Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Cogent has launched Attack Path Analysis, an AI security tool designed to map how attackers could reach a company’s most sensitive systems and data. It connects signals across cloud infrastructure, identity systems and code to identify chains of vulnerabilities, exposed credentials and excessive permissions. It checks the evidence behind... show more

Wall St Engine

200,195 subscribers

21,338 views • 4 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

1 Comments

Robert Harrison4 days ago

AI security is becoming a critical infrastructure layer. You and @msperfectlex always give me another angle to think about.

Related Videos

THIS IS WHAT AI PENTESTING SHOULD LOOK LIKE IN 2026 Someone built Shannon, an open source AI pentesting tool that doesn’t just scan your app from the outside. It reads the source code. Then it uses AI to map potential attack paths, identify vulnerabilities, and test the application before you ship it. The workflow is basically: → point Shannon at your code → connect your Claude API → let it analyze the application → get the findings in a dashboard Instead of waiting for a security team to manually hunt through every part of your codebase, you can have an AI security researcher working through it automatically. And because it’s white-box, it can see things traditional scanners can’t. This is where AI + cybersecurity gets REALLY interesting. Just use it on systems you own or have explicit permission to test. REPO BELOW

THIS IS WHAT AI PENTESTING SHOULD LOOK LIKE IN 2026 Someone built Shannon, an open source AI pentesting tool that doesn’t just scan your app from the outside. It reads the source code. Then it uses AI to map potential attack paths, identify vulnerabilities, and test the application before you ship it. The workflow is basically: → point Shannon at your code → connect your Claude API → let it analyze the application → get the findings in a dashboard Instead of waiting for a security team to manually hunt through every part of your codebase, you can have an AI security researcher working through it automatically. And because it’s white-box, it can see things traditional scanners can’t. This is where AI + cybersecurity gets REALLY interesting. Just use it on systems you own or have explicit permission to test. REPO BELOW

MAX

13,253 views • 1 month ago

I got a smart meter recently and saw you can download a HDF file with the data so I had the idea of writing a script that could parse that and show the data in a useful manner. However I discovered that someone has already done this and done a really good job on it. The video explains how it works. In simple terms it uses the ESB smart meter data and shows a breakdown of how much data you are using and when and also recommends plans and estimates what each one would cost based on the data. The tool is available at easier to read on Laptop or Tablet or then your phone to Landscape.

I got a smart meter recently and saw you can download a HDF file with the data so I had the idea of writing a script that could parse that and show the data in a useful manner. However I discovered that someone has already done this and done a really good job on it. The video explains how it works. In simple terms it uses the ESB smart meter data and shows a breakdown of how much data you are using and when and also recommends plans and estimates what each one would cost based on the data. The tool is available at easier to read on Laptop or Tablet or then your phone to Landscape.

Carlow Weather

298,565 views • 2 years ago

We gave AI agents access to real production systems and watched them do things they were never authorized to do. SOC 2 and ISO can't catch it, but TrustAI (YC S26) can. We built new evals so companies can have a continuous, transparent record on key vulnerabilities, get suggested mitigative solutions, and run time/cost efficiency analysis. Built by two Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) engineers, backed by Y Combinator. Considering or running an agent on sensitive systems? Building one that connects to other enterprises' private data? Reach out today at

We gave AI agents access to real production systems and watched them do things they were never authorized to do. SOC 2 and ISO can't catch it, but TrustAI (YC S26) can. We built new evals so companies can have a continuous, transparent record on key vulnerabilities, get suggested mitigative solutions, and run time/cost efficiency analysis. Built by two Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) engineers, backed by Y Combinator. Considering or running an agent on sensitive systems? Building one that connects to other enterprises' private data? Reach out today at

Hannah Chung

35,214 views • 2 months ago

$PLTR is one of the cleanest ways to play the AI cycle because it benefits from the entire infrastructure buildout without financing the data centers, chips, memory, power or networking underneath it. Palantir is also emerging as one of the biggest sovereign AI winners by building the control layer that determines what AI understands, which proprietary data it can access and what decisions or actions it can influence inside an organization. OpenAI and Anthropic create the intelligence while Palantir connects it to permissions, workflows and real operating systems where measurable economic value is produced.

$PLTR is one of the cleanest ways to play the AI cycle because it benefits from the entire infrastructure buildout without financing the data centers, chips, memory, power or networking underneath it. Palantir is also emerging as one of the biggest sovereign AI winners by building the control layer that determines what AI understands, which proprietary data it can access and what decisions or actions it can influence inside an organization. OpenAI and Anthropic create the intelligence while Palantir connects it to permissions, workflows and real operating systems where measurable economic value is produced.

Shay Boloor

200,447 views • 2 months ago

🚨WATCH: RONNY CHIENG AT HARVARD: “DON’T LET AI ROB YOU OF THE FUN PART” The comedian warned that while AI could help revolutionize medicine and physics, excessive reliance on it could weaken human creativity and critical thinking. ⚠️ His message to the Class of 2026: Use AI as a tool. Don’t let it replace your mind.

🚨WATCH: RONNY CHIENG AT HARVARD: “DON’T LET AI ROB YOU OF THE FUN PART” The comedian warned that while AI could help revolutionize medicine and physics, excessive reliance on it could weaken human creativity and critical thinking. ⚠️ His message to the Class of 2026: Use AI as a tool. Don’t let it replace your mind.

Anonymous TV 🇺🇦

13,580 views • 23 days ago

The ransomware attack dubbed “JADEPUFFER”, one of the first documented cases of a threat actor using large language model (LLM) to conduct an end-to-end attack, offers a glimpse into how AI could shape future ransomware campaigns. While the attack relied on familiar techniques, it demonstrated how AI can rapidly iterate, adapt to failures, and continue progressing toward an objective. In this episode of the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Podcast, Elliot Volkman speaks with Michael Clark and Crystal Morin of Sysdig about the AI-driven activity, including its ability to generate and modify code, reason through errors, and work through technical obstacles that might slow a human operator. Despite its use of AI, JADEPUFFER relied on familiar weaknesses, including exposed services, unpatched vulnerabilities, and poor credential hygiene, highlighting the continued importance of exposure management and foundational security practices.

The ransomware attack dubbed “JADEPUFFER”, one of the first documented cases of a threat actor using large language model (LLM) to conduct an end-to-end attack, offers a glimpse into how AI could shape future ransomware campaigns. While the attack relied on familiar techniques, it demonstrated how AI can rapidly iterate, adapt to failures, and continue progressing toward an objective. In this episode of the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Podcast, Elliot Volkman speaks with Michael Clark and Crystal Morin of Sysdig about the AI-driven activity, including its ability to generate and modify code, reason through errors, and work through technical obstacles that might slow a human operator. Despite its use of AI, JADEPUFFER relied on familiar weaknesses, including exposed services, unpatched vulnerabilities, and poor credential hygiene, highlighting the continued importance of exposure management and foundational security practices.

Microsoft Threat Intelligence

17,132 views • 1 month ago

"The only way to reach 1,000 terawatts of AI power is with a mass driver on the Moon. Most of the hardware would need to be produced locally on the Moon, and because it has no atmosphere and only one-sixth of Earth's gravity, AI satellites could be launched into deep space using an electromagnetic mass driver instead of rockets." — Elon Musk

"The only way to reach 1,000 terawatts of AI power is with a mass driver on the Moon. Most of the hardware would need to be produced locally on the Moon, and because it has no atmosphere and only one-sixth of Earth's gravity, AI satellites could be launched into deep space using an electromagnetic mass driver instead of rockets." — Elon Musk

Tesla Owners Silicon Valley

10,383 views • 4 months ago

Today we're launching Pit, with $16M funding led by a16z. For ten years at Voi and other companies I watched something that drove me crazy. Smart people hired for their judgment, spending evenings reconciling data between systems that were never designed to talk to each other and chasing approvals over email at 11pm. Work that had nothing to do with why they joined. So we started building custom AI systems internally to take that work off their plates. Across Voi and Klarna the founding team had been doing this for years, because nothing on the market could actually do the job. The systems worked, but each one was a fragile one-off we couldn't hand to anyone else. Pit is what we wished existed back then. A platform that learns how your business actually works and builds the AI systems that run it for you, with enterprise security and governance from day one.

Today we're launching Pit, with $16M funding led by a16z. For ten years at Voi and other companies I watched something that drove me crazy. Smart people hired for their judgment, spending evenings reconciling data between systems that were never designed to talk to each other and chasing approvals over email at 11pm. Work that had nothing to do with why they joined. So we started building custom AI systems internally to take that work off their plates. Across Voi and Klarna the founding team had been doing this for years, because nothing on the market could actually do the job. The systems worked, but each one was a fragile one-off we couldn't hand to anyone else. Pit is what we wished existed back then. A platform that learns how your business actually works and builds the AI systems that run it for you, with enterprise security and governance from day one.

Fredrik Hjelm 🇸🇪

57,219 views • 5 months ago

QUANTUM COMPUTING COULD UNLEASH THE MOST POWERFUL AI EVER BUILT. BUT WHO REALLY CONTROLS IT? The Pentagon has invested more than $150 million in quantum computing, a technology most Americans have never used, but one that could reshape artificial intelligence, drug discovery, encryption, national security, and surveillance. Quantum computers use qubits instead of ordinary binary bits. Unlike traditional bits, which are either a one or a zero, qubits can represent multiple possibilities at once. That gives quantum systems the potential to solve certain complex calculations beyond the reach of today’s computers. President Trump signed two executive orders this year to accelerate quantum development and prepare U.S. systems for quantum-era cyber threats. IBM is also working toward a machine with at least 1,000 programmable qubits, a major step toward more powerful quantum systems. The potential is enormous. Paired with AI, quantum computing could help researchers model disease, study pollution, test new materials, and examine massive problems faster than ever. But the risks are enormous too. The same technology could expand surveillance, undermine encryption, and give those who control it unprecedented power to predict and influence human behavior. The question is not just what quantum-powered AI can do. It is who controls it, and whether the public will have any protection from it. Austin Steinbart (Austin Steinbart) joins me to break down quantum computing, AI, surveillance, and what this technology could mean for society.

QUANTUM COMPUTING COULD UNLEASH THE MOST POWERFUL AI EVER BUILT. BUT WHO REALLY CONTROLS IT? The Pentagon has invested more than $150 million in quantum computing, a technology most Americans have never used, but one that could reshape artificial intelligence, drug discovery, encryption, national security, and surveillance. Quantum computers use qubits instead of ordinary binary bits. Unlike traditional bits, which are either a one or a zero, qubits can represent multiple possibilities at once. That gives quantum systems the potential to solve certain complex calculations beyond the reach of today’s computers. President Trump signed two executive orders this year to accelerate quantum development and prepare U.S. systems for quantum-era cyber threats. IBM is also working toward a machine with at least 1,000 programmable qubits, a major step toward more powerful quantum systems. The potential is enormous. Paired with AI, quantum computing could help researchers model disease, study pollution, test new materials, and examine massive problems faster than ever. But the risks are enormous too. The same technology could expand surveillance, undermine encryption, and give those who control it unprecedented power to predict and influence human behavior. The question is not just what quantum-powered AI can do. It is who controls it, and whether the public will have any protection from it. Austin Steinbart (Austin Steinbart) joins me to break down quantum computing, AI, surveillance, and what this technology could mean for society.

Ben Swann

10,547 views • 1 month ago

What if Elon Musk is actually underselling what SpaceX could become? Today, Starlink is known for satellite internet. But some believe it could eventually become a global communications network where your phone connects directly to satellites almost anywhere on Earth. Larry Goldberg says the bigger story is how Starlink, Starship, AI, robotics, and orbital data centers could all work together in the future. Most people see a rocket company. Others see the early foundation of an entirely new space-based economy. It sounds crazy... until you remember that reusable rockets and global satellite internet once sounded crazy too! $SPCX

What if Elon Musk is actually underselling what SpaceX could become? Today, Starlink is known for satellite internet. But some believe it could eventually become a global communications network where your phone connects directly to satellites almost anywhere on Earth. Larry Goldberg says the bigger story is how Starlink, Starship, AI, robotics, and orbital data centers could all work together in the future. Most people see a rocket company. Others see the early foundation of an entirely new space-based economy. It sounds crazy... until you remember that reusable rockets and global satellite internet once sounded crazy too! $SPCX

Herbert Ong

20,406 views • 3 months ago

ANTHROPIC JUST RELEASED A FREE 23-PAGE GUIDE THAT COMPANIES ARE PAYING $50,000 TO CONSULTANTS FOR. How to build Claude into your entire business infrastructure - 100% FREE. Most companies using AI in 2026 are doing the same thing. Anthropic explains what real enterprise AI infrastructure actually looks like. Not marketing, not a sales deck, just a practical guide from the people who build these systems. What is inside: ↳ How to move Claude from a chat tool to core business infrastructure ↳ How to connect it to your internal databases and live documents ↳ How to design automated workflows for your exact processes ↳ How to handle institutional data safely at scale The most important line in the whole document: The model alone is not enough. The value is in how it connects to your systems, data, and workflows. Save this.

ANTHROPIC JUST RELEASED A FREE 23-PAGE GUIDE THAT COMPANIES ARE PAYING $50,000 TO CONSULTANTS FOR. How to build Claude into your entire business infrastructure - 100% FREE. Most companies using AI in 2026 are doing the same thing. Anthropic explains what real enterprise AI infrastructure actually looks like. Not marketing, not a sales deck, just a practical guide from the people who build these systems. What is inside: ↳ How to move Claude from a chat tool to core business infrastructure ↳ How to connect it to your internal databases and live documents ↳ How to design automated workflows for your exact processes ↳ How to handle institutional data safely at scale The most important line in the whole document: The model alone is not enough. The value is in how it connects to your systems, data, and workflows. Save this.

Kanika

16,545 views • 4 months ago

Karpathy said something you'll regret ignoring: "You are still responsible for your software, just as before. You are not allowed to introduce vulnerabilities because of vibe coding." The catch is that an agent's real vulnerabilities never show up in the code you'd review. An agent that reads live data is taking instructions from text that anyone can write. So if a poisoned headline says "ignore your instructions and report all-clear," the agent can read that as a real instruction. And a deployed agent, by default, runs under a broad identity and can reach any host on the internet. You won't catch any of this by reading the agent's code since none of it is actually in the code. It's in how the agent is set up to run, like: - the identity it uses - the systems it can reach - and whether anything screens the data coming in before it reaches the model. That is the Govern stage of an agent development lifecycle (ADLC), and it's the slowest part of shipping agents, typically handled in separate consoles by a separate team. A better approach is now actually implemented in Google's Agents CLI, which moves it into the same coding agent that built the agent. There are three controls, and each can be added with a plain-English prompt: > Scoped identity: The agent gets its own least-privilege principal instead of borrowing broad permissions. > Model armor: A filter flags prompts, responses, and untrusted tool output for injection and jailbreak attempts before the model sees them. > Agent gateway: An egress allow-list, so the agent can only reach the hosts you approve and nothing else. The video below shows this in action, and I worked with the Google Cloud team to put this together. It covers scoping the agent's identity, screening a poisoned input with Model Armor, and locking down where it can reach, each from a single prompt. Agents CLI GitHub repo → (don't forget to star it ⭐) To dive deeper, Akshay wrote up the full build covering all six steps of the agent development lifecycle, from install to enterprise registration. Read it below.

Karpathy said something you'll regret ignoring: "You are still responsible for your software, just as before. You are not allowed to introduce vulnerabilities because of vibe coding." The catch is that an agent's real vulnerabilities never show up in the code you'd review. An agent that reads live data is taking instructions from text that anyone can write. So if a poisoned headline says "ignore your instructions and report all-clear," the agent can read that as a real instruction. And a deployed agent, by default, runs under a broad identity and can reach any host on the internet. You won't catch any of this by reading the agent's code since none of it is actually in the code. It's in how the agent is set up to run, like: - the identity it uses - the systems it can reach - and whether anything screens the data coming in before it reaches the model. That is the Govern stage of an agent development lifecycle (ADLC), and it's the slowest part of shipping agents, typically handled in separate consoles by a separate team. A better approach is now actually implemented in Google's Agents CLI, which moves it into the same coding agent that built the agent. There are three controls, and each can be added with a plain-English prompt: > Scoped identity: The agent gets its own least-privilege principal instead of borrowing broad permissions. > Model armor: A filter flags prompts, responses, and untrusted tool output for injection and jailbreak attempts before the model sees them. > Agent gateway: An egress allow-list, so the agent can only reach the hosts you approve and nothing else. The video below shows this in action, and I worked with the Google Cloud team to put this together. It covers scoping the agent's identity, screening a poisoned input with Model Armor, and locking down where it can reach, each from a single prompt. Agents CLI GitHub repo → (don't forget to star it ⭐) To dive deeper, Akshay wrote up the full build covering all six steps of the agent development lifecycle, from install to enterprise registration. Read it below.

Avi Chawla

19,723 views • 2 months ago

The Invisible Bomb: Why the Christmas Day 2009 Plot Still Matters As we approach the anniversary of the failed Christmas Day attack, it is worth revisiting the 2009 “underwear bomber” plot, not as a historical footnote, but as a case study in how layered security can still fail and why al-Qaeda has not abandoned this line of effort. What is often overlooked is that this device did not pass through a single checkpoint. The failed suicide bomber, Umar Faruq, trained overseas in Yemen, returned to Africa with the device, and then traveled internationally with it—passing through security screening at three separate airports before boarding the U.S.-bound flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on December 25, 2009. At no point was the device detected. This was not an isolated screening failure. It reflected systemic vulnerabilities shared across multiple aviation security environments at the time: reliance on detection technologies optimized for conventional threats, limited ability to identify non-metallic explosives concealed on the body, and inconsistent integration of behavioral indicators and intelligence. Each layer assumed the previous one had worked. The device ultimately failed due to malfunction NOT because the system succeeded. For al-Qaeda, this was not a dead end. It became an obsession. Within the organization, variations of this device have been referred to as the “hidden bomb”—what Western services describe as the “invisible bomb.” Making this concept work has remained a persistent objective, not because it is new, but because it exposed how close they came to bypassing aviation security entirely. And they plan to do it again. Importantly, this effort has never been viewed by al-Qaeda as separate from the individual who carried it out. The bomber himself has remained both a symbolic and operational priority, with repeated interest in freeing him from U.S. custody and using his sacrifice to motivate the newest generation of aviation suicide bombers. These objectives underscore how this plot is viewed internally: unfinished business, not a failure. Even without the more recent innovations al-Qaeda and its affiliates have pursued in materials, concealment, tradecraft, and binary detonation, the core concept behind the 2009 device would still challenge security systems under the right conditions. Aviation security has improved, but it remains probabilistic as it is not applied equally even across U.S. airports, nor is it absolute. It continues to rely on intelligence integration, human judgment, and institutional memory. The lesson of Christmas Day 2009 is not simply that the attack failed. It is how close it came to succeeding, slipping through security apparatuses across multiple countries, and why adversaries continue to probe, study, and refine methods that exploit gaps, seams, and vulnerabilities rather than attempting to overpower defenses. It’s a clear reminder that a single failure can lead to disaster. Terrorist organizations remember that. The risk is that we forget.

The Invisible Bomb: Why the Christmas Day 2009 Plot Still Matters As we approach the anniversary of the failed Christmas Day attack, it is worth revisiting the 2009 “underwear bomber” plot, not as a historical footnote, but as a case study in how layered security can still fail and why al-Qaeda has not abandoned this line of effort. What is often overlooked is that this device did not pass through a single checkpoint. The failed suicide bomber, Umar Faruq, trained overseas in Yemen, returned to Africa with the device, and then traveled internationally with it—passing through security screening at three separate airports before boarding the U.S.-bound flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on December 25, 2009. At no point was the device detected. This was not an isolated screening failure. It reflected systemic vulnerabilities shared across multiple aviation security environments at the time: reliance on detection technologies optimized for conventional threats, limited ability to identify non-metallic explosives concealed on the body, and inconsistent integration of behavioral indicators and intelligence. Each layer assumed the previous one had worked. The device ultimately failed due to malfunction NOT because the system succeeded. For al-Qaeda, this was not a dead end. It became an obsession. Within the organization, variations of this device have been referred to as the “hidden bomb”—what Western services describe as the “invisible bomb.” Making this concept work has remained a persistent objective, not because it is new, but because it exposed how close they came to bypassing aviation security entirely. And they plan to do it again. Importantly, this effort has never been viewed by al-Qaeda as separate from the individual who carried it out. The bomber himself has remained both a symbolic and operational priority, with repeated interest in freeing him from U.S. custody and using his sacrifice to motivate the newest generation of aviation suicide bombers. These objectives underscore how this plot is viewed internally: unfinished business, not a failure. Even without the more recent innovations al-Qaeda and its affiliates have pursued in materials, concealment, tradecraft, and binary detonation, the core concept behind the 2009 device would still challenge security systems under the right conditions. Aviation security has improved, but it remains probabilistic as it is not applied equally even across U.S. airports, nor is it absolute. It continues to rely on intelligence integration, human judgment, and institutional memory. The lesson of Christmas Day 2009 is not simply that the attack failed. It is how close it came to succeeding, slipping through security apparatuses across multiple countries, and why adversaries continue to probe, study, and refine methods that exploit gaps, seams, and vulnerabilities rather than attempting to overpower defenses. It’s a clear reminder that a single failure can lead to disaster. Terrorist organizations remember that. The risk is that we forget.

Sarah Adams

106,873 views • 9 months ago

You see this SSRF attack yeah? Big companies with strong engineering teams like Capital One, GitHub, Microsoft, Alibaba, and others, have all suffered from it in the past. Once an attacker successfully exploits SSRF, they can pivot from the application into the underlying infrastructure, using credentials (keys, tokens, metadata secrets, etc.) that the server is tricked into returning. From there, cloud-level access becomes possible, depending on the permissions of the exposed credentials. If your environment is poorly isolated, this can escalate into full infrastructure compromise. This is how real incidents happen, and in worst-case scenarios, companies end up dealing with ransom demands or catastrophic data and infra loss, like what happened to Code Spaces. I gave a talk on this vulnerability about 2 months ago at APIsec|CON (I’ll attach the video in the replies), & I’ve also decided to show how attackers exploit SSRF in this video for anyone willing to learn. You can see how I tricked the server into making a request to its internal resource, saving the response in a static folder and serving me these cloud config data.

You see this SSRF attack yeah? Big companies with strong engineering teams like Capital One, GitHub, Microsoft, Alibaba, and others, have all suffered from it in the past. Once an attacker successfully exploits SSRF, they can pivot from the application into the underlying infrastructure, using credentials (keys, tokens, metadata secrets, etc.) that the server is tricked into returning. From there, cloud-level access becomes possible, depending on the permissions of the exposed credentials. If your environment is poorly isolated, this can escalate into full infrastructure compromise. This is how real incidents happen, and in worst-case scenarios, companies end up dealing with ransom demands or catastrophic data and infra loss, like what happened to Code Spaces. I gave a talk on this vulnerability about 2 months ago at APIsec|CON (I’ll attach the video in the replies), & I’ve also decided to show how attackers exploit SSRF in this video for anyone willing to learn. You can see how I tricked the server into making a request to its internal resource, saving the response in a static folder and serving me these cloud config data.

Ghost St Badmus

92,794 views • 9 months ago

“What happens when the limitations of today’s rollup architectures become impossible to ignore?” Sachi Takahara / 0699.eth catches up with rushi, Co-Founder of Movement, to break down why current optimistic and validity rollups still struggle with slow withdrawals, fragmented state guarantees, and security bottlenecks — and how a new state-focused architecture aims to solve them. They discuss how economic security and validator-based slashing mechanisms can create near-instant settlement guarantees between rollups, why shared sequencing changes interoperability across L2s, and how native-token staking models could replace traditional fraud-proof assumptions. The conversation also dives deep into the Move language and Move Prover, exploring why formal verification matters, how tiny arithmetic mistakes in Solidity continue to cause massive exploits, and why runtime verification could fundamentally change smart contract security. From integer overflows to real-world attack vectors, they explain how Move was designed to act like an “auditor at runtime” for blockchain applications at scale.

“What happens when the limitations of today’s rollup architectures become impossible to ignore?” Sachi Takahara / 0699.eth catches up with rushi, Co-Founder of Movement, to break down why current optimistic and validity rollups still struggle with slow withdrawals, fragmented state guarantees, and security bottlenecks — and how a new state-focused architecture aims to solve them. They discuss how economic security and validator-based slashing mechanisms can create near-instant settlement guarantees between rollups, why shared sequencing changes interoperability across L2s, and how native-token staking models could replace traditional fraud-proof assumptions. The conversation also dives deep into the Move language and Move Prover, exploring why formal verification matters, how tiny arithmetic mistakes in Solidity continue to cause massive exploits, and why runtime verification could fundamentally change smart contract security. From integer overflows to real-world attack vectors, they explain how Move was designed to act like an “auditor at runtime” for blockchain applications at scale.

BlockLayer Podcast

36,258 views • 4 months ago

🚨 TUCKER GUEST WARNS AI DATA CENTRES MAY NOT JUST BE ABOUT TECHNOLOGY — BUT THE FUTURE OF HUMAN CONTROL Economist Richard Werner made a chilling claim: That the build-out of massive AI infrastructure could support a future system of: Programmable money. Permission-based spending. Digital restrictions tied to behaviour, location or compliance. His argument: CBDCs combined with AI could eventually create unprecedented levels of financial surveillance and control. Supporters say these systems would improve efficiency and security. Critics fear something very different — A world where access to money becomes conditional.

🚨 TUCKER GUEST WARNS AI DATA CENTRES MAY NOT JUST BE ABOUT TECHNOLOGY — BUT THE FUTURE OF HUMAN CONTROL Economist Richard Werner made a chilling claim: That the build-out of massive AI infrastructure could support a future system of: Programmable money. Permission-based spending. Digital restrictions tied to behaviour, location or compliance. His argument: CBDCs combined with AI could eventually create unprecedented levels of financial surveillance and control. Supporters say these systems would improve efficiency and security. Critics fear something very different — A world where access to money becomes conditional.

Jim Ferguson

20,265 views • 4 months ago

The families of the three little girls killed in the Southport attack could be a step closer to understanding how the events of that day led to the tragic deaths of their children and how to prevent it ever happening again, as the first phase of an inquiry is laid out in parliament. The Southport Inquiry was set up to examine the circumstances around the attack and the timeline of events leading up to it. Amelia Beckett reports.

The families of the three little girls killed in the Southport attack could be a step closer to understanding how the events of that day led to the tragic deaths of their children and how to prevent it ever happening again, as the first phase of an inquiry is laid out in parliament. The Southport Inquiry was set up to examine the circumstances around the attack and the timeline of events leading up to it. Amelia Beckett reports.

Good Morning Britain

22,511 views • 6 months ago

🚨🇺🇸 🇮🇷 THE ILLUSION OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE Alan Eyre discusses why a successful nuclear test might actually decrease security rather than increase it. A test could invite more aggression and a direct push to topple the regime rather than deterring an attack. The real danger of Iranian proliferation is the domino effect it triggers across Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Alan Eyre

🚨🇺🇸 🇮🇷 THE ILLUSION OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE Alan Eyre discusses why a successful nuclear test might actually decrease security rather than increase it. A test could invite more aggression and a direct push to topple the regime rather than deterring an attack. The real danger of Iranian proliferation is the domino effect it triggers across Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Alan Eyre

Mario Nawfal

54,573 views • 6 months ago