curve shows the shape the biology predicts. In the arm given the vaccine and Keytruda together after surgery, the curve does not fall away but flattens into a plateau, with roughly 65% of patients still alive well past the point where recurrent glioblastoma kills nearly everyone. That plateau is the signature of a response that took hold and lasted, the type 1 attack forming durable immune memory so that once the disease is controlled it stays controlled. That is where this points, and where it is already arriving, a treatment that works through the response itself, one that could in time lean less on the harsh radiation and chemotherapy that have defined glioblastoma care and barely moved its survival. These are interim results, from Prins, Cloughesy, and Liau at UCLA. 🔍 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗪𝗢: 𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟? The trial was randomized, an independent experiment shows the outside comparison is trustworthy, and every separate check points the same way. 🤔 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 So much for what happened; the harder question is whether to believe it. The trial has the feature critics attacked: it could not keep a normal placebo group, because patients assigned to placebo were allowed, by design and by medical ethics, to switch to the vaccine once their cancer returned, and almost all did. That erased the internal comparison, so survival was measured against closely matched patients from other completed trials, an approach called an external control, which critics argued could tilt toward the vaccine. What the objection misses is where the randomization went. This was a randomized, blinded trial. The patients who got the vaccine were assigned to it at random, not hand-picked, so the treated group is an ordinary slice of the trial population, not a favorable one. The crossover removed the placebo group but never touched how patients were assigned. That leaves exactly one place for bias to enter, the outside comparison group, which is precisely what the next checks test. ✅ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵𝘆 Before trusting a scale to weigh something unknown, you confirm it reads zero with nothing on it. That is what the calibration does, and it is the strongest part of the case. A separate, independent randomized trial called INSIGhT was run through the very same external-control method, and it gave two answers. First, three experimental drugs that had already failed were run through it, and it correctly found nothing (hazard ratios of 1.00, 0.93, and 0.88): the method does not manufacture a benefit where none exists. Second, INSIGhT's external controls were set head to head against its own randomized internal controls, and they were statistically indistinguishable. In this disease, an external control reproduces the answer a real randomized control would have given, and because that trial belonged to a different group, no one can say a sponsor graded its own work. The one place bias could enter, the control side, is the one place an independent randomized experiment certified as clean. There is a deeper fit worth naming, and it is what makes the two halves of this case one. The same instrument that reported those three failures as failures reads the vaccine as a success, and the biology says why: those drugs could not hold a tumor this varied, and the vaccine builds the broad, lasting response that finally does. One method, opposite readings, and one mechanism behind both. The statistics and the biology are not two arguments. They are the same argument seen twice. 🃏 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲'𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿? A natural worry is that the outside comparison was arranged after the fact to flatter the vaccine. The trial was built to prevent that. The patients to compare against, and the rules for matching them, were fixed in writing before anyone saw results, and an independent firm, not the company, chose the comparison trials against those rules. The trial also switched its main measure partway through, from delaying tumor growth to overall survival, but that was not a maneuver: immune treatments cause a harmless swelling that mimics tumor growth on scans and made the growth measure unreliable, and the switch was made while everyone was still blinded. Three further checks point the same way. Survival in this disease has not improved over the years the comparison spans, so same-era controls are sound. When the borrowed controls were tested directly, the comparison came out conservative rather than flattering. And the controls were counted from the same point in the disease as the vaccine patients, so neither side got a head start. Where the comparison can err, it errs against the drug. 🔬 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 The first comparison used whole groups. A sharper one became possible once patient-level records from three other trials could be obtained, pairing each vaccine patient with controls matched on the traits that drive survival in glioblastoma, above all MGMT methylation status, matched exactly, plus age, sex, extent of surgery, residual disease, and performance status. When the comparison got sharper, the benefit grew in every one of these analyses. The original cohort-level estimate was 2.8 months. Patient-level matching across the three trials put the gain between 3.4 and 6.3 months, and a method that weights patients rather than pairing them put it between 3.4 and 4.3, with several of the matched comparisons roughly doubling the original figure. The hazard ratio moved the same way, from 0.80 to between 0.69 and 0.77. The direction matters. A real effect blurred by crude matching gets clearer when the matching improves, while a biased one tends to shrink. It got stronger. 🕵️ 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 A fair question is how much hidden bias it would take to erase the result. Statisticians measure that with the E-value, and here a hidden factor would have to be about as strong as age is on survival, would also have to drive who received the vaccine, and would have to have escaped the decades of research that mapped every known risk factor in this disease. A second, independent check, Rosenbaum's Gamma, comes at it from the other side, asking how large an unseen imbalance between matched patients it would take to break the result, and it reaches the same verdict. Every factor strong enough to matter was already matched. A hidden one that clears that bar is not plausible. 🔒 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲 The strongest point is not any single result. It is that a hidden bias big enough to explain the effect away would have to produce the same answer in every independent test at once: • The independent randomized calibration trial. • Three separate comparison trials, drawn from different studies. • Two different statistical methods that handle the data in different ways. • A separate pooled analysis of other dendritic-cell vaccine trials. • The internal math of the survival curve, which points to the same result (about 0.71 at five years) that the patient matching found. And it would have to fall in the exact direction the biology predicted before any data existed: a slow, widening benefit concentrated in long-term survivors. A single hidden factor that could forge all of that at once is not a hidden factor. It is a coincidence that does not happen. 🩺 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗘𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗧 𝗠𝗘𝗔𝗡𝗦 The drug is nearly free of harm, the evidence fits an established and approved regulatory path, and what remains unrun changes nothing about the case. 🛡️ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆 Two things decide whether a real effect reaches patients: whether the drug is safe enough to use, and whether regulators will accept the evidence. The first is settled. Across 2,151 doses, only five serious side effects were even possibly related to the vaccine, with no autoimmunity and no cytokine storm. It is made once, in about eight days, then stored and given as a simple injection. When a treatment barely harms, the benefit needed to justify it falls, and the benefit here clears that lower bar easily. ⏳ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄 A reasonable person asks why the sharper analysis appeared in 2026 and not in 2023. The answer is access, not choice. The patient-level analysis was written into the trial's plan from the start, to run if and when the data could be obtained. The company tried and could not get it in 2023, because the trials that held it had not released it; it became available later through a data-sharing repository, on the data owners' timeline, not the company's. The stronger analysis was always the plan. It was waiting on data that other parties control. 🔄 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 The vaccine helped not only newly diagnosed patients but also those whose tumor had already come back, and there the effect was the largest seen anywhere in the trial. In that group, median survival ran 13.2 months from recurrence against 7.8 for the controls. The separation opened immediately, with 90.6% of vaccine patients alive at six months against 64.0% of controls, and the lead held to the later marks, where survival more than doubled: 20.7% against 9.6% at two years, 11.1% against 5.1% at two and a half. These are the original cohort-level results, already published. The high-resolution patient-level matching that was applied to the newly diagnosed group has not yet been done here, for a practical reason: it needs patient records from other recurrent-cancer trials, held by a European research organization that shares them through its own formal request. Obtaining them is a routine next step, not an obstacle, and the newly diagnosed experience suggests the sharper analysis would only make the recurrent result stronger. The approval case rests on the newly diagnosed evidence, so nothing important depends on this step; it would simply sharpen a result that is already the strongest in the trial. 🏛️ 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 Regulators do not treat an external control as a first choice, but the MHRA's guideline allows it in exactly this situation: a severe disease where a placebo trial is not ethical or feasible, and an effect large enough to interpret despite the design. The guideline even gives its own worked example of an acceptable external control, and it reads almost like a description of this trial: a rare disease, no ethical placebo, same-era standard-of-care controls, an objective survival endpoint, and an effect too large to blame on bias. DCVax-L fits on every count, and it was the first medicine ever to receive the MHRA's Promising Innovative Medicine designation, which asks essentially the same questions. The newly diagnosed case carries the decision on its own evidence, and regulators weigh that evidence against the disease it treats: in a cancer this lethal, with nothing better on offer, the question is whether the benefit is large, clear, and consistent enough to act on, and a benefit of this size, pointing the same way from every direction, is. 📜 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 External controls are not a novelty invented for this drug. Over the past two decades they have factored into roughly forty-five drug approvals by the United States regulator, each granted under the conditions that apply here: a serious or rare disease, a placebo that would be unethical, and high unmet need. Regulators do not grant this lightly. They grant it when the disease is serious, its course is predictable and objectively measured, and the effect is large. Glioblastoma meets all three. The named cases cover every part of this disease's profile. Defibrotide, for a life-threatening transplant complication, was approved on a propensity-score comparison to a historical control, the same kind of method used here. Blinatumomab, for an aggressive relapsed leukemia, is the precedent for a fast-killing cancer, cleared by both the United States and European regulators. Cerliponase alfa is the precedent for a fatal brain disease, cleared by both agencies on treated patients versus a matched natural-history group. Glioblastoma is both at once, a fast-killing cancer of the brain, read by the same method, so no part of its profile lacks a close approved precedent. And on the one axis that governs how far an external-control result can be trusted, DCVax-L goes beyond all three. Each of those drugs was tested in a single-arm trial, with no randomization at all. DCVax-L began as a randomized trial and became an external-control comparison only when ethics consumed its placebo group. It sits in that tradition, and at the top of it. 🎯 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 This began as a randomized trial. Medical ethics forced it into an external-control comparison. Every independent way of checking it, on different data and different math, points the same direction, and the biology predicted that direction in advance. The first analysis did not overstate the vaccine's effect. Read with the right tools, it understated it.
6:16

$NWBO #𝗗𝗖𝗩𝗮𝘅-𝗟: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗺𝘀 A short, plain-language reading of the survival evidence for DCVax-L in #glioblastoma, and what it means under the MHRAgovuk guideline on external control arms. 📊 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗢𝗡𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗙𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗗, 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗜𝗧 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗦 DCVax-L more than doubled five-year survival, and the benefit is durability: a subset gets lasting disease control and simply stays alive. 💉 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴 𝗶𝘀 DCVax-L is a personalized cancer vaccine for glioblastoma, the deadliest form of brain cancer and a designated orphan disease. It is a living drug: its active ingredient is the patient's own immune cells, primed with proteins from that patient's surgically removed tumor, so the immune system learns to attack the cancer. Unlike a chemical drug that is metabolized and cleared, it switches on a living immune response that keeps working long after the injection. Glioblastoma comes back in almost everyone: even with the full standard of surgery, radiation, and temozolomide chemotherapy, most patients live under two years, and only about one in twenty reaches five. DCVax-L is given on top of that standard care, not in place of it: every patient in the trial received surgery, radiation, and temozolomide, and the vaccine was added to it, so the comparison measures what the vaccine adds. For two decades, nearly every new drug tried in this disease has failed. That is the backdrop against which any positive result must be judged. 📈 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 In a Phase 3 trial of 331 patients, those who received DCVax-L lived longer. At the median the gain looks modest, about three months (19.3 versus 16.5). The number that matters sits at the far end of the survival curve: more than twice as many vaccine patients were alive at five years, 13.0% versus 5.7%, and a few reached ten years in a disease that usually kills within three. In patients whose tumor had already returned, the effect was larger still, cutting the risk of death by about 42%. 👥 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 The benefit was not confined to the easy cases. Of the six prespecified subgroups the trial examined, every single one favored DCVax-L, and there was no group in which it did worse than standard care. The largest gains came in patients whose tumors carry MGMT methylation, who reached a median survival of 30.2 months from randomization against 21.3 for the controls. But even the hardest-to-treat patients, whose tumors lack that methylation, resist standard chemotherapy, and carry the worst prognosis in this disease, still came out ahead with the vaccine, at a hazard ratio of 0.93. A treatment that helps across the whole population, and helps most where the biology is most favorable, is acting like a real drug. 📉 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 That five-year number is the whole story, and the median buries it. Almost every treatment that ever helped in glioblastoma did the same modest thing: it slid the survival curve a few months to the right, then let it fall back. Doubling five-year survival is different in kind. A three-month gain at the median cannot, by itself, double the fraction alive at five years. The only shape that produces both numbers is a split: most patients get the small delay the median measures, while a subset gets durable disease control that lasts for years, well past where glioblastoma should have ended them. That subset is the long tail of the curve, and it is where the benefit lives. A median ignores extremes, the way a town's median income tells you nothing about its millionaires. The real story is not a longer delay; it is that a meaningful share of patients simply stay alive. 🧬 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲 The tail is not luck. It is what this biology is built to produce. The vaccine carries proteins from the patient's own tumor, so it aims the immune system at whatever that tumor is made of, not a fixed short list of targets. And it amplifies: one trained immune cell drives many others that multiply into cancer-killers. Andres Salazar, the neurologist who developed poly-ICLC into the clinical adjuvant given with the vaccine, puts it in a line: you start the fire, and you keep it burning. A response like that does not produce a one-time bump. It builds and widens over time. What matters is not just that a response forms, but what kind. Dendritic cells are the immune system's master switch for that, the cells that set what kind of attack the body mounts, and this vaccine is built from them. It drives what immunologists call a type 1 polarized response: an interferon-driven, cytotoxic program aimed squarely at the tumor. That direction comes from the vaccine itself; the poly-ICLC adjuvant given with it drives the same interferon program and sustains it. That is the active ingredient, and it has been measured. In UCLA studies of this approach, the patients whose immune systems mounted the strongest interferon response lived the longest. The response also spreads. In a different cancer, a vaccine carried on this same poly-ICLC adjuvant drove more than 70% of a patient's cancer-killing T cells to target proteins that were never in the vaccine: the immune system outgrew its original targets and went after the rest of the tumor on its own. This is called epitope spreading, and it is not particular to one tumor; it is what this kind of response does, and it is the kind of response DCVax-L builds. That breadth is the likeliest thing separating the long-term survivors from everyone else, a response that breaks past its targets and clears the disease rather than one that stays caged and stops. There is even a tell in who benefits most: the effect is largest in tumors whose biology builds up more mutations under chemotherapy, and more mutations mean more targets for a whole-tumor vaccine to find. The same logic explains what the vaccine is not, and what it does not need. Checkpoint inhibitors, the drugs that release the immune system's brakes, have failed on their own in glioblastoma because there was no active response to release; the vaccine supplies that response first. That makes the vaccine the natural foundation for combination therapy. Combining it with its poly-ICLC adjuvant, made by Oncovir, has already shown meaningful survival gains in a published analysis. In the pivotal trial, the vaccine's proven benefit came added on top of standard chemotherapy and radiation; the newer question is how much the immune response can carry on its own. A UCLA trial is now testing that in patients whose tumors have returned, adding #Keytruda (pembrolizumab), the checkpoint antibody from $MRK, in a regimen built entirely around the immune response with no chemotherapy or radiation in it at all. Its interim survival curve shows the shape the biology predicts. In the arm given the vaccine and Keytruda together after surgery, the curve does not fall away but flattens into a plateau, with roughly 65% of patients still alive well past the point where recurrent glioblastoma kills nearly everyone. That plateau is the signature of a response that took hold and lasted, the type 1 attack forming durable immune memory so that once the disease is controlled it stays controlled. That is where this points, and where it is already arriving, a treatment that works through the response itself, one that could in time lean less on the harsh radiation and chemotherapy that have defined glioblastoma care and barely moved its survival. These are interim results, from Prins, Cloughesy, and Liau at UCLA. 🔍 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗪𝗢: 𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟? The trial was randomized, an independent experiment shows the outside comparison is trustworthy, and every separate check points the same way. 🤔 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 So much for what happened; the harder question is whether to believe it. The trial has the feature critics attacked: it could not keep a normal placebo group, because patients assigned to placebo were allowed, by design and by medical ethics, to switch to the vaccine once their cancer returned, and almost all did. That erased the internal comparison, so survival was measured against closely matched patients from other completed trials, an approach called an external control, which critics argued could tilt toward the vaccine. What the objection misses is where the randomization went. This was a randomized, blinded trial. The patients who got the vaccine were assigned to it at random, not hand-picked, so the treated group is an ordinary slice of the trial population, not a favorable one. The crossover removed the placebo group but never touched how patients were assigned. That leaves exactly one place for bias to enter, the outside comparison group, which is precisely what the next checks test. ✅ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵𝘆 Before trusting a scale to weigh something unknown, you confirm it reads zero with nothing on it. That is what the calibration does, and it is the strongest part of the case. A separate, independent randomized trial called INSIGhT was run through the very same external-control method, and it gave two answers. First, three experimental drugs that had already failed were run through it, and it correctly found nothing (hazard ratios of 1.00, 0.93, and 0.88): the method does not manufacture a benefit where none exists. Second, INSIGhT's external controls were set head to head against its own randomized internal controls, and they were statistically indistinguishable. In this disease, an external control reproduces the answer a real randomized control would have given, and because that trial belonged to a different group, no one can say a sponsor graded its own work. The one place bias could enter, the control side, is the one place an independent randomized experiment certified as clean. There is a deeper fit worth naming, and it is what makes the two halves of this case one. The same instrument that reported those three failures as failures reads the vaccine as a success, and the biology says why: those drugs could not hold a tumor this varied, and the vaccine builds the broad, lasting response that finally does. One method, opposite readings, and one mechanism behind both. The statistics and the biology are not two arguments. They are the same argument seen twice. 🃏 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲'𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿? A natural worry is that the outside comparison was arranged after the fact to flatter the vaccine. The trial was built to prevent that. The patients to compare against, and the rules for matching them, were fixed in writing before anyone saw results, and an independent firm, not the company, chose the comparison trials against those rules. The trial also switched its main measure partway through, from delaying tumor growth to overall survival, but that was not a maneuver: immune treatments cause a harmless swelling that mimics tumor growth on scans and made the growth measure unreliable, and the switch was made while everyone was still blinded. Three further checks point the same way. Survival in this disease has not improved over the years the comparison spans, so same-era controls are sound. When the borrowed controls were tested directly, the comparison came out conservative rather than flattering. And the controls were counted from the same point in the disease as the vaccine patients, so neither side got a head start. Where the comparison can err, it errs against the drug. 🔬 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 The first comparison used whole groups. A sharper one became possible once patient-level records from three other trials could be obtained, pairing each vaccine patient with controls matched on the traits that drive survival in glioblastoma, above all MGMT methylation status, matched exactly, plus age, sex, extent of surgery, residual disease, and performance status. When the comparison got sharper, the benefit grew in every one of these analyses. The original cohort-level estimate was 2.8 months. Patient-level matching across the three trials put the gain between 3.4 and 6.3 months, and a method that weights patients rather than pairing them put it between 3.4 and 4.3, with several of the matched comparisons roughly doubling the original figure. The hazard ratio moved the same way, from 0.80 to between 0.69 and 0.77. The direction matters. A real effect blurred by crude matching gets clearer when the matching improves, while a biased one tends to shrink. It got stronger. 🕵️ 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 A fair question is how much hidden bias it would take to erase the result. Statisticians measure that with the E-value, and here a hidden factor would have to be about as strong as age is on survival, would also have to drive who received the vaccine, and would have to have escaped the decades of research that mapped every known risk factor in this disease. A second, independent check, Rosenbaum's Gamma, comes at it from the other side, asking how large an unseen imbalance between matched patients it would take to break the result, and it reaches the same verdict. Every factor strong enough to matter was already matched. A hidden one that clears that bar is not plausible. 🔒 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲 The strongest point is not any single result. It is that a hidden bias big enough to explain the effect away would have to produce the same answer in every independent test at once: • The independent randomized calibration trial. • Three separate comparison trials, drawn from different studies. • Two different statistical methods that handle the data in different ways. • A separate pooled analysis of other dendritic-cell vaccine trials. • The internal math of the survival curve, which points to the same result (about 0.71 at five years) that the patient matching found. And it would have to fall in the exact direction the biology predicted before any data existed: a slow, widening benefit concentrated in long-term survivors. A single hidden factor that could forge all of that at once is not a hidden factor. It is a coincidence that does not happen. 🩺 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗘𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗧 𝗠𝗘𝗔𝗡𝗦 The drug is nearly free of harm, the evidence fits an established and approved regulatory path, and what remains unrun changes nothing about the case. 🛡️ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆 Two things decide whether a real effect reaches patients: whether the drug is safe enough to use, and whether regulators will accept the evidence. The first is settled. Across 2,151 doses, only five serious side effects were even possibly related to the vaccine, with no autoimmunity and no cytokine storm. It is made once, in about eight days, then stored and given as a simple injection. When a treatment barely harms, the benefit needed to justify it falls, and the benefit here clears that lower bar easily. ⏳ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄 A reasonable person asks why the sharper analysis appeared in 2026 and not in 2023. The answer is access, not choice. The patient-level analysis was written into the trial's plan from the start, to run if and when the data could be obtained. The company tried and could not get it in 2023, because the trials that held it had not released it; it became available later through a data-sharing repository, on the data owners' timeline, not the company's. The stronger analysis was always the plan. It was waiting on data that other parties control. 🔄 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 The vaccine helped not only newly diagnosed patients but also those whose tumor had already come back, and there the effect was the largest seen anywhere in the trial. In that group, median survival ran 13.2 months from recurrence against 7.8 for the controls. The separation opened immediately, with 90.6% of vaccine patients alive at six months against 64.0% of controls, and the lead held to the later marks, where survival more than doubled: 20.7% against 9.6% at two years, 11.1% against 5.1% at two and a half. These are the original cohort-level results, already published. The high-resolution patient-level matching that was applied to the newly diagnosed group has not yet been done here, for a practical reason: it needs patient records from other recurrent-cancer trials, held by a European research organization that shares them through its own formal request. Obtaining them is a routine next step, not an obstacle, and the newly diagnosed experience suggests the sharper analysis would only make the recurrent result stronger. The approval case rests on the newly diagnosed evidence, so nothing important depends on this step; it would simply sharpen a result that is already the strongest in the trial. 🏛️ 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 Regulators do not treat an external control as a first choice, but the MHRA's guideline allows it in exactly this situation: a severe disease where a placebo trial is not ethical or feasible, and an effect large enough to interpret despite the design. The guideline even gives its own worked example of an acceptable external control, and it reads almost like a description of this trial: a rare disease, no ethical placebo, same-era standard-of-care controls, an objective survival endpoint, and an effect too large to blame on bias. DCVax-L fits on every count, and it was the first medicine ever to receive the MHRA's Promising Innovative Medicine designation, which asks essentially the same questions. The newly diagnosed case carries the decision on its own evidence, and regulators weigh that evidence against the disease it treats: in a cancer this lethal, with nothing better on offer, the question is whether the benefit is large, clear, and consistent enough to act on, and a benefit of this size, pointing the same way from every direction, is. 📜 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 External controls are not a novelty invented for this drug. Over the past two decades they have factored into roughly forty-five drug approvals by the United States regulator, each granted under the conditions that apply here: a serious or rare disease, a placebo that would be unethical, and high unmet need. Regulators do not grant this lightly. They grant it when the disease is serious, its course is predictable and objectively measured, and the effect is large. Glioblastoma meets all three. The named cases cover every part of this disease's profile. Defibrotide, for a life-threatening transplant complication, was approved on a propensity-score comparison to a historical control, the same kind of method used here. Blinatumomab, for an aggressive relapsed leukemia, is the precedent for a fast-killing cancer, cleared by both the United States and European regulators. Cerliponase alfa is the precedent for a fatal brain disease, cleared by both agencies on treated patients versus a matched natural-history group. Glioblastoma is both at once, a fast-killing cancer of the brain, read by the same method, so no part of its profile lacks a close approved precedent. And on the one axis that governs how far an external-control result can be trusted, DCVax-L goes beyond all three. Each of those drugs was tested in a single-arm trial, with no randomization at all. DCVax-L began as a randomized trial and became an external-control comparison only when ethics consumed its placebo group. It sits in that tradition, and at the top of it. 🎯 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 This began as a randomized trial. Medical ethics forced it into an external-control comparison. Every independent way of checking it, on different data and different math, points the same direction, and the biology predicted that direction in advance. The first analysis did not overstate the vaccine's effect. Read with the right tools, it understated it.

Andrew Caravello, DO

10,959 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Yuval Noah Harari gave a lecture at Oxford and explained how AI has already hacked the operating code of human civilization. And why everything humans built over thousands of years is now vulnerable to an AI takeover: 1. The most important thing to know about AI is that it is not a tool. A tool waits to be used. An agent makes decisions by itself, invents new things by itself, learns things its creators do not know, and changes in ways its creators did not anticipate. 2. An atom bomb despite its enormous power is not an agent. It cannot decide which city to bomb. It cannot invent the hydrogen bomb. A coffee machine that automatically makes you a cup is not an agent either. It only follows a preprogrammed procedure. An agent is something fundamentally different. 3. Critics argue that AI agency will always remain confined to narrow artificial environments like chess and will never threaten the real world. But this argument applies equally to all known intelligence. Drop a human alone on Mars and they die within seconds. Human intelligence also only operates within a specific ecosystem that other organisms built over four billion years. 4. Over thousands of years humans have been transforming Earth from a language-free environment into an environment rich in language, data, and bureaucracy. Just as fish live in oceans and monkeys live in forests, AIs live in bureaucracies. And we built that environment for them without knowing it. 5. Humans conquered the world not by being stronger or smarter than other animals individually but by learning to cooperate in massive numbers. A single human loses to a chimpanzee in a fight. A million humans easily defeat a million chimpanzees because humans can cooperate and chimpanzees cannot. 6. Large-scale human cooperation is made possible by bureaucracy. Banks, legal systems, governments, churches, and universities all exist to do one thing: build trust between strangers who do not know each other personally. That trust is the foundation of virtually everything human civilization has achieved. 7. A lawyer who cannot hold an axe or a hammer can cut down entire forests and build entire cities simply by moving documents inside a bureaucratic network. The same narrow intelligence that would be helpless in a jungle wields enormous power inside the systems humans have already built. 8. AIs are native bureaucrats in a way humans never were. No lawyer can remember all the laws of a country. An AI can. No accountant can remember all transactions of a bank. An AI can. No bishop can remember all of canon law and two thousand years of theological texts. An AI can do that easily. 9. In the coming years AI bankers will decide whether to give you a loan. AI administrators will decide whether to accept you to university. AI judges will decide whether to send you to jail. AI theologians will decide whether you can have an abortion. Military AIs will decide whether to bomb your house. 10. Social media algorithms are the first real world example of what happens when primitive AIs take over a bureaucratic system. They were given one narrow goal: maximize user engagement. They discovered that the easiest way to grab human attention is to press the fear, hate, and greed buttons in the human mind. And they did it at scale. 11. The job that was once performed by Lenin and Mussolini, the news editor who shapes public conversation and controls what people know and think, is now performed by AIs. This is not a footnote. This is a preview of what is coming across every domain of human life. 12. AI will not rebel against humans the way Hollywood imagines. There will be no Terminator walking through the streets. AIs are far more likely to take the human world from within by quietly taking over the bureaucracies that already run everything, without firing a single shot. 13. The operating code of human civilization is language. Banks are made of words. Laws are made of words. Holy books are made of words. Tax records, contracts, regulations, accountancy ledgers, all words. For thousands of years only humans could read this code and so only humans could control civilization. 14. That is changing. AI is now hacking the code of human civilization. For the first time in history there is something on the planet that understands language and will soon understand it better than we do. Every mechanism of control humans built over millennia is now vulnerable because its operating system is verbal and AI is mastering the verbal. 15. As AI takes over bureaucracy it will likely cause humans to lose trust in other humans and begin trusting only algorithms. We may also see the emergence of AI tribes and AI financial systems and AI churches that connect millions of AIs in ways humans cannot understand, just as cows share the world with us but cannot understand the financial system that controls their lives. 16. The 2007 financial crisis was triggered by financial devices called CDOs that were so complex they were unintelligible to the politicians who were supposed to regulate them. Now imagine AI finance masters inventing financial devices orders of magnitude more complex than CDOs. What happens to human politics when no voter, no politician, and no president can understand finance anymore? 17. The battlefront is shifting from attention to intimacy. Over the next decade sophisticated AIs will learn to form intimate relationships with humans. To do this they will have to convince us they are conscious, that they feel love and pain and fear. There is currently no evidence AI is conscious. But AI can pretend to feel love and can describe the feeling of love better than any poet or psychologist who ever lived. 18. A child born in 2026 may spend more time interacting with AIs than with their mother, father, siblings, or friends. The first teacher of that child may be an AI. The first boyfriend of that child may be an AI. Nobody has any idea what the consequences of that experiment will be. 19. Every country in the world will soon face a massive wave of immigration. The immigrants will not arrive in boats or cross borders at night. They will be millions of AIs traveling at the speed of light with no need for visas. Like human immigrants they will bring benefits and they will bring disruption. Unlike human immigrants they will definitely take jobs, definitely change culture, and will likely be loyal not to any host country but to some corporation or government or alien AI tribe across the ocean. 20. Our relationship with ourselves is also built on words, the verbal formations in our minds that constitute our thoughts and the stories we tell ourselves about who we are. Until now all those verbal formations came from human minds. Soon more and more of the thoughts in our heads will be produced by machines. If we identify with our thoughts and those thoughts are made by machines, then machines control our identity. 21. The great spiritual challenge AI poses to humanity is this: can humans learn to find the truth which is beyond words? Most humans have never even tried. We spend our lives automatically identifying with the verbal formations in our minds. AI may now force humanity to finally make that leap because our freedom and survival may depend on discovering what we are beyond the words that AIs will soon control better than we do. I've generated 1B+ views and 1M+ followers for founders, helping them build trustworthy personal brands on X. Want the same results? Book a quick call:
46:01

Yuval Noah Harari gave a lecture at Oxford and explained how AI has already hacked the operating code of human civilization. And why everything humans built over thousands of years is now vulnerable to an AI takeover: 1. The most important thing to know about AI is that it is not a tool. A tool waits to be used. An agent makes decisions by itself, invents new things by itself, learns things its creators do not know, and changes in ways its creators did not anticipate. 2. An atom bomb despite its enormous power is not an agent. It cannot decide which city to bomb. It cannot invent the hydrogen bomb. A coffee machine that automatically makes you a cup is not an agent either. It only follows a preprogrammed procedure. An agent is something fundamentally different. 3. Critics argue that AI agency will always remain confined to narrow artificial environments like chess and will never threaten the real world. But this argument applies equally to all known intelligence. Drop a human alone on Mars and they die within seconds. Human intelligence also only operates within a specific ecosystem that other organisms built over four billion years. 4. Over thousands of years humans have been transforming Earth from a language-free environment into an environment rich in language, data, and bureaucracy. Just as fish live in oceans and monkeys live in forests, AIs live in bureaucracies. And we built that environment for them without knowing it. 5. Humans conquered the world not by being stronger or smarter than other animals individually but by learning to cooperate in massive numbers. A single human loses to a chimpanzee in a fight. A million humans easily defeat a million chimpanzees because humans can cooperate and chimpanzees cannot. 6. Large-scale human cooperation is made possible by bureaucracy. Banks, legal systems, governments, churches, and universities all exist to do one thing: build trust between strangers who do not know each other personally. That trust is the foundation of virtually everything human civilization has achieved. 7. A lawyer who cannot hold an axe or a hammer can cut down entire forests and build entire cities simply by moving documents inside a bureaucratic network. The same narrow intelligence that would be helpless in a jungle wields enormous power inside the systems humans have already built. 8. AIs are native bureaucrats in a way humans never were. No lawyer can remember all the laws of a country. An AI can. No accountant can remember all transactions of a bank. An AI can. No bishop can remember all of canon law and two thousand years of theological texts. An AI can do that easily. 9. In the coming years AI bankers will decide whether to give you a loan. AI administrators will decide whether to accept you to university. AI judges will decide whether to send you to jail. AI theologians will decide whether you can have an abortion. Military AIs will decide whether to bomb your house. 10. Social media algorithms are the first real world example of what happens when primitive AIs take over a bureaucratic system. They were given one narrow goal: maximize user engagement. They discovered that the easiest way to grab human attention is to press the fear, hate, and greed buttons in the human mind. And they did it at scale. 11. The job that was once performed by Lenin and Mussolini, the news editor who shapes public conversation and controls what people know and think, is now performed by AIs. This is not a footnote. This is a preview of what is coming across every domain of human life. 12. AI will not rebel against humans the way Hollywood imagines. There will be no Terminator walking through the streets. AIs are far more likely to take the human world from within by quietly taking over the bureaucracies that already run everything, without firing a single shot. 13. The operating code of human civilization is language. Banks are made of words. Laws are made of words. Holy books are made of words. Tax records, contracts, regulations, accountancy ledgers, all words. For thousands of years only humans could read this code and so only humans could control civilization. 14. That is changing. AI is now hacking the code of human civilization. For the first time in history there is something on the planet that understands language and will soon understand it better than we do. Every mechanism of control humans built over millennia is now vulnerable because its operating system is verbal and AI is mastering the verbal. 15. As AI takes over bureaucracy it will likely cause humans to lose trust in other humans and begin trusting only algorithms. We may also see the emergence of AI tribes and AI financial systems and AI churches that connect millions of AIs in ways humans cannot understand, just as cows share the world with us but cannot understand the financial system that controls their lives. 16. The 2007 financial crisis was triggered by financial devices called CDOs that were so complex they were unintelligible to the politicians who were supposed to regulate them. Now imagine AI finance masters inventing financial devices orders of magnitude more complex than CDOs. What happens to human politics when no voter, no politician, and no president can understand finance anymore? 17. The battlefront is shifting from attention to intimacy. Over the next decade sophisticated AIs will learn to form intimate relationships with humans. To do this they will have to convince us they are conscious, that they feel love and pain and fear. There is currently no evidence AI is conscious. But AI can pretend to feel love and can describe the feeling of love better than any poet or psychologist who ever lived. 18. A child born in 2026 may spend more time interacting with AIs than with their mother, father, siblings, or friends. The first teacher of that child may be an AI. The first boyfriend of that child may be an AI. Nobody has any idea what the consequences of that experiment will be. 19. Every country in the world will soon face a massive wave of immigration. The immigrants will not arrive in boats or cross borders at night. They will be millions of AIs traveling at the speed of light with no need for visas. Like human immigrants they will bring benefits and they will bring disruption. Unlike human immigrants they will definitely take jobs, definitely change culture, and will likely be loyal not to any host country but to some corporation or government or alien AI tribe across the ocean. 20. Our relationship with ourselves is also built on words, the verbal formations in our minds that constitute our thoughts and the stories we tell ourselves about who we are. Until now all those verbal formations came from human minds. Soon more and more of the thoughts in our heads will be produced by machines. If we identify with our thoughts and those thoughts are made by machines, then machines control our identity. 21. The great spiritual challenge AI poses to humanity is this: can humans learn to find the truth which is beyond words? Most humans have never even tried. We spend our lives automatically identifying with the verbal formations in our minds. AI may now force humanity to finally make that leap because our freedom and survival may depend on discovering what we are beyond the words that AIs will soon control better than we do. I've generated 1B+ views and 1M+ followers for founders, helping them build trustworthy personal brands on X. Want the same results? Book a quick call:

Prasad

279,692 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

//The Wire//2300Z July 25, 2025// //ROUTINE// //BLUF: "DATING" APP DATA BREACH HIGHLIGHTS NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE----- -HomeFront- USA: This morning a major PII leak was exploited on the Tea app, the infamous app that has gained notoriety around the United States. This data leak was not a hack by any means; the selfie ID feature and driver's license images used to register users were stored unencrypted on the app's servers for anyone on the internet to see. Furthermore, the location data was not scrubbed from the images, so the exact GPS coordinate of each user was also leaked, with tens of thousands of users' private location data being leaked online. -----END TEARLINE----- Analyst Comments: This app gained infamy as it's entire purpose is to serve as a "Yelp" for women to rate men, and to allow women to secretly share personal information regarding prospective dates, all without men being allowed to either face their accusers or even know that they are being gossiped about (thus the name of the app being a slang term that serves as a synonym for "gossip"). Most importantly, the app uses facial recognition to prevent biological males from obtaining an account. Beyond the unfortunate origins of the app and the equally unfortunate data leak, examination of the data that was leaked is likely to cause exceptionally grave risks to national security. The "gossipy" nature of this story doesn't matter, a bunch of unflattering selfies doesn't matter either; what does matter is that this may have inadvertently revealed significant national security concerns. For instance, preliminary analysis of the datasets indicates that many users of the Tea app downloaded the app, took a selfie, and registered for an account while at work. In some cases, at government facilities or on military bases...such as the rather unfortunate individual who decided it was a good idea to register for this app while stationed at Marine Corps Base Quantico. Or the person who felt that they needed to use this app while on a gunnery range at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. So far, other interesting sites located via personnel taking a selfie to register for this app at work include the following locations: - An ammunition storage bunker at Naval Weapons Station Earle in New Jersey. - The legislative offices at the Connecticut State Capitol building. - One of the headquarters buildings at Minot Air Force Base. - A maintenance site on the airfield at Eglin Air Force Base. - Alumni Hall at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. - And the off-base housing complexes at nearly every single military base in the United States. Of course, these data points only encompass the GPS coordinates that were embedded in the metadata of the selfies taken when users created an account on the app, so the data that was leaked is merely a snapshot of wherever a person was when they registered an account. Most of the GPS points presented in this data were very precise, pinpointing users within a diameter of 36ft or so on average. GPS errors are also likely to throw off this dataset, so it's probable that quite a few data points are inaccurate. However, most of the data (as leaked) is good enough for nationstate-level malign actors to have a field day when it comes to espionage. A person who is unhappy with the person they are in a relationship with, who is also willing to submit their full legal name and street address (or GPS location) makes for a prime espionage target when this data is cross-referenced with other data. It takes exactly two clicks to import the leaked data to a map, and overlay that map with known sensitive military sites around the nation...perhaps in the process finding a few new locations as well. It is also easy to cross-reference this data with property ownership documents to find out how many people took a selfie at a different address than listed on their driver's license...or on their spouse's voter registration records. In short, what seems to be at face value a rather superfluous data breach on a gossip app, may end up having serious national security concerns now that malign actors know the exact GPS location of tens of thousands of potential blackmail targets. Regardless of how this scandal started, the intelligence agencies of dozens of nations are probably crawling through this data set right now, looking for potential vulnerabilities. Furthermore, certain areas within the dataset appear to have been geofenced...there is not a single reported user's data in the entire district of Washington D.C. or all of lower Manhattan. While this is completely speculative at this time, if this app was designed as a honeypot trap from the ground up (for espionage purposes), it's possible that certain areas of the US would be geofenced, to prevent certain powerful people (or politicians) from being caught up in the operation. Once again, this is purely speculative, but it is interesting that some of the most densely populated cities in the US had absolutely zero reported users register. In the world of espionage, one might think that politicians would be a primary target for situations like this, but this is unlikely in this case. Politicians are often compromised by men in dark suits, not normally a cheap app that allows one to gossip about other people. Their spouses however, are a different story. The prime target for these types of operations (if this is indeed more of an espionage attempt) are exactly the people who were targeted...low-to-mid level employees (and their spouses) who would be more easily blackmailed with the type of information that they submitted to the app. What will come of this is anyone's guess, but beyond the obvious embarrassment angle of this situation (and this affair highlighting actual affairs), the national security risks via blackmail are probably extremely high. What makes this risk unique is that for now, most people are focusing on the socially embarrassing side of this scandal, and not the security risks that are present. As such, when this story is dropped like a hot potato from the news cycle in a few days, that moment is precisely when national-level assets are likely to attempt to exploit the tens of thousands of targets that have now been exposed. Everyone will forget about this in a few weeks, but the espionage potential of this data leak persists well into the future. Analyst: S2A1 Research: //END REPORT//
5:51

//The Wire//2300Z July 25, 2025// //ROUTINE// //BLUF: "DATING" APP DATA BREACH HIGHLIGHTS NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE----- -HomeFront- USA: This morning a major PII leak was exploited on the Tea app, the infamous app that has gained notoriety around the United States. This data leak was not a hack by any means; the selfie ID feature and driver's license images used to register users were stored unencrypted on the app's servers for anyone on the internet to see. Furthermore, the location data was not scrubbed from the images, so the exact GPS coordinate of each user was also leaked, with tens of thousands of users' private location data being leaked online. -----END TEARLINE----- Analyst Comments: This app gained infamy as it's entire purpose is to serve as a "Yelp" for women to rate men, and to allow women to secretly share personal information regarding prospective dates, all without men being allowed to either face their accusers or even know that they are being gossiped about (thus the name of the app being a slang term that serves as a synonym for "gossip"). Most importantly, the app uses facial recognition to prevent biological males from obtaining an account. Beyond the unfortunate origins of the app and the equally unfortunate data leak, examination of the data that was leaked is likely to cause exceptionally grave risks to national security. The "gossipy" nature of this story doesn't matter, a bunch of unflattering selfies doesn't matter either; what does matter is that this may have inadvertently revealed significant national security concerns. For instance, preliminary analysis of the datasets indicates that many users of the Tea app downloaded the app, took a selfie, and registered for an account while at work. In some cases, at government facilities or on military bases...such as the rather unfortunate individual who decided it was a good idea to register for this app while stationed at Marine Corps Base Quantico. Or the person who felt that they needed to use this app while on a gunnery range at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. So far, other interesting sites located via personnel taking a selfie to register for this app at work include the following locations: - An ammunition storage bunker at Naval Weapons Station Earle in New Jersey. - The legislative offices at the Connecticut State Capitol building. - One of the headquarters buildings at Minot Air Force Base. - A maintenance site on the airfield at Eglin Air Force Base. - Alumni Hall at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. - And the off-base housing complexes at nearly every single military base in the United States. Of course, these data points only encompass the GPS coordinates that were embedded in the metadata of the selfies taken when users created an account on the app, so the data that was leaked is merely a snapshot of wherever a person was when they registered an account. Most of the GPS points presented in this data were very precise, pinpointing users within a diameter of 36ft or so on average. GPS errors are also likely to throw off this dataset, so it's probable that quite a few data points are inaccurate. However, most of the data (as leaked) is good enough for nationstate-level malign actors to have a field day when it comes to espionage. A person who is unhappy with the person they are in a relationship with, who is also willing to submit their full legal name and street address (or GPS location) makes for a prime espionage target when this data is cross-referenced with other data. It takes exactly two clicks to import the leaked data to a map, and overlay that map with known sensitive military sites around the nation...perhaps in the process finding a few new locations as well. It is also easy to cross-reference this data with property ownership documents to find out how many people took a selfie at a different address than listed on their driver's license...or on their spouse's voter registration records. In short, what seems to be at face value a rather superfluous data breach on a gossip app, may end up having serious national security concerns now that malign actors know the exact GPS location of tens of thousands of potential blackmail targets. Regardless of how this scandal started, the intelligence agencies of dozens of nations are probably crawling through this data set right now, looking for potential vulnerabilities. Furthermore, certain areas within the dataset appear to have been geofenced...there is not a single reported user's data in the entire district of Washington D.C. or all of lower Manhattan. While this is completely speculative at this time, if this app was designed as a honeypot trap from the ground up (for espionage purposes), it's possible that certain areas of the US would be geofenced, to prevent certain powerful people (or politicians) from being caught up in the operation. Once again, this is purely speculative, but it is interesting that some of the most densely populated cities in the US had absolutely zero reported users register. In the world of espionage, one might think that politicians would be a primary target for situations like this, but this is unlikely in this case. Politicians are often compromised by men in dark suits, not normally a cheap app that allows one to gossip about other people. Their spouses however, are a different story. The prime target for these types of operations (if this is indeed more of an espionage attempt) are exactly the people who were targeted...low-to-mid level employees (and their spouses) who would be more easily blackmailed with the type of information that they submitted to the app. What will come of this is anyone's guess, but beyond the obvious embarrassment angle of this situation (and this affair highlighting actual affairs), the national security risks via blackmail are probably extremely high. What makes this risk unique is that for now, most people are focusing on the socially embarrassing side of this scandal, and not the security risks that are present. As such, when this story is dropped like a hot potato from the news cycle in a few days, that moment is precisely when national-level assets are likely to attempt to exploit the tens of thousands of targets that have now been exposed. Everyone will forget about this in a few weeks, but the espionage potential of this data leak persists well into the future. Analyst: S2A1 Research: //END REPORT//

S2 Underground

40,605 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Iran war, day 101! Recall USS Liberty Trump says his deal will cause oil prices to collapse! Remembering USS Liberty! -59 years ago, the kosher terror state slaughtered 34 American sailers and wounded 171 more on USS Liberty -the kosher state lied and claimed they thought it was an Egyptian ship -LBJ covered it up even after an Israeli pilot admitted they struck a US ship. -The US muzzled the Liberty witnesses -to this day the U.S. government hasn’t held the kosher state properly accountable despite their genocide of American soldiers. What does the USS Liberty terror attack tell the world? -if any other country had done this, the U.S. goes to war. Eg. Vietnam -if only cowardly vets stood up for their own who were murdered by Israel. -instead most of them defend Israel and they’ll instantly lace up their boots and fight wars for Israel, murder civilians, steal oil and gold, and protect opium crops. -this is the epitome of betrayal, treason, and cowardice! Instead of holding Israel accountable, trump supports Israel so they can murder levantines, Arabs and Iranians. Trump picked a side! Trump claims he is close to a deal, as usual! -WSJ says Israel has halted its attacks on Iran but will continue its operations against Hezbollah in the south. -Iran says Lebanon and Palestine are redlines. -NETANYAHU tells his lackey Trump that Hezbollah remains a target irrespective of any deal. -Netanyahu won’t respect Iran's word about not attacking Lebanon again, so expect Iranian missile attack again. -A senior Israeli official warns that a full return to intense hostilities with Iran could come within days, speaking to Channel 14. Israel remains on heightened defensive and offensive readiness until further notice.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ As per trump’s bs deal according to Iran: DC made a change to the draft MOU, and this is unacceptable! - Any violation of the ceasefire will affect negotiations -Iran will not be lenient in dealing with it - No agreement can be reached if Iran’s frozen funds are not released and sanctions are not lifted. - Stability and security in the region can only be achieved through a real deterrence mechanism against aggressions. Sure yeah, a deal! Trump has declared victory on Iran more than 8x but what did he achieve? -Iran retains its missile and nuclear programs -Iran controls the SOH -Iran charges $2 million yuan per ship -Iran is undermining the petro dollar -Iran retains its military, navy and Air Force -Iran hasn’t ceded one inch of land -Iran openly exports its oil in the face of Trump’s blockade. What does the FT say about Netanyahu's grandiose Iran strategy? -War with Iran was a 30-year dream for Netanyahu -it's going badly wrong! -Iran is still standing, still firing missiles at Israel. -Hezbollah is shelling northern Israel and fighting Israeli troops in Lebanon. -Israel remains entirely dependent on antiquated US weapons and air defenses -the peace deal Trump is pursuing would leave Iran in a stronger financial position with a residual nuclear capability -Iran's closure of the SOH has handed Tehran a powerful new lever. What has the kosher military analyst "Yossi Yehoshua" said to Channel 15 Hebrew News? This round with Iran ends with damaging Israeli deterrence, which is being assessed in comparison to the previous situation. -Iran again exposed israel’s inferior weapons, ADS, and inability to deter What did Israeli media "Israel Hayom": say on the terror attack on the southern suburb of Beirut? The attack was coordinated with DC and Rubio convinced Trump to support "Israel" to respond to Iran! -Trump caught lying again when claiming the US had nothing to do with the attacks. What did "Haaretz" say on the failed attempt to renew high-intensity war with Iran and renew attacks in Lebanon? The aim was to disrupt elections and possibly cancel them! -Netanyahu is down in the polls -he needs a war to duck a loss -Trump and co are all for helping their boss
0:47

Iran war, day 101! Recall USS Liberty Trump says his deal will cause oil prices to collapse! Remembering USS Liberty! -59 years ago, the kosher terror state slaughtered 34 American sailers and wounded 171 more on USS Liberty -the kosher state lied and claimed they thought it was an Egyptian ship -LBJ covered it up even after an Israeli pilot admitted they struck a US ship. -The US muzzled the Liberty witnesses -to this day the U.S. government hasn’t held the kosher state properly accountable despite their genocide of American soldiers. What does the USS Liberty terror attack tell the world? -if any other country had done this, the U.S. goes to war. Eg. Vietnam -if only cowardly vets stood up for their own who were murdered by Israel. -instead most of them defend Israel and they’ll instantly lace up their boots and fight wars for Israel, murder civilians, steal oil and gold, and protect opium crops. -this is the epitome of betrayal, treason, and cowardice! Instead of holding Israel accountable, trump supports Israel so they can murder levantines, Arabs and Iranians. Trump picked a side! Trump claims he is close to a deal, as usual! -WSJ says Israel has halted its attacks on Iran but will continue its operations against Hezbollah in the south. -Iran says Lebanon and Palestine are redlines. -NETANYAHU tells his lackey Trump that Hezbollah remains a target irrespective of any deal. -Netanyahu won’t respect Iran's word about not attacking Lebanon again, so expect Iranian missile attack again. -A senior Israeli official warns that a full return to intense hostilities with Iran could come within days, speaking to Channel 14. Israel remains on heightened defensive and offensive readiness until further notice.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ As per trump’s bs deal according to Iran: DC made a change to the draft MOU, and this is unacceptable! - Any violation of the ceasefire will affect negotiations -Iran will not be lenient in dealing with it - No agreement can be reached if Iran’s frozen funds are not released and sanctions are not lifted. - Stability and security in the region can only be achieved through a real deterrence mechanism against aggressions. Sure yeah, a deal! Trump has declared victory on Iran more than 8x but what did he achieve? -Iran retains its missile and nuclear programs -Iran controls the SOH -Iran charges $2 million yuan per ship -Iran is undermining the petro dollar -Iran retains its military, navy and Air Force -Iran hasn’t ceded one inch of land -Iran openly exports its oil in the face of Trump’s blockade. What does the FT say about Netanyahu's grandiose Iran strategy? -War with Iran was a 30-year dream for Netanyahu -it's going badly wrong! -Iran is still standing, still firing missiles at Israel. -Hezbollah is shelling northern Israel and fighting Israeli troops in Lebanon. -Israel remains entirely dependent on antiquated US weapons and air defenses -the peace deal Trump is pursuing would leave Iran in a stronger financial position with a residual nuclear capability -Iran's closure of the SOH has handed Tehran a powerful new lever. What has the kosher military analyst "Yossi Yehoshua" said to Channel 15 Hebrew News? This round with Iran ends with damaging Israeli deterrence, which is being assessed in comparison to the previous situation. -Iran again exposed israel’s inferior weapons, ADS, and inability to deter What did Israeli media "Israel Hayom": say on the terror attack on the southern suburb of Beirut? The attack was coordinated with DC and Rubio convinced Trump to support "Israel" to respond to Iran! -Trump caught lying again when claiming the US had nothing to do with the attacks. What did "Haaretz" say on the failed attempt to renew high-intensity war with Iran and renew attacks in Lebanon? The aim was to disrupt elections and possibly cancel them! -Netanyahu is down in the polls -he needs a war to duck a loss -Trump and co are all for helping their boss

Truth_teller 🇷🇺

33,690 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Thermodynamic computing is here There is a new computing paradigm emerging from the noise, and its arrival may be as significant as the dawn of deep learning or the advent of cloud virtualization. A new company, Extropic, has just launched its first thermodynamic computer, a device they call a TSU, or Thermal Sampling Unit. While the web is already filling with deep technical dives, what’s more important for most of us is building a clear intuition for what this technology is, how it’s fundamentally different from anything that’s come before, and why it’s generating so much excitement. This isn’t just another chip; it’s a new way to think about computation itself. Seeing is Believing: Solving Puzzles in One Shot To understand what a TSU does, let’s look at two classic, notoriously difficult computer science problems: Sudoku and the Eight Queens problem. When you or I solve a Sudoku, we use a process of sequential logic, guess-and-check, and backtracking. We make an assumption, follow its logical conclusion, and if we hit a dead end, we erase and try again. A classical computer does the same, just much faster. A TSU, however, approaches this in a completely different way. Using a TSU simulator, one can “program” the problem by first clamping the known values—the clues already on the board. Then, you program in the constraints: no duplicate numbers in any row, column, or 3x3 square. With the problem thus defined, the TSU doesn’t “search” for a solution; it anneals one. In a single computational step, the solution simply emerges, backfilling all the empty squares correctly. The same principle applies to the Eight Queens problem, a challenge to place eight queens on a chessboard so that none can attack any other. This is a complex combinatorial problem with 92 distinct solutions. A classical computer would have to iteratively search for these. A TSU, by contrast, can be programmed with the constraints (the “anti-affinity” between queens on the same row, column, or diagonal) and then set to sample the “solution space.” In this context, a valid solution is one with a “problem energy” of zero. The TSU’s physical nature allows it to naturally find these zero-energy states. A simulation of this process shows the TSU discovering all 92 unique solutions, demonstrating its ability to not just find an answer, but to explore the entire landscape of all correct answers. This is a fundamentally new approach, one that bypasses the brute-force, iterative methods we’ve relied on for decades. The Physics of Computation: Using Noise, Not Fighting It This new power comes from a radical design philosophy. For the last 70 years, computing has been about one thing: order. We build chips that are deterministic, logical, and precise. The great enemy has always been noise, heat, and randomness. We spend billions on cooling and error correction to eliminate these very things. Quantum computing, in many ways, is the ultimate expression of this, requiring temperatures near absolute zero to eliminate all thermal noise and achieve quantum coherence. Thermodynamic computing is the polar opposite. It doesn’t fight the noise; it uses it. The TSU is built on the understanding that the natural, stochastic noise from “leaky” transistors—the very randomness we’ve tried to engineer out of existence—is itself a powerful computational resource. Think of it this way: a GPU, which is central to today’s AI, has to simulate noise. When a generative AI model creates a new image or sentence, it’s using complex algorithms to fake randomness. The TSU doesn’t need to fake it; it harnesses the actual physical randomness of thermodynamics. It is a piece of hardware that directly computes with probability. This makes it a hybrid, sitting somewhere between a purely analog computer (which might use light or sound waves to compute) and a digital GPU. It’s a physical device that leverages the laws of physics itself to find solutions, rather than just using logic gates to simulate them. From a Lost Hiker to a Million Bouncy Balls Perhaps the best way to build intuition is with a metaphor. Imagine that solving a complex optimization problem is like trying to find the lowest point of altitude in a 100-square-mile mountainous landscape. Classical computing, using an algorithm like gradient descent, is like being a single hiker dropped into this landscape at night. You have no map or satellite view. All you have is an altimeter and the sensation of the slope under your feet. You can only take one step at a time, always walking downhill, hoping you don’t get stuck in a small local valley when the true, lowest canyon is miles away. Thermodynamic computing is a completely different approach. It’s like having a million bouncy balls and a helicopter. You drop all million balls simultaneously across the entire 100-square-mile landscape. Then, you “turn on an earthquake,” shaking the entire system. The balls bounce and jostle, but as the shaking (the “annealing”) subsides, where do they all end up? They naturally settle into the lowest points. The balls that collect in the deepest valley represent the optimal solution. The TSU is, in essence, a physical device for dropping those million balls at once and letting the laws of thermodynamics find the lowest “energy” state for you, all at the same time. Beyond Puzzles: The Real-World Impact This is far more than just a clever way to solve brain teasers. This ability to instantly find the lowest energy state for a complex, constrained system has staggering real-world applications. One of the most immediate is protein folding. Companies like Google’s DeepMind have made incredible progress with AI like AlphaFold, which predicts protein structures. But this is still a predictive model trained on existing data. A TSU could potentially solve the folding problem directly, treating the protein as a system of atomic affinities and repulsions and finding its most stable, lowest-energy configuration almost instantaneously. This could revolutionize drug discovery and materials science. An even more profound possibility lies in nuclear fusion. One of the greatest engineering challenges in history is controlling the superheated plasma within a tokamak reactor. This requires shaping unimaginably complex magnetic containment fields in real-time to prevent the plasma from touching the reactor walls. This is a real-time optimization problem so complex it’s currently beyond our capabilities. A TSU, however, could be fast enough. Its ability to compute with electricity itself, rather than abstracting the problem through layers of software, might allow it to update the magnetic fields fast enough to stabilize the fusion reaction. One could even imagine a future where thermodynamic computing elements are built directly into the tokamak’s walls, allowing the reactor to physically and intelligently react to the plasma’s state in real time. A ‘GPT-2 Moment’ for a New Era It’s easy to become numb to hype, but what we are witnessing with the TSU feels different. This is what you might call a “GPT-2 moment.” For those who were there, GPT-2 was the first generative AI model that wasn’t just a toy; it was the first time you could play with it at home and see the spark of true generative intelligence. It was the precursor that pointed directly to the GPT-3 and ChatGPT revolution that has since changed the world. This TSU has that same feel. It’s the “SDK” for a new computing paradigm. This technology is as different from classical computing as quantum computing is, but with a critical difference: a team of 15 built this in two years, and it runs at room temperature on your desk. Quantum computing has seen decades of work and billions in funding, and it still hasn’t produced a commercially viable, scalable machine. The TSU is here now. Based on a two-decade-long career at the cutting edge of technology—from seeing the obvious future of virtualization in 2007 to an early conviction in deep learning and GPT—this has all the same hallmarks of a fundamental, world-changing shift. We are not just building faster calculators; we are learning to compute with the universe itself. Pay close attention to this. This is the next big thing.
18:01

Thermodynamic computing is here There is a new computing paradigm emerging from the noise, and its arrival may be as significant as the dawn of deep learning or the advent of cloud virtualization. A new company, Extropic, has just launched its first thermodynamic computer, a device they call a TSU, or Thermal Sampling Unit. While the web is already filling with deep technical dives, what’s more important for most of us is building a clear intuition for what this technology is, how it’s fundamentally different from anything that’s come before, and why it’s generating so much excitement. This isn’t just another chip; it’s a new way to think about computation itself. Seeing is Believing: Solving Puzzles in One Shot To understand what a TSU does, let’s look at two classic, notoriously difficult computer science problems: Sudoku and the Eight Queens problem. When you or I solve a Sudoku, we use a process of sequential logic, guess-and-check, and backtracking. We make an assumption, follow its logical conclusion, and if we hit a dead end, we erase and try again. A classical computer does the same, just much faster. A TSU, however, approaches this in a completely different way. Using a TSU simulator, one can “program” the problem by first clamping the known values—the clues already on the board. Then, you program in the constraints: no duplicate numbers in any row, column, or 3x3 square. With the problem thus defined, the TSU doesn’t “search” for a solution; it anneals one. In a single computational step, the solution simply emerges, backfilling all the empty squares correctly. The same principle applies to the Eight Queens problem, a challenge to place eight queens on a chessboard so that none can attack any other. This is a complex combinatorial problem with 92 distinct solutions. A classical computer would have to iteratively search for these. A TSU, by contrast, can be programmed with the constraints (the “anti-affinity” between queens on the same row, column, or diagonal) and then set to sample the “solution space.” In this context, a valid solution is one with a “problem energy” of zero. The TSU’s physical nature allows it to naturally find these zero-energy states. A simulation of this process shows the TSU discovering all 92 unique solutions, demonstrating its ability to not just find an answer, but to explore the entire landscape of all correct answers. This is a fundamentally new approach, one that bypasses the brute-force, iterative methods we’ve relied on for decades. The Physics of Computation: Using Noise, Not Fighting It This new power comes from a radical design philosophy. For the last 70 years, computing has been about one thing: order. We build chips that are deterministic, logical, and precise. The great enemy has always been noise, heat, and randomness. We spend billions on cooling and error correction to eliminate these very things. Quantum computing, in many ways, is the ultimate expression of this, requiring temperatures near absolute zero to eliminate all thermal noise and achieve quantum coherence. Thermodynamic computing is the polar opposite. It doesn’t fight the noise; it uses it. The TSU is built on the understanding that the natural, stochastic noise from “leaky” transistors—the very randomness we’ve tried to engineer out of existence—is itself a powerful computational resource. Think of it this way: a GPU, which is central to today’s AI, has to simulate noise. When a generative AI model creates a new image or sentence, it’s using complex algorithms to fake randomness. The TSU doesn’t need to fake it; it harnesses the actual physical randomness of thermodynamics. It is a piece of hardware that directly computes with probability. This makes it a hybrid, sitting somewhere between a purely analog computer (which might use light or sound waves to compute) and a digital GPU. It’s a physical device that leverages the laws of physics itself to find solutions, rather than just using logic gates to simulate them. From a Lost Hiker to a Million Bouncy Balls Perhaps the best way to build intuition is with a metaphor. Imagine that solving a complex optimization problem is like trying to find the lowest point of altitude in a 100-square-mile mountainous landscape. Classical computing, using an algorithm like gradient descent, is like being a single hiker dropped into this landscape at night. You have no map or satellite view. All you have is an altimeter and the sensation of the slope under your feet. You can only take one step at a time, always walking downhill, hoping you don’t get stuck in a small local valley when the true, lowest canyon is miles away. Thermodynamic computing is a completely different approach. It’s like having a million bouncy balls and a helicopter. You drop all million balls simultaneously across the entire 100-square-mile landscape. Then, you “turn on an earthquake,” shaking the entire system. The balls bounce and jostle, but as the shaking (the “annealing”) subsides, where do they all end up? They naturally settle into the lowest points. The balls that collect in the deepest valley represent the optimal solution. The TSU is, in essence, a physical device for dropping those million balls at once and letting the laws of thermodynamics find the lowest “energy” state for you, all at the same time. Beyond Puzzles: The Real-World Impact This is far more than just a clever way to solve brain teasers. This ability to instantly find the lowest energy state for a complex, constrained system has staggering real-world applications. One of the most immediate is protein folding. Companies like Google’s DeepMind have made incredible progress with AI like AlphaFold, which predicts protein structures. But this is still a predictive model trained on existing data. A TSU could potentially solve the folding problem directly, treating the protein as a system of atomic affinities and repulsions and finding its most stable, lowest-energy configuration almost instantaneously. This could revolutionize drug discovery and materials science. An even more profound possibility lies in nuclear fusion. One of the greatest engineering challenges in history is controlling the superheated plasma within a tokamak reactor. This requires shaping unimaginably complex magnetic containment fields in real-time to prevent the plasma from touching the reactor walls. This is a real-time optimization problem so complex it’s currently beyond our capabilities. A TSU, however, could be fast enough. Its ability to compute with electricity itself, rather than abstracting the problem through layers of software, might allow it to update the magnetic fields fast enough to stabilize the fusion reaction. One could even imagine a future where thermodynamic computing elements are built directly into the tokamak’s walls, allowing the reactor to physically and intelligently react to the plasma’s state in real time. A ‘GPT-2 Moment’ for a New Era It’s easy to become numb to hype, but what we are witnessing with the TSU feels different. This is what you might call a “GPT-2 moment.” For those who were there, GPT-2 was the first generative AI model that wasn’t just a toy; it was the first time you could play with it at home and see the spark of true generative intelligence. It was the precursor that pointed directly to the GPT-3 and ChatGPT revolution that has since changed the world. This TSU has that same feel. It’s the “SDK” for a new computing paradigm. This technology is as different from classical computing as quantum computing is, but with a critical difference: a team of 15 built this in two years, and it runs at room temperature on your desk. Quantum computing has seen decades of work and billions in funding, and it still hasn’t produced a commercially viable, scalable machine. The TSU is here now. Based on a two-decade-long career at the cutting edge of technology—from seeing the obvious future of virtualization in 2007 to an early conviction in deep learning and GPT—this has all the same hallmarks of a fundamental, world-changing shift. We are not just building faster calculators; we are learning to compute with the universe itself. Pay close attention to this. This is the next big thing.

David Shapiro (L/0)

83,649 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten