Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Design director personally assembles, tries on and precisely tests the installation of resin chastity belts ✨ Custom private orders available nationwide. #ChastityBelt #ChastityBeltCustom #ResinChastityBelt #CustomChastityLock #ChastityBelt #ChastityBeltCustom #CarraraCustom

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

We're excited to announce a major update to the $WSG mobile application, now available for download on both Google Play and the App Store. In addition, the first collection of the first $WSG album is live! This update brings a host of new features and improvements to enhance your gaming experience: New design We've overhauled the UX and UI for a smoother, more intuitive navigation experience across the entire application. Treasure chests Open treasure chests within the app to earn gold or even gold and album collection NFTs as rewards. Gold economy Dive into our newly introduced gold economy system. For details on how gold can be used within the app, visit gold economy info on our docs page. Heart purchases Run out of game tries? Now you can buy hearts directly in-game to continue playing, with up to three tries. Learn more at hearts info on our docs page. In-app minigame purchases Acquire games directly through the app using gold, adding a new layer of convenience and accessibility. Login update We've removed Twitter login to comply with store policies, ensuring a seamless experience for all users. What's coming next? 🔜 Multiplayer Lobbies Soon, you'll be able to create lobbies for multiplayer games, set wagers, and enjoy private games with friends. Game Subscription System Choose from Bi-Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Half-Yearly, or Lifetime Passes to access games and earn keys. New Minigames Stay tuned for a variety of new minigames coming your way, adding more diversity and excitement to your gaming experience. This update not only enhances the current features but also introduces new ways to engage with the app and community. Download the updated WSG mobile application today and dive into a world of enhanced gaming and community interaction. Stay tuned for more updates and happy gaming!

Wall Street Games Token

17,073 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Introducing Typeless for iPhone. -- When the iPhone was introduced, Steve Jobs intentionally removed the physical keyboard. A fixed keyboard couldn't adapt, but a virtual one could - and that decision defined the smartphone era. We believe that wasn't the final step. The virtual keyboard was a transition. Voice is the next generation. -- When we launched Typeless on Mac and Windows, tens of thousands of people resonated with this idea. And the number one request we heard, again and again, was: “Bring Typeless to mobile.” Today, I'm excited to launch Typeless for iPhone. Typeless for iOS is an AI voice keyboard that understands your intent and turns your raw speech into clear, polished, natural writing - effortlessly and in real time. No commands. No formatting tricks. It reads as if you carefully wrote it yourself. -- Core features: Works everywhere - Every app on your iPhone: iMessage, Slack, Mail, Notes, and more AI auto-editing - Removes filler words, fixes grammar, and formats perfectly as you speak Speak to edit - Revise, refine, or rephrase by simply saying what you want to change Whisper mode - Dictate quietly and precisely in low-voice environments 100+ languages - Speak any language (or mix them); Typeless detects and transcribes automatically Personal dictionary - Names, brands, and custom vocabulary learned once, never missed Private by design - Zero data retention. We never store or train on your data. All history stays on your device When input friction disappears on a phone, everything changes. Your iPhone becomes capable of things that once felt impossible - at 10× the speed. This isn't just a new app. It's a new way to use your phone. Welcome to the end of typing. Welcome to Typeless. -- Dictated with Typeless

Huang Song

1,326,150 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

This is how wars are prolonged in the 21st century. Not with declarations. Not with parliamentary votes. But with anonymous intelligence leaks, laundered through Mockingbird media, timed precisely to suffocate diplomacy before it can breathe. Reuters is a case in point, laundering intel narratives as journalism. It selected the most escalation-friendly interpretation available and wrapped it in the authority of anonymity — six sources “familiar with U.S. intelligence,” one citing a most-recent report from late September, to claim that Vladimir Putin intends not only to seize all of Ukraine, but to "reclaim" parts of Europe. This was not analysis. It was a threat narrative: maximal, apocalyptic, and conveniently untestable. The kind that turns negotiation into appeasement and restraint into treason. The kind that boxes the elected leaders into war without ever asking the public. That specificity matters. Anonymous intelligence leaks are not neutral artifacts, they are policy instruments. They shape public emotion, narrow political horizons, and manufacture inevitability. Once a population is convinced that continental war is pre-programmed, diplomacy becomes illegitimate by definition. That is how peace is killed without debate. This pattern is not unique to one newsroom. It is systemic and by design. Across the Western media ecosystem, escalation narratives are routinely laundered through anonymity, authority, and urgency, creating a closed loop in which fear generates headlines, headlines manufacture consent, and consent generates policy momentum that no single elected official appears able to stop. Reuters is not the disease. It is a symptom of a larger architecture that rewards alarm and punishes restraint. Again, all by design. This is precisely why the response from the sitting U.S. Director of National Intelligence matters. Gabbard did not hedge. She accused Reuters of pushing “lies and propaganda” on behalf of warmongers, warned that such narratives are being used to “foment hysteria and fear” to block peace, and stated, that they're using intelligence briefings delivered to lawmakers, that Russia seeks to avoid a larger war with Europe and does not possess the desire to conquer all of Ukraine, let alone Europe. That phrasing is crucial, because it is Reuters’ own reporting of what she said. The contradiction is devastating: the same intelligence community being anonymously cited to inflate the threat is, according to its own Director, delivering a far more restrained assessment behind closed doors. This exposes the fraud at the heart of the escalation narrative. Even if one assumes Russia’s objectives in Ukraine are maximalist, it does not follow—logically, militarily, or materially, that Russia intends to wage a continental war against NATO Europe. That leap is not intelligence analysis. It is psychological conditioning. After years of attritional warfare, Russia controls a little more than one-fifth of Ukrainian territory. That reality does not support fantasies of armored divisions rolling toward Paris or Berlin. To insist otherwise is to substitute fear for facts, which is precisely how war is sold. Now place this alongside Gabbard’s public remarks at the TPUSA Summit, where she stated: “The deep state is fighting us every step of the way, and it exists within every single federal agency.” That sentence is not rhetorical. It is a description of institutional behavior. Bureaucracies whose budgets, prestige, and careers depend on permanent confrontation do not quietly accept peace. They resist it, by leaking selectively and out of context, reframing assessments, delaying negotiations, and redefining threats until escalation appears not only necessary, but moral. But this is where discernment matters, because survival depends on discernment, not vibes. Is Gabbard the real deal, or is she being permitted to play dissident inside a controlled theater? That is not a smear. It is due diligence. Part 2/2 👇

THE ISLANDER

247,991 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🙌Meet Artifig: A Figma Plugin to Generate Figma Plugins Do you use Figma and ever feel like this: - Your mind is bursting with plugin ideas, but you can't bring them to life because you don't know how to code? - You want to focus on design, but repetitive tasks keep slowing you down? - You dream of creating custom tools for your team, but lack the time or resources? I’ve been there too. That’s why I created Artifig. ✨ What is Artifig? Artifig is an AI-powered Figma plugin that empowers anyone to build their own Figma plugins using just natural language. No coding needed—simply describe what you want, and watch as your idea transforms into a fully functional, real-time plugin. 🚀 Redefining Figma Plugin Development The core philosophy of Artifig is simple: Designers often have countless ideas and creative visions, but many of them remain unrealized due to a lack of technical skills. We believe designers shouldn’t be limited by their inability to code. You should focus on creating, not be held back by technical barriers or repetitive tasks. Artifig takes you directly from "description" to "implementation." 🛠️ How Does It Work? 1. Describe Your Needs: Tell Artifig what you want, like “Create a skew transformation tool for objects, supporting horizontal and vertical skew with real-time preview functionality.” 2. Generate and Run the Plugin: Artifig instantly generates the plugin and runs it right within Figma. For example, the generated plugin can apply skew transformations to objects, precisely controlled via matrix transformations, with an intuitive user experience. 3. Optimize and Iteration: Need adjustments? Simply describe them, and Artifig will Iterating the plugin step by step. 4. Share Your Creations: Publish your plugins to the Artifig community, or remix plugins shared by others to build on their ideas. No learning curve. No complex steps. It’s as simple as that. 🌟 Key Features - Zero Barrier to Entry: No coding experience needed—any Figma user can create plugins effortlessly. - Multilingual Support: Works in multiple languages, including English, Chinese, French, Japanese, and German. - What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get: Generated plugins run in real-time, so you can quickly validate and refine your ideas. - Open and Flexible: The generated plugin code is 100% yours—modify it, distribute it, even use it commercially. - Global Community: Share your plugins, explore others’ creations, and publish your plugins to the Figma community. 🎯 Why is Artifig a Game-Changer? 1. No More Repetitive Work Let AI handle the tedious, time-consuming tasks: batch renaming layers, auto-aligning elements, or applying styles in bulk. All you need to do is say, “Import a PDF and arrange each image on the canvas with 20px spacing.” 2. Quickly Bring Ideas to Life From color contrast checks to data imports and custom components, all your “what if we could” ideas can now become plugins. Just one natural language description, and Artifig makes it happen. 3. Custom Tools for Your Team Build tailored tools for your team, creating unique solutions to streamline your workflow. 4. Not Just a Tool, But a Learning Experience Artifig explains the logic behind the code it generates, helping you understand Figma APIs and JavaScript. Today, you’re a designer; tomorrow, you could also be a design engineer. 🧑‍🚀👩🏻‍💻🥷🏻 Who is Artifig For? - Beginners: No development experience needed—just describe your ideas and let Artifig do the rest. - Experts: Save time and focus on high-value tasks while Artifig handles the repetitive work. - Learners: Use Artifig as a bridge to deepen your understanding of development. - Teams: Build custom tools to enhance collaboration and efficiency. 🎉 Ready to Get Started? I believe designers’ time and focus should be spent on creating, not on wrestling with complex tools. Artifig is the first step toward realizing this vision. Try Artifig now and experience an unprecedented flow of creativity!

yancymin

21,222 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

For the last decade, the media has called the idea that America is ruled by a secret government of deep state intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI a "right-wing conspiracy theory." Journalists at outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR have portrayed claims about a “deep state” as paranoid fabrications pushed by Donald Trump and his supporters to discredit legitimate government institutions. They insisted that accusations of political bias or covert influence by agencies like the CIA or FBI had no basis in fact and served only to inflame public distrust. And yet over the same period, investigative reporting, including by the two of us, and official disclosures revealed that these agencies interfered in domestic politics in ways that aligned with that very narrative. The FBI launched a surveillance operation against the Trump campaign based on unverified opposition research. Dozens of former intelligence officials falsely claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story bore the “classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation, just weeks before the 2020 election. The Department of Homeland Security, along with the FBI and other agencies, coordinated with social media platforms to suppress speech under the banner of combating “misinformation.” These actions, taken together, suggest not a shadowy cabal, but a real and expanding infrastructure of state-aligned influence aimed at shaping public perception and countering populist dissent, just as the so-called conspiracy theorists claimed. The strongest argument against the existence of a secret government run by the deep state was the re-election of Donald Trump in 2024. If agencies like the CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security truly exercised covert and unchecked control over American politics, it is difficult to explain how their most outspoken critic, and avowed enemy, returned to power. Trump did not merely criticize the intelligence community; he ran on a platform promising its reform. He vowed to purge partisan operatives, dismantle what he called politically weaponized agencies, and hold officials accountable for a pattern of lawless interference. And despite his direct confrontation with the national security establishment, Trump defeated Kamala Harris decisively, winning 312 electoral votes and a narrow popular vote majority. But now the Trump administration is attempting to sweep the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal under the rug, with the Justice Department claiming that there is no client list and that no further disclosure is warranted, even though Attorney General Pam Bondi explicitly stated publicly that there were “tens of thousands of videos” which means the ability to identify the individuals involved in sex with minors, and that anyone in the Epstein files who tries to keep their name private has “no legal basis to do so.” On April 28, 2025, in a candid off-the-record exchange caught on video, Bondi told a bystander, “There are tens of thousands of videos… and it’s all with little kids.” She later reiterated on May 7 that these were “videos of Epstein with children or child porn.” Bondi’s comments directly contradicted the official stance of the administration, which has dismissed calls for a client list and slowed efforts to release the full contents of the Epstein files. Despite Trump’s campaign promises to dismantle the deep state and hold elites accountable, his administration now appears to be protecting the same intelligence and law enforcement networks it once condemned. Strong evidence suggests that Epstein was part of a sex blackmail operation tied to intelligence agencies. Visitor logs show that William Burns, who served as CIA Director under President Biden, visited Epstein’s New York townhouse multiple times. The Wall Street Journal reported those visits in 2023 based on Epstein’s private calendar. In 2017, Alex Acosta, the Justice Department official who gave Epstein his 2008 plea deal, told Trump transition officials that he was told to back off Epstein because he “belonged to intelligence.” The Justice Department later admitted that all eleven months of Acosta’s emails from that period had disappeared. This failure to follow through seriously undermines Trump’s explicit commitments to reform and shine light on the deep state. This is not just about Epstein. The Trump administration has not been particularly transparent about much else. The CIA, to its credit, released an internal evaluation last week admitting it had erred in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment by claiming that Russia “aspired to” help elect Trump. But it stood by the overall assessment, signaling the agency’s reluctance to admit fault, its continued defensiveness in the face of mounting evidence, and its impunity. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has disclosed a limited amount of information about intelligence community abuses during the pandemic, including the targeting of COVID vaccine dissenters as potential violent extremists. But beyond that, the Trump administration has released very little, even on issues where transparency would appear to be in its political interest. The administration has kept classified large volumes of material related to COVID origins, the FBI’s role in Russiagate, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and unidentified anomalous phenomena. It is thus hard not to conclude that the intelligence community continues to operate in violation of the constitutional system of checks and balances by evading meaningful congressional oversight. The Constitution grants Congress the power and responsibility to oversee the executive branch, including intelligence agencies, through budgetary control, public hearings, and access to classified information. And yet the intelligence community is withholding and heavily redacting documents, delaying responses to lawful inquiries, and using national security classifications to avoid scrutiny. This persistent obstruction undermines the legislative branch’s ability to hold agencies accountable and distorts the balance of power the framers designed. When unelected intelligence officials can withhold information not only from the public but from elected representatives, constitutional oversight becomes a formality rather than a functioning safeguard. Few independent journalists have done more than we have to defend Donald Trump and the MAGA movement against the weaponization of the intelligence community and deep state agencies. Over the past two and a half years, we have published hundreds of investigative articles and testified before Congress about unconstitutional abuses of power by the CIA, FBI, DHS, and their proxies. We exposed efforts to censor Trump and his supporters through a sprawling Censorship Industrial Complex, documented the manipulation of the justice system to prosecute Trump on politicized grounds, and revealed how U.S. and foreign agencies coordinated mass surveillance of speech. We defended Trump from false and malicious claims, showed that his administration obeyed court orders, and disproved the narrative that he violated democratic norms more than Democrats. We were the first to report new evidence that President Obama’s CIA Director ordered spying on Trump campaign officials to justify surveillance and interfere in the 2016 election. After Trump’s reelection, we published investigations revealing abuses of power by USAID and the Department of Education. We editorialized in support of his lawful executive orders ending DEI and gender-affirming procedures for minors. We exposed the CIA and USAID’s role in supporting the 2019 impeachment effort and their connection to the Russia collusion hoax. In all this, we have consistently made the case that Trump’s victory was not just political, it was moral. Given all we have done to expose the Censorship Industrial Complex and intelligence community abuses of power, Public’s readers rightly expect us to follow through on these concerns, no matter who holds office. We did not spend years documenting unconstitutional secrecy, surveillance, and coercion only to remain silent when the administration we defended begins to mirror the behavior we condemned. Our commitment is not to any one leader or party, but to the Constitution, to civil liberties, and to the principle that no government, Democratic or Republican, should be allowed to rule through secrecy, coercion, or fear. To prove it is not simply the latest custodian of the deep state, the Trump administration must release the Epstein videos and related evidence, fully expose the scope of the sex trafficking and apparent IC blackmail operation, and ensure that every perpetrator, regardless of power or position, is held accountable under the law. It must also release the long-withheld files on COVID origins, Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, January 6, unidentified aerial phenomena, and other topics. Even if these files do not reveal any “smoking guns,” the public has a right to full transparency. Only through this transparency can the credibility of the intelligence community be restored. Congress must step up as well. Legislative leaders must hold public hearings on each of these issues, issue subpoenas if necessary, and demand full executive branch compliance with oversight. The Constitution grants Congress, not the intelligence agencies, the power to check secrecy, correct abuse, and uphold the rule of law. These are not matters of political convenience but constitutional obligation. The American people have the right to know what their government has done in their name and against their rights. If the Trump administration fails to act, it will confirm the fear that even the most populist and combative president can be captured or neutralized by the very system he vowed to dismantle. And it will lose much of the legitimacy it gained by surviving and overcoming the lawfare, censorship, and weaponization of the deep state against it. Many within the Trump administration acknowledge this and note that this is hardly the end of the Epstein affair. “This is a total fucking disaster,” someone within the Intelligence Community told us this afternoon, as we were going to press with this editorial. After we pointed out that the Attorney General said one thing and now the Justice Department, FBI Director, and Deputy FBI Director are all saying the opposite, the person said, “I hope you ask these questions. These are the questions that need to be asked. We’re in a time when information flows more freely. If people think that this is going to go away — I don’t see how it can.” Nor, we would add, should it.

Michael Shellenberger

2,054,594 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

⭕️A Doctor’s Testimony from Iran, Recorded One Week After the Internet Shutdown and the Issuance of Kill Orders: Video translation: Greetings to the honourable people of Iran. My name is Dr Yaser Rahmani-Rad. I am a resident in Internal Medicine. As I explained in my previous video, which I uploaded to Instagram before the internet shutdown, I raised several key points. I stated that attacks on hospitals, attacks on medical centres, attacks on protesters and injured individuals receiving treatment in hospitals, and the abduction of those patients are, according to medical conventions and conventions governing the conduct of medical services during conflict, equivalent to crimes against humanity and war crimes. This is exactly what we are witnessing in Iran at present. During this past week, in which the internet has been almost entirely cut off, the reports provided to me by my team and the figures we have received regarding those killed are far, far higher than what you might imagine. Our initial estimate placed the number somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 people. After that initial assessment, we effectively lost nationwide communication. As I mentioned before, I have a response team, but unfortunately, due to the internet shutdown, our communications were severely disrupted, and we were unable to provide assistance in the way that was needed. Nevertheless, within our limited capacity and through individuals who had previously saved our contact details, we attempted to help as much as possible via phone calls and whatever means were available to us. However, the situation has now worsened because security forces have taken control of hospitals. Every injured person who enters a hospital is identified and registered, and after being discharged, they are tracked using hospital CCTV footage, which is under the control of security forces. These individuals are then arrested at their homes. As they themselves have acknowledged, this constitutes both a war crime and a crime against humanity. The second issue is that by cutting off the internet, medical and emergency assistance to many protesters has been halted entirely. In numerous cases, even with the limited telephone communications we still have, we have tried to assist protesters to the best of our ability, but we have faced extremely serious obstacles. For example, one of our mobile emergency response teams was attacked. All of their equipment was confiscated in Tehran by plainclothes security forces and Basij units. This has significantly reduced our level of preparedness. Even our medical supplies, including antibiotics and other treatment equipment, were seized. This has occurred in at least two documented cases: one in Tehran and one in Shiraz. I want to emphasise once again that hospitals are under the control of security forces. I will try to speak calmly, but in closing I must repeat this clearly: hospitals are unfortunately under security control, and this is one of our most serious challenges. Injured protesters are afraid to go to hospitals due to the risk of arrest, especially public hospitals. However, private hospitals are not safe either; they are also under pressure, and many private hospitals have likewise been taken over by security forces. We have access to only a very limited number of private hospitals, and only for absolutely emergency cases where immediate intervention is required. Even so, the scale of repression being carried out is vastly greater than the medical assistance that people like myself are able to provide. Our capacity is extremely limited. Finally, I want to address the security forces directly. History moves forward. These days will also pass. You were meant to be accountable to the people of Iran, yet you failed in that responsibility. Not only did you fail, but you consciously acted in direct opposition to your duty. I say this frankly and directly: your names will remain as a mark of shame in the history of Iran. 1/2

Niyak Ghorbani (نیاک)

133,062 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

URGENT APPEAL FOR BABY ZURIEL – A LIFE IN CRISIS With a heavy heart and unwavering faith in the power of miracles, I write to share the urgent plight of my childhood friend’s son, Osirike Zuriel, affectionately known as Baby Zuriel. Zuriel was diagnosed with congenital hydrocephalus just before birth at 40 weeks; A condition where excess fluid accumulates in the brain. Soon after birth, he underwent a VP shunt surgery to drain the fluid. Tragically, few days later, the shunt malfunctioned, and his condition has since become critical. Due to the ongoing strike by resident doctors in Nigeria, the teaching hospital (LUTH) is unable to provide neurosurgical care or access to operating theatres. This means Zuriel cannot undergo the urgent revision surgery he desperately needs. His head has now grown to nearly 50 cm, he has experienced multiple seizure episodes, and tests show abnormal spinal fluid. For weeks, his parents have remained in the hospital with only temporary measures to relieve the pressure – no definitive treatment is available. The only viable option now is immediate surgery at a private specialist hospital. However, the cost is far beyond their means. The estimated cost for urgent shunt revision surgery in a private neurosurgical centre in Nigeria ranges between ₦7,000,000 and ₦15,000,000. This includes surgery, imaging, a new shunt system, ICU care, medications, post-surgery care, and hospital stay. Florence, her husband and both families have exhausted all savings and resources just to keep Zuriel stable – including over 90 intravenous antibiotics, emergency taps, and repeated tests. They have spent over four weeks in the hospital with no way to bring him home safely or access the surgery that could save his life. Despite all he is going through, Zuriel remains a strong, beautiful little boy. Even in pain, he smiles. Even through swelling and seizures, he tries to play. He fights every single day – but right now, he cannot win this fight alone. We are humbly appealing to the compassion of all human beings: please help give Zuriel a chance at life. Every donation, no matter the size, brings him closer to the urgent surgery he needs. Sharing this message is also an incredible way to help. Support Zuriel here: For those who prefer direct bank transfer, the details are: Account Name: Florence Ezinne Oliver Bank: Stanbic IBTC Account Number: 0019807048 Time is critical. Please help us get Baby Zuriel into the operating theatre before it is too late. Your support can save his life. PS: Here is the Florence's contact for verification: 08137620206 With heartfelt gratitude, Augustine C. Ibechem (On behalf of Florence Ezinne Oliver)

DADDY DABz 👶

45,738 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

I've been with Firstock since day one, and we’ve worked closely with Vikram, the founder. In 2023, Firstock set out to build the fastest, most user-friendly trading app completely in-house. After countless meetings, iterations, and late nights, I’m proud to present the latest version of the Firstock web and mobile app—designed to transform your trading experience. 🚀 You can open your account here: (Open your account today for exciting offers) Experience Demo Account: Zero Hassle. Zero Charges. Maximum Power. With Firstock, you get: * ₹0 Delivery Charges * ₹0 API Fees * ₹0 Account Opening Charges * ₹0 Pledge Charges * ₹0 AMC * ₹0 Pay-in Charges * Just ₹20/order for F&O trades What do we have? For Investors: Let’s begin with what Firstock offers to investors: 1. Fundamentals at Your Fingertips Access detailed stock charts and fundamental data directly within the app—no need to go elsewhere. 2. Holding Performance Overview Track your portfolio's performance with full visibility into all corporate actions affecting your holdings. 3. Complete Holding Analysis Gain a holistic view of your portfolio through our intuitive holdings dashboard. 4. Instant Pledge for Instant Margin Need margin quickly? Instantly pledge your stocks and start trading within minutes—no delays. Confused about what to invest in? 5. Curated Investment Ideas Explore top-performing market movers, sectoral trends, and international ETFs to make informed investment choices. 6. Custom Screeners Build your own stock screeners to filter out investments that match your strategy and risk appetite. --- For Traders: Built by traders, for traders—our platform is designed to meet your high-speed, high-efficiency needs. 1. Sticky Orders & Bulk Slicing*l Place large orders with ease. Our bulk slicing and sticky order window make placing, modifying, and exiting large quantities seamless. 2. Options Strategy Builder Design strategies directly from the option chain, view the payoff graph, and execute instantly. 3. Live Position Analysis Analyze and tweak your open positions directly from the position book—no switching screens. 4. Custom Strategy Execution Save your favorite strategies and execute them when the timing is right. 5. Advanced Option Analytics View real-time data like OI, Max Pain, and synthetic futures to make quicker, smarter trading decisions. 6. Pre-Built Straddle and Strangle Tools Trade straddles or strangles effortlessly using our dedicated strategy screens. --- Now on Mobile: Enjoy the same powerful features on our brand-new mobile app—designed for ease, speed, and convenience. --- Try it Today: Experience the platform with our demo—explore all features before you commit. Explore Demo Account: You can open your account here: --- This is just the beginning. We’re continuously building features that will redefine the way you trade. Have suggestions or feedback? I’d love to hear from you personally. Let’s grow together.

Saketh R

15,618 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

In 2025 AI coded full bacteriophage genomes that work better than anything found in nature. And crushed top virologists in a test of lab troubleshooting – beating human specialists in their area of expertise 45% to 22%. What could go wrong? But destroying the 'tacit knowledge' barrier to bioweapons development is just the beginning. AI can design crypto-ricin, likely as deadly as normal ricin, which evades the best gene synthesis screening available. PhDs with Claude nearly breached Anthropic's 'critical danger threshold' for bioweapons development. But most tests are still on undergrads: they're cheaper to hire. Russia, Iran, and North Korea all have active biological weapons programmes. And even the most dangerous biological AI tools are so open that limiting proliferation is near impossible in the near-term. The situation feel hopeless so I spoke to one of the world's top authorities on 'AI-Bio', Dr Richard Moulange, to find out why this situation isn't as bleak as it sounds. He proposes a range of shovel-ready projects, none of which fully solve the problem, but all of which would help move the needle: 1. Screen DNA synthesis orders. (Incredibly this is voluntary now.) 2. Give defenders a preview of models before they're fully public. 3. Def/acc: Stockpile broad-spectrum vaccines that cover entire virus families. 4. Prevent AI expertise in 'mirror bacteria', as their only use is mass murder. 5. Surveil waste-water to spot engineered pathogens before they spread. 6. Invest in intelligence so if a state releases a bioweapon, that can be proven, and the state punished. 7. Limit access and improve refusals to buy time. (FWIW to me the situation still seems very bad.) On the 80,000 Hours Podcast, wherever you get podcasts. Links below — enjoy! 01:11 AI can now design novel bacteriophage genomes 04:42 The end of the 'tacit knowledge' barrier 18:50 Are risks from bioterrorists overstated? 23:14 The 3 key disasters AI makes more likely 30:43 Which bad actors does AI help the most? 42:07 Experts are more scary than amateurs 47:32 Barriers to bioterrorists using AI 49:43 AI biorisks are sometimes dismissed (and that’s a huge mistake) 1:05:12 Advanced AI biology tools we already have or will soon 1:10:57 Rob argues that the situation is hopeless 1:19:38 Intervention #1: Limit access 1:34:28 Intervention #2: Get AIs to refuse to help 1:44:18 Intervention #3: Surveillance and attribution 1:58:28 Intervention #4: Universal vaccines and antivirals 2:12:01 Intervention #5: Screen all orders for DNA 2:21:57 AI companies talk about def/acc more than they fund it 2:28:44 Can you build a profitable business solving this problem? 2:33:08 This doesn't have to interfere with useful science (much) 2:35:16 What are the best low-tech interventions? 2:40:17 Richard's top request for AI companies 2:55:44 Grok shows governments lack legal levers 2:58:54 Best ways listeners can help fix AI-Bio

Rob Wiblin

10,608 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

In a newly released technical update, SpaceX's leadership team, which includes communications manager Dan Huot, Director of Satellite Engineering Ian Dahl, and CEO Elon Musk, detailed a highly ambitious infrastructure roadmap to design, manufacture, and operate specialized artificial intelligence computing satellites at scale. Positioned as a major strategic pillar to dramatically elevate civilizational energy and processing capacity on the Kardashev scale, this strategy moves past traditional communications architectures into massive orbital server arrays. Here is the complete breakdown of the core technologies and timelines driving this space-based intelligence revolution: 🛰️ AI1 satellite power and compute capacity Ian Dahl and Elon Musk introduced the baseline performance targets for the first-generation AI1 satellite, explaining how its custom hardware is engineered to operate like an orbital data center server rack. Ian Dahl noted that their direct operational experience with xAI guided them to target a 150-kilowatt peak power capacity. To manage active machine learning workloads continuously, Elon Musk explained that the satellite is optimized to maintain a sustained average compute power envelope of 120 kilowatts, which directly mirrors the real-world performance of a terrestrial NVIDIA server rack. The official presentation slides outline several key operational metrics for this payload configuration: ⚡ The custom architecture delivers a 150 kW peak compute payload. 🔋 The system maintains a 120 kW sustained average compute payload under active workloads. ⚖️ The hardware achieves a highly optimized power-to-weight density of 70 kW per ton. 🔄 The layout features a completely interchangeable compute provider design. "We thought that the right place to start is around the 150 kilowatt peak power level. But as we look at the workloads with our experience with xAI, we see that we can support about 120 kilowatts of average compute. The 150 kilowatt peak power level roughly matches what, say, an NVIDIA GV300 rack would do. A more reasonable operating envelope would be around 120 kilowatts average power, but it can peak up to 150. So it is basically thinking about it as a rack of compute in space." --- 📐 AI1 satellite dimensions and thermal efficiency specs Elon Musk detailed the physical layout of the AI1 satellite, highlighting the massive dimensions required to accommodate its immense power and cooling hardware. He shared specific design criteria, explaining that the engineering relies on a custom 150 kW solar array paired with a high-capacity deployable liquid radiator thermal management system. The technical specifications of this vehicle layout include: 📏 The structural frame features a massive 70-meter wingspan. ↕️ The vehicle spans a total deployed height of 20 meters. ☀️ The onboard solar array delivers an efficiency of 250 W/m² using technology manufactured in Bastrop, Texas. 🌡️ The thermal system utilizes a 110 m² deployable liquid radiator to cleanly dump waste heat. 🔄 The cooling architecture incorporates redundant pumping loops for mission safety. 🛡️ The exterior contains integrated micrometeoroid shielding to protect the fluid lines. 🧭 The double-sided radiators achieve a dissipation rate of 1400 watts per square meter while remaining oriented knife-edge to the sun. "The assumptions here are 250 watts per square meter for the solar array and about 1400 watts per square meter for the radiators. The radiators are double-sided, radiating on both sides, and they're oriented knife-edge to the sun. They have about a 70-meter wingspan, so these are fairly large." --- 🧩 Simplified design architecture built on Starlink V3 tech Elon Musk explained that despite the satellite's imposing size, its internal architecture is fundamentally much simpler than a standard Starlink satellite. Because it lacks heavy phased array and parabolic communications antennas, the entire vehicle layout is completely streamlined around a few essential structural modules: 🎛️ The hardware framework is arranged around a centralized compute module. ☀️ Large deployable solar arrays extend outward to capture orbital energy. 🌡️ A deployable liquid-radiator thermal management system controls active operational temperatures. 🔄 The engineering team heavily leverages the component evolution and manufacturing experience gained from developing the Starlink V3 vehicle platform. "The AI satellite is actually much simpler than a Starlink satellite. A Starlink satellite has gigantic phased array antennas, parabolic antennas, and a lot of laser links, making it much more complicated. An AI satellite is essentially a lot of solar cells, a radiator, and you still need some laser links, but you don't have all of the super complex antennas that you have on a Starlink satellite. A lot of this is technology we've already made for the Starlink V3 satellites." --- 🔌 Interchangeable compute reference designs and high connectivity Elon Musk outlined a modular hardware approach for the satellite's payload, allowing it to house a variety of industry-standard processing units depending on client requirements. This interchangeable compute rack is supported by a high-bandwidth connectivity loop that links separate orbital units together or transmits data directly back to Earth. The core network parameters include: 🧠 Reference designs are fully established to seamlessly accommodate NVIDIA Reuben chips. 💾 The system architecture is built to support alternative setups using NVIDIA GB300 chips. 💻 Custom hardware layouts are explicitly designed to integrate Google TPUs. 🌐 The onboard communications setup delivers roughly 1 terabit of laser link connectivity. ⏱️ The network closes the communication loop directly with the main Starlink constellation at an ultra-low latency of only 3 milliseconds. "Our current reference design is for NVIDIA Reuben chips, or it could be either GB300 or Reuben chips. We'll also have a reference design for TPUs. Essentially, you can put up any existing chips into orbit. There would also be probably something on the order of a terabit of laser link connectivity from the satellite. Then you can connect these racks of compute to each other by the laser links or directly to the Starlink constellations. Light travels 300 kilometers per millisecond, so that's about three milliseconds away." --- 🏭 The "gigasat" AI satellite and solar production hub in Bastrop, Texas Dan Huot highlighted that the primary production hub for this entire hardware ecosystem is anchored at their sprawling complex in Bastrop, Texas, officially designated as the Gigasat factory. Elon Musk verified that construction is already actively underway on the solar manufacturing facility to feed the project's supply line, with plans moving forward to construct the adjacent AI satellite assembly lines. The physical footprint and timeline of this manufacturing hub are defined by the following benchmarks: 🗺️ The company has over 1,000 acres of land currently owned or under contract for the site. 🏢 The manufacturing complex boasts a massive structural building potential exceeding 11 million square feet. ⚙️ The facility will vertically integrate production to manufacture solar ingots, wafers, solar cells, and completed AI satellites. 📅 Both the solar and AI satellite production lines are targeted to be operational at a viable volume by the end of next year. "We're going to be building a lot of satellites and we're going to be building them here in Bastrop. We already have the solar manufacturing facility under construction, and then we will be building out the AI sat production building soon. We expect to have the AI sat production, the solar production, and all of that operating at some reasonable volume by the end of next year." --- 🏢 The 100-million-square-foot "terafab" chip factory Elon Musk revealed a massive, long-term scaling strategy to build an immense chip manufacturing facility dubbed the "terafab" to completely bypass global semiconductor volume constraints. This manufacturing infrastructure is designed to transition the company into next-generation industrial scaling by producing highly specialized computing components at an unprecedented volume. The scale of this infrastructure project is defined by several extraordinary engineering and production benchmarks: 🏭 The colossal factory is projected to span approximately 100 million square feet, making it ten times larger than the current Tesla Gigafactory Texas. ⚡ The facility is structurally engineered to achieve a massive manufacturing output of 1 terawatt per year once fully operational. 📦 This unprecedented physical footprint provides the capacity required to manufacture 1 billion full-reticle equivalent chips annually. 🔌 Each individual chip manufactured by the facility is designed to run at a power capacity of 1 kilowatt. 🇺🇸 The total scaled output of the facility represents an energy footprint that is exactly double the current annual electricity consumption of the entire United States. "In order to get to the next order of magnitude, you need a gigantic chip factory. To give you a sense of scale here, we expect that the terafab is going to be around 100 million square feet, which is 10 times the size of the Tesla Gigafactory Texas. From a logic die standpoint, that's like having a billion chips per year with a kilowatt per reticle, scaling to a terawatt per year. That is twice the current electricity consumption of the United States." --- 📶 Next-generation high-volume Starlink terminals Dan Huot and Elon Musk introduced their next-generation Starlink user terminals, which have been redesigned specifically to achieve massive manufacturing throughput. Elon Musk pointed out that these newer models will be produced in vastly higher volumes than current hardware designs to fulfill their long-term global deployment targets: 📈 The upgraded user hardware is manufactured at a much higher volume capacity than existing units. 🌍 The company's ultimate target is to successfully deploy a few hundred million of these next-generation terminals worldwide. "In fact, these are the new Starlink terminals, which we made in much higher volume than the current terminals. Ultimately, we think there's probably going to be a few hundred million Starlink terminals out there." --- 📈 Aspirational timeline for orbital AI compute scaling Elon Musk laid out an ambitious, multi-year execution timeline detailing how the company plans to progressively scale space-based processing power. The roadmap targets an initial run-rate by the end of next year and sets an aggressive pace to increase total operational capacity sequentially through a structured, multi-phase timeline: 1️⃣ The initial target aims to hit an annualized run-rate of 1 gigawatt of space AI compute by the end of next year. 2️⃣ The capacity scales to an annualized rate of 10 gigawatts within the next two and a half years. 3️⃣ The operational envelope expands to reach 100 gigawatts in three and a half years. 4️⃣ The long-term deployment plan scales directly to a full terawatt capacity per year using the output of the terafab. "The goal is to get to roughly an annualized rate of a gigawatt per year by the end of next year in terms of space AI compute. Then aspirationally, we want to scale that by an order of magnitude per year. In two and a half years, hitting an annualized rate of 10 gigawatts a year in space, and in three and a half years, maybe a hundred gigawatts, going beyond that with the terafab to scale to a terawatt per year." --- 🌕 Ultimate scaling via lunar production and mass drivers Elon Musk explained that scaling three orders of magnitude past a single terawatt forces a transition completely off-planet to avoid the logistical penalty of Earth's deep gravity well. The vision relies on establishing manufacturing infrastructure directly on the moon to leverage localized resource loops and zero-atmosphere physics: 🌙 The company plans to establish localized raw production lines on the moon to fabricate solar panels, photovoltaics, and radiators from lunar materials. ⚡ Manufacturing components locally avoids the massive fuel and mass penalties of transporting heavy structural materials from Earth. 🧲 Because the moon has no atmosphere and only one-sixth of Earth's gravity, the facility will utilize an electromagnetic mass driver to launch completed satellites. 🚀 Operating essentially as a linear electric motor rail gun, this mechanism will shoot fully assembled AI satellites straight into deep space without relying on chemical rockets. "The only way that we can really see that you can achieve that is on the moon with a mass driver, essentially where you do local production of photovoltaics, solar panels, and radiators on the moon. Because the moon has no atmosphere and only one-sixth Earth's gravity, you can accelerate the AI satellites into deep space without a rocket. You can basically shoot them into space using an electromagnetic gun, like a rail gun type—it's basically a linear electric motor."

Ming

22,203 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Appreciate Dan Bongino discussing my recent analysis of the FBI and its impact on violent crime on his show today -- there is a larger point here that deserves attention. For years, critics have argued that the FBI should be defunded, dismantled, or abolished. Some of the same people dismiss the Bureau’s impact on violent crime because “the FBI doesn’t investigate murders.” That notion was dumb a few days ago -- the events in Albany demonstrate why the broader argument is more stupid by an order of magnitude today. Under FBI Director Kash Patel, the FBI made 34,000 violent-crime arrests in 2025—up 112%—and disrupted 1,800 gangs and criminal enterprises. Operation Summer Heat produced 8,629 arrests and 2,281 weapons seizures. Operation No Escape arrested nearly 800 violent fugitives. And look closely at Memphis. FBI personnel assigned to the Memphis Safe Streets Task Force contributed thousands of investigative hours to the violent-crime mission and, according to the FBI, actually helped solve cold-case homicides. At the same time, FBI intelligence personnel produced more than 2,000 tactical intelligence products used to locate and apprehend violent fugitives. Beginning in late September, FBI personnel participated in 1,832 arrests, the recovery of 373 firearms and 335 drug seizures as part of the Memphis operation. That is how federal law enforcement affects homicide. The FBI doesn't replace the local homicide detective. It multiplies his capabilities—providing federal agents, intelligence analysts, fugitive resources, federal statutes, technical capabilities and interstate reach while working alongside state and local Task Force Officers who possess their own authorities, including homicide jurisdiction. Nationwide, the Bureau operates 178 Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Forces built around precisely that model. So when someone says, “The FBI doesn't investigate murders,” Memphis provides a remarkably simple answer: They literally helped solve cold-case homicides. But solving homicides is only half the equation. Taking violent fugitives off the street, and dismantling the organizations responsible for shootings can prevent tomorrow's murder. And the FBI's violent-crime architecture now extends beyond traditional Safe Streets operations. Under Patel, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security co-lead 59 Homeland Security Task Forces bringing together more than 9,000 federal agents, Task Force Officers and analysts, along with more than 440 state, local and international law-enforcement partners. These HSTFs attack the intersection of violent crime, illegal immigration and transnational organized crime—targeting cartels, MS-13, Tren de Aragua and other criminal organizations engaged in homicide, kidnapping, extortion, drug trafficking, weapons trafficking and human trafficking. During one 2025 HSTF surge alone, participating agencies conducted approximately 400 operations resulting in 3,266 federal arrests and the seizure of 1,067 weapons. A cartel member can be an immigration violator, narcotics trafficker, weapons trafficker and murderer at the same time. A gang member may be wanted by local police for homicide while simultaneously violating federal firearms, narcotics, racketeering or immigration laws. The HSTF model allows the FBI, DHS and state and local partners to attack the offender and the criminal enterprise using whichever lawful authorities provide the strongest path to disruption. Yesterday we saw another facet of the modern FBI mission. Federal authorities allege that 35-year-old Jessica Bowie plotted an ISIS-inspired terrorist attack against the New York State Capitol, intending to bomb the building and kill lawmakers. Bowie allegedly pledged allegiance to ISIS, repeatedly conducted reconnaissance of the Capitol, photographed the grounds, selected lawmakers as targets, acquired potential bomb components—including nails intended as shrapnel—and sought a handgun to shoot police or security officers who might intervene. The FBI Albany Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested her after she took possession of what she believed was an explosive device. Predictably, some propagandists will yell “ENTRAPMENT!” because an FBI confidential source and other operatives were involved and the explosive was inert. That isn't how entrapment works. Entrapment is not simply government participation in a sting operation. The defense turns on government inducement AND whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. According to the government's allegations, Bowie had already expressed support for terrorism online, pledged allegiance to ISIS, selected a target, conducted repeated reconnaissance, sought weapons and articulated a desire to kill lawmakers and responding police. If those allegations are proved—and particularly if that intent preceded FBI contact—the fact that agents controlled the final weapons transfer does not magically transform the investigation into entrapment. That is precisely why undercover counterterrorism operations exist: identify a willing terrorist, control the environment and substitute an inert device for a real bomb BEFORE innocent people die. And precision matters. This is properly described at this stage as ISIS-inspired, not proven ISIS-directed. The supposed ISIS facilitator was an FBI source. The publicly available evidence does not establish that ISIS overseas commanded this operation. But that distinction doesn't diminish the threat. It illustrates it. Modern terrorist organizations don't always need to dispatch trained operatives into the United States. Online propaganda can radicalize a lone actor thousands of miles away. The investigative challenge is detecting when ideology becomes intent—and when intent begins turning into operational planning. This is what Patel's FBI is accomplishing. Attacking violent gangs. Capturing homicide fugitives. Helping local police solve homicides. Dismantling transnational criminal organizations. Finding spies. Identifying terrorists. And disrupting attacks BEFORE Americans are killed. The old FBI program designation was VCMO—Violent Crime/Major Offenders. The terminology has evolved, and under Patel the traditional criminal mission has been reinvigorated without abandoning the post-9/11 counterterrorism and counterintelligence missions. You don't measure the value of the FBI solely by the crimes it prosecutes after someone is dead. Sometimes its greatest successes are measured by the murders and terrorist attacks that never happen. H/T MAGA Kitty for the clip!

John Nantz

13,118 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

JAMES COMEY LEAKED CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE TO THE NEW YORK TIMES in order to push the Russia Collusion narrative onto the American people to take down Trump. Adam Schiff wasn't the only leaker of classified intel. James Comey specifically leaked classified intel to the NYT in order to enable a special prosecutor to take down Trump and conspire with other mainstream media organizations to fool and lie to the American people to push them to go against Trump with a false narrative. This is basically "Project Mockingbird." The main media channels were colluding with government in order to take down a sitting president and undermine the U.S. This has been going on since 2016 against Trump and still is to this day. The FBI concluded numerous legacy news media stories that crafted the false Russia collusion narrative contained illegally leaked classified intelligence but failed to definitively identify the leakers. But agents did force a stunning admission that ex-FBI Director James Comey used a special conduit to the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times in his bid to polish his image and push for a special prosecutor to take down President Donald Trump. Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman admitted to agents in interviews he routinely communicated on behalf of Comey, his longtime friend, with Times reporter Michael Schmidt, whose work was among the newspaper's 2018 Pulitzer-winning stories on Russian election interference. The goal, Richman told the FBI, was "to correct stories critical of Comey, the FBI and to shape future press coverage" outside of the bureau's official press office, according to internal FBI memos that current Director Kash Patel delivered to Congress this week. While Richman was known to have been publicly quoted in news stories as an advocate for Comey, he admitted to agents — who were part of the FBI’s Arctic Haze classified leaks inquiry — that he was given access by Comey to what turned out to be highly classified information up to the SCI level and sometimes provided information to reporters on an anonymous basis. Richman insisted he did not believe he had confirmed or provided classified intelligence to reporters but said he could not be 100 percent, the memos state, noting he could only make his leak denial “with a discount.” "Richman was pretty sure he did not confirm the Classified Information. However, Richman told the interviewing agents he was sure 'with a discount' that he did not tell Schmidt about the Classified Information," one FBI memo recounted. In the end, the Justice Department decided not to pursue any criminal charges against Comey or any of his lieutenants or now-Sen. Adam Schiff despite potential evidence of leaks, saying it could not be certain of who leaked what and when. But its interrogation of Richman and his admissions of significant contact with the Times' Schmidt provide the most detailed account to date of how Trump critics like Comey — who was fired by the president — used the media to craft narratives that ultimately turned out to be untrue or misleadingly overstated, the memos show. Just the News also revealed this week that a career intelligence officer who worked for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee for more than a decade repeatedly warned the FBI beginning in 2017 that then-Rep. Adam Schiff had approved leaking classified information to smear then-President Donald Trump over the now-debunked Russiagate scandal. Schiff has denied the allegation. Newly-declassified FBI memos also include details on classified leaks investigations dubbed Tropic Vortex, Foggy Falls, Riding Hood, Sirens Lure, Echos Fate, and Genetic Christmas. Comey, Richman, and “Arctic Haze” The FBI leak investigation code-named “Arctic Haze” revealed key details about Richman — Comey’s longtime friend, confidante, and media conduit — including what was at that time his nearly decade-long source relationship with Michael Schmidt of The New York Times. The leak investigation zeroed in on four news articles which contained leaked classified information. The first was a New York Times article by four reporters — Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Eric Lichtblau — from late April 2017 titled “Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. from Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.” The second was a Washington Post story by Ellen Nakashima from early April 2017 titled “New details emerge about 2014 Russian hack of the State Department: It was ‘hand to hand combat’.” The third was another Washington Post piece by Karoun Demirjian and Devlin Barrett from late May 2017 titled, “How a Dubious Russian Document Influenced the FBI’s Handling of the Clinton Probe.” The fourth was a Wall Street Journal article by Holman Jenkins Jr. from late May 2017 titled, “The Trump-Russia Story Starts Making Sense.” The April 2017 Times article by Schmidt quoted Richman defending Comey: “Jim sees his role as apolitical and independent. The F.B.I. director, even as he reports to the attorney general, often has to stand apart from his boss.” Schmidt wrote that “confidants like Mr. Richman say he was constrained by circumstance” while “navigating waters in which every move has political consequences.” Richman also reportedly said that Comey displayed “a consistent pattern of someone trying to act with independence and integrity, but within established channels” and that “his approach to the Russia investigation fits this pattern.” The Times article wrongly argued that, in the case of the Trump-Russia investigation, Comey “conducted the investigation by the book.” The FBI memos show that Arctic Haze was opened by the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a media leak investigation in mid-August 2017, after a redacted source in late June 2017 “reported the unauthorized disclosure of classified information in eight articles published between April and June 2017” and after a DOJ request at the start of August 2017. Arctic Haze was predicated on the four aforementioned stories. The FBI closed the investigation in early September 2021 — with the DOJ charging no one with leaking classified material — with the bureau’s closure document providing details about the FBI’s failed attempt to catch the leakers. The bureau document indicated that it had been treated as an “Espionage Investigation.” The FBI said the “factual predication” for the leak inquiry was largely based on the classified information which first appeared in the April 2017 Times piece. The FBI noted that Comey had “publicly indicated on several occasions that classified information contributed to his decision” to unilaterally and preemptively announce in early July 2016 that he did not believe any reasonable prosecutor would charge Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information on a private email server and his further announcement in October 2016 that the Clinton emails investigation was (briefly) being reopened. The bureau said Comey had four reasons for making the announcements the way he did, including that “Comey had concerns the Classified Information, which directly related to whether or not the Attorney General [Loretta Lynch] should have been recused from the Midyear Exam investigation, would be leaked to the media or would otherwise be disclosed.” Comey had told the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2017 that “one significant item I can’t, I know the committee’s been briefed on. There’s been some public accounts of it, which are nonsense, but I understand the committee’s been briefed on the classified facts.” The bureau said that, in classified testimony to a bureau watchdog, “Comey confirmed the specific Classified Information, which was discussed in the New York Times article, and indicated it did impact his decision to make unilateral, public statements about the Midyear Exam [Clinton] investigation.” Recent declassifications provide more details on the classified intelligence which swayed Comey to let Clinton off the hook, as well as revealed more information on so-called Clinton Plan intelligence which the Comey FBI seemed to ignore as it launched the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump. Comey hires Richman to afford him Top Secret Clearance. The FBI said that “Comey instructed the FBI to hire Richman as a Special Government Employee (SGE)” in 2015 and “to grant him a Top Secret clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information” and that “FBI records indicated Richman was hired to work on ‘Going Dark’ matters.” The bureau said its investigation “revealed Comey also hired Richman so Comey could discuss sensitive matters, including classified information, with someone outside of the FBI’s regular leadership. Comey also used Richman as a liaison to the media.” “The investigation revealed Richman had been a source for Michael Schmidt, one of the reporters credited with writing the article at issue, and The New York Times since at least 2008,” the bureau wrote. “Richman first spoke with Schmidt regarding an investigation into illegal activity in sports. Prior to Richman becoming an SGE, Schmidt visited Richman’s house numerous times. The New York Times quoted Richman several times, both on the record and on background, in stories regarding Jim Comey. After he was terminated by President Trump, Comey used Richman as a conduit to convey to the media memoranda of his meetings with President Trump.” “According to Richman, Comey and Richman talked about the ‘hammering’ Comey was taking from the media concerning his handling of the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman opined Comey took comfort in the fact Richman had talked to the press about his feelings regarding Comey’s handling and decision-making on the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman claimed Comey never asked him to talk to the media,” the FBI notes say. The FBI wrote that “Richman recalled Comey told him there was some weird classified material related to Lynch which came to the FBI’s attention” and that “Comey told Richman about the Classified Information, including the source of the information.” The FBI said that “investigators learned that FBI Office of Public Affairs was told to assist The New York Times with the April 2017 article” and that “Comey either directed or otherwise authorized FBI’s official assistance to The New York Times.” Disgraced and fired FBI special agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an affair, appear to have been involved in briefing the Times, according to the bureau memos. “Strzok stated he believed FBI Executive Management told them to meet with the New York Times. Strzok said he recalled being told to provide an investigator-level briefing on the Midyear Exam investigation,” the FBI said. “During the March 30, 2017, meeting, the Times told Strzok and Page they had the Classified Information.” The “summary of investigative steps” by the FBI included interviews with bureau and intelligence community officials, document reviews, phone and email records researches, the review of a 2017 “Tropic Vortex” investigation conducted by then U.S. Attorney John Durham and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and more. “Based upon discussions with DOJ, these investigative steps did not generate sufficient proof to charge any individual with willfully transmitting the Classified Information, conspiring to transmit the Classified Information, or aiding and abetting another person’s Transmission,” the FBI concluded in 2021. The FBI claimed that “the investigation has not yielded sufficient evidence to criminally charge any person, including Comey or Richman, with making false statements or with the substantive offenses under investigation.” Inspector General calls Comey's leaks "unauthorized" DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz wrote a report released in August 2019 criticizing Comey’s decision to leak his so-called “Comey Memos” — including details about Trump’s alleged comments about Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn — to the media in 2017 in an effort by the then-fired FBI director to spur the appointment of a special counsel. Horowitz wrote that his investigation “interviewed 17 witnesses, including former Director Comey and Daniel Richman, the individual who, at Comey's request, shared the contents of one of the Memos with a reporter [Schmidt] for The New York Times.” Comey told Horowitz that the day after being fired by Trump, he retained Richman as an attorney. “We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy,” the DOJ watchdog wrote. “Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism.” Comey admitted in 2017 that he had hoped leaking this information “might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” Horowitz concluded Comey’s leaks were “an attempt to force the Department to take official investigative actions.” “Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a special counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure,” Horowitz wrote. “What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.” Horowitz sent a criminal referral to the DOJ over Comey’s memos at the time, but the DOJ declined to prosecute. Comey’s leak efforts were successful, however, as Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel within days of the Comey Memo leaks making their way to the New York Times. An article in the Times penned by Schmidt was titled “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation” and was published on May 16, 2017. Then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel the next day. After two years, Mueller “did not establish” any criminal Trump-Russia collusion. Other classified leaks inquiries also come up short, here is a list: The newly-declassified FBI memos also detail a host of other failed or botched classified leaks investigations that made their way into legacy media. They were given operational code names such as Tropic Vortex, Foggy Falls, Riding Hood, Echos Fate, and Genetic Christmas. Tropic Vortex: he Justice Department’s Tropic Vortex classified leaks investigation focused on an unspecified October 2016 article by The New York Times as well as an early March 2017 article written by Times reporters Schmidt and Michael Shear and titled, “Comey Asks Justice Dept. to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claims.” Foggy Falls: The FBI’s Foggy Falls classified inquiry focused on a Washington Post article by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — from mid-April 2017 titled, "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page.” The bureau’s Riding Hood investigation included a main focus on a Buzzfeed News article from early April 2017 written by Ali Watkins and titled, “A Former Trump Adviser Met With A Russian Spy.” The FBI speculated that the classified information in that article may have informed a mid-April 2017 story by the Washington Post written by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — and titled, "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page.” Siren's Lure: The FBI’s unsuccessful Sirens Lure classified inquiry focused on three Washington Post stories. The first was one by four reporters — Matt Zapotosky, Sari Horwitz, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — from late May 2017 titled, "Jared Kushner Now a Focus in Russia Investigation.” The second was an article by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous, and Greg Miller — from late May 2017 titled, "Russian Ambassador Told Moscow that Kushner Wanted Secret Communications Channel with Kremlin.” The third was a piece by four reporters — David Filipov, Amy Brittain, Rosalind Helderman, and Tom Hamburger — from early June 2017 titled, "Explanations for Kushner's Meeting with Head of Kremlin-linked Bank Don't Match Up.” Echos Fate: The bureau’s Echos Fate classified leaks inquiry focused on two Washington Post stories. The first one mentioned by the FBI was a mid-January 2017 story by David Ignatius originally titled “Four burning questions on Russia” which was renamed “Why did Obama dawdle on Russia’s hacking?” The second was by three reporters — Greg Miller, Adam Entous, and Ellen Nakashima — published in early February 2017 and titled, “Officials Say Flynn Discussed Sanctions.” Genetic Christmas: The FBI’s failed Genetic Christmas classified leaks investigation focused on an NBC News article written by three reporters — William Arkin, Ken Dilanian, and Cynthia McFadden — which was published in mid-December 2016 and was titled, “U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack.” Series of leaks fed "blatantly false" information to media: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently harshly criticized this specific leak to NBC News, as well as one to The Washington Post, arguing that they fed a false narrative that the intelligence community had already reached a conclusion on Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s intentions during the 2016 election when the Obama-ordered Intelligence Community Assessment had not yet been completed. “Deep State officials in the IC begin leaking blatantly false intelligence to the Washington Post, as proven by the unpublished PDB and previous IC products, claiming that Russia used ‘cyber means’ to influence ‘the outcome of the election.’ … Another leak to the Washington Post falsely alleges that the CIA ‘concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened’ in the election to help President Trump,” the Gabbard-led Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed last month. ODNI added: “At this point, there is no official IC assessment that contains that conclusion [...] IC officials again leak to the media, this time claiming [to NBC News] that IC officials believe ‘with a high level of confidence’ that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in the ‘U.S. Election Hack’.” Source: Just The News

The SCIF

32,064 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

💛 ทุกวินาทีในวิดีโอนี้…คือความตั้งใจที่เราอยากมอบให้ทุกคนได้สัมผัส JANUA LIMITED BOX SET ตัวเต็ม พร้อมแล้วสำหรับทุกคนที่รอคอย 💛 เตรียมตัวให้พร้อม! พบกับการเปิดขายในวันที่ 3 พฤศจิกายน 2568 เพราะ “เซอร์ไพรส์ในกล่อง” คุ้มค่าแก่การรอคอยมากจริง ๆ ✨ ⸻ หมายเหตุ : 1.รายละเอียดสินค้าภายในกล่อง Mine Wish Limited Edition 50ml – 1 ชิ้น มูลค่า 490.- Mine Wish Festive Design 30ml – 1 ชิ้น มูลค่า 290.- Mine Wish Festive Design 30ml – 1 ชิ้น มูลค่า 290.- Dreamy Cloud Festive Design 30ml – 1 ชิ้น มูลค่า 290.- Kiss Me More Festive Design 30ml – 1 ชิ้น มูลค่า 290.- Passion Love Festive Design 30ml – 1 ชิ้น มูลค่า 290.- Juicy Mallow New Collection 15ml – 1 ชิ้น มูลค่า 219.- Cotton Cloud New Collection 15ml – 1 ชิ้น มูลค่า 219.- Sugar Bunny New Collection 15ml – 1 ชิ้น มูลค่า 219.- Memory of Sunrise The Exclusive Comeback 30ml – 1 ชิ้น มูลค่า 239.- 2. Unreleased Postcard จำนวน 2 รูป โดยมีรายละเอียดดังนี้ Unreleased Fix Card 1 Unreleased Random Card 1 (สุ่มจากจำนวนทั้งหมด 2 รูป) ระยะเวลาร่วมกิจกรรม: 3 – 10 พฤศจิกายน 2568 ประกาศผลผู้โชคดี: 15 พฤศจิกายน 2568 เริ่มจัดส่งสินค้า ตั้งแต่วันที่ 30 พฤศจิกายน 2568 เป็นต้นไป ⸻ กติกาการร่วมกิจกรรม “WE MAKE THE PHENOMENON – JANUA X RENJUN” CAMPAIGN 2 : JANUA LIMITED BOX SET 📌 รายละเอียดและกติกาแคมเปญ 1. การได้รับสิทธิ์ลุ้นที่นั่ง ทุกการซื้อ JANUA LIMITED BOX SET ราคา 1,990 บาท / 1 กล่อง = 5 สิทธิ์ (ปรับเพิ่มจากเดิม 1 กล่อง = 1 สิทธิ์) สินค้ามีจำนวนจำกัดเท่านั้น ราคานี้ยังไม่รวมค่าจัดส่ง การลุ้นสิทธิ์ขึ้นอยู่กับจำนวนสิทธิ์ที่ได้รับ ไม่ได้พิจารณาจากยอดซื้อมากที่สุด ไม่จำกัดจำนวนการสั่งซื้อต่อคน และไม่สามารถยกเลิกคำสั่งซื้อได้ทุกกรณี ⸻ 2. ระยะเวลาแคมเปญ สามารถสั่งซื้อสินค้าได้ตั้งแต่ วันที่ 3 พฤศจิกายน 2568 – วันที่ 10 พฤศจิกายน 2568 เวลา 23:59 น. คำสั่งซื้อที่อยู่ภายในช่วงเวลาดังกล่าวเท่านั้นที่จะได้รับสิทธิ์ลุ้น เพื่อลุ้นสิทธิ์ที่นั่งโซนหมายเลข 001–250 หมายเหตุเพิ่มเติม: สินค้าจะถูกวางจำหน่ายจนกว่าสินค้าจะหมด แต่สิทธิ์ในการ “ลุ้นที่นั่งเข้าร่วมอีเวนต์” จะนับเฉพาะคำสั่งซื้อที่เกิดขึ้นในช่วงวันที่ 3 – 10 พฤศจิกายน 2568 เวลา 23:59 น. เท่านั้น ⸻ 3. ช่องทางการสั่งซื้อ สั่งซื้อได้ผ่าน 2 ช่องทางเท่านั้น 1. LINE MY SHOP : 2. DM Instagram : janua_thailand (สงวนสิทธิ์สำหรับต่างชาติเท่านั้น) 👉 วิธีชำระเงินที่เข้าร่วมรายการสำหรับ Line My Shop ช่องทางการชำระเงิน 1. PromptPay QR: ลูกค้าสามารถสแกน QR Code เพื่อชำระเงินได้ 2. Mobile Banking: รองรับการชำระผ่านแอปพลิเคชันธนาคาร เช่น K PLUS และ SCB Easy 3. LINE Pay : 3.1 e-Wallet: ชำระเงินผ่านกระเป๋าเงินอิเล็กทรอนิกส์ของ LINE 3.2 บัตรเครดิต/เดบิต: สามารถผูกบัตร Visa, Mastercard, JCB และบัตรเครือข่ายไทยที่รองรับ 👉 วิธีชำระเงินที่เข้าร่วมรายการสำหรับ DM Instagram : janua_thailand • ชำระตรงผ่านเลขที่บัญชีบริษัทเท่านั้น 👉 สถานะคำสั่งซื้อ • จะพิจารณาเฉพาะคำสั่งซื้อที่มี หมายเลขคำสั่งซื้อ ขึ้นโชว์เท่านั้น ⸻ 4. ชื่อผู้รับสินค้า ชื่อ–นามสกุลผู้รับสินค้าต้องตรงกับชื่อจริงในบัตรประชาชนหรือพาสปอร์ต เพื่อใช้ยืนยันสิทธิ์เข้าร่วมกิจกรรม ที่อยู่ในการจัดส่งสินค้าไม่จำเป็นต้องตรงกับบัตรประชาชนหรือพาสปอร์ต ⸻ 5. ระยะเวลาและการจัดส่งสินค้า การจัดส่ง JANUA LIMITED BOX SET จะเริ่มตั้งแต่วันที่ 30 พฤศจิกายน 2568 เป็นต้นไป โดยจะจัดส่งตามลำดับคิวของคำสั่งซื้อที่เข้ามาก่อน–หลัง เพื่อให้ทุกกล่องถูกจัดส่งอย่างครบถ้วนและปลอดภัยที่สุด ⸻ 6. ระบบบันทึกสิทธิ์และการตรวจสอบ สิทธิ์ของผู้สั่งซื้อจะถูกบันทึกโดยอัตโนมัติ ไม่ต้องลงทะเบียนเพิ่มเติม สามารถตรวจสอบจำนวนสิทธิ์ได้หลังคำสั่งซื้อสำเร็จภายใน 2 วัน ผ่านทางเว็บไซต์ 👉 วิธีตรวจสอบสิทธิ์: 1. เข้าเว็บไซต์ 2. กรอกเบอร์โทรศัพท์ที่ใช้ในการสั่งซื้อสินค้า (ต้องเป็นเบอร์เดียวกับในที่อยู่จัดส่ง Box Set) 3. ระบบจะแสดงข้อมูล ชื่อ, ที่อยู่, และจำนวนสิทธิ์ที่ได้รับทันที ⸻ 7. วันที่ประกาศผลผู้โชคดี วันที่ 15 พฤศจิกายน 2568 ผู้โชคดีจาก Campaign 2 จะได้รับสิทธิ์ที่นั่งในโซนหมายเลข 001–250 โดยจะประกาศผ่านทาง เว็บไซต์ X : 𝐉𝐀𝐍𝐔𝐀 Instagram : janua_thailand ⸻ 8. การยืนยันสิทธิ์ ผู้ได้รับสิทธิ์ต้องยืนยันสิทธิ์ของตน ผ่านทาง LINE Official: Janua ภายในวันที่ 15 พฤศจิกายน – 21 พฤศจิกายน 2568 หากไม่ยืนยันสิทธิ์ภายในเวลาที่กำหนด จะถือว่าสละสิทธิ์โดยอัตโนมัติ และทางแบรนด์จะประกาศรายชื่อผู้โชคดีสำรองขึ้นมาแทนในวันที่ 22 พฤศจิกายน 2568 ⸻ 9. หลักฐานที่ต้องใช้ในวันรายงานตัว ผู้ได้รับสิทธิ์เข้าร่วมอีเวนต์ ต้องนำเอกสารต่อไปนี้มาแสดงเพื่อยืนยันตัวตน : 1. ใบเสร็จการสั่งซื้อสินค้า (ฉบับพิมพ์จากระบบออนไลน์) 2. บัตรประชาชน หรือพาสปอร์ตตัวจริง ที่ตรงกับข้อมูลการลงทะเบียน ⸻ 10. จำนวนสิทธิ์ต่อผู้เข้าร่วม 1. จำกัดสิทธิ์ผู้โชคดี 1 คนต่อ 1 หมายเลขบัตรประชาชนหรือพาสปอร์ตเท่านั้น ไม่สามารถโอนสิทธิ์ให้ผู้อื่น หรือใช้หมายเลขเดียวกันลงทะเบียนซ้ำเพื่อรับสิทธิ์มากกว่า 1 ที่นั่งได้ 2. หากผู้ได้รับสิทธิ์ได้ที่นั่งทั้งใน Campaign 1 และ Campaign 2 จำเป็นต้องสละสิทธิ์ใดสิทธิ์หนึ่ง โดยแจ้งความประสงค์มาที่ LINE Official: Janua ก่อนวันที่ 21 พฤศจิกายน 2568 และทางแบรนด์จะประกาศผู้โชคดีสำรองขึ้นมาแทนในวันที่ 22 พฤศจิกายน 2568 ⸻ 11. เงื่อนไขการยกเลิกและคืนเงิน • ไม่สามารถยกเลิกคำสั่งซื้อหรือขอคืนเงินได้ในทุกกรณี ยกเว้นกรณีที่สินค้าเกิดความเสียหายจากการขนส่ง ซึ่งหากสินค้าเกิดความเสียหายจากขนส่ง ทางแบรนด์จะจัดส่งสินค้าชิ้นใหม่ให้ โดยไม่ให้ยกเลิกคำสั่งซื้อในทุกกรณี • การพิจารณาการคืนสินค้าจะเป็นไปตามเงื่อนไขของแบรนด์เท่านั้น ⸻ 12. การคุ้มครองข้อมูลส่วนบุคคล (PDPA) ข้อมูลส่วนบุคคลของผู้เข้าร่วมกิจกรรม เช่น ชื่อ–นามสกุล หมายเลขโทรศัพท์ และบัตรประชาชนหรือพาสปอร์ต จะถูกเก็บรักษาอย่างปลอดภัย และใช้เพื่อการยืนยันสิทธิ์เท่านั้น โดยจะไม่ถูกเปิดเผยหรือใช้ในวัตถุประสงค์อื่น ⸻ 13. ข้อสงวนสิทธิ์ของแบรนด์ แบรนด์ JANUA ขอสงวนสิทธิ์ในการเปลี่ยนแปลงเงื่อนไข รายละเอียดกิจกรรม หรือกำหนดการต่าง ๆ โดยไม่ต้องแจ้งให้ทราบล่วงหน้า หากเกิดเหตุสุดวิสัยหรือเหตุจำเป็นทางเทคนิค ช่องทางติดต่อสอบถามเพิ่มเติม หากมีข้อสงสัยเกี่ยวกับการสั่งซื้อหรือการร่วมกิจกรรม สามารถติดต่อได้ที่ 📩 LINE Official: Janua 🌐 เว็บไซต์: --------------------------- 💛 Every second in this video represents our passion that we wish everyone could feel. JANUA LIMITED BOX SET (Full Version) is now finally ready for everyone who has been waiting 💛 Get yourself ready! The official sale begins on November 3, 2025. Because the “surprise inside the box” is truly worth the wait. ✨ ⸻ Remarks : 1.Product Details Inside the Box • Mine Wish Limited Edition 50ml – 1 pc (Value: 490 THB) • Mine Wish Festive Design 30ml – 1 pc (Value: 290 THB) • Mine Wish Festive Design 30ml – 1 pc (Value: 290 THB) • Dreamy Cloud Festive Design 30ml – 1 pc (Value: 290 THB) • Kiss Me More Festive Design 30ml – 1 pc (Value: 290 THB) • Passion Love Festive Design 30ml – 1 pc (Value: 290 THB) • Juicy Mallow New Collection 15ml – 1 pc (Value: 219 THB) • Cotton Cloud New Collection 15ml – 1 pc (Value: 219 THB) • Sugar Bunny New Collection 15ml – 1 pc (Value: 219 THB) • Memory of Sunrise The Exclusive Comeback 30ml – 1 pc (Value: 239 THB) 2.Unreleased Postcards (2 pieces) as follows: • Unreleased Fixed Card (1 piece) • Unreleased Random Card (1 piece, randomly selected from a total of 2 designs) ⸻ Campaign Duration : November 3 – 10, 2025 Winner Announcement : November 15, 2025 Shipping Start Date : From November 30, 2025 onward ⸻ Campaign Rules and Conditions “WE MAKE THE PHENOMENON – JANUA X RENJUN” CAMPAIGN 2 : JANUA LIMITED BOX SET ⸻ 📌 Campaign Details and Rules 1. Lucky Draw Eligibility Every purchase of JANUA LIMITED BOX SET (1,990 THB per box) = 5 Lucky Draw Entries (Increased from the previous condition of 1 box = 1 entry) The amount of product is limited quantities. This price does not include shipping fees. The number of entries will determine your lucky draw chances. It is not based on the highest total purchase amount. There is no purchase limit per person, and order cancellations are not allowed under any circumstances. ⸻ 2. Campaign Period Customers can place their orders from November 3, 2025 – November 10, 2025 (until 23:59). Only orders placed within this period will be eligible for the lucky draw for seat numbers 001–250. Additional Note: Products will remain available until sold out. However, eligibility for the “Lucky Draw to join the event” will apply only to orders placed between November 3 – 10, 2025 (until 23:59). ⸻ 3. Sales Channels Available through 2 official channels only: 1. LINE MY SHOP: 2. Instagram DM: janua_thailand (for international customers only) 👉 Payment Methods for LINE MY SHOP: 1. PromptPay QR: Customers can scan the QR code to make payment. 2. Mobile Banking: Supported through major Thai bank applications such as K PLUS and SCB Easy. 3. LINE Pay 3.1 e-Wallet: Payment via LINE electronic wallet. 3.2 Credit/Debit Card: Supports Visa, Mastercard, JCB, and Thai-issued cards. 👉 Payment Method for Instagram DM (Janua_thailand): • Direct bank transfer to the official company account only. 👉 Order Status: Only orders that display an “order number” will be eligible for participation. ⸻ 4. Recipient Name The recipient’s full name must match the official name on their National ID or Passport for event verification purposes. The shipping address does not need to match the identification document. ⸻ 5. Shipping Schedule Shipment of JANUA LIMITED BOX SET will begin from November 30, 2025 onward, following the order queue chronologically (first come, first served) to ensure that every box is carefully and completely delivered. ⸻ 6. Entry Recording and Verification All purchase entries will be automatically recorded — no additional registration is required. Customers can verify their total entries within 2 days after completing their order via the website 👉 How to check your entries: 1. Visit 2. Enter the phone number used in your order (must be the same as the shipping address). 3. The system will display your name, address, and total number of entries. ⸻ 7. Winner Announcement November 15, 2025 Winners from Campaign 2 will receive seats in Zone Numbers 001–250. The announcement will be made through the following official channels: • Website: • X (Twitter): 𝐉𝐀𝐍𝐔𝐀 • Instagram: janua_thailand ⸻ 8. Confirmation of Rights Winners must confirm their participation via LINE Official: Janua between November 15 – 21, 2025. If the confirmation is not submitted within the specified period, the right to participate will be automatically forfeited. Replacement winners will be announced on November 22, 2025. ⸻ 9. Required Documents on the Event Day Winners must present the following documents for identity verification: • Printed purchase receipt (official online version) • Original National ID card or Passport that matches the registration details ⸻ 10. Number of Seats per Participant 1. Each winner is entitled to only 1 seat per National ID or Passport. Rights cannot be transferred or duplicated for multiple entries using the same ID. 2. If a winner receives seats in both Campaign 1 and Campaign 2, they must choose one campaign to attend and notify LINE Official: Janua before November 21, 2025. Replacement winners will be announced on November 22, 2025. ⸻ 11. Cancellation and Refund Policy • Orders cannot be cancelled or refunded under any circumstances, except in the case of product damage during shipment. If damage occurs during delivery, the brand will resend a new product, but order cancellations will still not be accepted in any case. • All product return evaluations will strictly follow the brand’s policy. ⸻ 12. Personal Data Protection (PDPA) Personal information of participants, including full name, phone number, and national ID or passport number, will be securely stored and used solely for verification purposes. No personal data will be disclosed or used for any other purpose. ⸻ 13. Brand Reservation of Rights JANUA reserves the right to amend campaign conditions, details, or schedules without prior notice in the event of unavoidable circumstances or technical issues. ⸻ For Inquiries or Further Information If you have any questions regarding your order or participation, please contact: 📩 LINE Official: Janua 🌐 Website: #JANUAXRENJUN

𝐉𝐀𝐍𝐔𝐀

380,507 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

The Dance Between Elizabeth and Darcy: A Swordfight Cloaked in Ceremony In the 1995 adaptation of “Pride and Prejudice”, the dance between Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy at the Netherfield ball is no romantic interlude. It is a confrontation carefully veiled beneath the forms of etiquette. Screenwriter Andrew Davies once described their exchange as “a swordfight set within a dance.” Indeed, every step forward or back obeys the courtesies of the ballroom, yet every word lands like a probing thrust. It is precisely this fusion of polished surface and underlying conflict that renders the scene one of the most charged moments in the series. In Regency society, dancing was among the few social rituals that allowed a man and a woman to remain near one another for an extended period. They might take hands, meet each other’s eyes, and converse without breaching decorum. At the same time, the rules bound them together until the music ended. The dance thus created a rare and charged circumstance: two people were required to sustain each other’s presence for the full length of the set, no matter how the conversation unfolded. The production exploits this circumstance with remarkable restraint. For much of the sequence, director Simon Langton keeps Elizabeth and Darcy together in medium shots and two-shots. Rather than cutting constantly between isolated close-ups, the camera often holds both speaker and listener within the same frame, allowing the audience to register dialogue, glances, and the smallest shifts of expression simultaneously. The choice ensures that every remark is immediately answered by the other’s reaction, rather than becoming two separate lines of speech. The blocking itself follows the architecture of a Regency dance. Elizabeth and Darcy continually change places, hands, and orientation, yet the movements always return them face to face. The rhythm of the dance supplies natural pauses in the conversation. Each time the partners separate and reunite, the two-shot continues to contain them both, so that every look, silence, and reply becomes part of the quiet contest taking place. The sound design preserves the atmosphere of a crowded ballroom. Carl Davis’s music mingles with the soft tread of feet, the rustle of other couples, and the low murmur of surrounding conversation. Against this continuous backdrop, Elizabeth and Darcy’s words remain clear yet never detach themselves from the larger space, so that their exchange feels like a natural strand within the evening rather than a private duet. Considered separately, the camera placement, blocking, and sound are all understated. Combined, they do not call attention to the dance itself; they transform the dance into the very arena for their dialogue. Within that arena, the film’s true interest lies not in the steps but in the shifting awareness of the two characters. For Elizabeth, this is the first moment when the opinions she has already formed about Darcy are tested against an immediate reality. From the opening lines she holds the initiative. She begins with perfectly proper remarks—“I believe we must have some conversation…” and “You should say something about the dance…”—yet her choice of words and tone carry a quiet irony more than any genuine wish for connection. As the exchange continues, she steers its tempo with pointed questions and sharp replies, gradually drawing the talk toward the subject that truly concerns her: George Wickham. This is not an open effort to understand Darcy; it is a verification of conclusions she has already reached. Yet that self-assurance is no longer entirely intact by the end of the dance. Jennifer Ehle conveys the slight fracture through the smallest of changes. Elizabeth’s voice remains intelligent and cutting, but her gaze is no longer purely interrogative. When she says, “I hear such different accounts of you as to puzzle me exceedingly,” she does not underline the line with sharp sarcasm. Her eyes flicker; a brief hesitation appears before the familiar sharpness returns. That nearly imperceptible moment reveals the first crack in a prejudice that had previously seemed airtight. If Ehle portrays a perception beginning to fracture, Colin Firth constructs Darcy as a man determined to preserve composure. From the outset he rarely initiates. He answers Elizabeth’s openings with brief questions, then attempts to steer the talk toward safer ground. As she continually returns the conversation to probing subjects, he grows more guarded, allowing longer pauses before he replies. Firth never expresses tension through dramatic gesture. A momentary stillness of the eyes, a measured hesitation before speaking, or a carefully controlled expression is enough to show that Darcy is weighing every word. By the time he says, “I wish, Miss Bennet, that you would not attempt to sketch my character at the present moment,” his voice remains level, yet it also reveals discomfort at the knowledge that she is trying to fix his character. Darcy never allows emotion to breach the bounds of civility, but the very effort of restraint exposes the pressure he feels. The dance does not cause him to abandon self-command; it forces him to recognize that Elizabeth judges him not by rank or reputation, but by what she believes to be true—and that his own dignity and reserve are insufficient to alter her view. Taken together, the restrained cinematic language and the psychological progression of both characters make plain that the sequence was never conceived as a romantic interlude. The entire scene directs attention to the dialogue itself. Within the strict framework of Regency etiquette, every question, every reply, and every silence becomes part of a contest of wits between two people intent on defending both their view of the other and the way they themselves are seen. The contest at Netherfield therefore ends without a victor. Elizabeth has not relinquished her prejudices, nor has Darcy succeeded in changing the way she regards him. Yet the encounter has already opened the first small fissure in the understanding of each. Elizabeth begins to doubt conclusions that once seemed certain; Darcy realizes for the first time that composure and dignity alone cannot secure the understanding of the woman he respects. That is what gives the image of “a swordfight set within a dance” its lasting force: the confrontation concludes not with a winner, but with the irreversible knowledge that neither can continue to see the other in quite the same way. The dance between Elizabeth and Darcy reflects a familiar paradox of human exchange: in many conversations, what people strive to protect is not merely their opinion, but the way they see another person and the way they wish to be seen in return. Thus a dialogue can easily become a struggle for the right to interpret, rather than an opportunity for genuine understanding. Perhaps that is the scene’s most enduring insight. Understanding rarely arrives fully formed within a single conversation. Yet conversation itself can be the place where the first cracks appear in settled prejudice. Only from those cracks can people begin, at last, to see one another truly.

🌸🎵 Beautiful Melody 🎶💖

30,330 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the government’s actions here piss me off, in a way I’m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropic’s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the government’s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, there’s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, “I reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that you’re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.” On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply can’t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, “Hey we’re not gonna do business with you,” that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractors’ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldn’t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan — to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? It’s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data — no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, you’re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now it’ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What we’re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if you’re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that there’s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if there’s wide diffusion, then from the government’s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, “Oh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, you’re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - I’ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.” The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesn’t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology — some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just don’t think that’s how it’s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someone’s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just haven’t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. It’s understandable why we don’t hear much about it. If you’re a model company, you don’t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. We’re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for “all lawful purposes”. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Act’s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the military’s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. I’m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about “genAI” in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe that’s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think it’s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what they’re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means there’s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: “At the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.” So they’re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that you’re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model — can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, you’re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because that’s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation — an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act — a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, there’s just no world where the government doesn’t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isn’t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think it’d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology they’re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: “if nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.” And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopold’s argument at the time, and Ben’s argument now, is that while they’re right that it’s crazy that we’re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just don’t see the reason to think that it’s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself — a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution — which was also, by any measure, world-historically important — it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we can’t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way we’ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Ben’s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropic’s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as today’s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs

Dwarkesh Patel

548,345 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

No, I don't think so. I think Conor McGregor's tailoring is best understood in the context of how labor has been deskilled for almost 200 years. Let me explain. Before the mid-19th century, most men who were not manual laborers wore bespoke clothes. In other words, their clothes were made specifically for them, typically by women working in the home or by bespoke tailors. This is how the King of Spain gets his clothes. When he was 11 years old, his father brought him to see a bespoke tailor in Madrid named Jaime Gallo. Gallo made the King's clothes using traditional methods: he measured the King's body and then used those measurements to draft a paper pattern from scratch. This pattern, which serves as the garment's architectural blueprint, is used to mark and cut the cloth. The pieces are then roughly basted together into a wearable fitting garment. When the King tries on this garment, the tailor takes notes on what needs to be changed, deconstructs the garment, and makes the necessary adjustment. This process repeats three times — basted, forward, and final fitting — with each step bringing the garment to its final form. This is partly why the King's clothes fit so beautifully: they were made by a skilled tailor and refined through multiple fittings. More important, however, is Gallo's technical skill. To be sure, not all tailors are so skilled, which is why I don't recommend going to just any random tailor. Gallo continued making clothes for the King until his own death in 2015. In the first slide, you can see three photos: two of the King wearing Gallo's tailoring at different periods of his life, and a meeting desk at Sastreria Jaime Gallo (Gallo's workshop). Most people today don't wear bespoke clothes. Instead, they wear ready-made clothes produced by manufacturers and sold by brands and retailers. The shrunken silhouette we see today was principally shaped in the early 2000s by three designers: Raf Simons, Hedi Slimane, and Thom Browne. These men were not rebelling against classic tailoring, which has not been culturally relevant since the late 1960s. Instead, they were rebelling against the oversized tailoring of the '80s and '90s, which was also created by designers (such as Armani). In the 2012 documentary "Antifashion," Simons explains that he felt oversized silhouettes were "too American" and "macho" (think Arnold Schwarzenegger). He wanted something that felt younger, more European, and made for thin, effete bodies. Slimane echoed this sentiment in a separate interview, saying that he felt bullied as a teen for not being very muscular, so he intentionally wanted to design things that felt more androgynous. He rejected the idea that every man needed to feel big and macho. Whatever you want to say about the shrunken suit trend, there were no technical issues with the original versions. Along the top row of the second slide, you can see two suits by Slimane and Browne. Notice that there's no puckering or pulling. The collar hugs the neck. I also think the clothes look pretty good on the models. This is largely because there are still people with technical knowledge working at this stage. The problems arise once those designs slide further away from such people. On the bottom row of the second slide, we can see Lionel Messi wearing a Thom Browne suit. IMO, it doesn't fit him as well as the model above him because he's a more muscular build. The original slim suits work best on thin figures with shoulders broader than the hips. Once you put these clothes on different figures, they can look egg-shaped. This mismatch can happen for all sorts of reasons. The people involved in selling or styling clothes today often lack technical skills: editors, writers, stylists, salespeople, marketers, and such. The designer was already one step removed from the tailor (a technical person), but at least they can work with a pattern maker (another technical person). Many people today are another step removed from that technical layer. Conor McGregor's clothes are from his own line, August McGregor, which he created with David August. Although David August works in custom clothing, he's not a tailor. He measures clients and sends those measurements to an overseas factory, where garments are produced by people who never meet the wearer. Conor's role is simply to market the product. He's a built-in influencer for the brand. There was a recent Wall Street Journal article about the emergence of "muscle suits," which is to say, very bulky guys wearing slim-fit tailoring. IMO, this can only emerge from the history we talked about. As more people lack technical skills and more layers or barriers exist between them and people with technical skills, the garment can look more distorted or strange. On the final slide, we see a video from Brimble and Clark, an custom tailoring company mentioned in the WSJ article. Like those from August McGregor, these are made-to-measure clothes produced in distant factories, though they use more stretch blends. Someone once told me that the owner of Brimble and Clark holds a ceremony when he delivers a suit to you. When you come into the shop to pick up your suit, a painting is mechanically lowered to reveal a collection of tiny knives. The company owner takes one of the tiny knives, sews it behind your lapel, and then ceremoniously puts the jacket on you. Then it's time for your own private photoshoot, where you get to pose around Chesterfield field couches while wearing your jacket concealing a tiny knife. The purpose, of course, is simply to make the wearer feel good. The business person understands something important: how a customer feels is more important than whether the product is good. This is essentially the system we have today. The company owner, salesperson, fitter, customer, writer, and influencer often possess little technical knowledge. The remaining expertise is concentrated among pattern makers and garment workers at the very end of the supply chain. I think about this sometimes when I read about AI, as I think it represents yet another step towards the deskilling of labor. Perhaps one day, someone who knows how to draw with pen and paper will look at an AI-generated image and recognize certain distortions that many have come to accept. But AI is outside my area of expertise, so I'll leave that discussion to others.

derek guy

277,060 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

77 Reasons Why I’ve Invested Over $8,000,000+ in MultiversX (EGLD) and Why EGLD Will Crush It in 2025 (My Investment Thesis). I publicly shared my portfolio on X. EGLD is A) Better than BTC B) Everything that ETH wants to be C) The GameStop of Crypto 1. EGLD is verifiably the most scalable (theoretically unlimited) L1 chain in the world, theoretically capable of over 10 million TPS (thanks to adaptive state sharding). 2. e-Gold is digital gold. It has the best tokenomics among all L1s, similarly scarce to BTC, with a maximum supply of 31.4 million coins. Currently, 27.68 million coins are in circulation. 3. EGLD will be the most decentralized cryptocurrency in the world thanks to sharding and minimal hardware requirements for running nodes. It’s already second only to Ethereum with 3,618 validator nodes. 4. EGLD has extremely low fees, around ~$0.002 per transaction. 5. EGLD is extremely secure. No wallet drains like on ETH/SOL; assets are owned natively (not via a smart contract). There is no MEV risk (front-running bots). 6. EGLD is the only chain in the world with an on-chain Guardian (two-phase verification), making it impossible for a hacker to steal your funds—even if they have your private keys (seed phrase). 7. EGLD is carbon-neutral and eco-friendly, not wasting energy like BTC and other PoW chains. It’s exceptionally efficient, scalable, global, and sustainable. 8. EGLD has the best UX in crypto. Download the xPortal wallet—it’s like discovering Apple in Web3. The interface is simple, flawless, and you barely realize you’re using crypto. Instead of addresses, you use HeroTags. The app features all dApps, everything runs smoothly, and the visuals are beautifully designed. The explorer, web wallet, etc. follow the same high-quality user experience. 9. EGLD supports native assets, unlike Ethereum, for example. 10. EGLD is the first chain to fully implement horizontal (theoretically unlimited) sharding without compromising on decentralization—unlike Solana and others that attempt vertical scaling, leading to multiple network downtimes (11+ times) and huge hardware demands for validators, ultimately harming decentralization. 11. EGLD makes setting up a validator agency extremely easy. Even complete IT beginners can do it. The UX and documentation are superb. I personally set up the “EGLDSqueeze” agency in about 30 minutes. Managing it is straightforward via the web wallet, which feels like managing a Facebook page. This simplifies decentralization enormously. 12. EGLD allows literally anyone (even your grandma) to participate in decentralization, since nodes can run on a Raspberry Pi or a relatively affordable phone. Imagine millions of people worldwide securing the network, validating transactions without even knowing it. This can’t be done with BTC, where setting up profitable mining operations is prohibitively expensive. 13. WASM-Based Virtual Machine: You can write smart contracts in your favorite language, compile them, and run them via the fastest VM in the world. 14. EGLD has been tested at an incredible 263,000 TPS using its sharding mechanism and low hardware requirements. Allegedly, by mid-next year (April), they’ll demonstrate 1,000,000 TPS. (For context: Mastercard handles around 5,000 TPS; BTC handles 5–7 TPS.) 15. EGLD is currently the most advanced L1 in terms of scalability, security, decentralization, UX, eco-friendliness, and tokenomics. It’s the only chain that has genuinely solved the Blockchain Trilemma and is ready to onboard 1 billion people into crypto—users who won’t even realize they’re interacting with crypto. 16. EGLD is perfectly positioned for AI projects—AI agents, AI tools, or a so-called “Truth Machine” that monitors other AIs on-chain, documenting what’s true and comparing different AI outputs (some of which may be censored or biased), ensuring people don’t get confused or scammed in an AI-driven world. 17. The EGLD team is the hardest-working team I’ve ever encountered. I had the honor of meeting many of them personally, and can attest that their pace—even during a bear market—is extraordinary. 18. EGLD’s development team is exceptionally active on GitHub, continually improving their network and actively committing code. 19. EGLD plans to introduce an update reducing block time to 600ms (down from ~6 seconds), which would make the chain essentially unrivaled. 20. EGLD is effectively the only usable L1 in Europe, and the team has direct connections within the EU government—extremely bullish for the project. 21. EGLD provides top-tier on-chain governance not only for the MultiversX (EGLD) protocol but also for DeFi projects (e.g., xExchange, MEX). 22. EGLD plans to expand to the US, likely opening offices in Austin, Texas. This could put them in direct contact with Elon Musk (if it hasn’t happened already), as he’s involved with If he’s done his research, he’d discover there’s simply no better L1 worldwide. 23. EGLD solved fully implemented sharding, perfect tokenomics, and top-tier architecture with just $5M, whereas other chains failed to do so even with $100M+. The second-best sharding network, NEAR, needed $100M, has worse tokenomics, and its sharding isn’t fully implemented yet. Its UX also doesn’t compare. Owning NEAR was like comparing a VW Golf R to a Porsche GT3—EGLD is the Porsche GT3. 24. According to Similarweb, EGLD has significantly high traffic relative to other chains with market caps 100x larger. The market cap vs. web traffic discrepancy is huge, which is a strong indicator of EGLD’s potential. 25. EGLD has the most active and dedicated community relative to its user base, with users who believe in the technology, have full faith in the team, and remain loyal despite price volatility—because they use the chain and know there’s nothing better. 26. Check other chains’ active user counts on X (Twitter) and compare it with the followers of EGLD’s founders and main network accounts, versus those with 30x, 50x, or 100x larger market caps. 27. Visit the MultiversX website to observe the futuristic design and presentation, then compare it to other chains that appear nearly a decade behind in design and branding. 28. EGLD hosts the xDay Global event, showcasing updates, new builders, projects in the ecosystem, and major announcements—similar to Apple’s Keynotes—delivered in a highly professional, goosebump-inducing atmosphere. The next event is in Korea, the second-biggest crypto market after the US. Check out their previous xDay after-movie to see why this is extremely bullish. 29. EGLD is moving forward with plans for the first regulated, audited EU stablecoin under MiCa regulation, made possible by acquiring xMoney, which I view as a “Stripe” for crypto/fiat, offering everything from user solutions to merchant services—potentially the future of payments. 30. Greg Siourouni recently joined EGLD, having been an executive director at SUI Foundation. He’s now co-founder of xMoney Global. xMoney (formerly UTrust, with token UTK) is owned and founded by the MultiversX Labs team. A stablecoin might be introduced soon, which would be massively bullish given xMoney’s roadmap. They recently announced integrations with Binance Pay—both ways. 31. EGLD prioritizes user safety, believing it’s the only feasible approach once the network scales to serve a billion people—many of whom are retail users with little to no security awareness. 32. EGLD offers “Sovereign Chains,” letting you effectively clone their chain without heavy development, set up your own validators, and leverage their unlimited scalability. Any blockchain (ETH, BTC, SOL) struggling with scalability, decentralization, or security could run an ultra-fast, scalable, and secure L2 on EGLD’s Sovereign Chain, meeting top enterprise requirements. No one else has really done this. The Sovereign Chain demo achieved astonishing TPS and has an SDK. 33. No downtime since inception. 34. No shard takeover attacks have occurred. 35. Extremely fast—soon 600ms block time will be in place. 36. ESDTs – The best token standard available: fungible, non-fungible, semi-fungible, DeFi assets—everything is native and highly customizable. 37. Top-tier composability of assets and smart contracts. 38. Integrated DNS at protocol level with HeroTags (nicknames) instead of long addresses. 39. Asynchronous calls are supported. 40. Cross-shard transfers, execution, reverts, and calls are seamlessly integrated. 41. The best staking system in the space. Secure Proof of Stake (SPoS) is far more efficient than Proof of Work (PoW). 42. Built-in Delegation and Staking Provider system, with over 125K delegators. 43. Complete support for liquid staked assets, fostering decentralization rather than centralization. 44. TransferRoles for ESDT and other advanced operations. 45. Composable tasks on-chain for more sophisticated DeFi workflows. 46. MultiTransfer and asset execution within one transaction. 47. Re-entrancy protection is built-in by design. 48. Storage for ESDT assets goes beyond a linear approach, optimizing performance. 49. No integer overflows thanks to integrated safeMath operations. 50. Integrated crypto opcodes in the VM, enhancing security and performance. 51. Support for BigFloats, BigInts, and BigDecimals, enabling advanced financial calculations on-chain. 52. No sandwich attacks, plus front-running and MEV protection. 53. Relayed Transactions, simplifying user interactions and fees. 54. Smart Accounts featuring data tries and multiple built-in functions. 55. Generalized Paymaster solutions, enabling flexible fee models. 56. Subscriptions for recurring or automated on-chain payments. 57. Web2-like usability with Web3 functionality, bridging mainstream adoption. 58. StakingV4 for improved decentralization. 59. Enhanced MEV protection rolling out to safeguard users. 60. Parallel execution is coming soon, boosting throughput. 61. 1 million TPS is on the roadmap, targeted for demonstration. 62. 600ms block time is also coming soon. 63. Reduced cross-shard processing is planned to improve efficiency. 64. ZK everywhere (PI²): “prove everything” approach is coming. 65. AsyncV3 is in development for more complex cross-contract interactions. 66. Scalability enhancements for Merkle Tries or a new data model are being explored. 67. Linear storage on the VM is forthcoming. 68. A dynamic language interpreter at the VM is also planned. 69. Rumors suggest that MultiversX (EGLD) is building a “Truth Machine” on their L1—an essential, game-changing tool for AI verification and societal impact. 70. The entire team features individuals with PhDs in mathematics and physics, and many are former engineers at Google, IBM, and similar companies. 71. Over 56% of the network’s supply is staked, showcasing strong community involvement. 72. More than 6,772,347 accounts have been created on the network. 73. A total of 476,627,710 transactions have been processed on-chain without any outages or hacks. 74. EGLD has built a massive ecosystem over time. While not as numerous in project count as Solana, its market cap is ~100x smaller, yet it has far superior tokenomics and technology. The projects that do exist, like Hatom Protocol, are top-tier in UX, security, and advanced features. Hatom will soon introduce USH, a truly high-quality, decentralized stablecoin. 75. On competing chains, automated transactions aren’t easily or cheaply executed, whereas on MultiversX, tools like let you do this for free (with near-zero fees). 76. No other chain combines such a strong team and long-term vision where every product meets extreme security and UX standards like MultiversX does. This is why I see it as the “next Apple” in Web3. 77. MultiversX has a new CMO – Adam Bates, a former CMO at the Cardano Foundation. He was behind the success of Cardano’s huge marketing campaign and has a very good relationship with Charles Hoskinson. Thanks to him, Beniamin Mincu (the founder of MultiversX) was likely introduced, and now they will probably discuss how both blockchains can help each other, as well as any other potential collaborations we don’t yet know about. This is also extremely bullish. #EGLD is undeniably the most Scalable, Advanced, Secure, and User-friendly L1 supercomputer ever created. It’s built to SHAPE THE FUTURE. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 27/6/2024 - EGLDSqueeze - SUMMARY: HERE IS NO 2ND BEST. EGLD IS ONLY ONE BLOCKCHAIN THAT CAN RULE THEM ALL. ✅ UNLIMITED SCALING ✅ SCARCE AS BTC ✅ PROGRAMMABLE AS ETH ✅ NO DOWNTIME AS SOL ✅ UI/UX OF Apple ✅ SHARDING DONE BEFORE NEAR & TON ✅ BEST WALLET xPortal WITH GUARDIAN Price prediction (NFA|DYOR): My reasoning is that the real market cap as of December 23, 2024...if we take into account the value of other cryptocurrencies such as BTC, SOL, ETH, AVAX, NEAR, TON, Cardano, BNB, XRP, and so forth, plus the existence of meme coins with valuations above 20 billion USD, or even games nobody plays anymore that still have valuations above 800 million shows that EGLD’s current market cap of approximately 942 million USD is incredibly low. From a technological standpoint, user experience, and other relevant aspects, compared to SOL, NEAR, TON, AVAX, and other L1 protocols, EGLD’s market cap should realistically be around 100 billion USD. Therefore, my prediction and investment thesis is a minimum of a 100x increase from its current price (+-SOL marketcap). MultiversX is ready to onboard 1 billion people to the blockchain. From a long-term perspective, it could even reach a market cap of 1 trillion USD, which is roughly half of where BTC is right now. That would be approximately a 1060x gain from the current market cap. 1 EGLD (MultiversX) is for $34 (only 31.4M max supply) think about this. Not financial advice. Again. There is no 2nd best L1. Position yourself where the puck is going, then wait at the goal until the goal gets there Apes together, strong. Ape alone, weak. We Don't Worry. We Just Win. Shape The Future

Daniel Veroc

50,457 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr