Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Hard facts about Starbuster - Single-player - S p e e d - 2 Playable characters - Tense boss battles - Extensive upgrade system - Not a roguelike - Lower mid tier pixel art - No budget, no braincells - Thinks it’s funny sometimes - Bully robots #indiegame #gaming #pixelart

Starbuster_Game's profile picture

Starbuster

15,056 subscribers

41,166 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

Игры#indiegame#gaming#pixelart
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 11

Фото профиля Claudine/Weiss
Claudine/Weiss1 год назад

Question, was this at all inspired by Megaman Zero?

Фото профиля Starbuster
Starbuster1 год назад

Megamamn

Фото профиля Moescape AI
Moescape AI1 год назад

Sign up & create wholesome anime art on Moescape AI now!

Фото профиля @genkitsu.bsky.social
@genkitsu.bsky.social1 год назад

you forgot one crucial piece of information is the game fun as hell

Фото профиля Starbuster
Starbuster1 год назад

Game sucks i go to bed

Фото профиля Uniggasweededan
Uniggasweededan1 год назад

i wish u will release on steam.

Фото профиля Starbuster
Starbuster1 год назад

Me too buddy me too

Фото профиля Pedroka
Pedroka1 год назад

Hardest fact: I NEED this game on my Switch!

Фото профиля Trav Guy
Trav Guy1 год назад

Oh my goodness

Фото профиля InfinityArk
InfinityArk1 год назад

Also awesome!~😎👍

Фото профиля freezydev
freezydev1 год назад

Awesome

Похожие видео

The SAROS story controversy further seperates many sheep and insecure tourists from the actual gamers passionate about gaming and who respect nuanced art. 1. SAROS is a supremely GAMEPLAY focused game, and the gameplay is exceptional. There's actually not a huge amount of story in it. You get sparse sprinkles of story here and there, but it's usually vague, infrequent and takes a complete backseat to the gameplay. So people complaining about its story are missing the forest for the trees about the kind of game this even is. 2. The overwhelming majority of the game the story actually follows the exact cookie cutter bland, 'man has love interest he's trying to save' plot thread that is trite and that so many of the haters wanted. It's not till the very end that you get the twist and curveball that not all was what it seems, and all I can say is thank heavens it did. The twist that Arjun isn't just another brooding, stoic, gruff bad ass good guy hero, and that Nitya isn't just a damsel that needed saving, but was instead escaping him and facing acceptance, loneliness and purpose challenges of her own, is one of the more interesting and thought provoking aspects to the story and to their characterisation. Prior to that, if anything they're both a bit dull and been there done that. After the twist, where you find out he's actually flawed, has a history of debauchery, drunken escapades, guilt, internal conflict, anger management, a darker past and so on, there's layers to unravel and moral conundrums to explore. But I guess that sort of thing takes too much mental maturity for tourists and snowflakes to contend with. 3. As I covered before, anti-hero villain playable male main characters in games aren't actually common. I had to go back 28 AAA single player releases (not including remasters/remakes) to find the last I could remember where you had to play a potential bad guy, which was Alan from Alan Wake II (though there's moral abiguity there) which released back in 2023, so the haters are complaining about something exceedingly rare. 4. Imagine watching a single clip or few of the ending of a show instead of the entire show itself; missing all context, characterisation, build up, insight, developments etc throughout, and thinking that was enough for you to judge the shows story or the entire show lol. No logical or well adjusted person would seek to judge narratives in art in this way, and yet that's what many of these Karens do. We should not be giving value to the opinions of these types of people. ---- Ultimately, haters are showing themselves up yet again, and each time come off seeming more and more like detatched tourists who aren't truly passionate about art or gaming, only having their extremely narrow preferences regurgitated and constantly pandered to. And frankly, they're incredibly boring. #PS5Pro gameplay video. #SAROS #PS5
1:27

The SAROS story controversy further seperates many sheep and insecure tourists from the actual gamers passionate about gaming and who respect nuanced art. 1. SAROS is a supremely GAMEPLAY focused game, and the gameplay is exceptional. There's actually not a huge amount of story in it. You get sparse sprinkles of story here and there, but it's usually vague, infrequent and takes a complete backseat to the gameplay. So people complaining about its story are missing the forest for the trees about the kind of game this even is. 2. The overwhelming majority of the game the story actually follows the exact cookie cutter bland, 'man has love interest he's trying to save' plot thread that is trite and that so many of the haters wanted. It's not till the very end that you get the twist and curveball that not all was what it seems, and all I can say is thank heavens it did. The twist that Arjun isn't just another brooding, stoic, gruff bad ass good guy hero, and that Nitya isn't just a damsel that needed saving, but was instead escaping him and facing acceptance, loneliness and purpose challenges of her own, is one of the more interesting and thought provoking aspects to the story and to their characterisation. Prior to that, if anything they're both a bit dull and been there done that. After the twist, where you find out he's actually flawed, has a history of debauchery, drunken escapades, guilt, internal conflict, anger management, a darker past and so on, there's layers to unravel and moral conundrums to explore. But I guess that sort of thing takes too much mental maturity for tourists and snowflakes to contend with. 3. As I covered before, anti-hero villain playable male main characters in games aren't actually common. I had to go back 28 AAA single player releases (not including remasters/remakes) to find the last I could remember where you had to play a potential bad guy, which was Alan from Alan Wake II (though there's moral abiguity there) which released back in 2023, so the haters are complaining about something exceedingly rare. 4. Imagine watching a single clip or few of the ending of a show instead of the entire show itself; missing all context, characterisation, build up, insight, developments etc throughout, and thinking that was enough for you to judge the shows story or the entire show lol. No logical or well adjusted person would seek to judge narratives in art in this way, and yet that's what many of these Karens do. We should not be giving value to the opinions of these types of people. ---- Ultimately, haters are showing themselves up yet again, and each time come off seeming more and more like detatched tourists who aren't truly passionate about art or gaming, only having their extremely narrow preferences regurgitated and constantly pandered to. And frankly, they're incredibly boring. #PS5Pro gameplay video. #SAROS #PS5

NIB

54,769 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

I played Clair Obscur Expedition 33 for 60+ hours, defeated all the superbosses and here is my review: -2 graphic modes on PS5 -Many options (Motion Blur, Film Grain, Chromatic Aberration and more) -Played the game on the PS5 in performance mode -Solid 60fps with great picture quality -Very fast loading times -Minimal hud design -Played on the normal difficulty (was just right) -You can change the difficulty anytime (up and down) -The visuals and art direction in this game are insane, trust me -Every new location looks stunning and tells a story -The art direction is so unreal but also so authentic at the same time, stunnig work, the art director should get a raise for this -THE VOICE ACTING is also top tier, every character is brought to life with so much passion and love -The dialogue quality is also amazing and really reminded me of Naughty Dog games -How the characters behave and communicate with each other is simply lifelike -The characters also have complex personalities -Some very dark themes and overall a very mature story (death/loss, love, swearing, blood and gore) -The story is amazing and remains exciting until the very end -Some insane "holy shit" story moments -The game is more linear with some open zones and one massive overworld -I would compare it to Final Fantasy 10 in a very good way -There are also some beautiful fixed camera angles that took me right back to that time -The best overworld map out there, the size is MASSIVE and full of content (hidden areas, superbosses, shortcuts, lore and more) -You can camp everywhere on the map -Camp is your hub that will change overtime (extra dialogue, new NPCs, side content, listen to music and more) -You can level up your relationships with various characters -Romances are also a thing -Exploration is very rewarding, no minimap works great -Dedicated jump button and no fall damage is a huge win -There are so many cool things to collect -The game will respect your time, no long walks and good checkpoints -New outfits and weapons will look different (also in cutscenes) -You can skip cutscenes before boss attempts -The combat is super fun and a mix of Persona, Final Fantasy 10 and Legend of Dragoon -One button press combat is just stunning and will flow over time -You can see every enemy before the fight, quick in and out -Some of the boss fights are gigantic with insane attacks and some stunning "From Software boss arenas" (no joke) -The enemy variety is great with some terrifying creature design -The build variety is also crazy with so many combinations -Some of the late game bosses and especially the superbosses are no joke -Soundtrack is insane and every track is a banger -Different battle themes, boss themes, secret boss themes and many more -Some of the tracks especially in the emotional scenes hit me so hard -Game is super polished but I've encountered some small bugs (sound disappear, could no longer jump and some other small things) -Bugs got easy fixed with a reload (day 1 patch could fix that) -Not a fan of some jumping puzzles, but there are optional -Skill management becomes a little bit confusing as the game progresses (menu design could be better) -Would love a mechanic to kill lower level enemies fast and quick -New game plus on day 1 (with extra stuff) is amazing -The game is made by around 30 people, 30 hours of main story, 30 hours of bonus content, insane number of outfits, story focused, no microtransactions bullshit, new game plus mode on day 1 and a price tag of around 50 bucks, need I say more This game is brimming with attention to detail and is a true passion project by fans for fans. The developers may not have had the biggest budget, but they had a clear vision and the result is simply outstanding. My Verdict: 9.5/10 #ClairObscurExpedition33 Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 Shuhei Yoshida
0:20

I played Clair Obscur Expedition 33 for 60+ hours, defeated all the superbosses and here is my review: -2 graphic modes on PS5 -Many options (Motion Blur, Film Grain, Chromatic Aberration and more) -Played the game on the PS5 in performance mode -Solid 60fps with great picture quality -Very fast loading times -Minimal hud design -Played on the normal difficulty (was just right) -You can change the difficulty anytime (up and down) -The visuals and art direction in this game are insane, trust me -Every new location looks stunning and tells a story -The art direction is so unreal but also so authentic at the same time, stunnig work, the art director should get a raise for this -THE VOICE ACTING is also top tier, every character is brought to life with so much passion and love -The dialogue quality is also amazing and really reminded me of Naughty Dog games -How the characters behave and communicate with each other is simply lifelike -The characters also have complex personalities -Some very dark themes and overall a very mature story (death/loss, love, swearing, blood and gore) -The story is amazing and remains exciting until the very end -Some insane "holy shit" story moments -The game is more linear with some open zones and one massive overworld -I would compare it to Final Fantasy 10 in a very good way -There are also some beautiful fixed camera angles that took me right back to that time -The best overworld map out there, the size is MASSIVE and full of content (hidden areas, superbosses, shortcuts, lore and more) -You can camp everywhere on the map -Camp is your hub that will change overtime (extra dialogue, new NPCs, side content, listen to music and more) -You can level up your relationships with various characters -Romances are also a thing -Exploration is very rewarding, no minimap works great -Dedicated jump button and no fall damage is a huge win -There are so many cool things to collect -The game will respect your time, no long walks and good checkpoints -New outfits and weapons will look different (also in cutscenes) -You can skip cutscenes before boss attempts -The combat is super fun and a mix of Persona, Final Fantasy 10 and Legend of Dragoon -One button press combat is just stunning and will flow over time -You can see every enemy before the fight, quick in and out -Some of the boss fights are gigantic with insane attacks and some stunning "From Software boss arenas" (no joke) -The enemy variety is great with some terrifying creature design -The build variety is also crazy with so many combinations -Some of the late game bosses and especially the superbosses are no joke -Soundtrack is insane and every track is a banger -Different battle themes, boss themes, secret boss themes and many more -Some of the tracks especially in the emotional scenes hit me so hard -Game is super polished but I've encountered some small bugs (sound disappear, could no longer jump and some other small things) -Bugs got easy fixed with a reload (day 1 patch could fix that) -Not a fan of some jumping puzzles, but there are optional -Skill management becomes a little bit confusing as the game progresses (menu design could be better) -Would love a mechanic to kill lower level enemies fast and quick -New game plus on day 1 (with extra stuff) is amazing -The game is made by around 30 people, 30 hours of main story, 30 hours of bonus content, insane number of outfits, story focused, no microtransactions bullshit, new game plus mode on day 1 and a price tag of around 50 bucks, need I say more This game is brimming with attention to detail and is a true passion project by fans for fans. The developers may not have had the biggest budget, but they had a clear vision and the result is simply outstanding. My Verdict: 9.5/10 #ClairObscurExpedition33 Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 Shuhei Yoshida

GermanStrands

800,379 просмотров • 1 год назад

I've been saying it for months: The AI hype will die. And I'm watching it happen in real time. Let me tell you something about market cycles after 45 years on Wall Strett: When everyone believes the same story, when valuations price in perfection, when "this time is different" becomes consensus... That's when the trade is OVER. The Mag 7 spent $380 billion on AI infrastructure in 2025. CFOs across America can't point to measurable returns. No productivity gains. No labor savings. No revenue acceleration. Just massive capex and promises of transformation "coming soon." I've seen this play out before. Dotcom 2000. Everyone knew the internet would change everything. They were RIGHT about the technology. They were WRONG about the timing and the valuations. The companies that survived took 15 years to make new highs. Here's what's happening now: The Mag 7 has already started underperforming. Since October 2025, the S&P 493 is outperforming the Magnificent 7. Small caps are waking up. The Russell 2000 is finally showing signs of life after years of underperformance. This is the rotation I predicted. And it's just getting started. Why small caps now? Because they're trading at decade-low valuations relative to Big Tech. The P/E spread is 10+ points. But earnings growth is only 5 points lower. You're getting 95% of the growth at 50% of the valuation. The Mag 7 is priced for AI transformation happening NOW. But Goldman says measurable GDP impact doesn't start until 2027. That's a 2-3 year gap between expectations and reality. Markets don't wait politely when they realize they're wrong. I ran the #1 mutual fund in the country at Fidelity and worked under Peter Lynch. And I'm telling you: This is what a market top in a narrow leadership group looks like. Not a crash. Not a crisis. Just a slow realization that the future takes longer to arrive than the stock price assumed. Meanwhile, small and mid-caps are trading like it's 2008. Except we're not in a financial crisis. We're in a market where everyone is crowded into seven stocks and ignoring 2,500 others. That doesn't last. The AI infrastructure build is real. But infrastructure builders get paid first. Productivity beneficiaries get paid later. Much later. And the market is finally starting to figure that out.
2:22

I've been saying it for months: The AI hype will die. And I'm watching it happen in real time. Let me tell you something about market cycles after 45 years on Wall Strett: When everyone believes the same story, when valuations price in perfection, when "this time is different" becomes consensus... That's when the trade is OVER. The Mag 7 spent $380 billion on AI infrastructure in 2025. CFOs across America can't point to measurable returns. No productivity gains. No labor savings. No revenue acceleration. Just massive capex and promises of transformation "coming soon." I've seen this play out before. Dotcom 2000. Everyone knew the internet would change everything. They were RIGHT about the technology. They were WRONG about the timing and the valuations. The companies that survived took 15 years to make new highs. Here's what's happening now: The Mag 7 has already started underperforming. Since October 2025, the S&P 493 is outperforming the Magnificent 7. Small caps are waking up. The Russell 2000 is finally showing signs of life after years of underperformance. This is the rotation I predicted. And it's just getting started. Why small caps now? Because they're trading at decade-low valuations relative to Big Tech. The P/E spread is 10+ points. But earnings growth is only 5 points lower. You're getting 95% of the growth at 50% of the valuation. The Mag 7 is priced for AI transformation happening NOW. But Goldman says measurable GDP impact doesn't start until 2027. That's a 2-3 year gap between expectations and reality. Markets don't wait politely when they realize they're wrong. I ran the #1 mutual fund in the country at Fidelity and worked under Peter Lynch. And I'm telling you: This is what a market top in a narrow leadership group looks like. Not a crash. Not a crisis. Just a slow realization that the future takes longer to arrive than the stock price assumed. Meanwhile, small and mid-caps are trading like it's 2008. Except we're not in a financial crisis. We're in a market where everyone is crowded into seven stocks and ignoring 2,500 others. That doesn't last. The AI infrastructure build is real. But infrastructure builders get paid first. Productivity beneficiaries get paid later. Much later. And the market is finally starting to figure that out.

George Noble

109,071 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Now that I'm 80 hours in and have completed Rinacita, I want to give my thoughts on Wuthering Waves as a whole, both from the perspective of a new player and as someone who hates the gacha monetization model. When I first started I was told that 1.0 (The first arc/region of the game) was mid. I disagree with that sentiment. While the first 7 or so hours were bogged down a bit by lore terms and exposition that often left me confused, around Yinlin's companion quest is when I started getting invested and upon reaching Mt. Firmament (10-15 hours?) I was locked in. What I WILL say, is that the first arc of the game is mid in COMPARISON to what the game offers and becomes later on in every single regard, writing, dialogue, gameplay, music, map/world design, everything. Rinacita is truly a game changer and you can see the game's budget increase in real time with higher quality animations and cutscenes, as well as the map basically being an entire game on top. Every single companion quest without fail has ranged from solid to great, even making me tear up on a few occasions (Encore lol) and making me care about characters I never thought I would. They're truly a highlight and the writing is what makes this game go from just playing with attractive characters to playing with characters you actually care about. The sheer amount of content this game offers is absurd with both varying forms of short/long form content. It's hard for the game to feel repetitive when it gives you a new character to play as or constantly introduces new mechanics. (puzzles, traversal, combat challenges, bosses, etc) Even 80 hours in there's constantly new mechanics being introduced to me. The combat and team building is great, simple but with a level of depth that allows for some player expression (especially newer characters) and the various Forte's and movesets of the characters are both satisfying and incredibly flashy. The audio design specifically on some attacks is very punchy like Chisa's ult. The game is also just, gorgeous. The art design for everything in Wuwa is stunning, the map sizes are huge with varying biomes and the heights you can fly can be jaw dropping at times. Almost every location is screenshot worthy and the music does a lot of heavy lifting to, especially once you get to Rinacita. Wuwa just might also be the most F2P friendly Gacha that exists and while I stand by the idea that every game (including this one) would be better without gacha systems I have to give credit where it's due. It is INCREDIBLY generous with summoning currency (asterite) and I'd even wager to say, due to the store prices being absurd (If I remember correctly it's about $25 for 1 multi-summon) unless you're very well off it's a horrible decision to spend money for summons in this game when you could easily grind that in 2-3 hours of gameplay. Not to mention the pity system being very favorable and lenient. Even if you find yourself playing with mostly base characters for 40 hours (like I did because I didn't know you got more asterite from exploring than doing quests) the game is constantly giving you new characters to temporarily play as in quests to stop combat from getting too repetitive. Once again the characters are a massive highlight, in design, gameplay and writing, this is quickly becoming one of my favorite worlds where every arc introduces new favorites for me. I find myself enjoying where Rover is being taken as a character and that she's starting to speak more and more, slowly seeming to become less of a self-insert even if she'll always be that to an extent. I'm not going to lie to you and say the story is some unique masterpiece that avoids all tropes. It's not, you've likely seen similar stories told, but it executes everything at a high level and accomplishes what it's trying to do. The biggest flaws are the file size and the prices of the in-game store, as well as it's nature as a gacha game. Even if it may be the most generous one. The actual optimization of the game I find is solid, on PC with a 4060 I run on almost max settings and get 70+fps even with how massive the world is. The starting few hours can also be slow and exposition heavy with lore-terms you don't understand. Leaving you confused and disconnected for awhile, even later on in Rinacita the dialogue can stretch on for too long sometimes which can be a pace killer, but it doesn't ruin the quality of the stories it's trying to tell. From what people say I haven't even gotten to the best part of the game and I'm very excited! If I were to give a current rating, it would be a 8/10 and as long as you don't spend money on summons, I would recommend at least giving it a try.
11:03

Now that I'm 80 hours in and have completed Rinacita, I want to give my thoughts on Wuthering Waves as a whole, both from the perspective of a new player and as someone who hates the gacha monetization model. When I first started I was told that 1.0 (The first arc/region of the game) was mid. I disagree with that sentiment. While the first 7 or so hours were bogged down a bit by lore terms and exposition that often left me confused, around Yinlin's companion quest is when I started getting invested and upon reaching Mt. Firmament (10-15 hours?) I was locked in. What I WILL say, is that the first arc of the game is mid in COMPARISON to what the game offers and becomes later on in every single regard, writing, dialogue, gameplay, music, map/world design, everything. Rinacita is truly a game changer and you can see the game's budget increase in real time with higher quality animations and cutscenes, as well as the map basically being an entire game on top. Every single companion quest without fail has ranged from solid to great, even making me tear up on a few occasions (Encore lol) and making me care about characters I never thought I would. They're truly a highlight and the writing is what makes this game go from just playing with attractive characters to playing with characters you actually care about. The sheer amount of content this game offers is absurd with both varying forms of short/long form content. It's hard for the game to feel repetitive when it gives you a new character to play as or constantly introduces new mechanics. (puzzles, traversal, combat challenges, bosses, etc) Even 80 hours in there's constantly new mechanics being introduced to me. The combat and team building is great, simple but with a level of depth that allows for some player expression (especially newer characters) and the various Forte's and movesets of the characters are both satisfying and incredibly flashy. The audio design specifically on some attacks is very punchy like Chisa's ult. The game is also just, gorgeous. The art design for everything in Wuwa is stunning, the map sizes are huge with varying biomes and the heights you can fly can be jaw dropping at times. Almost every location is screenshot worthy and the music does a lot of heavy lifting to, especially once you get to Rinacita. Wuwa just might also be the most F2P friendly Gacha that exists and while I stand by the idea that every game (including this one) would be better without gacha systems I have to give credit where it's due. It is INCREDIBLY generous with summoning currency (asterite) and I'd even wager to say, due to the store prices being absurd (If I remember correctly it's about $25 for 1 multi-summon) unless you're very well off it's a horrible decision to spend money for summons in this game when you could easily grind that in 2-3 hours of gameplay. Not to mention the pity system being very favorable and lenient. Even if you find yourself playing with mostly base characters for 40 hours (like I did because I didn't know you got more asterite from exploring than doing quests) the game is constantly giving you new characters to temporarily play as in quests to stop combat from getting too repetitive. Once again the characters are a massive highlight, in design, gameplay and writing, this is quickly becoming one of my favorite worlds where every arc introduces new favorites for me. I find myself enjoying where Rover is being taken as a character and that she's starting to speak more and more, slowly seeming to become less of a self-insert even if she'll always be that to an extent. I'm not going to lie to you and say the story is some unique masterpiece that avoids all tropes. It's not, you've likely seen similar stories told, but it executes everything at a high level and accomplishes what it's trying to do. The biggest flaws are the file size and the prices of the in-game store, as well as it's nature as a gacha game. Even if it may be the most generous one. The actual optimization of the game I find is solid, on PC with a 4060 I run on almost max settings and get 70+fps even with how massive the world is. The starting few hours can also be slow and exposition heavy with lore-terms you don't understand. Leaving you confused and disconnected for awhile, even later on in Rinacita the dialogue can stretch on for too long sometimes which can be a pace killer, but it doesn't ruin the quality of the stories it's trying to tell. From what people say I haven't even gotten to the best part of the game and I'm very excited! If I were to give a current rating, it would be a 8/10 and as long as you don't spend money on summons, I would recommend at least giving it a try.

🎮𝙆𝙖𝙞𝙮𝙖🎮

100,729 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

If you’re still into web3 gaming, here’s why you need to pivot to Fableborne: 1. We have true, data backed, battle-tested conviction in Fableborne from a core loop, player progression, and marketability perspectives. 1a. Pixion Games, our studio creating Fableborne, has killed 5 games prior to Fableborne. Emotional ties, hard work, and lots of time went into those 5. But as we know in game dev, you have to cut your losses when you know it won’t be a hit. Gaming is a hits driven business. You either create a mega hit, or you die. The space is too consolidated to be good, great or exceptional. You need to be a hit. 1b. So why didn’t we kill Fableborne and why do we believe it will be a hit? If you’re doing it right, each game you “kill” should get you one step closer to your hit title. Time not wasted, and taking learnings along the way. As I said above, we’ve performed marketability tests and battle tested Fableborne over and over. When the data is as strong as it was for Fableborne, you go all in. Now it’s up to our team to execute and deliver. 1c. Speaking of the team, how do we know that the people looking at this data I’m talking about know how to use it and execute upon it? I can go on and on about every one of our 25 team members, but let’s look at 2 key players: The man leading the charge Kam, our founder, does not lose. I see lots of Pokemon and Magic The Gathering TCG fans in Web3. Well Kam was given the impossible task of talking Yugioh at Konami, and beating out these two giants. He grew Yugioh to a 9 figure market in Europe and crushed them both. If that isn’t impressive to you, I SUMMON POT OF GREED AND DRAW TWO ADDITIONAL CARDS! We have Maria | Fableborne. Lots of you web3 mfs post about the Grand Exchange and say RuneScape streets raised you. Maria, who leads our Product and Game design was the product manager at Jagex/Runescape for their live-ops and player UA funnels. I give you free armor trimming in Fableborne. TLDR, our team is stacked and the best in web3. 1d. Now does all of the above guarantee success? Of course not. But in this space you have the luxury of being able to place bets on success. Our conviction in Fableborne is more than strong. Our testing (pre-tge might I add not after 🥴) indicates we could have a hit on our hands. Which is why we are also confident in Fableborne leading the charge for $POWER and Power Protocol. You don’t launch a token without max, data backed, battle tested conviction, and we have it in droves. 2. The game creates viral, organic hype. Much to the dismay of our community, Fableborne has only been live and playable for about 10-11 weeks in the last 14 months. Believe it or not. Yet it’s still touted as one of, and to many, the best game in web3. When we turn it on, it has taken over the timeline and CT mindshare every single time. Millions in earned media from true organic UGC. We haven’t done massive creator prize pools, info-fi slop, “ambassadors” who are paid shills renamed as ambassadors who are ambassadors for 50 different companies, etc. we’ve worked with some creators for sure, but the hype is real at large. For example, we’ve worked with Kyroh, but it was not part of any of his deal to acquire 3% of our NFTs. He does that because he has max conviction and wants to be king. 2a. The above has been with Fableborne at ~35% of its full potential. It will only get more fun, more complete of an experience, more powerful. Some of these new systems will be available for you in S4 👀 I’m running out of characters. Join us. join Fableborne. Sentiment on gaming is at an all time low . Probably means there’s no better time to get in. If web3 gaming needs a hero , it just might be us . Gn
1:24

If you’re still into web3 gaming, here’s why you need to pivot to Fableborne: 1. We have true, data backed, battle-tested conviction in Fableborne from a core loop, player progression, and marketability perspectives. 1a. Pixion Games, our studio creating Fableborne, has killed 5 games prior to Fableborne. Emotional ties, hard work, and lots of time went into those 5. But as we know in game dev, you have to cut your losses when you know it won’t be a hit. Gaming is a hits driven business. You either create a mega hit, or you die. The space is too consolidated to be good, great or exceptional. You need to be a hit. 1b. So why didn’t we kill Fableborne and why do we believe it will be a hit? If you’re doing it right, each game you “kill” should get you one step closer to your hit title. Time not wasted, and taking learnings along the way. As I said above, we’ve performed marketability tests and battle tested Fableborne over and over. When the data is as strong as it was for Fableborne, you go all in. Now it’s up to our team to execute and deliver. 1c. Speaking of the team, how do we know that the people looking at this data I’m talking about know how to use it and execute upon it? I can go on and on about every one of our 25 team members, but let’s look at 2 key players: The man leading the charge Kam, our founder, does not lose. I see lots of Pokemon and Magic The Gathering TCG fans in Web3. Well Kam was given the impossible task of talking Yugioh at Konami, and beating out these two giants. He grew Yugioh to a 9 figure market in Europe and crushed them both. If that isn’t impressive to you, I SUMMON POT OF GREED AND DRAW TWO ADDITIONAL CARDS! We have Maria | Fableborne. Lots of you web3 mfs post about the Grand Exchange and say RuneScape streets raised you. Maria, who leads our Product and Game design was the product manager at Jagex/Runescape for their live-ops and player UA funnels. I give you free armor trimming in Fableborne. TLDR, our team is stacked and the best in web3. 1d. Now does all of the above guarantee success? Of course not. But in this space you have the luxury of being able to place bets on success. Our conviction in Fableborne is more than strong. Our testing (pre-tge might I add not after 🥴) indicates we could have a hit on our hands. Which is why we are also confident in Fableborne leading the charge for $POWER and Power Protocol. You don’t launch a token without max, data backed, battle tested conviction, and we have it in droves. 2. The game creates viral, organic hype. Much to the dismay of our community, Fableborne has only been live and playable for about 10-11 weeks in the last 14 months. Believe it or not. Yet it’s still touted as one of, and to many, the best game in web3. When we turn it on, it has taken over the timeline and CT mindshare every single time. Millions in earned media from true organic UGC. We haven’t done massive creator prize pools, info-fi slop, “ambassadors” who are paid shills renamed as ambassadors who are ambassadors for 50 different companies, etc. we’ve worked with some creators for sure, but the hype is real at large. For example, we’ve worked with Kyroh, but it was not part of any of his deal to acquire 3% of our NFTs. He does that because he has max conviction and wants to be king. 2a. The above has been with Fableborne at ~35% of its full potential. It will only get more fun, more complete of an experience, more powerful. Some of these new systems will be available for you in S4 👀 I’m running out of characters. Join us. join Fableborne. Sentiment on gaming is at an all time low . Probably means there’s no better time to get in. If web3 gaming needs a hero , it just might be us . Gn

Tcaff 🎮👨‍🍳

26,211 просмотров • 1 год назад

Chamath just delivered the clearest diagnosis of what is happening to enterprise software and the OpenAI Deployment Company is the most damning piece of evidence he could have picked. "The low end of the market is basically finished. There is no safe space." 90% of public SaaS stocks are down 30-80% from their 52 week highs, the median software stock is now negative over the last 3-6 months. Goldman Sachs reported that software forward P/E multiples fell from 35x to 20x, the lowest absolute level since 2014 and the smallest premium to the S&P 500 since 2010. The low end died first and fastest, because AI replaced it most directly. The small business tools, the lightweight project managers, the single function SaaS products that charged $49 a month per seat, those are being replaced by AI agents that do the same work as a workflow, not a product. You do not buy an AI powered tool, you describe what you need and it builds it and the seat based model that created the SaaS industry simply does not apply to that transaction. But Chamath's more interesting argument is about the high end and the tell he points to is perfect. OpenAI just raised $4 billion from 19 investors including TPG, Brookfield, Bain, and McKinsey to launch a consulting company and guaranteed those investors a 17.5% annual return to do it. On $4 billion in committed capital, that is roughly $700 million per year in guaranteed payouts, owed by a company that is projected to lose $14 billion in 2026. The goal of this venture is to compete directly with Deloitte, PwC, Ernst & Young, Andersen, and Cognizant. Think about what that structure reveals. OpenAI lost half of its enterprise LLM API market share from 50% to 25% between late 2023 and mid-2025, with Anthropic now leading at 32%. Its response was not to build a better model but rather to raise $4 billion, offer guaranteed PE-tier returns and hire embedded engineers to physically sit inside client organizations and make AI actually work in production. The reason, as Chamath identified, is that the high end of the market is not easy. "It's not like boop boop boop, put in a prompt and beep bap boop, it all works," he said and the data confirms exactly that. 88% of organizations running AI agents reported a security incident in the past year, 42% of C-suite executives say AI adoption is creating internal organizational conflict. The average enterprise AI consulting implementation costs $228,000 in year one versus $77,000 for platform-based approaches and most still stall before reaching production. Anthropic immediately matched OpenAI with a competing $1.5 billion consulting venture backed by Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, and Hellman & Friedman bringing the combined spend by the two leading AI labs on human powered enterprise deployment to $5.5 billion in a single month Chamath's read is that the high end, the large enterprise platforms like Salesforce with proprietary data flywheels, Palantir with its FDE model already proven at scale, Oracle with vertical specific data moats will survive and consolidate. The mid-market point solutions, the single function tools, the lightweight enterprise apps without defensible data assets, those are on the conveyor belt. The AI industry is not just disrupting the companies that use software but rather disrupting the companies that sell it.
1:05

Chamath just delivered the clearest diagnosis of what is happening to enterprise software and the OpenAI Deployment Company is the most damning piece of evidence he could have picked. "The low end of the market is basically finished. There is no safe space." 90% of public SaaS stocks are down 30-80% from their 52 week highs, the median software stock is now negative over the last 3-6 months. Goldman Sachs reported that software forward P/E multiples fell from 35x to 20x, the lowest absolute level since 2014 and the smallest premium to the S&P 500 since 2010. The low end died first and fastest, because AI replaced it most directly. The small business tools, the lightweight project managers, the single function SaaS products that charged $49 a month per seat, those are being replaced by AI agents that do the same work as a workflow, not a product. You do not buy an AI powered tool, you describe what you need and it builds it and the seat based model that created the SaaS industry simply does not apply to that transaction. But Chamath's more interesting argument is about the high end and the tell he points to is perfect. OpenAI just raised $4 billion from 19 investors including TPG, Brookfield, Bain, and McKinsey to launch a consulting company and guaranteed those investors a 17.5% annual return to do it. On $4 billion in committed capital, that is roughly $700 million per year in guaranteed payouts, owed by a company that is projected to lose $14 billion in 2026. The goal of this venture is to compete directly with Deloitte, PwC, Ernst & Young, Andersen, and Cognizant. Think about what that structure reveals. OpenAI lost half of its enterprise LLM API market share from 50% to 25% between late 2023 and mid-2025, with Anthropic now leading at 32%. Its response was not to build a better model but rather to raise $4 billion, offer guaranteed PE-tier returns and hire embedded engineers to physically sit inside client organizations and make AI actually work in production. The reason, as Chamath identified, is that the high end of the market is not easy. "It's not like boop boop boop, put in a prompt and beep bap boop, it all works," he said and the data confirms exactly that. 88% of organizations running AI agents reported a security incident in the past year, 42% of C-suite executives say AI adoption is creating internal organizational conflict. The average enterprise AI consulting implementation costs $228,000 in year one versus $77,000 for platform-based approaches and most still stall before reaching production. Anthropic immediately matched OpenAI with a competing $1.5 billion consulting venture backed by Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, and Hellman & Friedman bringing the combined spend by the two leading AI labs on human powered enterprise deployment to $5.5 billion in a single month Chamath's read is that the high end, the large enterprise platforms like Salesforce with proprietary data flywheels, Palantir with its FDE model already proven at scale, Oracle with vertical specific data moats will survive and consolidate. The mid-market point solutions, the single function tools, the lightweight enterprise apps without defensible data assets, those are on the conveyor belt. The AI industry is not just disrupting the companies that use software but rather disrupting the companies that sell it.

Milk Road AI

1,660,474 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

AGI? One day, but not yet. The only AI that works well right now is the one behind the screen [12-17]. But passing the Turing Test [9] behind a screen is easy compared to Real AI for real robots in the real world. No current AI-driven robot could be certified as a plumber [13-17]. Hence, the Turing Test isn't a good measure of intelligence (and neither is IQ). And AGI without mastery of the physical world is no AGI. That’s why I created the TUM CogBotLab for learning robots in 2004 [5], co-founded a company for AI in the physical world in 2014 [6], and had teams at TUM, IDSIA, and now KAUST work towards baby robots [4,10-11,18]. Such soft robots don't just slavishly imitate humans and they don't work by just downloading the web like LLMs/VLMs. No. Instead, they exploit the principles of Artificial Curiosity to improve their neural World Models (two terms I used back in 1990 [1-4]). These robots work with lots of sensors, but only weak actuators, such that they cannot easily harm themselves [18] when they collect useful data by devising and running their own self-invented experiments. Remarkably, since the 1970s, many have made fun of my old goal to build a self-improving AGI smarter than myself and then retire. Recently, however, many have finally started to take this seriously, and now some of them are suddenly TOO optimistic. These people are often blissfully unaware of the remaining challenges we have to solve to achieve Real AI. My 2024 TED talk [15] summarises some of that. REFERENCES (easy to find on the web): [1] J. Schmidhuber. Making the world differentiable: On using fully recurrent self-supervised neural networks (NNs) for dynamic reinforcement learning and planning in non-stationary environments. TR FKI-126-90, TUM, Feb 1990, revised Nov 1990. This paper also introduced artificial curiosity and intrinsic motivation through generative adversarial networks where a generator NN is fighting a predictor NN in a minimax game. [2] J. S. A possibility for implementing curiosity and boredom in model-building neural controllers. In J. A. Meyer and S. W. Wilson, editors, Proc. of the International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior: From Animals to Animats, pages 222-227. MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1991. Based on [1]. [3] J.S. AI Blog (2020). 1990: Planning & Reinforcement Learning with Recurrent World Models and Artificial Curiosity. Summarising aspects of [1][2] and lots of later papers including [7][8]. [4] J.S. AI Blog (2021): Artificial Curiosity & Creativity Since 1990. Summarising aspects of [1][2] and lots of later papers including [7][8]. [5] J.S. TU Munich CogBotLab for learning robots (2004-2009) [6] NNAISENSE, founded in 2014, for AI in the physical world [7] J.S. (2015). On Learning to Think: Algorithmic Information Theory for Novel Combinations of Reinforcement Learning (RL) Controllers and Recurrent Neural World Models. arXiv 1210.0118. Sec. 5.3 describes an RL prompt engineer which learns to query its model for abstract reasoning and planning and decision making. Today this is called "chain of thought." [8] J.S. (2018). One Big Net For Everything. arXiv 1802.08864. See also patent US11853886B2 and my DeepSeek tweet: DeepSeek uses elements of the 2015 reinforcement learning prompt engineer [7] and its 2018 refinement [8] which collapses the RL machine and world model of [7] into a single net. This uses my neural net distillation procedure of 1991: a distilled chain of thought system. [9] J.S. Turing Oversold. It's not Turing's fault, though. AI Blog (2021, was #1 on Hacker News) [10] J.S. Intelligente Roboter werden vom Leben fasziniert sein. (Intelligent robots will be fascinated by life.) F.A.Z., 2015 [11] J.S. at Falling Walls: The Past, Present and Future of Artificial Intelligence. Scientific American, Observations, 2017. [12] J.S. KI ist eine Riesenchance für Deutschland. (AI is a huge chance for Germany.) F.A.Z., 2018 [13] H. Jones. J.S. Says His Life's Work Won't Lead To Dystopia. Forbes Magazine, 2023. [14] Interview with J.S. Jazzyear, Shanghai, 2024. [15] J.S. TED talk at TED AI Vienna (2024): Why 2042 will be a big year for AI. See the attached video clip. [16] J.S. Baut den KI-gesteuerten Allzweckroboter! (Build the AI-controlled all-purpose robot!) F.A.Z., 2024 [17] J.S. 1995-2025: The Decline of Germany & Japan vs US & China. Can All-Purpose Robots Fuel a Comeback? AI Blog, Jan 2025, based on [16]. [18] M. Alhakami, D. R. Ashley, J. Dunham, Y. Dai, F. Faccio, E. Feron, J. Schmidhuber. Towards an Extremely Robust Baby Robot With Rich Interaction Ability for Advanced Machine Learning Algorithms. Preprint arxiv 2404.08093, 2024.
1:41

AGI? One day, but not yet. The only AI that works well right now is the one behind the screen [12-17]. But passing the Turing Test [9] behind a screen is easy compared to Real AI for real robots in the real world. No current AI-driven robot could be certified as a plumber [13-17]. Hence, the Turing Test isn't a good measure of intelligence (and neither is IQ). And AGI without mastery of the physical world is no AGI. That’s why I created the TUM CogBotLab for learning robots in 2004 [5], co-founded a company for AI in the physical world in 2014 [6], and had teams at TUM, IDSIA, and now KAUST work towards baby robots [4,10-11,18]. Such soft robots don't just slavishly imitate humans and they don't work by just downloading the web like LLMs/VLMs. No. Instead, they exploit the principles of Artificial Curiosity to improve their neural World Models (two terms I used back in 1990 [1-4]). These robots work with lots of sensors, but only weak actuators, such that they cannot easily harm themselves [18] when they collect useful data by devising and running their own self-invented experiments. Remarkably, since the 1970s, many have made fun of my old goal to build a self-improving AGI smarter than myself and then retire. Recently, however, many have finally started to take this seriously, and now some of them are suddenly TOO optimistic. These people are often blissfully unaware of the remaining challenges we have to solve to achieve Real AI. My 2024 TED talk [15] summarises some of that. REFERENCES (easy to find on the web): [1] J. Schmidhuber. Making the world differentiable: On using fully recurrent self-supervised neural networks (NNs) for dynamic reinforcement learning and planning in non-stationary environments. TR FKI-126-90, TUM, Feb 1990, revised Nov 1990. This paper also introduced artificial curiosity and intrinsic motivation through generative adversarial networks where a generator NN is fighting a predictor NN in a minimax game. [2] J. S. A possibility for implementing curiosity and boredom in model-building neural controllers. In J. A. Meyer and S. W. Wilson, editors, Proc. of the International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior: From Animals to Animats, pages 222-227. MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1991. Based on [1]. [3] J.S. AI Blog (2020). 1990: Planning & Reinforcement Learning with Recurrent World Models and Artificial Curiosity. Summarising aspects of [1][2] and lots of later papers including [7][8]. [4] J.S. AI Blog (2021): Artificial Curiosity & Creativity Since 1990. Summarising aspects of [1][2] and lots of later papers including [7][8]. [5] J.S. TU Munich CogBotLab for learning robots (2004-2009) [6] NNAISENSE, founded in 2014, for AI in the physical world [7] J.S. (2015). On Learning to Think: Algorithmic Information Theory for Novel Combinations of Reinforcement Learning (RL) Controllers and Recurrent Neural World Models. arXiv 1210.0118. Sec. 5.3 describes an RL prompt engineer which learns to query its model for abstract reasoning and planning and decision making. Today this is called "chain of thought." [8] J.S. (2018). One Big Net For Everything. arXiv 1802.08864. See also patent US11853886B2 and my DeepSeek tweet: DeepSeek uses elements of the 2015 reinforcement learning prompt engineer [7] and its 2018 refinement [8] which collapses the RL machine and world model of [7] into a single net. This uses my neural net distillation procedure of 1991: a distilled chain of thought system. [9] J.S. Turing Oversold. It's not Turing's fault, though. AI Blog (2021, was #1 on Hacker News) [10] J.S. Intelligente Roboter werden vom Leben fasziniert sein. (Intelligent robots will be fascinated by life.) F.A.Z., 2015 [11] J.S. at Falling Walls: The Past, Present and Future of Artificial Intelligence. Scientific American, Observations, 2017. [12] J.S. KI ist eine Riesenchance für Deutschland. (AI is a huge chance for Germany.) F.A.Z., 2018 [13] H. Jones. J.S. Says His Life's Work Won't Lead To Dystopia. Forbes Magazine, 2023. [14] Interview with J.S. Jazzyear, Shanghai, 2024. [15] J.S. TED talk at TED AI Vienna (2024): Why 2042 will be a big year for AI. See the attached video clip. [16] J.S. Baut den KI-gesteuerten Allzweckroboter! (Build the AI-controlled all-purpose robot!) F.A.Z., 2024 [17] J.S. 1995-2025: The Decline of Germany & Japan vs US & China. Can All-Purpose Robots Fuel a Comeback? AI Blog, Jan 2025, based on [16]. [18] M. Alhakami, D. R. Ashley, J. Dunham, Y. Dai, F. Faccio, E. Feron, J. Schmidhuber. Towards an Extremely Robust Baby Robot With Rich Interaction Ability for Advanced Machine Learning Algorithms. Preprint arxiv 2404.08093, 2024.

Jürgen Schmidhuber

72,331 просмотров • 1 год назад

My Thoughts on R2 after my time with it! Short review! First, Rivian completely nailed this thing. I love the positioning of the driver seats. That long front nose gives a nice commanding feel. They will sell each and every one of these! Driving impression/suspension: 9/10 I felt the vehicle has good build quality. It felt *tight* and secure. Power delivery was smooth and crisp in all-purpose. Sport mode fella unlocked and ready for all the fun things. Power is rapid and consistent with a full power moment around 35-40mph, all the power is there. There is a good amount of nose rise during a hard acceleration. But I do feel the suspension was working well to control this. Remember this isn’t an air suspension. It’s a coil suspension. There is a difference between the suspension setting soft was SOFT. Firm was stiff but not overly stiff. It didn’t have that bouncing effect that some vehicles can have when going into firm suspension. Moderate was a good balance. I wish it could be more adaptive in moderate but it’s very very good. Turn in was good, and the turning radius was excellent. Switching from D to R for a 3-point turn was smooth and quick, no jerkiness. Very good control over entrance to parking lots. Stable. Lastly, it feels like the small delay some R1 have in throttle is gone with R2. Software: 8/10 This is where you guys know I am hard on them on. Because I want the best they can give. Rivian OS2.0 is a HUGE upgrade over R1. In all cases. Responsiveness, touch input, speed, app switching, keyboard responsiveness, etc., it is a huge difference. I love the new “fish stick” bar. And settings being available with one tap and being app-dependent first is fantastic. Well done Wassym Bensaid, the halo are great. The only thing about them is while driving, it’s hard to get a direct click, especially when trying to use it to switch drive modes where you have to push towards you. The halo likes the spin/move, but I think I just need to get used to it. Living with it would for sure help with that. I’m really hoping they fully unlock customization for them. You can end up with 8 different characters you could adjust. I really like having the driver display. But driving with it, you can notice how much smaller it is compared to R1. It’s no deal breaker, but it’s noticeable. Cameras felt snapper and of higher quality over Gen 2 R1. The turn signal sounds is new I like it as well as the forward and Evers noise it makes. Think Tesla sound when shifting. Audio: Now I’ve experienced R2 3x now. With 2 times with audio. The audio was significantly better than when I got to sit it in, in Miami for a block party. It’s about as good as R1 is now. There did feel like a sub was there. That’s great. I used my Apple Music account so I could listen to the song I love. And it was great. Not perfect but good enough. Long as it’s comparable to R1, it’s okay. Cabin: It was very well appointed. I actually found it sufficiently quiet. 🤫 I think for sure it’s quieter than my R1T without question. The HVAC system design (air vent) I like better than R1. I feel like the HVAC system now can blow the air on better than trying to. I need more time to test preconditioning because that’s where I’ve seen most of the issues with my R1 vehicles. Tons of space, easy to drop the seats, it’s flat, and nice under-floor space. The 1-touch drop for all windows was excellent. Overall: I think this is the Rivian everyone has been waiting for. This will be a fantastic one-car solution for so many families. There is storage for days, off-road abilities a Model Y can’t even think of doing, but the UHF needs to improve quicker than it currently is because that is really becoming a buying decision for people. Tim and I can’t wait to take delivery of our R2 Rivian; we are ready! Feel free to ask me anything about the R2! I’ll do my best to answer it or get you the answer. It’s a 10/10 for so many people.
0:58

My Thoughts on R2 after my time with it! Short review! First, Rivian completely nailed this thing. I love the positioning of the driver seats. That long front nose gives a nice commanding feel. They will sell each and every one of these! Driving impression/suspension: 9/10 I felt the vehicle has good build quality. It felt *tight* and secure. Power delivery was smooth and crisp in all-purpose. Sport mode fella unlocked and ready for all the fun things. Power is rapid and consistent with a full power moment around 35-40mph, all the power is there. There is a good amount of nose rise during a hard acceleration. But I do feel the suspension was working well to control this. Remember this isn’t an air suspension. It’s a coil suspension. There is a difference between the suspension setting soft was SOFT. Firm was stiff but not overly stiff. It didn’t have that bouncing effect that some vehicles can have when going into firm suspension. Moderate was a good balance. I wish it could be more adaptive in moderate but it’s very very good. Turn in was good, and the turning radius was excellent. Switching from D to R for a 3-point turn was smooth and quick, no jerkiness. Very good control over entrance to parking lots. Stable. Lastly, it feels like the small delay some R1 have in throttle is gone with R2. Software: 8/10 This is where you guys know I am hard on them on. Because I want the best they can give. Rivian OS2.0 is a HUGE upgrade over R1. In all cases. Responsiveness, touch input, speed, app switching, keyboard responsiveness, etc., it is a huge difference. I love the new “fish stick” bar. And settings being available with one tap and being app-dependent first is fantastic. Well done Wassym Bensaid, the halo are great. The only thing about them is while driving, it’s hard to get a direct click, especially when trying to use it to switch drive modes where you have to push towards you. The halo likes the spin/move, but I think I just need to get used to it. Living with it would for sure help with that. I’m really hoping they fully unlock customization for them. You can end up with 8 different characters you could adjust. I really like having the driver display. But driving with it, you can notice how much smaller it is compared to R1. It’s no deal breaker, but it’s noticeable. Cameras felt snapper and of higher quality over Gen 2 R1. The turn signal sounds is new I like it as well as the forward and Evers noise it makes. Think Tesla sound when shifting. Audio: Now I’ve experienced R2 3x now. With 2 times with audio. The audio was significantly better than when I got to sit it in, in Miami for a block party. It’s about as good as R1 is now. There did feel like a sub was there. That’s great. I used my Apple Music account so I could listen to the song I love. And it was great. Not perfect but good enough. Long as it’s comparable to R1, it’s okay. Cabin: It was very well appointed. I actually found it sufficiently quiet. 🤫 I think for sure it’s quieter than my R1T without question. The HVAC system design (air vent) I like better than R1. I feel like the HVAC system now can blow the air on better than trying to. I need more time to test preconditioning because that’s where I’ve seen most of the issues with my R1 vehicles. Tons of space, easy to drop the seats, it’s flat, and nice under-floor space. The 1-touch drop for all windows was excellent. Overall: I think this is the Rivian everyone has been waiting for. This will be a fantastic one-car solution for so many families. There is storage for days, off-road abilities a Model Y can’t even think of doing, but the UHF needs to improve quicker than it currently is because that is really becoming a buying decision for people. Tim and I can’t wait to take delivery of our R2 Rivian; we are ready! Feel free to ask me anything about the R2! I’ll do my best to answer it or get you the answer. It’s a 10/10 for so many people.

Tyrone Holland🚀🧑🏽‍💻

32,078 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Hyukjae says he won’t be taking any variety shows anymore except for the ones with Donghae 🥹 #EUNHYUK #DONGHAE #은혁 #동해 E: The new program I shoot now is really more tired than I thought. I did that program for no reason, I just worried that you might get bored during my break period. I felt like I needed to appear somewhere so you could still see me and not feel bored. So when the offer came in, I didn’t think too deeply about it, I just accepted it, including details like how many episodes we’d film and when we’d shoot, with the broadcast timing ending up in a period when you might feel bored. Only later, when I checked the contract carefully, I realized we had to leave for filming at dawn. During those filming days, I was leaving at 5 a.m., almost without sleeping. I usually sleep around 3–4 a.m., sometimes 2 a.m. at the earliest. Thinking about having to leave at 5 a.m. made it even harder to sleep, so I ended up going to shoots after staying up all night or only sleeping for about 30 minutes. Even though we left early in the morning, we still had to film the whole day. I really did this show for you. As you know, I haven’t really wanted to do variety shows for years. I want to focus on my main job. After all, variety shows consume a lot of your image. Sometimes your image gets consumed in ways you don't really want, and there’s also this pressure to do well or be funny, which can feel like a burden. I feel it’s best to just meet you through albums and tours instead, so I want to focus on that. Right now, besides the YouTube content I do with Donghae, I haven’t had any thoughts about doing anything else. Like, at all. You might be disappointed to hear this, I don't think I'll be doing any other shows after this one. Probably. So, I’m working really hard on this shoot for you guys, and I hope you enjoy it when it comes out. Cr _ode.eunhae_
4:12

Hyukjae says he won’t be taking any variety shows anymore except for the ones with Donghae 🥹 #EUNHYUK #DONGHAE #은혁 #동해 E: The new program I shoot now is really more tired than I thought. I did that program for no reason, I just worried that you might get bored during my break period. I felt like I needed to appear somewhere so you could still see me and not feel bored. So when the offer came in, I didn’t think too deeply about it, I just accepted it, including details like how many episodes we’d film and when we’d shoot, with the broadcast timing ending up in a period when you might feel bored. Only later, when I checked the contract carefully, I realized we had to leave for filming at dawn. During those filming days, I was leaving at 5 a.m., almost without sleeping. I usually sleep around 3–4 a.m., sometimes 2 a.m. at the earliest. Thinking about having to leave at 5 a.m. made it even harder to sleep, so I ended up going to shoots after staying up all night or only sleeping for about 30 minutes. Even though we left early in the morning, we still had to film the whole day. I really did this show for you. As you know, I haven’t really wanted to do variety shows for years. I want to focus on my main job. After all, variety shows consume a lot of your image. Sometimes your image gets consumed in ways you don't really want, and there’s also this pressure to do well or be funny, which can feel like a burden. I feel it’s best to just meet you through albums and tours instead, so I want to focus on that. Right now, besides the YouTube content I do with Donghae, I haven’t had any thoughts about doing anything else. Like, at all. You might be disappointed to hear this, I don't think I'll be doing any other shows after this one. Probably. So, I’m working really hard on this shoot for you guys, and I hope you enjoy it when it comes out. Cr _ode.eunhae_

byeol_별

84,854 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Pressing, transitions and goals in Canada! After the hiring of Jesse Marsch this week by Canada Soccer , there has been lots of talk about pressing and transitions in the football community. This is THE style of play that we have used for the last 5 years with Alliance United FC in @L1OMens and will give you some insight in how this can look. We went away from the 'possession' based 1-4-3-3 that everyone has been using as the 'best way' to develop players and win games. Many say this is the 'right way' of playing. However, we use the players' abilities and inabilities as the starting point and based on players produced in Canada, within our youth system, this is the way we think will get us the best results and help our players get to the next level. You need to understand youth development in our country to understand what is and what is not being taught to young players. This is not a negative outlook, it is just looking at the reality. Many mistake this style of play as just non-stop pressing and chaos. Yes, these two aspects are important but it is a much more deliberate and planned way of playing that is used to predict where the opposition will play the ball, where the ball can be dictated and what areas the opposition leave open for transitions when they attack. In 2019, I was introduced to Ernst Tanner former Academy Director of Red Bull Salzburg and current Philadelphia Union Sporting Director that has led the club to being one of the top clubs in MLS and arguably the best academies in North America the last few years. Both organisations are known for their pressing and fast transitions in addition to producing top players. He became a mentor to me and gave me insights and education on this style of play. He has changed the way I look at football. Every season we try to recruit players that can play this style that I will describe below and we do not waiver in the way we played. Every game since 2019 Alliance United FC have played either in a 1-4-2-2-2 or a 1-4-4-2 midfield diamond....every game. We have no secrets in how we play. We focus on defending, pressing, forcing teams into mistakes and transition football. It is important to understand that we do not care how much possession we have and we actually want the opposition to have the ball most of the time. Stats in football show that only when a team has the ball 70% or more in a match their is a correlation to winning. Anything less is not correlated to winning in a certain match. In addition, 80% of goals are scored under 5 passes or less and under 10 seconds when regaining possession. We follow the trend! So, here are some important points based on the video: a) Pressing higher up the pitch when possible. All 11 players are committed to the team intention (principles) and if anybody is not committed and does not contribute to this style of play, they do not play. There is no leeway on this. Either you are in 100% in or you are not. All it takes is one player to not commit and the plan will not work. If we do not win the ball on the high press, everyone is to drop behind the ball as fast as possible to restart the press closer to our goal. b) Based on the opponent's scouting we press certain players and decide if will press closer to the sideline and 'pin' the player to the sideline or we dictate the passes and dribbles centrally and 'surround' the player to win the ball in central positions. We also decide if we will sometimes drop lower for the opposition to advance so we can play behind them when winning the ball. This is done if we scout that the opposition centre-backs are slower than our two strikers. This means we will 'outrun' them in the space they leave behind. c) When winning the ball we want to exploit space behind their backline as the priority which means that a player(s) need to be passing options behind the backline and preferably centrally which is closer to the goal, players winning the ball has to look to play the ball to the player furthest up the pitch. Possession is not a priority but scoring goals as fast as possible is. d) When winning the ball we stay as central as possible with passes and dribbling. We use the width of the penalty area (44 yards) as the preferable dimension when transitioning. We want to stay within this width. The wider the team plays the ball, the more time the opposition has to block the middle. PLAY AS VERTICALLY AS POSSIBLE! The emphasis is to get the ball to the two strikers and play 1v1 against the CBs. e) We know that most youth players grow up playing against a 1-4-3-3 which means there is one central striker meaning the centre-backs one back press and one can cover. Against 2 strikers this is not possible and many centre-backs do not have the ability to play 1v1 with space behind them. They are not taught the cues to step and press or drop to protect space behind them. They are never taught at youth level. We exploit this deficiency. e) All 11 players must get up the pitch to close the spaces if we lose the ball from our attacking transition so the opposition cannot transition against us and we can counter-press. f) A goal is the best outcome based on the objective of attacking but at the minimum we want to get a shot on goal from a transition. This is a quick overview of a different way of playing football that Canada will see with the Men's National Team.
1:55

Pressing, transitions and goals in Canada! After the hiring of Jesse Marsch this week by Canada Soccer , there has been lots of talk about pressing and transitions in the football community. This is THE style of play that we have used for the last 5 years with Alliance United FC in @L1OMens and will give you some insight in how this can look. We went away from the 'possession' based 1-4-3-3 that everyone has been using as the 'best way' to develop players and win games. Many say this is the 'right way' of playing. However, we use the players' abilities and inabilities as the starting point and based on players produced in Canada, within our youth system, this is the way we think will get us the best results and help our players get to the next level. You need to understand youth development in our country to understand what is and what is not being taught to young players. This is not a negative outlook, it is just looking at the reality. Many mistake this style of play as just non-stop pressing and chaos. Yes, these two aspects are important but it is a much more deliberate and planned way of playing that is used to predict where the opposition will play the ball, where the ball can be dictated and what areas the opposition leave open for transitions when they attack. In 2019, I was introduced to Ernst Tanner former Academy Director of Red Bull Salzburg and current Philadelphia Union Sporting Director that has led the club to being one of the top clubs in MLS and arguably the best academies in North America the last few years. Both organisations are known for their pressing and fast transitions in addition to producing top players. He became a mentor to me and gave me insights and education on this style of play. He has changed the way I look at football. Every season we try to recruit players that can play this style that I will describe below and we do not waiver in the way we played. Every game since 2019 Alliance United FC have played either in a 1-4-2-2-2 or a 1-4-4-2 midfield diamond....every game. We have no secrets in how we play. We focus on defending, pressing, forcing teams into mistakes and transition football. It is important to understand that we do not care how much possession we have and we actually want the opposition to have the ball most of the time. Stats in football show that only when a team has the ball 70% or more in a match their is a correlation to winning. Anything less is not correlated to winning in a certain match. In addition, 80% of goals are scored under 5 passes or less and under 10 seconds when regaining possession. We follow the trend! So, here are some important points based on the video: a) Pressing higher up the pitch when possible. All 11 players are committed to the team intention (principles) and if anybody is not committed and does not contribute to this style of play, they do not play. There is no leeway on this. Either you are in 100% in or you are not. All it takes is one player to not commit and the plan will not work. If we do not win the ball on the high press, everyone is to drop behind the ball as fast as possible to restart the press closer to our goal. b) Based on the opponent's scouting we press certain players and decide if will press closer to the sideline and 'pin' the player to the sideline or we dictate the passes and dribbles centrally and 'surround' the player to win the ball in central positions. We also decide if we will sometimes drop lower for the opposition to advance so we can play behind them when winning the ball. This is done if we scout that the opposition centre-backs are slower than our two strikers. This means we will 'outrun' them in the space they leave behind. c) When winning the ball we want to exploit space behind their backline as the priority which means that a player(s) need to be passing options behind the backline and preferably centrally which is closer to the goal, players winning the ball has to look to play the ball to the player furthest up the pitch. Possession is not a priority but scoring goals as fast as possible is. d) When winning the ball we stay as central as possible with passes and dribbling. We use the width of the penalty area (44 yards) as the preferable dimension when transitioning. We want to stay within this width. The wider the team plays the ball, the more time the opposition has to block the middle. PLAY AS VERTICALLY AS POSSIBLE! The emphasis is to get the ball to the two strikers and play 1v1 against the CBs. e) We know that most youth players grow up playing against a 1-4-3-3 which means there is one central striker meaning the centre-backs one back press and one can cover. Against 2 strikers this is not possible and many centre-backs do not have the ability to play 1v1 with space behind them. They are not taught the cues to step and press or drop to protect space behind them. They are never taught at youth level. We exploit this deficiency. e) All 11 players must get up the pitch to close the spaces if we lose the ball from our attacking transition so the opposition cannot transition against us and we can counter-press. f) A goal is the best outcome based on the objective of attacking but at the minimum we want to get a shot on goal from a transition. This is a quick overview of a different way of playing football that Canada will see with the Men's National Team.

Ilya Orlov

14,134 просмотров • 2 лет назад

"Checkmate" is Jadakiss’s sharp 2005 diss track aimed at 50 Cent‼️ released as a promotional single on March 9, 2005 (Ruff Ryders/Interscope)‼️. It was a direct response to 50 Cent’s “Piggy Bank” from *The Massacre*‼️. It grew out of 50 Cent’s long-running war with Ja Rule and Murder Inc‼️. In 2004, Jadakiss and Fat Joe appeared on Ja Rule’s song “New York.” 50 Cent saw that as them supporting his enemy while he was trying to bury Ja Rule, so he targeted them on “Piggy Bank.”‼️ Key lines at Jadakiss included mocking him as local (“in New York, niggas like your vocals / But that’s only New York, dawg, yo’ ass is local”) and warning him not to mess with him‼️. 50 also referenced chess with “This is chess not checkers.”‼️ Jadakiss has said he wasn’t initially eager for the feud and felt media hype played a big role, but once people (including friends) kept asking if he’d heard “Piggy Bank” and planned to respond, he did‼️. The track itself was produced by The Alchemist, it flips the instrumental from Big Noyd’s “Air It Out” (a beat 50 had previously used for his own Murder Inc. diss “I’m an Animal”)‼️. The intro sarcastically congratulates 50 on *The Massacre*’s massive first-week sales (~1.1 million) before pivoting hard: “Screw a press conference‼️ Press this on your conscience‼️” Jadakiss goes after 50’s image and credibility with precise, personal bars: - Snitching allegations tied to “Ghetto Qur’an” and the arrest of Kenneth “Supreme” McGriff (“I heard you put a couple good niggas behind bars… I might never sell that much / But you can bet your last two quarters I’ll never tell that much”)‼️. - Mocking the nine-shot survival story that defined 50’s brand (“You had to get shot nine times to be rich”; “Since when has it become cool to get shot and not shoot back⁉️”; questioning what the next album would even be about)‼️. - Calling out Connecticut living vs. New York street claims, lack of originality, and more. - The chorus hammers the “rat/pig/snake… animal” theme‼️. The title itself is a chess response—claiming checkmate after 50’s “chess not checkers” line‼️. It got heavy hip-hop radio rotation and charted at **No. 56 on Billboard’s Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs* chart—impressive for a pure diss track‼️. Jadakiss later noted he made “a lot of money” from the whole situation, toured off the buzz, and viewed it positively as a different-era marketing boost while 50 was riding high with *The Massacre*‼️. It’s widely regarded as one of the stronger lyrical clapbacks of that era‼️. Fans and retrospectives often praise its precision, wordplay, and how Jadakiss came off studied and composed rather than chaotic‼️. It’s frequently cited among notable mid-2000s diss tracks (e.g., high placements on various “best diss tracks” lists)‼️. 50 and G-Unit responded with tracks like “I Run New York” (with Tony Yayo) and others, and Jadakiss dropped additional responses, but “Checkmate” is the standout from his side‼️. How it got resolved⁉️ The back-and-forth continued for a stretch in 2005, but it cooled relatively quickly compared to some of 50’s longer, more personal feuds‼️. Jadakiss has recounted that 50 Cent eventually pulled up to the D-Block/Yonkers area **alone** (no big entourage), came to the studio, and they sat and talked for a few hours (with Styles P also there in some accounts)‼️. 50 even had songs for them‼️. They’ve been good since‼️. Jadakiss has described it as never being *that* serious—more media-fueled and competitive, with mutual underlying respect (he noted 50 was a fan of theirs, and they had rooted for his underdog story)‼️. They later performed together (including at 50’s ThisIs50 Festival in 2009) and even collaborated years later‼️. In short: a classic mid-2000s New York lyrical clash sparked by association with Ja Rule, elevated by a tight, well-received Jadakiss response that actually charted, and ended maturely with a face-to-face talk rather than lasting bitterness‼️💯.
2:13

"Checkmate" is Jadakiss’s sharp 2005 diss track aimed at 50 Cent‼️ released as a promotional single on March 9, 2005 (Ruff Ryders/Interscope)‼️. It was a direct response to 50 Cent’s “Piggy Bank” from *The Massacre*‼️. It grew out of 50 Cent’s long-running war with Ja Rule and Murder Inc‼️. In 2004, Jadakiss and Fat Joe appeared on Ja Rule’s song “New York.” 50 Cent saw that as them supporting his enemy while he was trying to bury Ja Rule, so he targeted them on “Piggy Bank.”‼️ Key lines at Jadakiss included mocking him as local (“in New York, niggas like your vocals / But that’s only New York, dawg, yo’ ass is local”) and warning him not to mess with him‼️. 50 also referenced chess with “This is chess not checkers.”‼️ Jadakiss has said he wasn’t initially eager for the feud and felt media hype played a big role, but once people (including friends) kept asking if he’d heard “Piggy Bank” and planned to respond, he did‼️. The track itself was produced by The Alchemist, it flips the instrumental from Big Noyd’s “Air It Out” (a beat 50 had previously used for his own Murder Inc. diss “I’m an Animal”)‼️. The intro sarcastically congratulates 50 on *The Massacre*’s massive first-week sales (~1.1 million) before pivoting hard: “Screw a press conference‼️ Press this on your conscience‼️” Jadakiss goes after 50’s image and credibility with precise, personal bars: - Snitching allegations tied to “Ghetto Qur’an” and the arrest of Kenneth “Supreme” McGriff (“I heard you put a couple good niggas behind bars… I might never sell that much / But you can bet your last two quarters I’ll never tell that much”)‼️. - Mocking the nine-shot survival story that defined 50’s brand (“You had to get shot nine times to be rich”; “Since when has it become cool to get shot and not shoot back⁉️”; questioning what the next album would even be about)‼️. - Calling out Connecticut living vs. New York street claims, lack of originality, and more. - The chorus hammers the “rat/pig/snake… animal” theme‼️. The title itself is a chess response—claiming checkmate after 50’s “chess not checkers” line‼️. It got heavy hip-hop radio rotation and charted at **No. 56 on Billboard’s Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs* chart—impressive for a pure diss track‼️. Jadakiss later noted he made “a lot of money” from the whole situation, toured off the buzz, and viewed it positively as a different-era marketing boost while 50 was riding high with *The Massacre*‼️. It’s widely regarded as one of the stronger lyrical clapbacks of that era‼️. Fans and retrospectives often praise its precision, wordplay, and how Jadakiss came off studied and composed rather than chaotic‼️. It’s frequently cited among notable mid-2000s diss tracks (e.g., high placements on various “best diss tracks” lists)‼️. 50 and G-Unit responded with tracks like “I Run New York” (with Tony Yayo) and others, and Jadakiss dropped additional responses, but “Checkmate” is the standout from his side‼️. How it got resolved⁉️ The back-and-forth continued for a stretch in 2005, but it cooled relatively quickly compared to some of 50’s longer, more personal feuds‼️. Jadakiss has recounted that 50 Cent eventually pulled up to the D-Block/Yonkers area **alone** (no big entourage), came to the studio, and they sat and talked for a few hours (with Styles P also there in some accounts)‼️. 50 even had songs for them‼️. They’ve been good since‼️. Jadakiss has described it as never being *that* serious—more media-fueled and competitive, with mutual underlying respect (he noted 50 was a fan of theirs, and they had rooted for his underdog story)‼️. They later performed together (including at 50’s ThisIs50 Festival in 2009) and even collaborated years later‼️. In short: a classic mid-2000s New York lyrical clash sparked by association with Ja Rule, elevated by a tight, well-received Jadakiss response that actually charted, and ended maturely with a face-to-face talk rather than lasting bitterness‼️💯.

(st_ides)

13,491 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Made $530,000 with Ai Bot that started with $313. Didn't know how to code. Now this bots run 24/7 printing money while sleeping. I've made the exact step-by-step guide to build this Claude Code Polymarket trading bot. Prompts. Code. Risk settings. Paper trading checklist. Everything from zero to running bot. It's free. For 24 hours. After that I'm charging $499 for it. To grab it right now: 1. Comment "Claude Bot" 2. Like and Retweet this post 3. Follow me Himanshu Kumar ( I can't send DMs to non-followers ) I'm DMing everyone who Complete the 3 steps. I spent hundreds of thousands hiring developers because he was too scared to learn. Then learned Claude Code. Built algorithmic trading systems. $313 → $530,000. You have the same tools available right now. And you're using them to ask ChatGPT for Instagram captions. This attached video is a goldmine. Full live walkthrough. Claude Code building actual Polymarket trading bots. From zero. Every line of code. Every decision explained. Now let me break down why everything you're doing in trading is wrong and exactly how to fix it. Save this post. You'll hate yourself if you lose it. ↓ Let's start with why you keep losing money. You already know the answer. You just won't admit it. You overtrade. Every. Single. Day. You see a candle move. You feel something. You enter. No plan. No edge. No reason. Just feelings. Then it goes against you. You feel something else. Panic. Anger. Denial. You move your stop loss. Or you didn't set one at all. "It'll come back." It doesn't come back. So you take another trade. A revenge trade. Bigger size this time. Because you need to "make it back." That one fails too. Now you're emotional. Now you're tilted. Now you're using leverage you have no business touching. 40x. 50x. 100x. On a trade you entered because a candle looked "bullish" and some guy on Twitter said "send it." You get liquidated. Close the laptop. Punch something. Tell yourself you'll be "more disciplined" tomorrow. Tomorrow comes. Same cycle. Same result. Same liquidation. You've been doing this for months. Maybe years. And you still think the problem is your strategy. The problem isn't your strategy. The problem is you. Save this post right now. What I'm about to show you is the only way to remove yourself from the equation. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss any of this. ↓ Here's what's actually killing your account. It's not the market. The market doesn't care about you. It's not your indicators. RSI works fine. MACD works fine. They all "work." It's not your timeframe. It's not your broker. It's not the "manipulation." It's four things: 1. Emotions. You hold losers because hope feels better than loss. You cut winners because fear feels stronger than greed. You size up when angry. You skip trades when scared. Your emotional state determines your position size. That's insane. And you know it's insane. But you keep doing it. 2. Overtrading. You take 15 trades a day. Maybe 5 of them had actual setups. The other 10 were boredom. Boredom trades are the most expensive hobby in human history. 3. Leverage. You use 20x-50x on trades where you're not even sure about the direction. That's not trading. That's a casino with a nicer interface. 4. Fees. You're smashing market orders. Paying spread. Paying commission. On 15 trades a day. Your broker makes more money from your account than you do. Think about that. Your broker is profitable on your account. You're not. You're the product. Not the trader. These four things are why 90% of traders lose. Not bad luck. Not the market. You. Save this post and follow Himanshu Kumar because the solution is coming next. ↓ The solution is painfully obvious. Remove yourself from the equation. Not partially. Not "I'll be more disciplined." Not "I'll journal my trades." Not "I'll meditate before trading." Completely remove yourself. Build a bot. Let the bot trade. You go live your life. The bot doesn't feel emotions. The bot doesn't overtrade. The bot doesn't use reckless leverage. The bot doesn't smash market orders and bleed fees. The bot follows the rules. Every single time. Without exception. Without "just this once." Without "I have a feeling about this one." Rules in. Execution out. No human in the middle to mess everything up. That's algorithmic trading. And before your ego jumps in with "but I'm different, I have discipline" — No you don't. Your account balance proves you don't. If you had discipline, your account would be green. It's not. So you don't. Accept it. Automate it. Move on. This is the hardest truth in trading. Your discipline will always fail. A bot's won't. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the exact bot setup that removes your emotions permanently. ↓ "But I don't know how to code." Neither did he. The guy in this video didn't know how to code for most of his life. Got held back in 7th grade. People counted him out early. Spent years building apps and SaaS businesses without writing a single line of code. Hired developers on Upwork instead. Spent hundreds of thousands of dollars paying other people to build what he could have built himself. Because he was scared to learn. That fear cost him years. And hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sound familiar? You're doing the same thing right now. Not with developers. But with your time. You're spending thousands of hours trading manually because you're scared to learn the thing that would make trading automatic. The fear of learning to code is costing you more than any bad trade ever did. Because every month you trade manually is a month of emotional decisions, overleveraged entries, and unnecessary losses that a bot would never make. And here's the thing that should really frustrate you: AI does the hard parts now. You don't need a computer science degree. You don't need to work at a hedge fund. You don't need to be "good at math." Claude Code writes the code for you. You just need to think clearly about trading ideas. That's it. If you can describe a strategy in English, Claude can build it in Python. "I don't know how to code" stopped being a valid excuse in 2024. It's 2026. You're 2 years late on that excuse. Find a new one. Or stop making excuses entirely. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm showing you how people with zero coding experience are building profitable bots. ↓ The process that actually makes money. Three letters. R. B. I. Research. Backtest. Implement. That's it. That's the entire process. Every single day. Research: Find an idea. A pattern. A market inefficiency. Don't trade it yet. Don't even think about trading it yet. Just research it. Backtest: Test the idea against historical data. Does it work? Not "does it look good on one chart." Does it work across thousands of trades? Across different market conditions? Across in-sample AND out-of-sample data? If no, kill it. Find another idea. If yes, move to step 3. Implement: Build the bot. Deploy it. Paper trade first. Then live with small size. Scale only on evidence. Research. Backtest. Implement. Every day. No exceptions. You know what your current process is? Feel. Enter. Pray. F. E. P. Feel bullish. Enter a trade. Pray it works. That's not a process. That's gambling with a TradingView subscription. RBI is the only process that works. Save this post. Tattoo it on your forearm. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily RBI breakdowns. ↓ What Claude Code actually does that your manual process can't. You can maybe test 3-5 strategy ideas per week. Manually adjusting parameters. Manually checking results. Manually writing code (badly). Claude Code tests 50-100 ideas per week. With parallel agents running simultaneously. Multiple strategies being built, tested, and validated at the same time. While you sleep. The guy in this video spends 4-8 hours a day building systems with Claude Code. Not trading. Building. Research. Backtest. Implement. Then iterate. Improve. Optimize. Every day the systems get better. Every day the edge compounds. Every day the bots get smarter. While you? You spend 4-8 hours a day staring at charts making the same mistakes you made last month. Same indicators. Same patterns. Same entries. Same losses. He's iterating forward. You're running in circles. Same 8 hours per day. Completely different outcomes. Because he's building systems. And you're feeding a casino. Stop feeding the casino. Start building the machine. Save this post and follow Himanshu Kumar for the Claude Code workflow that iterates strategies while you sleep. ↓ Jim Simons. That's the benchmark. You probably don't know who Jim Simons is. And that tells me everything about how seriously you take trading. Jim Simons. Mathematician. Founded Renaissance Technologies. Built a net worth of $31 billion. 100% from algorithmic trading. Not one single manual trade. Not one "gut feeling" entry. Not one RSI divergence. Not one "smart money concept." Algorithms. Bots. Systems. Data. $31 billion. His fund averaged 66% annual returns for over 30 years. While you're excited about making $200 on a trade that you'll give back tomorrow. The best trader in human history never placed a manual trade in his life. And you think your edge is staring at a 5-minute chart with bloodshot eyes at 2 AM? Your edge is building the system. Not being inside it. Jim Simons is the benchmark. Everything else is noise. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm building toward the same goal and showing every step publicly. ↓ What you need to understand about patience. This is not get-rich-overnight. The guy in this video says it directly: "This channel is not for people looking to get rich overnight. It's not plug and play. There are no shortcuts. If you're impatient, this probably isn't for you." And that's exactly why most people will fail at this. Because you want results now. Today. This trade. You don't want to spend a week building a bot. You don't want to paper trade for 2 weeks. You don't want to test 50 ideas to find 1 that works. You want to copy someone's bot, run it live with your rent money, and be rich by Friday. That's why you'll be broke by Friday. The guy making $2.3M spent months iterating. Testing. Failing. Rebuilding. Testing again. He was patient when you would have quit. He was calm when you would have panicked. He was consistent when you would have given up. Patience isn't just a virtue in trading. It's the only virtue. Without it, everything else fails. Impatience is the most expensive personality trait in trading. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar and learn to build systems with the patience that actually pays. ↓ The live streams where the real learning happens. The YouTube video is the trailer. The live streams are the movie. Real-time bot building. Real-time questions answered. Real code shown. Real mistakes made and fixed. Not polished highlight reels where everything works perfectly. Actual development. Where things break. Where strategies fail. Where code doesn't compile. Where the fix takes 2 hours. Because that's what real development looks like. And seeing the messy parts is more valuable than any polished tutorial. Because when your bot breaks at 3 AM, you need to know how to fix it. Not just how to celebrate when it works. The streams mix beginner and advanced. Start with how to automate trading. How to use AI for code generation. Then dive into the daily work. Claude Code. Parallel agents. Constant iteration. Live debugging. 4-8 hours of real algorithmic trading development. Live. Uncut. No filter. Most "trading education" shows you the wins. This shows you the work. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the stream schedules and breakdowns. ↓ The belief that changes everything. Code is the greatest equalizer. Not money. Not connections. Not a degree. Not where you grew up. Not what school you went to. Code. Once you can build systems, you can build anything. For the rest of your life. A trading bot today. A SaaS product tomorrow. An automation business next month. A completely different life next year. The skill isn't "algorithmic trading." The skill is building systems. And that skill transfers to everything. The guy who can build a trading bot can also build a lead gen tool. Can also build a content pipeline. Can also build a SaaS product. Can also build literally anything that runs on logic and code. One skill. Infinite applications. And AI makes learning it 100x easier than it was 5 years ago. You don't need to be smart. You don't need talent. You need Claude Code and the willingness to sit down and build something instead of consuming content about building something. Building is the skill. Everything else is entertainment disguised as education. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm showing you how to build, not just how to watch. ↓ If any of this applies to you, pay attention. If you've lost money from overtrading. If you've been liquidated. If you know trading is the vehicle but manual execution keeps crashing you. If you've tried "being more disciplined" and it never lasted more than a week. If you keep saying "next month I'll start automating." If you've spent more money on courses than you've made from trading. There is a better way. It's not a magic indicator. It's not a signal group. It's not a $997 mentorship from a guy who makes money teaching, not trading. It's building your own system. A system that trades without emotion. A system that follows rules without exception. A system that runs while you sleep. A system that compounds while you live your life. That's the answer. It's always been the answer. You've just been too scared to accept that the solution requires building something instead of buying something. ↓ What the next 30 days look like if you actually commit. Week 1: Watch the video. Learn Claude Code basics. Build your first simple strategy. Run your first backtest. Week 2: Iterate. Let Claude improve the strategy. Run Monte Carlo validation. Paper trade. Week 3: Go live with $50-100. Tiny positions. Watch every trade. Compare to paper results. Week 4: Scale based on evidence. Not based on excitement. Not based on one good day. Based on data. 30 days from now you either have a running bot that trades without your emotions destroying every position. Or you're exactly where you are right now. Reading another post. Making another promise. Breaking it by Tuesday. Same 30 days either way. Different actions. Different results. Different life. ↓ Full video tutorial attached. Live bot building with Claude Code. From zero to running Polymarket trading bot. Every line of code. Every decision explained. The video is free. Claude Code is available now. The market is open 24/7. The only thing standing between you and a profitable trading bot is the same thing that's been standing there for months. You. Get out of your own way. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily AI trading bot breakdowns, live build sessions, and the full RBI process. Save this post. Watch the video. Build the bot. Or keep trading manually and keep losing. The choice has never been easier. And you've never been more stubborn about making the wrong one.
18:53

Made $530,000 with Ai Bot that started with $313. Didn't know how to code. Now this bots run 24/7 printing money while sleeping. I've made the exact step-by-step guide to build this Claude Code Polymarket trading bot. Prompts. Code. Risk settings. Paper trading checklist. Everything from zero to running bot. It's free. For 24 hours. After that I'm charging $499 for it. To grab it right now: 1. Comment "Claude Bot" 2. Like and Retweet this post 3. Follow me Himanshu Kumar ( I can't send DMs to non-followers ) I'm DMing everyone who Complete the 3 steps. I spent hundreds of thousands hiring developers because he was too scared to learn. Then learned Claude Code. Built algorithmic trading systems. $313 → $530,000. You have the same tools available right now. And you're using them to ask ChatGPT for Instagram captions. This attached video is a goldmine. Full live walkthrough. Claude Code building actual Polymarket trading bots. From zero. Every line of code. Every decision explained. Now let me break down why everything you're doing in trading is wrong and exactly how to fix it. Save this post. You'll hate yourself if you lose it. ↓ Let's start with why you keep losing money. You already know the answer. You just won't admit it. You overtrade. Every. Single. Day. You see a candle move. You feel something. You enter. No plan. No edge. No reason. Just feelings. Then it goes against you. You feel something else. Panic. Anger. Denial. You move your stop loss. Or you didn't set one at all. "It'll come back." It doesn't come back. So you take another trade. A revenge trade. Bigger size this time. Because you need to "make it back." That one fails too. Now you're emotional. Now you're tilted. Now you're using leverage you have no business touching. 40x. 50x. 100x. On a trade you entered because a candle looked "bullish" and some guy on Twitter said "send it." You get liquidated. Close the laptop. Punch something. Tell yourself you'll be "more disciplined" tomorrow. Tomorrow comes. Same cycle. Same result. Same liquidation. You've been doing this for months. Maybe years. And you still think the problem is your strategy. The problem isn't your strategy. The problem is you. Save this post right now. What I'm about to show you is the only way to remove yourself from the equation. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss any of this. ↓ Here's what's actually killing your account. It's not the market. The market doesn't care about you. It's not your indicators. RSI works fine. MACD works fine. They all "work." It's not your timeframe. It's not your broker. It's not the "manipulation." It's four things: 1. Emotions. You hold losers because hope feels better than loss. You cut winners because fear feels stronger than greed. You size up when angry. You skip trades when scared. Your emotional state determines your position size. That's insane. And you know it's insane. But you keep doing it. 2. Overtrading. You take 15 trades a day. Maybe 5 of them had actual setups. The other 10 were boredom. Boredom trades are the most expensive hobby in human history. 3. Leverage. You use 20x-50x on trades where you're not even sure about the direction. That's not trading. That's a casino with a nicer interface. 4. Fees. You're smashing market orders. Paying spread. Paying commission. On 15 trades a day. Your broker makes more money from your account than you do. Think about that. Your broker is profitable on your account. You're not. You're the product. Not the trader. These four things are why 90% of traders lose. Not bad luck. Not the market. You. Save this post and follow Himanshu Kumar because the solution is coming next. ↓ The solution is painfully obvious. Remove yourself from the equation. Not partially. Not "I'll be more disciplined." Not "I'll journal my trades." Not "I'll meditate before trading." Completely remove yourself. Build a bot. Let the bot trade. You go live your life. The bot doesn't feel emotions. The bot doesn't overtrade. The bot doesn't use reckless leverage. The bot doesn't smash market orders and bleed fees. The bot follows the rules. Every single time. Without exception. Without "just this once." Without "I have a feeling about this one." Rules in. Execution out. No human in the middle to mess everything up. That's algorithmic trading. And before your ego jumps in with "but I'm different, I have discipline" — No you don't. Your account balance proves you don't. If you had discipline, your account would be green. It's not. So you don't. Accept it. Automate it. Move on. This is the hardest truth in trading. Your discipline will always fail. A bot's won't. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the exact bot setup that removes your emotions permanently. ↓ "But I don't know how to code." Neither did he. The guy in this video didn't know how to code for most of his life. Got held back in 7th grade. People counted him out early. Spent years building apps and SaaS businesses without writing a single line of code. Hired developers on Upwork instead. Spent hundreds of thousands of dollars paying other people to build what he could have built himself. Because he was scared to learn. That fear cost him years. And hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sound familiar? You're doing the same thing right now. Not with developers. But with your time. You're spending thousands of hours trading manually because you're scared to learn the thing that would make trading automatic. The fear of learning to code is costing you more than any bad trade ever did. Because every month you trade manually is a month of emotional decisions, overleveraged entries, and unnecessary losses that a bot would never make. And here's the thing that should really frustrate you: AI does the hard parts now. You don't need a computer science degree. You don't need to work at a hedge fund. You don't need to be "good at math." Claude Code writes the code for you. You just need to think clearly about trading ideas. That's it. If you can describe a strategy in English, Claude can build it in Python. "I don't know how to code" stopped being a valid excuse in 2024. It's 2026. You're 2 years late on that excuse. Find a new one. Or stop making excuses entirely. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm showing you how people with zero coding experience are building profitable bots. ↓ The process that actually makes money. Three letters. R. B. I. Research. Backtest. Implement. That's it. That's the entire process. Every single day. Research: Find an idea. A pattern. A market inefficiency. Don't trade it yet. Don't even think about trading it yet. Just research it. Backtest: Test the idea against historical data. Does it work? Not "does it look good on one chart." Does it work across thousands of trades? Across different market conditions? Across in-sample AND out-of-sample data? If no, kill it. Find another idea. If yes, move to step 3. Implement: Build the bot. Deploy it. Paper trade first. Then live with small size. Scale only on evidence. Research. Backtest. Implement. Every day. No exceptions. You know what your current process is? Feel. Enter. Pray. F. E. P. Feel bullish. Enter a trade. Pray it works. That's not a process. That's gambling with a TradingView subscription. RBI is the only process that works. Save this post. Tattoo it on your forearm. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily RBI breakdowns. ↓ What Claude Code actually does that your manual process can't. You can maybe test 3-5 strategy ideas per week. Manually adjusting parameters. Manually checking results. Manually writing code (badly). Claude Code tests 50-100 ideas per week. With parallel agents running simultaneously. Multiple strategies being built, tested, and validated at the same time. While you sleep. The guy in this video spends 4-8 hours a day building systems with Claude Code. Not trading. Building. Research. Backtest. Implement. Then iterate. Improve. Optimize. Every day the systems get better. Every day the edge compounds. Every day the bots get smarter. While you? You spend 4-8 hours a day staring at charts making the same mistakes you made last month. Same indicators. Same patterns. Same entries. Same losses. He's iterating forward. You're running in circles. Same 8 hours per day. Completely different outcomes. Because he's building systems. And you're feeding a casino. Stop feeding the casino. Start building the machine. Save this post and follow Himanshu Kumar for the Claude Code workflow that iterates strategies while you sleep. ↓ Jim Simons. That's the benchmark. You probably don't know who Jim Simons is. And that tells me everything about how seriously you take trading. Jim Simons. Mathematician. Founded Renaissance Technologies. Built a net worth of $31 billion. 100% from algorithmic trading. Not one single manual trade. Not one "gut feeling" entry. Not one RSI divergence. Not one "smart money concept." Algorithms. Bots. Systems. Data. $31 billion. His fund averaged 66% annual returns for over 30 years. While you're excited about making $200 on a trade that you'll give back tomorrow. The best trader in human history never placed a manual trade in his life. And you think your edge is staring at a 5-minute chart with bloodshot eyes at 2 AM? Your edge is building the system. Not being inside it. Jim Simons is the benchmark. Everything else is noise. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm building toward the same goal and showing every step publicly. ↓ What you need to understand about patience. This is not get-rich-overnight. The guy in this video says it directly: "This channel is not for people looking to get rich overnight. It's not plug and play. There are no shortcuts. If you're impatient, this probably isn't for you." And that's exactly why most people will fail at this. Because you want results now. Today. This trade. You don't want to spend a week building a bot. You don't want to paper trade for 2 weeks. You don't want to test 50 ideas to find 1 that works. You want to copy someone's bot, run it live with your rent money, and be rich by Friday. That's why you'll be broke by Friday. The guy making $2.3M spent months iterating. Testing. Failing. Rebuilding. Testing again. He was patient when you would have quit. He was calm when you would have panicked. He was consistent when you would have given up. Patience isn't just a virtue in trading. It's the only virtue. Without it, everything else fails. Impatience is the most expensive personality trait in trading. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar and learn to build systems with the patience that actually pays. ↓ The live streams where the real learning happens. The YouTube video is the trailer. The live streams are the movie. Real-time bot building. Real-time questions answered. Real code shown. Real mistakes made and fixed. Not polished highlight reels where everything works perfectly. Actual development. Where things break. Where strategies fail. Where code doesn't compile. Where the fix takes 2 hours. Because that's what real development looks like. And seeing the messy parts is more valuable than any polished tutorial. Because when your bot breaks at 3 AM, you need to know how to fix it. Not just how to celebrate when it works. The streams mix beginner and advanced. Start with how to automate trading. How to use AI for code generation. Then dive into the daily work. Claude Code. Parallel agents. Constant iteration. Live debugging. 4-8 hours of real algorithmic trading development. Live. Uncut. No filter. Most "trading education" shows you the wins. This shows you the work. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the stream schedules and breakdowns. ↓ The belief that changes everything. Code is the greatest equalizer. Not money. Not connections. Not a degree. Not where you grew up. Not what school you went to. Code. Once you can build systems, you can build anything. For the rest of your life. A trading bot today. A SaaS product tomorrow. An automation business next month. A completely different life next year. The skill isn't "algorithmic trading." The skill is building systems. And that skill transfers to everything. The guy who can build a trading bot can also build a lead gen tool. Can also build a content pipeline. Can also build a SaaS product. Can also build literally anything that runs on logic and code. One skill. Infinite applications. And AI makes learning it 100x easier than it was 5 years ago. You don't need to be smart. You don't need talent. You need Claude Code and the willingness to sit down and build something instead of consuming content about building something. Building is the skill. Everything else is entertainment disguised as education. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm showing you how to build, not just how to watch. ↓ If any of this applies to you, pay attention. If you've lost money from overtrading. If you've been liquidated. If you know trading is the vehicle but manual execution keeps crashing you. If you've tried "being more disciplined" and it never lasted more than a week. If you keep saying "next month I'll start automating." If you've spent more money on courses than you've made from trading. There is a better way. It's not a magic indicator. It's not a signal group. It's not a $997 mentorship from a guy who makes money teaching, not trading. It's building your own system. A system that trades without emotion. A system that follows rules without exception. A system that runs while you sleep. A system that compounds while you live your life. That's the answer. It's always been the answer. You've just been too scared to accept that the solution requires building something instead of buying something. ↓ What the next 30 days look like if you actually commit. Week 1: Watch the video. Learn Claude Code basics. Build your first simple strategy. Run your first backtest. Week 2: Iterate. Let Claude improve the strategy. Run Monte Carlo validation. Paper trade. Week 3: Go live with $50-100. Tiny positions. Watch every trade. Compare to paper results. Week 4: Scale based on evidence. Not based on excitement. Not based on one good day. Based on data. 30 days from now you either have a running bot that trades without your emotions destroying every position. Or you're exactly where you are right now. Reading another post. Making another promise. Breaking it by Tuesday. Same 30 days either way. Different actions. Different results. Different life. ↓ Full video tutorial attached. Live bot building with Claude Code. From zero to running Polymarket trading bot. Every line of code. Every decision explained. The video is free. Claude Code is available now. The market is open 24/7. The only thing standing between you and a profitable trading bot is the same thing that's been standing there for months. You. Get out of your own way. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily AI trading bot breakdowns, live build sessions, and the full RBI process. Save this post. Watch the video. Build the bot. Or keep trading manually and keep losing. The choice has never been easier. And you've never been more stubborn about making the wrong one.

Himanshu Kumar

38,153 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

251129 Mingi, TOKTOQ pop live from his studio, p.2: 💬 Is there any song you’ve been listening to these days? 🐥 I’ve been trying to listen to a wide variety lately - Korean music, foreign music, all kinds of things - and I’ve been trying to understand more lately. Some songs are actually pretty hard. My crew has been showing me the songs from new artists who are doing well these days, and I listened to them recently while working, but I can’t recommend them… they’re a bit too strong. Way too strong. The lyrics are intense - how do I even describe it - there’s no way to explain it. They’re unique though. I’ll listen more and decide. How about that? 🐥 Back then - sorry - back then I used to recommend songs. But these days, if something goes wrong, it turns weird and it can become a controversy. I feel really sorry. These days if you recommend the wrong thing it becomes an issue. I think I should try to follow the flow of the times. 🐥 Honestly, with my personality, acting mature like this feels kind of scary. My personality makes everyone feel like friends to me, so because I like animation, I want to recommend anime, dramas, movies, music - everything - but these days you can’t just do whatever you want. So I feel sorry about that. I really do. My belief is wanting to stay close to fans like friends, but it feels like a line has formed, and… sometimes that makes me a bit envious. 🐥 The company didn’t tell us not to do these things; it’s just how we decided to act. Some people act very freely, and controversies can happen, but they also get closer to fans. That part is true too, but I think this way is right for me. But there’s one thing I do feel: I’m someone who shows music step by step and works hard, and we’re singers, and we show you the music we make. In that, I’m going to be honest and show you everything without hiding anything raw. 🐥 When I write lyrics it’s a bit different, but ‘ROAR’ and ‘In Your Fantasy’ - they’re both strong in different directions. Not compromising on that is cool, I think. That’s my belief. So I’ll smoothly make that for you. ‘In Your Fantasy’ is pretty strong, right? But what did I even write? For me it was just… I like gaming and that kind of vibe, and I’m good with consoles, so I wrote things like that, but why does it… why does it come off that way? You say my smirk is teasing? You say there’s a demon in my head? I don’t know, I’m really just too pure, I don’t know anything. 💬 I became an ATINY a month ago. Please give me advice. 🐥 You’ll see the comment section here. Probably many ATINYs and Mingtis will give you advice. Please give them advice. What’s the hardest thing? They say just love with all your heart? Just feel it? 🐥 Oh but this was really funny. I was on Instagram and I saw Korean fans on KGMA going, ‘Oh, it’s Mingi! (Let’s) Bark!’ and they were like ‘Ack! Ack! Ack!’ barking. I even commented. It was really funny. But the barking - anything can happen, but the way I want you to bark is ‘Ho! Ho! Ho!’ like that. But they were barking ‘Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack!’ like a maltese. It was funny though. 💬 Why do you wear glasses without lenses? 🐥 For style. When I take the glasses off, guys like me with plain faces - how do I say it - well… well… I can wear them if I want. My face looks a bit empty without them, so I need something to fill that space. 🐥 Well, I should dye my hair - I’ll do that soon. 🐥 Is there any year-end stage you want to see? ‘Man on Fire’? Okay, I’ll try to talk about it. ‘Hallazia’? ‘Desire’? ‘Dune’? What was ‘Dune’ again? ‘Dune’ (singing a part) is that right? Wow ‘Inception’? (singing a bit) that one? ‘Castle’? Right. Okay, I’ll try to bring it up. 🐥 I’m going now. Stay well. Everyone eat. Thank you. I’m leaving.
10:26

251129 Mingi, TOKTOQ pop live from his studio, p.2: 💬 Is there any song you’ve been listening to these days? 🐥 I’ve been trying to listen to a wide variety lately - Korean music, foreign music, all kinds of things - and I’ve been trying to understand more lately. Some songs are actually pretty hard. My crew has been showing me the songs from new artists who are doing well these days, and I listened to them recently while working, but I can’t recommend them… they’re a bit too strong. Way too strong. The lyrics are intense - how do I even describe it - there’s no way to explain it. They’re unique though. I’ll listen more and decide. How about that? 🐥 Back then - sorry - back then I used to recommend songs. But these days, if something goes wrong, it turns weird and it can become a controversy. I feel really sorry. These days if you recommend the wrong thing it becomes an issue. I think I should try to follow the flow of the times. 🐥 Honestly, with my personality, acting mature like this feels kind of scary. My personality makes everyone feel like friends to me, so because I like animation, I want to recommend anime, dramas, movies, music - everything - but these days you can’t just do whatever you want. So I feel sorry about that. I really do. My belief is wanting to stay close to fans like friends, but it feels like a line has formed, and… sometimes that makes me a bit envious. 🐥 The company didn’t tell us not to do these things; it’s just how we decided to act. Some people act very freely, and controversies can happen, but they also get closer to fans. That part is true too, but I think this way is right for me. But there’s one thing I do feel: I’m someone who shows music step by step and works hard, and we’re singers, and we show you the music we make. In that, I’m going to be honest and show you everything without hiding anything raw. 🐥 When I write lyrics it’s a bit different, but ‘ROAR’ and ‘In Your Fantasy’ - they’re both strong in different directions. Not compromising on that is cool, I think. That’s my belief. So I’ll smoothly make that for you. ‘In Your Fantasy’ is pretty strong, right? But what did I even write? For me it was just… I like gaming and that kind of vibe, and I’m good with consoles, so I wrote things like that, but why does it… why does it come off that way? You say my smirk is teasing? You say there’s a demon in my head? I don’t know, I’m really just too pure, I don’t know anything. 💬 I became an ATINY a month ago. Please give me advice. 🐥 You’ll see the comment section here. Probably many ATINYs and Mingtis will give you advice. Please give them advice. What’s the hardest thing? They say just love with all your heart? Just feel it? 🐥 Oh but this was really funny. I was on Instagram and I saw Korean fans on KGMA going, ‘Oh, it’s Mingi! (Let’s) Bark!’ and they were like ‘Ack! Ack! Ack!’ barking. I even commented. It was really funny. But the barking - anything can happen, but the way I want you to bark is ‘Ho! Ho! Ho!’ like that. But they were barking ‘Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack!’ like a maltese. It was funny though. 💬 Why do you wear glasses without lenses? 🐥 For style. When I take the glasses off, guys like me with plain faces - how do I say it - well… well… I can wear them if I want. My face looks a bit empty without them, so I need something to fill that space. 🐥 Well, I should dye my hair - I’ll do that soon. 🐥 Is there any year-end stage you want to see? ‘Man on Fire’? Okay, I’ll try to talk about it. ‘Hallazia’? ‘Desire’? ‘Dune’? What was ‘Dune’ again? ‘Dune’ (singing a part) is that right? Wow ‘Inception’? (singing a bit) that one? ‘Castle’? Right. Okay, I’ll try to bring it up. 🐥 I’m going now. Stay well. Everyone eat. Thank you. I’m leaving.

Irene | AhgaTiny

161,405 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

BREAKING: Berkshire Hathaway just filed its first 13F after Warren Buffett stepped down as CEO. Wall Street spent a decade asking what happens to Berkshire when Buffett is gone. We just got the answer: On May 15, the first 13F of the Greg Abel era hit the SEC. Abel took over from Buffett on January 1, 2026. This filing covers his first full quarter in the chair. It is the most aggressive structural rebalance Berkshire has run in years. And almost nobody is reading it correctly. Here is what the filing actually shows: Berkshire trimmed its portfolio from 40 positions down to 26 in 90 days. 16 stocks fully exited. Amazon, gone. UnitedHealth, gone. Domino's Pizza, gone. Chevron cut by 35%, roughly $8 billion sold at peak energy prices. Visa, Mastercard, and Aon all sharply reduced. Then on the other side of the book: Alphabet position increased 224%. From about 18 million shares to nearly 58 million. The stake is now worth roughly $23 billion. One of Berkshire's seven largest equity holdings. A new $2.65 billion position in Delta Air Lines. Berkshire's first airline holding since they sold the entire sector in April 2020. Total stock sales for the quarter: $24 billion. Total stock purchases: $16 billion. Net selling: $8 billion. And the cash pile? $397.4 billion as of March 31. A new all-time record. Read those numbers again. This is not a passive handoff. This is a CEO clearing the decks and concentrating capital in a small number of high-conviction names while sitting on the biggest cash position in corporate history. Now here is the part the financial media is missing. Everyone is treating this like a referendum on Greg Abel's personality. "Is he as good as Buffett." "Will he be too cautious." "Does he have the killer instinct." Wrong question. The right question is why the system kept executing in exactly the way Buffett would have run it. Because that is what actually happened here. Concentrate in dominant businesses you understand. Check. Buy when valuations get attractive. Check. Alphabet was trading at a forward P/E in the teens when Abel was loading up. Sell when valuations get rich. Check. Chevron got cut at a peak. Visa and Mastercard got trimmed at all-time highs. Hold cash when nothing else qualifies. Check. $397 billion. This is not Greg Abel inventing a new philosophy. This is the Berkshire operating system continuing to run, the way it was designed to run, after the founder stepped away. That distinction matters more than anything else in this filing. Here is why. For 60 years, retail investors have tried to "follow Buffett." They scan the 13Fs the day they drop. They buy what he bought. They hold what he held. They sell when the headlines say he sold. And they almost always underperform. Because following Buffett the person was never the strategy. The strategy was Buffett the system. The patience to hold cash for years when nothing was cheap. The discipline to concentrate when something finally was. The structural willingness to look wrong for long stretches because the math eventually wins. Most retail investors have none of that. They have a phone, a brokerage app, a Twitter feed, and an attention span measured in headlines. They buy when Buffett buys. Then they sell three weeks later when the position is down 8% because they panicked. That is not following Buffett. That is using Buffett's name as a permission slip to make emotional decisions. The Q1 filing makes this point in a way no Berkshire annual letter ever could. The man is gone. The trades still look like Buffett trades. Because the system was the asset all along. The system was the moat. Now look at the Alphabet decision specifically. This is the part that should stop you. Alphabet generated $64.4 billion in free cash flow over the last 12 months. Google Cloud revenue grew 63% year over year in Q1 2026. Operating income from cloud tripled to $6.6 billion. The company is sitting on a near-monopoly in search, a top-two cloud platform, the best AI research lab in the world, and a balance sheet that prints money. And it was trading at a discount to the S&P 500 multiple when Abel was buying. That is not a hard call. It is the easiest call a value-oriented institutional buyer can make. But it requires you to ignore the entire narrative that Wall Street had been running for six months. The narrative was that AI was eating Google search. That ChatGPT was a Google killer. That the search monopoly was structurally broken. Retail investors bought that narrative and sold Alphabet at the lows. Abel ran the math and bought 40 million shares. Same company. Same fundamentals. Two completely different decisions, because one was driven by data and one was driven by narrative. The Alphabet position is already up 38% since the end of Q1. Six weeks of gains. Roughly $8 billion of paper profit in 42 trading days. That is what systems do. They do not predict the future. They wait for asymmetric setups, take large positions when the math says to, and let time do the work. Now the $397 billion cash position. This is the number that confuses retail the most. Why would the largest holding company in America be sitting on $400 billion in cash while the S&P sits at record highs? Because cash is not a position. Cash is optionality. Cash is the ability to act when everyone else is forced to sell. In 2008, Buffett had cash when Goldman Sachs and General Electric needed capital. He cut deals at terms no retail investor could ever access. In 2020, Buffett had cash when the COVID crash hit. He took advantage. Greg Abel is doing the same thing. He is loading the rifle. He does not know when he will get to fire it. He knows that having it ready is what separates Berkshire from every fund that has to be fully invested all the time. Most retail investors cannot do this. They look at $397 billion in cash and see "missed opportunity cost." They think holding cash is the same as losing money to inflation. It is not. Cash held by a disciplined system is a weapon waiting for the right target. Cash held by an emotional investor is a temptation that gets spent on the next hot trade. Same dollar. Two completely different outcomes. Here is the lesson the entire financial press is missing this week. Berkshire is not interesting because Greg Abel is a genius. Berkshire is interesting because it is the rare proof point that an investment process can survive its founder. The most important investor of the last 60 years is gone. The portfolio still looks like a Buffett portfolio. Because the rules were the asset. The personality was the wrapper. Most retail investors got the wrapper and missed the asset. They watched the documentaries. They read the books. They went to the Omaha meeting. They bought the personality. They never built the system. That is why they keep losing to the market over 20 year holding periods, while a holding company with the same playbook for six decades keeps quietly compounding. The question is whether you spend the next 20 years doing the same thing. Or whether you finally build a system that runs without you. Most retail investors will never have $397 billion in cash to deploy. But every retail investor can build the same kind of structural discipline Berkshire just demonstrated. Rules that execute regardless of headlines. Rules that buy when the math says to buy. Rules that hold when nothing qualifies. Rules that do not need a famous founder to run. That is exactly why Surmount exists. Automated, rules-based strategies that execute the same way every single trading day. No panic selling. No FOMO buying. No "what would Buffett do" guessing. Just systematic execution built on the same principle that just kept Berkshire running without its founder: The system is the asset:
1:44

BREAKING: Berkshire Hathaway just filed its first 13F after Warren Buffett stepped down as CEO. Wall Street spent a decade asking what happens to Berkshire when Buffett is gone. We just got the answer: On May 15, the first 13F of the Greg Abel era hit the SEC. Abel took over from Buffett on January 1, 2026. This filing covers his first full quarter in the chair. It is the most aggressive structural rebalance Berkshire has run in years. And almost nobody is reading it correctly. Here is what the filing actually shows: Berkshire trimmed its portfolio from 40 positions down to 26 in 90 days. 16 stocks fully exited. Amazon, gone. UnitedHealth, gone. Domino's Pizza, gone. Chevron cut by 35%, roughly $8 billion sold at peak energy prices. Visa, Mastercard, and Aon all sharply reduced. Then on the other side of the book: Alphabet position increased 224%. From about 18 million shares to nearly 58 million. The stake is now worth roughly $23 billion. One of Berkshire's seven largest equity holdings. A new $2.65 billion position in Delta Air Lines. Berkshire's first airline holding since they sold the entire sector in April 2020. Total stock sales for the quarter: $24 billion. Total stock purchases: $16 billion. Net selling: $8 billion. And the cash pile? $397.4 billion as of March 31. A new all-time record. Read those numbers again. This is not a passive handoff. This is a CEO clearing the decks and concentrating capital in a small number of high-conviction names while sitting on the biggest cash position in corporate history. Now here is the part the financial media is missing. Everyone is treating this like a referendum on Greg Abel's personality. "Is he as good as Buffett." "Will he be too cautious." "Does he have the killer instinct." Wrong question. The right question is why the system kept executing in exactly the way Buffett would have run it. Because that is what actually happened here. Concentrate in dominant businesses you understand. Check. Buy when valuations get attractive. Check. Alphabet was trading at a forward P/E in the teens when Abel was loading up. Sell when valuations get rich. Check. Chevron got cut at a peak. Visa and Mastercard got trimmed at all-time highs. Hold cash when nothing else qualifies. Check. $397 billion. This is not Greg Abel inventing a new philosophy. This is the Berkshire operating system continuing to run, the way it was designed to run, after the founder stepped away. That distinction matters more than anything else in this filing. Here is why. For 60 years, retail investors have tried to "follow Buffett." They scan the 13Fs the day they drop. They buy what he bought. They hold what he held. They sell when the headlines say he sold. And they almost always underperform. Because following Buffett the person was never the strategy. The strategy was Buffett the system. The patience to hold cash for years when nothing was cheap. The discipline to concentrate when something finally was. The structural willingness to look wrong for long stretches because the math eventually wins. Most retail investors have none of that. They have a phone, a brokerage app, a Twitter feed, and an attention span measured in headlines. They buy when Buffett buys. Then they sell three weeks later when the position is down 8% because they panicked. That is not following Buffett. That is using Buffett's name as a permission slip to make emotional decisions. The Q1 filing makes this point in a way no Berkshire annual letter ever could. The man is gone. The trades still look like Buffett trades. Because the system was the asset all along. The system was the moat. Now look at the Alphabet decision specifically. This is the part that should stop you. Alphabet generated $64.4 billion in free cash flow over the last 12 months. Google Cloud revenue grew 63% year over year in Q1 2026. Operating income from cloud tripled to $6.6 billion. The company is sitting on a near-monopoly in search, a top-two cloud platform, the best AI research lab in the world, and a balance sheet that prints money. And it was trading at a discount to the S&P 500 multiple when Abel was buying. That is not a hard call. It is the easiest call a value-oriented institutional buyer can make. But it requires you to ignore the entire narrative that Wall Street had been running for six months. The narrative was that AI was eating Google search. That ChatGPT was a Google killer. That the search monopoly was structurally broken. Retail investors bought that narrative and sold Alphabet at the lows. Abel ran the math and bought 40 million shares. Same company. Same fundamentals. Two completely different decisions, because one was driven by data and one was driven by narrative. The Alphabet position is already up 38% since the end of Q1. Six weeks of gains. Roughly $8 billion of paper profit in 42 trading days. That is what systems do. They do not predict the future. They wait for asymmetric setups, take large positions when the math says to, and let time do the work. Now the $397 billion cash position. This is the number that confuses retail the most. Why would the largest holding company in America be sitting on $400 billion in cash while the S&P sits at record highs? Because cash is not a position. Cash is optionality. Cash is the ability to act when everyone else is forced to sell. In 2008, Buffett had cash when Goldman Sachs and General Electric needed capital. He cut deals at terms no retail investor could ever access. In 2020, Buffett had cash when the COVID crash hit. He took advantage. Greg Abel is doing the same thing. He is loading the rifle. He does not know when he will get to fire it. He knows that having it ready is what separates Berkshire from every fund that has to be fully invested all the time. Most retail investors cannot do this. They look at $397 billion in cash and see "missed opportunity cost." They think holding cash is the same as losing money to inflation. It is not. Cash held by a disciplined system is a weapon waiting for the right target. Cash held by an emotional investor is a temptation that gets spent on the next hot trade. Same dollar. Two completely different outcomes. Here is the lesson the entire financial press is missing this week. Berkshire is not interesting because Greg Abel is a genius. Berkshire is interesting because it is the rare proof point that an investment process can survive its founder. The most important investor of the last 60 years is gone. The portfolio still looks like a Buffett portfolio. Because the rules were the asset. The personality was the wrapper. Most retail investors got the wrapper and missed the asset. They watched the documentaries. They read the books. They went to the Omaha meeting. They bought the personality. They never built the system. That is why they keep losing to the market over 20 year holding periods, while a holding company with the same playbook for six decades keeps quietly compounding. The question is whether you spend the next 20 years doing the same thing. Or whether you finally build a system that runs without you. Most retail investors will never have $397 billion in cash to deploy. But every retail investor can build the same kind of structural discipline Berkshire just demonstrated. Rules that execute regardless of headlines. Rules that buy when the math says to buy. Rules that hold when nothing qualifies. Rules that do not need a famous founder to run. That is exactly why Surmount exists. Automated, rules-based strategies that execute the same way every single trading day. No panic selling. No FOMO buying. No "what would Buffett do" guessing. Just systematic execution built on the same principle that just kept Berkshire running without its founder: The system is the asset:

Logan Weaver

20,503 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Why Opus 4.6 Is The Final Boss Of Algorithmic Trading (Full Bot Build) the day of the human trader is officially over and most people are still staring at charts like it is 1995. wall street is terrified because the barrier to entry just got deleted by a piece of software that can outthink a stanford graduate in seconds. they want you to believe that you need a multi million dollar education to compete with the big banks. they want you to stay stuck in the cycle of emotional trading and leverage because that is how they pay for their hamptons houses. but there is a specific reason why every retail trader is about to become obsolete unless they pivot right now. i am going to show you exactly why your current strategy is a mathematical death trap and how a single jump in technology just changed the game forever every time you sit down at your computer to draw lines on a chart you are entering a gunfight with a toothpick. the institutions have been using high frequency algorithms for decades while you are trying to guess which way the candle is going to move based on a feeling in your gut. it is not a fair fight and it was never intended to be. last year we were looking at models that could barely handle basic logic but now the intelligence has scaled to a point where the machines are finding edges we did not even know existed. there is a ghost in the machine that is pulling out strategies with sharp ratios so high they look like typos. if you do not understand how to harness this power you are essentially donating your capital to the people who already have too much of it i spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on developers because i was too scared to learn how to code myself. i thought that being the idea guy was enough and that i could just hire people from upwork to build my dreams. i got rinsed for years paying for apps and bots that did not work because i did not have my hands on the wheel. it took losing a massive amount of money through liquidations and over trading to realize that nobody was coming to save me. i had to become the person who could build the systems or i was going to be another statistic in the graveyard of traders who thought they were smarter than the math. once i finally sat down and forced myself to understand the syntax everything shifted and the world became a giant playground of data the truth is that code is the great equalizer because it does not care where you came from or what school you went to. i got held back in seventh grade and my teacher told me i would not make it around here. that kind of talk is meant to keep you in your place but the computer does not have a bias. if you can write the logic the system will execute it exactly as told regardless of your background. we are living in a time where a kid in a basement can build a system that rivals a hedge fund because the big tech companies are subsidizing our intelligence. they are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure and we are the ones who get to reap the rewards of their competition most people fail in this game because they fall in love with a single idea and refuse to let it go even when it is burning their account to the ground. they spend months or years trying to make one indicator work when the data clearly shows it is trash. you have to drop the ego and realize that your intuition is probably your biggest liability. the secret to winning is iterating to success by testing a hundred ideas until you find the one that actually sticks. i call it the rbi system which stands for research backtest and implement. if you skip any of these steps you are just gambling with extra steps and the house always wins in the end research is where most traders get lazy because they just want a magic bot that prints money while they sleep. they go to youtube and find some guy promising a ninety percent win rate with a rsi crossover. that is not research that is falling for marketing fluff designed to sell you a dream. real research happens when you dive into white papers and study what the quants are actually doing on wall street. you look for market inefficiencies like liquidation clusters and cross exchange discrepancies that are hidden in plain sight. by the time you finish this process you should have a list of ideas that are grounded in reality instead of wishful thinking backtesting is the filter that saves you from losing your life savings on a bad hunch. most people use tools that repaint or give them false confidence because the data is not being handled correctly. if you are using a basic charting platform to see if your strategy works you are likely seeing a version of history that does not exist. you need to use raw python libraries like backtesting py to see the cold hard truth of how your logic would have performed. when you see a drawdown of thirty percent on paper you realize that using ten times leverage would have deleted your account five times over. the math does not lie and it is the only thing that can protect you from your own greed the most dangerous drug in the world is leverage because it makes you feel like a genius right before it makes you a pauper. i have watched two billion dollars get liquidated in a single day because people thought they could predict the bottom with fifty times leverage. the exchanges can see exactly where your liquidation price is and they have every incentive to push the price there to hunt your liquidity. you are playing in a casino where the house can see your cards and they are actively trying to take them from you. the only way to win is to stop playing their game and start using limit orders to save on the fees that are slowly bleeding you dry it is funny how much money people will spend on food and entertainment but they will hesitate to invest in their own education. they will spend a thousand dollars on a weekend out but will not put that same money into learning a skill that could provide for them for the rest of their lives. money is just a tool of exchange and it always replenishes if you are providing value to the world. if you spend your capital on knowledge you are buying back your time and your freedom. i decided to live my life on youtube and build in public because i wanted to show people that a regular guy could do this. now i have fully automated systems trading for me while i sleep and i never have to worry about getting licked by a sudden market move again chasing the greats like jim simons is not about the money it is about the mastery of the system. he ran up a net worth of over thirty billion dollars by doing exactly what we are talking about here. he did not stare at charts all day and hope for the best he built models that exploited the mathematical laws of the market. he was a scientist first and a trader second and that is the mindset you need to adopt. if you are not approaching this quantitatively you are just a gambler who happens to be sitting at a computer. the goal is to become a quant researcher who happens to have robots executing their findings the transition from hand trader to automated builder is the most liberating thing you can do for your mental health. you go from waking up in a cold sweat checking your phone to waking up and checking your logs to see how the system performed. even if the day was red you have data that tells you why and you can use that to make the system better tomorrow. it is a process of constant improvement and refinement that never really ends. you are building a legacy of code that will continue to work for you as long as the electricity is running. i am not afraid to die on a treadmill because i know that i will outwork anyone who is just looking for a shortcut if you are still on the fence about whether or not you can do this just remember that i was exactly where you are. i was losing money and feeling like the market was rigged against me because it actually was. i had to decide that i was going to change my environment and take control of my own destiny. you have the same opportunity right now to pivot and start building your own automated future. the models are getting better every single day and the barrier to entry is lower than it has ever been in human history. you just have to decide to lock in and do the work for a thousand days until you become undeniable there is no better feeling than finding a strategy that has a sharp ratio over ten and knowing that you built it with your own two hands. it is a moment of pure clarity where you realize that you are no longer a victim of the market. you are the architect of your own financial reality and the possibilities are literally endless. i am going to keep sharing everything i find because i believe that we can take on wall street together. as long as i am breathing i will be stepping on the gas and pushing the boundaries of what is possible with code. welcome to the family and let's get after it because the machines are already running and they are not waiting for anyone
2:49:30

Why Opus 4.6 Is The Final Boss Of Algorithmic Trading (Full Bot Build) the day of the human trader is officially over and most people are still staring at charts like it is 1995. wall street is terrified because the barrier to entry just got deleted by a piece of software that can outthink a stanford graduate in seconds. they want you to believe that you need a multi million dollar education to compete with the big banks. they want you to stay stuck in the cycle of emotional trading and leverage because that is how they pay for their hamptons houses. but there is a specific reason why every retail trader is about to become obsolete unless they pivot right now. i am going to show you exactly why your current strategy is a mathematical death trap and how a single jump in technology just changed the game forever every time you sit down at your computer to draw lines on a chart you are entering a gunfight with a toothpick. the institutions have been using high frequency algorithms for decades while you are trying to guess which way the candle is going to move based on a feeling in your gut. it is not a fair fight and it was never intended to be. last year we were looking at models that could barely handle basic logic but now the intelligence has scaled to a point where the machines are finding edges we did not even know existed. there is a ghost in the machine that is pulling out strategies with sharp ratios so high they look like typos. if you do not understand how to harness this power you are essentially donating your capital to the people who already have too much of it i spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on developers because i was too scared to learn how to code myself. i thought that being the idea guy was enough and that i could just hire people from upwork to build my dreams. i got rinsed for years paying for apps and bots that did not work because i did not have my hands on the wheel. it took losing a massive amount of money through liquidations and over trading to realize that nobody was coming to save me. i had to become the person who could build the systems or i was going to be another statistic in the graveyard of traders who thought they were smarter than the math. once i finally sat down and forced myself to understand the syntax everything shifted and the world became a giant playground of data the truth is that code is the great equalizer because it does not care where you came from or what school you went to. i got held back in seventh grade and my teacher told me i would not make it around here. that kind of talk is meant to keep you in your place but the computer does not have a bias. if you can write the logic the system will execute it exactly as told regardless of your background. we are living in a time where a kid in a basement can build a system that rivals a hedge fund because the big tech companies are subsidizing our intelligence. they are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure and we are the ones who get to reap the rewards of their competition most people fail in this game because they fall in love with a single idea and refuse to let it go even when it is burning their account to the ground. they spend months or years trying to make one indicator work when the data clearly shows it is trash. you have to drop the ego and realize that your intuition is probably your biggest liability. the secret to winning is iterating to success by testing a hundred ideas until you find the one that actually sticks. i call it the rbi system which stands for research backtest and implement. if you skip any of these steps you are just gambling with extra steps and the house always wins in the end research is where most traders get lazy because they just want a magic bot that prints money while they sleep. they go to youtube and find some guy promising a ninety percent win rate with a rsi crossover. that is not research that is falling for marketing fluff designed to sell you a dream. real research happens when you dive into white papers and study what the quants are actually doing on wall street. you look for market inefficiencies like liquidation clusters and cross exchange discrepancies that are hidden in plain sight. by the time you finish this process you should have a list of ideas that are grounded in reality instead of wishful thinking backtesting is the filter that saves you from losing your life savings on a bad hunch. most people use tools that repaint or give them false confidence because the data is not being handled correctly. if you are using a basic charting platform to see if your strategy works you are likely seeing a version of history that does not exist. you need to use raw python libraries like backtesting py to see the cold hard truth of how your logic would have performed. when you see a drawdown of thirty percent on paper you realize that using ten times leverage would have deleted your account five times over. the math does not lie and it is the only thing that can protect you from your own greed the most dangerous drug in the world is leverage because it makes you feel like a genius right before it makes you a pauper. i have watched two billion dollars get liquidated in a single day because people thought they could predict the bottom with fifty times leverage. the exchanges can see exactly where your liquidation price is and they have every incentive to push the price there to hunt your liquidity. you are playing in a casino where the house can see your cards and they are actively trying to take them from you. the only way to win is to stop playing their game and start using limit orders to save on the fees that are slowly bleeding you dry it is funny how much money people will spend on food and entertainment but they will hesitate to invest in their own education. they will spend a thousand dollars on a weekend out but will not put that same money into learning a skill that could provide for them for the rest of their lives. money is just a tool of exchange and it always replenishes if you are providing value to the world. if you spend your capital on knowledge you are buying back your time and your freedom. i decided to live my life on youtube and build in public because i wanted to show people that a regular guy could do this. now i have fully automated systems trading for me while i sleep and i never have to worry about getting licked by a sudden market move again chasing the greats like jim simons is not about the money it is about the mastery of the system. he ran up a net worth of over thirty billion dollars by doing exactly what we are talking about here. he did not stare at charts all day and hope for the best he built models that exploited the mathematical laws of the market. he was a scientist first and a trader second and that is the mindset you need to adopt. if you are not approaching this quantitatively you are just a gambler who happens to be sitting at a computer. the goal is to become a quant researcher who happens to have robots executing their findings the transition from hand trader to automated builder is the most liberating thing you can do for your mental health. you go from waking up in a cold sweat checking your phone to waking up and checking your logs to see how the system performed. even if the day was red you have data that tells you why and you can use that to make the system better tomorrow. it is a process of constant improvement and refinement that never really ends. you are building a legacy of code that will continue to work for you as long as the electricity is running. i am not afraid to die on a treadmill because i know that i will outwork anyone who is just looking for a shortcut if you are still on the fence about whether or not you can do this just remember that i was exactly where you are. i was losing money and feeling like the market was rigged against me because it actually was. i had to decide that i was going to change my environment and take control of my own destiny. you have the same opportunity right now to pivot and start building your own automated future. the models are getting better every single day and the barrier to entry is lower than it has ever been in human history. you just have to decide to lock in and do the work for a thousand days until you become undeniable there is no better feeling than finding a strategy that has a sharp ratio over ten and knowing that you built it with your own two hands. it is a moment of pure clarity where you realize that you are no longer a victim of the market. you are the architect of your own financial reality and the possibilities are literally endless. i am going to keep sharing everything i find because i believe that we can take on wall street together. as long as i am breathing i will be stepping on the gas and pushing the boundaries of what is possible with code. welcome to the family and let's get after it because the machines are already running and they are not waiting for anyone

Moon Dev

46,677 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

There's a sound animals make when they've stopped hoping and started begging. Most people go their entire lives without ever hearing it. The men on that boat heard it at 6:40 in the morning, on water so still it looked like glass, in the kind of silence where you can hear your own heartbeat over the hum of the trolling motor. And then something in that silence moved. Not a fish. Not a bird. Something that had no business being where it was, doing what it was doing, for as long as it had clearly been doing it. I've watched this clip eleven times now and I still get the same reaction on the eleventh watch that I got on the first: a full-body flinch, followed by a slow, sinking realization of exactly what I'm looking at. That's rare. Most viral clips lose their power after the second viewing. This one doesn't. If anything it gets worse, because the more times you watch it, the more your brain starts doing the math on the timeline — how long, how far, how close it came to not ending the way it did. I'm not going to tell you what happens. I'm not going to describe the moment, because the moment is the entire point, and describing it would be like handing you a photograph of a sunset and calling it a vacation. You have to be there. You have to watch the water yourself and see it the way the man in the boat saw it — a fraction of a second before his brain even processed what his eyes were sending it. What I will tell you is this: there is a very specific kind of video that breaks the internet not because it's dramatic, not because it's violent, not because it's shocking in the traditional sense, but because it touches something older than language. Something underneath the part of your brain that scrolls. This is one of those videos. It hits the part of you that still remembers being small and scared and needing someone bigger to notice you. Every single person who has ever felt helpless, ever felt like they were fighting something too big for them alone, ever needed a hand reaching down when they had nothing left to reach back with — that person is going to feel this clip in their chest before their mind even catches up. Here's the part nobody talks about when they share this kind of footage: the decision-making window was almost nonexistent. There was no time to think, no time to debate, no time to weigh pros and cons like a rational adult standing in a grocery store aisle. There was a flash of recognition, and then there was action. That's it. That's the whole story of what separates people who freeze from people who move. It's not courage in the dramatic Hollywood sense. It's something quieter and, honestly, more impressive — the kind of instinct that only shows up when you're not performing for anyone, when there's no audience, when it's just you and the water and something that needs you right now. Except there was an audience. There was a camera. And that's the only reason the rest of us get to see what almost nobody on earth ever sees with their own eyes. Think about how many moments like this have happened throughout history with zero witnesses. Zero footage. Just a person and an animal and a lake and a decision made in half a second, then carried silently for the rest of that person's life as a story they tell at dinner parties that nobody quite believes. This time, it's different. This time there's proof. This time you don't have to take anyone's word for it, because it's all right there, unfolding in real time, no reenactment, no staging, no slow-motion dramatic score added in post-production. Just what actually happened, exactly as it happened, exactly when it happened. I keep coming back to the geometry of it. The distance. The angle. The way panic and instinct don't move in straight lines — they move in desperate, jagged little movements that somehow, against every probability, end up going in the right direction. There is a moment in this clip where the outcome could have gone either way, and if you watch closely, you can actually see the exact frame where it tips. That's the frame everyone remembers. That's the frame that gets posted in slow motion three days later with 40 million views and a caption that just says "I'm not crying you're crying." That's the frame you're going to screenshot without meaning to, just to look at it again after the video ends, because your brain doesn't want to let go of it yet. People love to say nature is cruel, indifferent, survival-of-the-fittest, red in tooth and claw. And sure — most of the time, that's true. Most of the time nobody's coming. Most of the time it's just you, alone, against odds nobody bothered to make fair. That's exactly why moments like this one matter so much when they happen. They're rare enough to be almost unbelievable, and real enough that you can't dismiss them as sentimental nonsense written for a greeting card. This isn't a story someone made up to make you feel something. Nobody scripted this. Nobody planned camera angles or hired someone to stand there looking heroic. It happened the way real things happen — badly framed, a little shaky, half of it almost missed entirely because the person holding the camera didn't know yet that they were about to capture something they'd be replaying in their head for years. I've spent more time than I'd like to admit trying to figure out why clips like this hit people so much harder than almost anything else on this platform. Wars, elections, business news, celebrity drama — all of it gets scrolled past in under two seconds. But this? This gets the full watch, the replay, the share, the comment that just says a single word because there are no other words that feel adequate. I think it's because this is proof of something we all quietly hope is true but rarely get to see confirmed: that when something is truly desperate, truly out of options, truly at the edge of what it can survive on its own — sometimes, not always, but sometimes — help actually shows up. Not because it's owed. Not because it's guaranteed. But because somewhere out there, someone was paying enough attention, and cared enough, to notice in time. That's a fragile kind of hope to build a worldview on. Most days the universe does not confirm it for you. Most days you're on your own and nobody's watching and nothing changes because you needed it to. But every once in a while, the universe hands you a receipt. Undeniable, filmed, timestamped proof that sometimes it does work out. Sometimes the thing that seems impossible five seconds before it happens becomes the thing everyone is talking about five seconds after. I've seen thousands of videos on this platform. I can count on one hand the ones that actually made my chest tighten before I even understood what I was watching. This is one of them. Not because of gore, not because of shock value, not because of some algorithm-bait fake drama edited together in Capcut with a trending sound slapped over the top. This is real, it's raw, it's completely unedited emotional whiplash, and it happens in under ninety seconds — which somehow makes it hit even harder, because you don't have time to brace yourself. You're just suddenly in it. There's a very particular kind of silence that happens in a room when someone shows this video to a friend who hasn't seen it yet. You know the silence. It's the one right after the moment happens, before anyone says anything, where both people are just sitting there processing. Then someone exhales. Then someone says "wait, go back." Then you watch it again, together this time, and somehow it's even more intense the second time because now you know it's coming. I've shown this to four people in the last two days. All four asked to watch it again immediately. Zero of them scrolled away before it finished. That's not normal behavior on this app. Nothing gets a hundred percent completion rate anymore — attention spans are too fractured, everyone's thumb is already halfway to the next post before the current one even loads fully. This one, people watch to the end. Every time. Here's a fact that should terrify you a little: most rescues like this one never make it onto a screen at all. Most of them happen in complete silence, witnessed by nobody, filmed by nobody, remembered by exactly one or two people who were there and nobody else. The only reason you get to see this one is a small, almost accidental miracle of timing — a camera that happened to be rolling, a person who happened to be exactly where they needed to be, at exactly the moment they needed to be there. Multiply that by every similar situation that has ever happened without a camera anywhere nearby, and you start to understand how much of the good in this world goes completely undocumented. How many small, quiet acts of decency happen every single day with zero witnesses and zero proof, simply because someone cared enough to act in a moment when nobody was watching and nobody would ever know. This time, we know. This time there's footage. And once you've seen it, you're going to understand exactly why it's already circulating everywhere, why people keep reposting it with captions that are just strings of crying emojis, why it's going to keep showing up on your feed for the next several weeks no matter how many times the algorithm thinks you've already seen it. I want to be very clear about something: I am not exaggerating for engagement here. I do this for a living. I've seen every trick in the book, every fake heartwarming edit, every staged "rescue" filmed for clout with a a paid actor and a script written by someone in a marketing meeting. I can spot fake from a mile away, and this is not that. This is the real thing, captured by accident, shared because it genuinely deserves to be seen, not because someone engineered it to go viral. The truth is, moments like this one are basically impossible to manufacture. You cannot fake the specific quality of panic that shows up right before help arrives. You cannot fake the particular kind of relief that shows up right after. Actors have tried for decades to replicate these exact emotional beats and it almost never works, because the real thing has a texture to it that fiction simply cannot copy. Your nervous system knows the difference even when your conscious mind can't articulate why. That's what you're about to watch. Not a performance. Not a recreation. The real, unscripted, entirely unplanned version of one of the oldest stories there is — something in trouble, someone who could have looked away, and a choice made in less time than it takes to read this sentence. I've thought a lot about what it says about a person, the instinct to move toward trouble instead of away from it. Most of us like to imagine we'd be the type to help. Fewer of us actually get tested on it in real time, with real stakes, with no time to think it through first. This footage is one of those rare, unfiltered tests, caught completely by accident, and the answer it reveals is the kind of answer that makes you want to believe better things about people in general. Maybe that's naive. Maybe I'm reading too much into ninety seconds of footage shot on a phone from a boat on a lake somewhere most of us will never visit. But I don't think so. I think there's a reason this specific kind of clip travels faster and further than almost anything else on this app, and I think it's because deep down, everyone scrolling past it is quietly starving for proof that the good instinct still wins sometimes. That somewhere, in some small unremarkable moment that nobody was supposed to see, it did. You're going to want to watch this at full volume. You're going to want to watch it more than once. And you're going to want to send it to at least one person the second it's over, because some things are simply too good, too raw, too real to keep to yourself. Scroll down. Hit play. Don't skip ahead. Let it happen the way it happened — in real time, unedited, exactly as it unfolded on a quiet morning that started like every other morning and ended up being one that a handful of people will never, ever forget. You'll know the exact second it gets you. Everybody does. And once it does, you're going to understand completely why this is already everywhere, why it's not going away anytime soon, and why — no matter how much content you consume on this platform every single day — this is the one still sitting in your head an hour from now. Watch it. Then watch it again. Then try to explain to someone else why you can't stop thinking about ninety seconds of footage from an ordinary morning on an ordinary lake. You won't be able to, not really, not in words that do it justice. Some things you just have to see for yourself. This is one of them. Let me back up for a second, because I think there's something worth unpacking about why this specific type of footage has such a strange grip on people who otherwise consider themselves fairly numb to the internet. We've all built up an immunity to most things online. Shock content doesn't shock anymore. Sad content doesn't move us the way it used to. Cute content gets a half-second smile and an immediate scroll. The threshold for actually feeling something has crept higher and higher every year, to the point where most creators have to exaggerate, stage, or manufacture emotion just to get a reaction out of an audience that's seen everything twice already. And then a clip like this shows up, completely unpolished, completely unplanned, filmed by someone who clearly had zero intention of ever going viral that morning, and it cuts through all of that noise instantly. No slow zoom. No dramatic music cue. No forced narration. Just a phone, a boat, a lake, and something happening in real time that nobody could have predicted five seconds before it happened. That's the part that gets me every time. The lack of preparation. You can tell, watching it, that the person holding the camera had no idea what they were about to capture. There's no anticipation in the framing. There's no build-up shot, no dramatic pause before the reveal. It just happens, mid-motion, mid-conversation probably, the way real things happen when nobody's expecting them to be filmed for posterity. I've worked with creators who spend six hours setting up a single ten-second clip to try to fake this exact energy. Lighting rigs. Multiple takes. A script written specifically to sound spontaneous. None of it ever quite lands the way this does, because authenticity has a signature that fabricated content simply cannot replicate no matter how good the equipment is. Your gut knows. It always knows. There's a reason the comments section under this kind of footage looks completely different from the comments section under almost anything else on this platform. No jokes. No sarcasm. No "this is fake" skepticism that usually shows up under viral content within the first ten minutes. Just people typing out real, unguarded reactions, the kind you don't normally see from adults who've spent years training themselves to look unbothered online. That tells you something. When a video manages to strip away the armor that most of us wear constantly while scrolling — the practiced cynicism, the ironic detachment, the instinct to act like nothing affects us — you know you're looking at something rare. Something that bypassed the defense mechanism entirely and went straight for the part of the brain that doesn't know how to perform indifference. I want to talk for a second about timing, because timing is the single most underrated element of this entire clip. A few seconds earlier or later in either direction, and this entire story looks completely different. That's the part that makes your stomach drop a little when you really sit with it. How close this came to being a story nobody ever heard, filmed by nobody, witnessed by nobody, remembered by nobody. We don't usually think about how much of what we consider "meant to be" is actually just an accumulation of tiny, invisible timing decisions stacking up in exactly the right order. A boat leaving the dock two minutes later than usual. A route taken slightly differently than the day before. A moment of quiet that happened to fall at exactly the right second for someone to notice something they easily could have missed entirely. Multiply those variables out and the odds of this exact sequence of events lining up the way it did start to feel almost absurd. And yet here it is, captured, verified, undeniable — proof that sometimes the universe threads a needle so precisely that even people who don't believe in fate start to wonder for a second. I don't think I'm being dramatic when I say that clips like this one function almost like modern folklore. A hundred years ago, this story would have been told around a table, passed down, exaggerated slightly with each retelling until nobody was quite sure anymore which parts were true and which parts had been embellished for effect. Today, it doesn't need to be exaggerated. It doesn't need embellishment. The raw footage does all the work that oral tradition used to have to do manually, and it does it more convincingly than any storyteller ever could, because you're not being told what happened — you're watching it happen, unfiltered, in real time, with your own eyes. That's a strange kind of privilege, honestly. Every generation before this one had to rely on someone else's description of moments like this. A witness recounting it secondhand, softened or sharpened depending on who was doing the telling. We don't have to rely on anyone's account. We get the primary source. We get the actual footage, timestamped, unedited, exactly as it happened, and we get to draw our own conclusions from it without anyone standing between us and the moment itself. I keep thinking about the people who happened to be nearby when this happened and had absolutely no idea, walking into that morning, that they were about to be part of something that would end up in front of millions of strangers within days. There's something almost dizzying about that. You wake up, you go about an entirely ordinary routine, and somewhere in the middle of an unremarkable morning, your life intersects with a moment that ends up mattering to people you will never meet, in places you will never visit, for reasons you probably never anticipated when you woke up that day. That's true of more moments than we realize, probably. Most of us will never know which ordinary Tuesday morning ends up being the one that quietly mattered more than we understood at the time. This is just one of the rare instances where we actually get to see it happen, see the exact moment it tips from ordinary into unforgettable, because a camera happened to be rolling and someone happened to hit record at exactly the right time. I also think there's something worth saying about the specific emotional cocktail this footage produces, because it's not simple. It's not just "aww, cute." It's not just relief. It's a genuinely layered reaction — fear first, because your brain registers the stakes before it registers anything else. Then tension, because you don't know yet how it resolves. Then, if you're paying attention, a strange kind of awe at how fast everything happens, how little time there was to think, how the entire outcome rested on a handful of seconds that could have gone completely differently. And then, right at the end, something that's hard to name precisely. Not just happiness. Something closer to relief mixed with gratitude mixed with a strange kind of faith restored in something you didn't realize you'd been losing faith in. That combination doesn't show up often. Most content gives you one emotion at a time, cleanly packaged, easy to categorize and move past. This gives you four or five emotions stacked on top of each other in the space of ninety seconds, and that's exactly why it lingers so much longer than almost anything else you'll scroll past today. I've been doing this long enough to know the difference between content that performs well because it's engineered to and content that performs well because it deserves to. This falls firmly into the second category. Nobody optimized this for engagement. Nobody thought about hook rate or average watch time or completion percentage while it was happening. It simply happened, and it happened to be extraordinary, and now it's traveling across the internet the old-fashioned way — person to person, share to share, because people genuinely can't help themselves. That's the purest form of virality there is, and it's becoming rarer every year as more and more content gets manufactured specifically to chase that exact outcome artificially. When something manages to go viral organically now, purely because it's real and it's rare and it deserves the attention, it stands out immediately against everything else competing for your scroll. You can feel the difference within the first few seconds, even if you can't articulate exactly why. I'll say this too — if you've made it this far into a post about a video you haven't even watched yet, that should tell you something. Most people don't read past the first two lines of anything on this platform anymore. If you're still here, some part of you already suspects this is worth your time. Trust that instinct. It's usually right. So here's what I'd suggest. Don't watch this distracted. Don't watch it with the sound off, scrolling past while doing three other things at once the way most of us consume content by default now. Give it the full ninety seconds of actual attention. Watch the water. Watch the timing. Watch the exact moment everything shifts, because that moment is the entire reason this clip exists in your feed right now instead of disappearing into the void the way ninety-nine percent of footage like this normally does. You'll understand within the first few seconds why this one didn't disappear. You'll understand why it's already been reposted thousands of times, why it keeps resurfacing on different accounts with different captions, why people who consider themselves completely desensitized to internet content are still talking about it days later. Some things are simply built to be remembered. This is one of them, and it earned that status the hard way — by actually happening, exactly the way you're about to see it, with absolutely nothing about it staged, softened, or exaggerated for effect. Hit play. You'll see what I mean before it even finishes. One last thing before you go watch it. I've noticed that the people who react the strongest to this clip are almost never the ones who consider themselves overly sentimental. It's the skeptics. The ones who claim they don't cry at commercials, don't get emotional over animal content, don't fall for "engagement bait" no matter how it's dressed up. Those are the ones who go quiet the fastest. Those are the ones who ask to see it again without explaining why. There's something almost funny about watching someone's carefully maintained emotional armor fail in real time over ninety seconds of unplanned footage from a random morning on a random lake. Maybe that'll be you. Maybe you're reading this thinking you're immune to this kind of thing, that you've seen enough of the internet to be unshakeable at this point. I've thought that before too, more than once, right up until the moment a video like this one proved me wrong in under two minutes. There's no trick here. No twist ending designed to manipulate you. No manufactured suspense built by a script written in a writers' room somewhere. Just a real moment, caught by accident, that turned an unremarkable morning into something worth remembering. Go watch it. Then come back and tell me I'm wrong. You won't.
1:23

There's a sound animals make when they've stopped hoping and started begging. Most people go their entire lives without ever hearing it. The men on that boat heard it at 6:40 in the morning, on water so still it looked like glass, in the kind of silence where you can hear your own heartbeat over the hum of the trolling motor. And then something in that silence moved. Not a fish. Not a bird. Something that had no business being where it was, doing what it was doing, for as long as it had clearly been doing it. I've watched this clip eleven times now and I still get the same reaction on the eleventh watch that I got on the first: a full-body flinch, followed by a slow, sinking realization of exactly what I'm looking at. That's rare. Most viral clips lose their power after the second viewing. This one doesn't. If anything it gets worse, because the more times you watch it, the more your brain starts doing the math on the timeline — how long, how far, how close it came to not ending the way it did. I'm not going to tell you what happens. I'm not going to describe the moment, because the moment is the entire point, and describing it would be like handing you a photograph of a sunset and calling it a vacation. You have to be there. You have to watch the water yourself and see it the way the man in the boat saw it — a fraction of a second before his brain even processed what his eyes were sending it. What I will tell you is this: there is a very specific kind of video that breaks the internet not because it's dramatic, not because it's violent, not because it's shocking in the traditional sense, but because it touches something older than language. Something underneath the part of your brain that scrolls. This is one of those videos. It hits the part of you that still remembers being small and scared and needing someone bigger to notice you. Every single person who has ever felt helpless, ever felt like they were fighting something too big for them alone, ever needed a hand reaching down when they had nothing left to reach back with — that person is going to feel this clip in their chest before their mind even catches up. Here's the part nobody talks about when they share this kind of footage: the decision-making window was almost nonexistent. There was no time to think, no time to debate, no time to weigh pros and cons like a rational adult standing in a grocery store aisle. There was a flash of recognition, and then there was action. That's it. That's the whole story of what separates people who freeze from people who move. It's not courage in the dramatic Hollywood sense. It's something quieter and, honestly, more impressive — the kind of instinct that only shows up when you're not performing for anyone, when there's no audience, when it's just you and the water and something that needs you right now. Except there was an audience. There was a camera. And that's the only reason the rest of us get to see what almost nobody on earth ever sees with their own eyes. Think about how many moments like this have happened throughout history with zero witnesses. Zero footage. Just a person and an animal and a lake and a decision made in half a second, then carried silently for the rest of that person's life as a story they tell at dinner parties that nobody quite believes. This time, it's different. This time there's proof. This time you don't have to take anyone's word for it, because it's all right there, unfolding in real time, no reenactment, no staging, no slow-motion dramatic score added in post-production. Just what actually happened, exactly as it happened, exactly when it happened. I keep coming back to the geometry of it. The distance. The angle. The way panic and instinct don't move in straight lines — they move in desperate, jagged little movements that somehow, against every probability, end up going in the right direction. There is a moment in this clip where the outcome could have gone either way, and if you watch closely, you can actually see the exact frame where it tips. That's the frame everyone remembers. That's the frame that gets posted in slow motion three days later with 40 million views and a caption that just says "I'm not crying you're crying." That's the frame you're going to screenshot without meaning to, just to look at it again after the video ends, because your brain doesn't want to let go of it yet. People love to say nature is cruel, indifferent, survival-of-the-fittest, red in tooth and claw. And sure — most of the time, that's true. Most of the time nobody's coming. Most of the time it's just you, alone, against odds nobody bothered to make fair. That's exactly why moments like this one matter so much when they happen. They're rare enough to be almost unbelievable, and real enough that you can't dismiss them as sentimental nonsense written for a greeting card. This isn't a story someone made up to make you feel something. Nobody scripted this. Nobody planned camera angles or hired someone to stand there looking heroic. It happened the way real things happen — badly framed, a little shaky, half of it almost missed entirely because the person holding the camera didn't know yet that they were about to capture something they'd be replaying in their head for years. I've spent more time than I'd like to admit trying to figure out why clips like this hit people so much harder than almost anything else on this platform. Wars, elections, business news, celebrity drama — all of it gets scrolled past in under two seconds. But this? This gets the full watch, the replay, the share, the comment that just says a single word because there are no other words that feel adequate. I think it's because this is proof of something we all quietly hope is true but rarely get to see confirmed: that when something is truly desperate, truly out of options, truly at the edge of what it can survive on its own — sometimes, not always, but sometimes — help actually shows up. Not because it's owed. Not because it's guaranteed. But because somewhere out there, someone was paying enough attention, and cared enough, to notice in time. That's a fragile kind of hope to build a worldview on. Most days the universe does not confirm it for you. Most days you're on your own and nobody's watching and nothing changes because you needed it to. But every once in a while, the universe hands you a receipt. Undeniable, filmed, timestamped proof that sometimes it does work out. Sometimes the thing that seems impossible five seconds before it happens becomes the thing everyone is talking about five seconds after. I've seen thousands of videos on this platform. I can count on one hand the ones that actually made my chest tighten before I even understood what I was watching. This is one of them. Not because of gore, not because of shock value, not because of some algorithm-bait fake drama edited together in Capcut with a trending sound slapped over the top. This is real, it's raw, it's completely unedited emotional whiplash, and it happens in under ninety seconds — which somehow makes it hit even harder, because you don't have time to brace yourself. You're just suddenly in it. There's a very particular kind of silence that happens in a room when someone shows this video to a friend who hasn't seen it yet. You know the silence. It's the one right after the moment happens, before anyone says anything, where both people are just sitting there processing. Then someone exhales. Then someone says "wait, go back." Then you watch it again, together this time, and somehow it's even more intense the second time because now you know it's coming. I've shown this to four people in the last two days. All four asked to watch it again immediately. Zero of them scrolled away before it finished. That's not normal behavior on this app. Nothing gets a hundred percent completion rate anymore — attention spans are too fractured, everyone's thumb is already halfway to the next post before the current one even loads fully. This one, people watch to the end. Every time. Here's a fact that should terrify you a little: most rescues like this one never make it onto a screen at all. Most of them happen in complete silence, witnessed by nobody, filmed by nobody, remembered by exactly one or two people who were there and nobody else. The only reason you get to see this one is a small, almost accidental miracle of timing — a camera that happened to be rolling, a person who happened to be exactly where they needed to be, at exactly the moment they needed to be there. Multiply that by every similar situation that has ever happened without a camera anywhere nearby, and you start to understand how much of the good in this world goes completely undocumented. How many small, quiet acts of decency happen every single day with zero witnesses and zero proof, simply because someone cared enough to act in a moment when nobody was watching and nobody would ever know. This time, we know. This time there's footage. And once you've seen it, you're going to understand exactly why it's already circulating everywhere, why people keep reposting it with captions that are just strings of crying emojis, why it's going to keep showing up on your feed for the next several weeks no matter how many times the algorithm thinks you've already seen it. I want to be very clear about something: I am not exaggerating for engagement here. I do this for a living. I've seen every trick in the book, every fake heartwarming edit, every staged "rescue" filmed for clout with a a paid actor and a script written by someone in a marketing meeting. I can spot fake from a mile away, and this is not that. This is the real thing, captured by accident, shared because it genuinely deserves to be seen, not because someone engineered it to go viral. The truth is, moments like this one are basically impossible to manufacture. You cannot fake the specific quality of panic that shows up right before help arrives. You cannot fake the particular kind of relief that shows up right after. Actors have tried for decades to replicate these exact emotional beats and it almost never works, because the real thing has a texture to it that fiction simply cannot copy. Your nervous system knows the difference even when your conscious mind can't articulate why. That's what you're about to watch. Not a performance. Not a recreation. The real, unscripted, entirely unplanned version of one of the oldest stories there is — something in trouble, someone who could have looked away, and a choice made in less time than it takes to read this sentence. I've thought a lot about what it says about a person, the instinct to move toward trouble instead of away from it. Most of us like to imagine we'd be the type to help. Fewer of us actually get tested on it in real time, with real stakes, with no time to think it through first. This footage is one of those rare, unfiltered tests, caught completely by accident, and the answer it reveals is the kind of answer that makes you want to believe better things about people in general. Maybe that's naive. Maybe I'm reading too much into ninety seconds of footage shot on a phone from a boat on a lake somewhere most of us will never visit. But I don't think so. I think there's a reason this specific kind of clip travels faster and further than almost anything else on this app, and I think it's because deep down, everyone scrolling past it is quietly starving for proof that the good instinct still wins sometimes. That somewhere, in some small unremarkable moment that nobody was supposed to see, it did. You're going to want to watch this at full volume. You're going to want to watch it more than once. And you're going to want to send it to at least one person the second it's over, because some things are simply too good, too raw, too real to keep to yourself. Scroll down. Hit play. Don't skip ahead. Let it happen the way it happened — in real time, unedited, exactly as it unfolded on a quiet morning that started like every other morning and ended up being one that a handful of people will never, ever forget. You'll know the exact second it gets you. Everybody does. And once it does, you're going to understand completely why this is already everywhere, why it's not going away anytime soon, and why — no matter how much content you consume on this platform every single day — this is the one still sitting in your head an hour from now. Watch it. Then watch it again. Then try to explain to someone else why you can't stop thinking about ninety seconds of footage from an ordinary morning on an ordinary lake. You won't be able to, not really, not in words that do it justice. Some things you just have to see for yourself. This is one of them. Let me back up for a second, because I think there's something worth unpacking about why this specific type of footage has such a strange grip on people who otherwise consider themselves fairly numb to the internet. We've all built up an immunity to most things online. Shock content doesn't shock anymore. Sad content doesn't move us the way it used to. Cute content gets a half-second smile and an immediate scroll. The threshold for actually feeling something has crept higher and higher every year, to the point where most creators have to exaggerate, stage, or manufacture emotion just to get a reaction out of an audience that's seen everything twice already. And then a clip like this shows up, completely unpolished, completely unplanned, filmed by someone who clearly had zero intention of ever going viral that morning, and it cuts through all of that noise instantly. No slow zoom. No dramatic music cue. No forced narration. Just a phone, a boat, a lake, and something happening in real time that nobody could have predicted five seconds before it happened. That's the part that gets me every time. The lack of preparation. You can tell, watching it, that the person holding the camera had no idea what they were about to capture. There's no anticipation in the framing. There's no build-up shot, no dramatic pause before the reveal. It just happens, mid-motion, mid-conversation probably, the way real things happen when nobody's expecting them to be filmed for posterity. I've worked with creators who spend six hours setting up a single ten-second clip to try to fake this exact energy. Lighting rigs. Multiple takes. A script written specifically to sound spontaneous. None of it ever quite lands the way this does, because authenticity has a signature that fabricated content simply cannot replicate no matter how good the equipment is. Your gut knows. It always knows. There's a reason the comments section under this kind of footage looks completely different from the comments section under almost anything else on this platform. No jokes. No sarcasm. No "this is fake" skepticism that usually shows up under viral content within the first ten minutes. Just people typing out real, unguarded reactions, the kind you don't normally see from adults who've spent years training themselves to look unbothered online. That tells you something. When a video manages to strip away the armor that most of us wear constantly while scrolling — the practiced cynicism, the ironic detachment, the instinct to act like nothing affects us — you know you're looking at something rare. Something that bypassed the defense mechanism entirely and went straight for the part of the brain that doesn't know how to perform indifference. I want to talk for a second about timing, because timing is the single most underrated element of this entire clip. A few seconds earlier or later in either direction, and this entire story looks completely different. That's the part that makes your stomach drop a little when you really sit with it. How close this came to being a story nobody ever heard, filmed by nobody, witnessed by nobody, remembered by nobody. We don't usually think about how much of what we consider "meant to be" is actually just an accumulation of tiny, invisible timing decisions stacking up in exactly the right order. A boat leaving the dock two minutes later than usual. A route taken slightly differently than the day before. A moment of quiet that happened to fall at exactly the right second for someone to notice something they easily could have missed entirely. Multiply those variables out and the odds of this exact sequence of events lining up the way it did start to feel almost absurd. And yet here it is, captured, verified, undeniable — proof that sometimes the universe threads a needle so precisely that even people who don't believe in fate start to wonder for a second. I don't think I'm being dramatic when I say that clips like this one function almost like modern folklore. A hundred years ago, this story would have been told around a table, passed down, exaggerated slightly with each retelling until nobody was quite sure anymore which parts were true and which parts had been embellished for effect. Today, it doesn't need to be exaggerated. It doesn't need embellishment. The raw footage does all the work that oral tradition used to have to do manually, and it does it more convincingly than any storyteller ever could, because you're not being told what happened — you're watching it happen, unfiltered, in real time, with your own eyes. That's a strange kind of privilege, honestly. Every generation before this one had to rely on someone else's description of moments like this. A witness recounting it secondhand, softened or sharpened depending on who was doing the telling. We don't have to rely on anyone's account. We get the primary source. We get the actual footage, timestamped, unedited, exactly as it happened, and we get to draw our own conclusions from it without anyone standing between us and the moment itself. I keep thinking about the people who happened to be nearby when this happened and had absolutely no idea, walking into that morning, that they were about to be part of something that would end up in front of millions of strangers within days. There's something almost dizzying about that. You wake up, you go about an entirely ordinary routine, and somewhere in the middle of an unremarkable morning, your life intersects with a moment that ends up mattering to people you will never meet, in places you will never visit, for reasons you probably never anticipated when you woke up that day. That's true of more moments than we realize, probably. Most of us will never know which ordinary Tuesday morning ends up being the one that quietly mattered more than we understood at the time. This is just one of the rare instances where we actually get to see it happen, see the exact moment it tips from ordinary into unforgettable, because a camera happened to be rolling and someone happened to hit record at exactly the right time. I also think there's something worth saying about the specific emotional cocktail this footage produces, because it's not simple. It's not just "aww, cute." It's not just relief. It's a genuinely layered reaction — fear first, because your brain registers the stakes before it registers anything else. Then tension, because you don't know yet how it resolves. Then, if you're paying attention, a strange kind of awe at how fast everything happens, how little time there was to think, how the entire outcome rested on a handful of seconds that could have gone completely differently. And then, right at the end, something that's hard to name precisely. Not just happiness. Something closer to relief mixed with gratitude mixed with a strange kind of faith restored in something you didn't realize you'd been losing faith in. That combination doesn't show up often. Most content gives you one emotion at a time, cleanly packaged, easy to categorize and move past. This gives you four or five emotions stacked on top of each other in the space of ninety seconds, and that's exactly why it lingers so much longer than almost anything else you'll scroll past today. I've been doing this long enough to know the difference between content that performs well because it's engineered to and content that performs well because it deserves to. This falls firmly into the second category. Nobody optimized this for engagement. Nobody thought about hook rate or average watch time or completion percentage while it was happening. It simply happened, and it happened to be extraordinary, and now it's traveling across the internet the old-fashioned way — person to person, share to share, because people genuinely can't help themselves. That's the purest form of virality there is, and it's becoming rarer every year as more and more content gets manufactured specifically to chase that exact outcome artificially. When something manages to go viral organically now, purely because it's real and it's rare and it deserves the attention, it stands out immediately against everything else competing for your scroll. You can feel the difference within the first few seconds, even if you can't articulate exactly why. I'll say this too — if you've made it this far into a post about a video you haven't even watched yet, that should tell you something. Most people don't read past the first two lines of anything on this platform anymore. If you're still here, some part of you already suspects this is worth your time. Trust that instinct. It's usually right. So here's what I'd suggest. Don't watch this distracted. Don't watch it with the sound off, scrolling past while doing three other things at once the way most of us consume content by default now. Give it the full ninety seconds of actual attention. Watch the water. Watch the timing. Watch the exact moment everything shifts, because that moment is the entire reason this clip exists in your feed right now instead of disappearing into the void the way ninety-nine percent of footage like this normally does. You'll understand within the first few seconds why this one didn't disappear. You'll understand why it's already been reposted thousands of times, why it keeps resurfacing on different accounts with different captions, why people who consider themselves completely desensitized to internet content are still talking about it days later. Some things are simply built to be remembered. This is one of them, and it earned that status the hard way — by actually happening, exactly the way you're about to see it, with absolutely nothing about it staged, softened, or exaggerated for effect. Hit play. You'll see what I mean before it even finishes. One last thing before you go watch it. I've noticed that the people who react the strongest to this clip are almost never the ones who consider themselves overly sentimental. It's the skeptics. The ones who claim they don't cry at commercials, don't get emotional over animal content, don't fall for "engagement bait" no matter how it's dressed up. Those are the ones who go quiet the fastest. Those are the ones who ask to see it again without explaining why. There's something almost funny about watching someone's carefully maintained emotional armor fail in real time over ninety seconds of unplanned footage from a random morning on a random lake. Maybe that'll be you. Maybe you're reading this thinking you're immune to this kind of thing, that you've seen enough of the internet to be unshakeable at this point. I've thought that before too, more than once, right up until the moment a video like this one proved me wrong in under two minutes. There's no trick here. No twist ending designed to manipulate you. No manufactured suspense built by a script written in a writers' room somewhere. Just a real moment, caught by accident, that turned an unremarkable morning into something worth remembering. Go watch it. Then come back and tell me I'm wrong. You won't.

Earth Unveiled

76,850 просмотров • 7 дней назад

A dog just made the bravest decision I have seen anyone make this year. Not a founder. Not an athlete. Not a person with a plan and a five-year vision board. A dog, on an empty road, with nothing to lose and no idea what would come next. I have watched what comes next more times than I will admit in public. This post is 25,000 characters long. It is a list of reasons why you should watch it too. Read as much as you want, but understand one thing before you start: the video is the only part that matters, and this is everything the video doesn't have room to say. Sound on. Phone in both hands. Do not skip. I'll be here when you get back. THE NUMBER THAT SHOULD BOTHER YOU Let me start with two numbers. The first: commonly cited estimates put the world's stray dog population at around 200 million. Two hundred million animals with no address, no bowl with their name on it, and no one who would notice if they didn't come back tonight. The second number is one. That is how many people had to be on that road, at that exact minute, looking in that exact direction, in a good enough mood to stop. Not two. Not a crowd. One. Here is what nobody says out loud: for every dog you see rescued on camera, there are millions the camera never reached. We don't see them because no one was there. The videos that reach you are not a sample of reality. They are the winners of a lottery so brutal that Powerball looks like a coin flip next to it. So when one of these lands in your feed, don't scroll past it like content. Treat it like what it is: a statistical miracle that happened to end well. And miracles have a structure. Let's take this one apart. FIVE LINKS. BREAK ONE AND THE STORY DOESN'T EXIST. Link one: the dog has to survive long enough to be seen. Roads are not built for small animals. Vehicles do not slow down for shapes on the asphalt. Every hour out there is a coin flip the animal has to win again, and again, and again. Link two: someone has to be present. Not nearby. Present. Eyes up, phone down, brain not busy replaying the argument from breakfast. Link three: that someone has to notice. It sounds simple. It isn't. The human brain is a filtering machine, and a small animal on a road becomes a plastic bag, a shadow, a piece of tire. The most common reason a dog is not rescued is not cruelty. It is that nobody registered it as a dog. Link four: the person has to stop. This is the link that snaps most often. Seeing is free. Stopping costs you time, comfort, a schedule, and possibly the mood of your entire day. Link five: the dog has to let them. An animal that has learned that hands mean pain has every biological reason to run. Trust is not a given. It is a negotiation, and the dog holds the veto. Five links. All five held. Remember that when you press play. You are not watching a nice story. You are watching a chain that should have snapped at least four times. THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP DRIVING In 1968, psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latane published a set of experiments that changed how we think about helping. The finding was uncomfortable: the more people who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to act. They called it diffusion of responsibility. Everyone assumes someone else will handle it. So nobody does. Later research added nuance. When an emergency is clear and dangerous, people step in more often than the original theory predicted. But the core insight has survived half a century of testing, because it describes something every one of us has felt: the small, quiet voice that says, somebody else will stop. Now picture a road with no crowd at all. No audience. No one to hide behind. No one to blame. Just you and a decision that is entirely, inescapably yours. That is the situation the person in this video walked into. And the reason it is worth your attention is not that they did something impossible. It is that they did something small, and it turns out small is exactly what almost nobody does. You don't need to be a hero. You need to be inconvenienced. THE FACE IS THE RESUME In 2013, researcher Bridget Waller and her team studied dogs in a UK shelter and asked a simple question: what makes one dog get adopted faster than another? It wasn't size. It wasn't age. It wasn't coat color. It was one tiny facial movement: the raising of the inner eyebrows. The move that makes a dog's eyes look bigger, softer, almost sad. Dogs that did it more often were chosen faster. Six years later, a study led by Juliane Kaminski found out why that movement is so easy for dogs and so hard for wolves. Dogs have a small muscle around the eye that wolves largely lack. Over thousands of years of living beside us, dogs evolved a way to make their faces speak our language. Read that again. A species rewired its own anatomy to be understood by another species. No other animal has done this to us. Nobody taught them. Nobody forced them. They looked at us, worked out what we respond to, and grew the tool. Now look at the face in this video. You will know the second you see it. That is not a coincidence, and it is not luck. It is fifteen thousand years of engineering aimed directly at your chest. THE ONLY LOOP LIKE IT ON EARTH In 2015, a Japanese team led by Miho Nagasawa published a result in the journal Science that made researchers stop and reread the abstract. When a dog and its owner look into each other's eyes, both of their oxytocin levels rise. Oxytocin is the bonding chemical, the same one that flows between a mother and her newborn. Dog looks at human. Human's oxytocin rises. Human looks back, touches, talks softly. Dog's oxytocin rises. Which makes the dog look longer. Which makes the human's oxytocin rise again. A feedback loop of affection, running across two species, powered by nothing but eye contact. Here is the part that gets me: the effect did not show up the same way in wolves raised by humans. The loop is not just training. It is something that evolved between us. So the next time someone says a dog is just responding to food, tell them there is a peer-reviewed study that disagrees. And keep this fact in your pocket for the video. Because at some point, a moment of eye contact happens in it, and I want you to know what is really going on in that room. THEY CAN SMELL WHAT YOU'RE HIDING Humans have roughly 6 million scent receptors. Dogs are commonly cited as having around 300 million. A large share of a dog's brain is devoted to processing smell. What you experience as a room, a dog experiences as a layered document: who was here, how long ago, and how they felt. In 2022, researchers at Queen's University Belfast tested something remarkable. They collected breath and sweat samples from people before and after a stressful task. Then they asked dogs to tell the samples apart. The dogs got it right nearly 94 percent of the time. Your body broadcasts your emotional state as chemistry. You cannot turn it off. You cannot fake calm. A dog reads your fear, your tension, your irritation, before you have opened your mouth. Which means every rescue is, at its core, a test of one thing: are you actually calm, or are you performing calm? The dog knows. It always knows. And that is why what happens in the first few seconds of this video matters more than anything that comes after it. Watch the body language. Watch how slowly things move. Watch what is not done. THE MOST IMPORTANT MOMENT IN ANY RESCUE IS THE ONE WHERE NOTHING HAPPENS Animal behaviorists describe fear responses in four flavors: fight, flight, freeze, and fawn. Fight is what people expect. Flight is what most strays do. Freeze is what looks like calm but isn't. And fawn, the desperate, wiggling, please-don't-hurt-me appeasement, is the one that breaks your heart the fastest, because it looks like friendliness and it is actually terror. Rescuers who have done this hundreds of times will tell you the same handful of rules. Don't loom. Don't stare straight into the eyes. Get low. Turn sideways. Slow everything down until it feels absurd. Let the animal close the last few feet on its own terms. The hardest instruction, and the one most people can't follow, is the last one: do nothing. Every instinct you have says reach out. Grab. Fix. Take control of the situation. And every good rescue begins with someone who did the opposite. Who made themselves small, patient, and boring, and waited for a frightened animal to decide that the safest thing in its whole world might be a stranger. You are about to watch someone do exactly that. Notice how little they need to say. THE TEARS THEY WON'T PUT IN THE HEADLINE Scientists are careful people. They do not like to say "dogs cry." But in 2022, a team from Azabu University in Japan, led by Takefumi Kikusui, measured tear volume in dogs during reunions with their owners. The result: tear volume rose significantly compared with reunions involving other familiar people. And when researchers applied oxytocin to the dogs' eyes, tear volume rose again. Not sadness crying. Not the crying we do. Something else, something closer to overflow. The body producing water at the exact moment the heart has more in it than it can hold. Nobody has proven that this is the same thing we feel. Scientists will tell you that, and they are right to. But here is a question worth sitting with. If an animal's eyes fill with water when it sees the one being it has decided to trust, what exactly are we arguing about? Watch the eyes in this video. Then tell me what you think you saw. ONCE IT HAS A NAME, IT STOPS BEING A STATISTIC In 2007, psychologist Paul Slovic and colleagues ran an experiment on generosity. They showed people a fundraising appeal for a hungry child, and then a second version that added statistics about millions of other children in the same crisis. More data. More context. More reasons to care. Donations dropped. Slovic called it psychic numbing. The human mind can hold one face. It cannot hold two hundred million. When a tragedy becomes a number, empathy quietly switches off, and we don't even notice it happening. This is why one named animal in one small video can do what a hundred reports full of charts cannot. It gives your brain something it can actually care about: a single life, with a face, a fear, and a future that could go either way. The stray population is a statistic. A dog is a story. And stories, unlike statistics, come with a name at the end. When you reach that moment in the video, pay attention to what it does to you. Notice the small shift in your chest. That is the sound of a number turning into a person, or close enough. THE WORD FOR WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO FEEL Researchers have a name for the feeling you get when something touches you so suddenly that your throat tightens and your eyes sting. They call it kama muta, Sanskrit for "moved by love." Anthropologist Alan Fiske proposed that it is a distinct emotion, triggered by a sudden intensification of closeness. Two beings who were strangers become bonded. Someone who was alone becomes part of something. People across many cultures describe the same set of signs: warmth in the chest, goosebumps, a lump in the throat, tears they didn't plan on, and a strong urge to hug someone or hold something. Here is what makes it useful and not just sweet: kama muta is one of the most reliable emotional responses we have. It shows up when reunions happen. When a stranger helps unexpectedly. When an animal, after a long time alone, is finally held. You've felt it. You just never had a word for it. Take note of the exact second it hits you in this video. I promise there is one. And if you're the kind of person who says "I never cry at videos," I would like to schedule a follow-up. WHY YOU'LL WANT TO BE A BETTER PERSON AFTER ONE MINUTE Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studied a related feeling and gave it a name: elevation. Elevation is what you feel when you watch someone do something morally beautiful, quietly, with nothing to gain. It is not envy and it is not admiration. It is an urge, physical and immediate, to do something good yourself. In studies, people who experienced elevation were more likely to help others afterward, more likely to volunteer, and more likely to describe wanting to become better versions of themselves. Read that as a design spec. A short piece of true, unstaged kindness can change what a person does in the hour after they see it. Which is a strange, lovely thing for a phone to be capable of. We spend so much time discussing what social media does wrong. Nobody wonders what would happen if the best five percent of it, the small, real, human moments, were the part that traveled farthest. Let this one travel. It has earned it. THE RARE THING: SOMETHING TRUE THAT WINS In 2018, researchers at MIT published a study in Science that analyzed millions of tweets. The result was grim: false news spread significantly faster and further than true news. False stories were about 70 percent more likely to be retweeted, driven largely by surprise and disgust. The lesson most people took away was that this platform rewards outrage. I want to take a different lesson. If false stories win because they trigger strong emotion, then true stories can win too, as long as they trigger stronger ones. A video with no villain, no scandal, and no argument. Nothing to be angry about. Nothing to dunk on. A rescue that is exactly what it looks like. That kind of content should lose on this platform. It has no fuel. And yet every so often, one of them breaks through and reminds everyone what this place was supposed to be. I am not asking you to like it. I am asking you to notice that you had a choice about what to feed today, and this was one of the options. SOME FRIENDSHIPS SHOULDN'T WORK Somewhere near the end of this video, a second character enters the story. I won't tell you who. I won't tell you what happens. I will tell you that if you have ever read anything about instincts, hunting drives, or the way certain animals are supposed to see each other, this moment will quietly rearrange your assumptions. Behaviorists talk about prey drive as if it were destiny. It is not. It is a tendency, and tendencies can be softened by experience, by safety, by being raised, or re-raised, in a place where no one is afraid. The same dog that once had to look after itself alone can, in a different life, learn that the world contains creatures that are not threats or meals. Only neighbors. That is the most hopeful idea in behavioral science, and it usually gets buried in footnotes: what an animal was is not the same as what an animal can become. The same is true for most of us, incidentally. But that is a different post. Stay for the ending. It is the reason I am writing this at all. THE PART THE INTERNET NEVER FILMS Every rescue video has the same shape: the meeting, the rescue, the transformation, the happy ending. It is edited that way because it is the only shape that gets watched. But ask anyone who has actually done this, and they will tell you the truth is in the gap between the second and third act. The first night. The first week. The first time a dog that has never lived indoors realizes there is a floor that doesn't move, a door that closes without danger, and a bowl that will be full again tomorrow. Rescuers have a rule of thumb for this, the 3-3-3 rule. Three days for a dog to decompress. Three weeks to start learning the routine. Three months to feel truly at home. It's not science, exactly, just a shorthand built from thousands of adoptions. But it captures something real: safety is not a switch. It is a process, and the animal has to believe it slowly, one uneventful day at a time. That means the happiest scenes in this video are not the ones that look like celebrations. They are the quiet ones. A dog that stops scanning the room. A body that finally lets go. Look for the moment the shoulders drop. Once you see it, you'll never unsee it. THE COST OF STOPPING: NINETY SECONDS Let's do the math on the thing that most people are afraid of. How long does it actually take to stop for an animal in trouble? Not the whole rescue. Just the decision, the pulling over, the first attempt. Ninety seconds. Sometimes less. Ninety seconds is the length of a bad song on the radio. It is the time you spend waiting for a light to change. It is a scroll through a feed you won't remember. And on the other side of those ninety seconds is the difference between a living animal and a statistic. I'm not saying this to make anyone feel guilty. Guilt is a terrible motivator. It makes people avoid the feeling instead of acting on it. I'm saying it because the barrier is almost always imagined. We inflate the cost of helping in our heads, and the imagined price is what stops us, not the real one. The person in this video paid the real price. It was small. What they got in return is something no one could have planned for. That is the part you should watch closely. IF YOU'RE EVER THE ONE ON THAT ROAD Save this section. Someday, someone reading it will need it. Put your safety first. Pull over where it's safe and turn on your hazard lights before anything else. A second accident helps no one. Do not chase. A frightened dog runs faster than you and directly into the worst possible place. Chasing turns a rescue into a pursuit. Get low and go slow. Sit down if you can. Turn your body sideways. Avoid direct staring. Speak softly, or don't speak at all. Use food, if you have any. Something plain, tossed a little closer each time, works better than any technique. Check for a tag and, if you can get near enough, ask a vet or shelter to scan for a microchip. Someone may be looking for this animal right now. Call for help early. Local rescues, animal control, and vets can handle what you cannot. Sometimes the bravest thing you can do is make the right phone call. Take photos and note the location. If you can't keep the animal, those details are what let someone else finish the job. None of this is complicated. The reason it is rare is that most people have never been told that it is allowed. You are allowed. THE REAL STAKES OF A SMALL DOG Here is a bigger picture, and it's a heavy one. Millions of companion animals enter shelters every year in the United States alone. That is just one country. Many are lost pets that never get reclaimed. Many are strays. Many are animals whose owners ran out of money, time, or hope. Shelters are often crowded, underfunded, and staffed by people running on love and very little else. Every animal that finds a home, or a foster, or a stranger with ninety seconds to spare, frees up a space for the next one in line. That means every single rescue is bigger than the animal in it. It is a small change to a very large system, and the system is nothing but small changes stacked on top of one another. This is not an argument for guilt. It's an argument for scale. One dog saved is one dog saved, but it is also proof of concept, a demonstration that the chain can hold, that the odds can be beaten, that a person and a road and a decision can end well. And proof of concept is contagious. That is why you are seeing it. WHO REALLY GOT RESCUED? If you talk to people who have taken in strays, you'll hear the same sentence over and over, in different words. "I thought I was saving him. It turned out he was saving me." Skeptics roll their eyes at that. It sounds like a greeting card. And research on pets and wellbeing is more mixed than social media would like. It doesn't say every dog fixes every life. But there is something real underneath it, and it's not mystical. A dog is a machine for creating routine, attention, and reasons to leave the house. It needs you at a certain hour. It notices when you come home. It doesn't care about your job title, your follower count, or what you failed at last week. For some people, that is the first unconditional witness they have had in years. The rescue, in this light, is not one-way. Two lonely creatures, one who knew it and one who didn't, found out that they could take care of each other. Nobody can prove that from a video. But there is a version of the story that runs in the background of every rescue, and you can feel it if you let yourself. Tell me whether you feel it here. THE ATTENTION PARADOX Here is a strange fact about the platform you're reading this on. The average post gets a glance. A few words, a flick of the thumb, gone. Brands spend billions every year trying to buy three seconds of your attention, and most of what they buy evaporates before it lands. And yet a video of one dog, with no budget, no celebrity, and no script, can hold a stranger for a full minute. Without a single trick. Why? Because attention is not really about tricks. It is about stakes. Your brain is built to track living things whose outcome is uncertain. The moment there is a creature on screen and you don't yet know if it will be okay, some ancient part of you leans in and refuses to look away. That is the secret behind every great story ever told. Someone we care about. Something that could go wrong. A question we need answered. Marketers call it a hook. Your nervous system calls it worry. This video has both, and it pays off the worry honestly, which is why you leave feeling better instead of used. That is rare enough to deserve a full minute of your life. HOW TO WATCH THIS Most people will watch it wrong. They'll half-look at it between two other things, mid-scroll, thumb already moving. Here is how to get the actual effect. Turn the sound on. There is more happening in the audio than you expect. Make it full screen. This is a story about faces, and faces need room. Watch the first ten seconds without expecting anything. The film is quiet at the start. That is deliberate, or at least it works as if it were. Do not skip ahead. The whole thing depends on the distance between where it starts and where it ends. Skip the middle and the ending is just a nice clip. Then, once it's over, watch it again. The second time, you won't be watching for the story. You'll be watching for the small things you missed: a hesitation, a glance, a change in how a body carries itself. That second watch is where it gets you. I said I have watched it more times than I'll admit. That is the honest reason. It doesn't wear out. It gets deeper. THE CHALLENGE I want to try something with this post. If the video moved you, leave one comment: the second it happened. Not a review, not an analysis. Just the moment. I'm curious whether it's the same one for everyone. My guess is that it isn't, and that the spread of answers will say more about what people carry around with them than about the video. If it didn't move you, that is fine too. I'd like to hear that as well. Honest is better than polite. And if you have ever been the one who stopped, and I know some of you have, write that instead. Tell the story in two lines. No one has ever regretted the ninety seconds. Someone reading this thread might need to know that. Reposting this is the simplest way to put it in front of someone who's scrolling right now, in a bad week, thinking that nothing good happens by accident anymore. Something did. THE LAST THING Let me end where I started. A dog made a decision on an empty road. It could not have known how it would turn out. It had no reason to believe that the next hand would be different from the last. It went ahead anyway. That is the whole difference between a life that changes and one that doesn't. Not certainty. Not a plan. A willingness to move toward the unknown when the alternative is more of the same. The animal in this video did that. Then someone did the same in return. That's it. That's the entire story. Two beings, each of whom took a small, terrifying step toward the other, and a road that was, for a few seconds, the most important place in the world. Scroll up. Press play. Watch the ending. Then come back and tell me I was exaggerating. P.S. If you read all of this, you are exactly the kind of person this video was made for. Most people never make it past the first screen of a long post. You did. That tells me you are someone who stays: through the slow part, through the uncertain part, all the way to the end. Which is, when you think about it, the only quality that mattered in the story you're about to watch. Follow for more like this. I only post the ones that earn it. Bookmark it for days you forget the feeling. #Rescue #DogsOfX #SecondChances #AdoptDontShop #Dogs #AnimalRescue #RescueDog
0:58

A dog just made the bravest decision I have seen anyone make this year. Not a founder. Not an athlete. Not a person with a plan and a five-year vision board. A dog, on an empty road, with nothing to lose and no idea what would come next. I have watched what comes next more times than I will admit in public. This post is 25,000 characters long. It is a list of reasons why you should watch it too. Read as much as you want, but understand one thing before you start: the video is the only part that matters, and this is everything the video doesn't have room to say. Sound on. Phone in both hands. Do not skip. I'll be here when you get back. THE NUMBER THAT SHOULD BOTHER YOU Let me start with two numbers. The first: commonly cited estimates put the world's stray dog population at around 200 million. Two hundred million animals with no address, no bowl with their name on it, and no one who would notice if they didn't come back tonight. The second number is one. That is how many people had to be on that road, at that exact minute, looking in that exact direction, in a good enough mood to stop. Not two. Not a crowd. One. Here is what nobody says out loud: for every dog you see rescued on camera, there are millions the camera never reached. We don't see them because no one was there. The videos that reach you are not a sample of reality. They are the winners of a lottery so brutal that Powerball looks like a coin flip next to it. So when one of these lands in your feed, don't scroll past it like content. Treat it like what it is: a statistical miracle that happened to end well. And miracles have a structure. Let's take this one apart. FIVE LINKS. BREAK ONE AND THE STORY DOESN'T EXIST. Link one: the dog has to survive long enough to be seen. Roads are not built for small animals. Vehicles do not slow down for shapes on the asphalt. Every hour out there is a coin flip the animal has to win again, and again, and again. Link two: someone has to be present. Not nearby. Present. Eyes up, phone down, brain not busy replaying the argument from breakfast. Link three: that someone has to notice. It sounds simple. It isn't. The human brain is a filtering machine, and a small animal on a road becomes a plastic bag, a shadow, a piece of tire. The most common reason a dog is not rescued is not cruelty. It is that nobody registered it as a dog. Link four: the person has to stop. This is the link that snaps most often. Seeing is free. Stopping costs you time, comfort, a schedule, and possibly the mood of your entire day. Link five: the dog has to let them. An animal that has learned that hands mean pain has every biological reason to run. Trust is not a given. It is a negotiation, and the dog holds the veto. Five links. All five held. Remember that when you press play. You are not watching a nice story. You are watching a chain that should have snapped at least four times. THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP DRIVING In 1968, psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latane published a set of experiments that changed how we think about helping. The finding was uncomfortable: the more people who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to act. They called it diffusion of responsibility. Everyone assumes someone else will handle it. So nobody does. Later research added nuance. When an emergency is clear and dangerous, people step in more often than the original theory predicted. But the core insight has survived half a century of testing, because it describes something every one of us has felt: the small, quiet voice that says, somebody else will stop. Now picture a road with no crowd at all. No audience. No one to hide behind. No one to blame. Just you and a decision that is entirely, inescapably yours. That is the situation the person in this video walked into. And the reason it is worth your attention is not that they did something impossible. It is that they did something small, and it turns out small is exactly what almost nobody does. You don't need to be a hero. You need to be inconvenienced. THE FACE IS THE RESUME In 2013, researcher Bridget Waller and her team studied dogs in a UK shelter and asked a simple question: what makes one dog get adopted faster than another? It wasn't size. It wasn't age. It wasn't coat color. It was one tiny facial movement: the raising of the inner eyebrows. The move that makes a dog's eyes look bigger, softer, almost sad. Dogs that did it more often were chosen faster. Six years later, a study led by Juliane Kaminski found out why that movement is so easy for dogs and so hard for wolves. Dogs have a small muscle around the eye that wolves largely lack. Over thousands of years of living beside us, dogs evolved a way to make their faces speak our language. Read that again. A species rewired its own anatomy to be understood by another species. No other animal has done this to us. Nobody taught them. Nobody forced them. They looked at us, worked out what we respond to, and grew the tool. Now look at the face in this video. You will know the second you see it. That is not a coincidence, and it is not luck. It is fifteen thousand years of engineering aimed directly at your chest. THE ONLY LOOP LIKE IT ON EARTH In 2015, a Japanese team led by Miho Nagasawa published a result in the journal Science that made researchers stop and reread the abstract. When a dog and its owner look into each other's eyes, both of their oxytocin levels rise. Oxytocin is the bonding chemical, the same one that flows between a mother and her newborn. Dog looks at human. Human's oxytocin rises. Human looks back, touches, talks softly. Dog's oxytocin rises. Which makes the dog look longer. Which makes the human's oxytocin rise again. A feedback loop of affection, running across two species, powered by nothing but eye contact. Here is the part that gets me: the effect did not show up the same way in wolves raised by humans. The loop is not just training. It is something that evolved between us. So the next time someone says a dog is just responding to food, tell them there is a peer-reviewed study that disagrees. And keep this fact in your pocket for the video. Because at some point, a moment of eye contact happens in it, and I want you to know what is really going on in that room. THEY CAN SMELL WHAT YOU'RE HIDING Humans have roughly 6 million scent receptors. Dogs are commonly cited as having around 300 million. A large share of a dog's brain is devoted to processing smell. What you experience as a room, a dog experiences as a layered document: who was here, how long ago, and how they felt. In 2022, researchers at Queen's University Belfast tested something remarkable. They collected breath and sweat samples from people before and after a stressful task. Then they asked dogs to tell the samples apart. The dogs got it right nearly 94 percent of the time. Your body broadcasts your emotional state as chemistry. You cannot turn it off. You cannot fake calm. A dog reads your fear, your tension, your irritation, before you have opened your mouth. Which means every rescue is, at its core, a test of one thing: are you actually calm, or are you performing calm? The dog knows. It always knows. And that is why what happens in the first few seconds of this video matters more than anything that comes after it. Watch the body language. Watch how slowly things move. Watch what is not done. THE MOST IMPORTANT MOMENT IN ANY RESCUE IS THE ONE WHERE NOTHING HAPPENS Animal behaviorists describe fear responses in four flavors: fight, flight, freeze, and fawn. Fight is what people expect. Flight is what most strays do. Freeze is what looks like calm but isn't. And fawn, the desperate, wiggling, please-don't-hurt-me appeasement, is the one that breaks your heart the fastest, because it looks like friendliness and it is actually terror. Rescuers who have done this hundreds of times will tell you the same handful of rules. Don't loom. Don't stare straight into the eyes. Get low. Turn sideways. Slow everything down until it feels absurd. Let the animal close the last few feet on its own terms. The hardest instruction, and the one most people can't follow, is the last one: do nothing. Every instinct you have says reach out. Grab. Fix. Take control of the situation. And every good rescue begins with someone who did the opposite. Who made themselves small, patient, and boring, and waited for a frightened animal to decide that the safest thing in its whole world might be a stranger. You are about to watch someone do exactly that. Notice how little they need to say. THE TEARS THEY WON'T PUT IN THE HEADLINE Scientists are careful people. They do not like to say "dogs cry." But in 2022, a team from Azabu University in Japan, led by Takefumi Kikusui, measured tear volume in dogs during reunions with their owners. The result: tear volume rose significantly compared with reunions involving other familiar people. And when researchers applied oxytocin to the dogs' eyes, tear volume rose again. Not sadness crying. Not the crying we do. Something else, something closer to overflow. The body producing water at the exact moment the heart has more in it than it can hold. Nobody has proven that this is the same thing we feel. Scientists will tell you that, and they are right to. But here is a question worth sitting with. If an animal's eyes fill with water when it sees the one being it has decided to trust, what exactly are we arguing about? Watch the eyes in this video. Then tell me what you think you saw. ONCE IT HAS A NAME, IT STOPS BEING A STATISTIC In 2007, psychologist Paul Slovic and colleagues ran an experiment on generosity. They showed people a fundraising appeal for a hungry child, and then a second version that added statistics about millions of other children in the same crisis. More data. More context. More reasons to care. Donations dropped. Slovic called it psychic numbing. The human mind can hold one face. It cannot hold two hundred million. When a tragedy becomes a number, empathy quietly switches off, and we don't even notice it happening. This is why one named animal in one small video can do what a hundred reports full of charts cannot. It gives your brain something it can actually care about: a single life, with a face, a fear, and a future that could go either way. The stray population is a statistic. A dog is a story. And stories, unlike statistics, come with a name at the end. When you reach that moment in the video, pay attention to what it does to you. Notice the small shift in your chest. That is the sound of a number turning into a person, or close enough. THE WORD FOR WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO FEEL Researchers have a name for the feeling you get when something touches you so suddenly that your throat tightens and your eyes sting. They call it kama muta, Sanskrit for "moved by love." Anthropologist Alan Fiske proposed that it is a distinct emotion, triggered by a sudden intensification of closeness. Two beings who were strangers become bonded. Someone who was alone becomes part of something. People across many cultures describe the same set of signs: warmth in the chest, goosebumps, a lump in the throat, tears they didn't plan on, and a strong urge to hug someone or hold something. Here is what makes it useful and not just sweet: kama muta is one of the most reliable emotional responses we have. It shows up when reunions happen. When a stranger helps unexpectedly. When an animal, after a long time alone, is finally held. You've felt it. You just never had a word for it. Take note of the exact second it hits you in this video. I promise there is one. And if you're the kind of person who says "I never cry at videos," I would like to schedule a follow-up. WHY YOU'LL WANT TO BE A BETTER PERSON AFTER ONE MINUTE Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studied a related feeling and gave it a name: elevation. Elevation is what you feel when you watch someone do something morally beautiful, quietly, with nothing to gain. It is not envy and it is not admiration. It is an urge, physical and immediate, to do something good yourself. In studies, people who experienced elevation were more likely to help others afterward, more likely to volunteer, and more likely to describe wanting to become better versions of themselves. Read that as a design spec. A short piece of true, unstaged kindness can change what a person does in the hour after they see it. Which is a strange, lovely thing for a phone to be capable of. We spend so much time discussing what social media does wrong. Nobody wonders what would happen if the best five percent of it, the small, real, human moments, were the part that traveled farthest. Let this one travel. It has earned it. THE RARE THING: SOMETHING TRUE THAT WINS In 2018, researchers at MIT published a study in Science that analyzed millions of tweets. The result was grim: false news spread significantly faster and further than true news. False stories were about 70 percent more likely to be retweeted, driven largely by surprise and disgust. The lesson most people took away was that this platform rewards outrage. I want to take a different lesson. If false stories win because they trigger strong emotion, then true stories can win too, as long as they trigger stronger ones. A video with no villain, no scandal, and no argument. Nothing to be angry about. Nothing to dunk on. A rescue that is exactly what it looks like. That kind of content should lose on this platform. It has no fuel. And yet every so often, one of them breaks through and reminds everyone what this place was supposed to be. I am not asking you to like it. I am asking you to notice that you had a choice about what to feed today, and this was one of the options. SOME FRIENDSHIPS SHOULDN'T WORK Somewhere near the end of this video, a second character enters the story. I won't tell you who. I won't tell you what happens. I will tell you that if you have ever read anything about instincts, hunting drives, or the way certain animals are supposed to see each other, this moment will quietly rearrange your assumptions. Behaviorists talk about prey drive as if it were destiny. It is not. It is a tendency, and tendencies can be softened by experience, by safety, by being raised, or re-raised, in a place where no one is afraid. The same dog that once had to look after itself alone can, in a different life, learn that the world contains creatures that are not threats or meals. Only neighbors. That is the most hopeful idea in behavioral science, and it usually gets buried in footnotes: what an animal was is not the same as what an animal can become. The same is true for most of us, incidentally. But that is a different post. Stay for the ending. It is the reason I am writing this at all. THE PART THE INTERNET NEVER FILMS Every rescue video has the same shape: the meeting, the rescue, the transformation, the happy ending. It is edited that way because it is the only shape that gets watched. But ask anyone who has actually done this, and they will tell you the truth is in the gap between the second and third act. The first night. The first week. The first time a dog that has never lived indoors realizes there is a floor that doesn't move, a door that closes without danger, and a bowl that will be full again tomorrow. Rescuers have a rule of thumb for this, the 3-3-3 rule. Three days for a dog to decompress. Three weeks to start learning the routine. Three months to feel truly at home. It's not science, exactly, just a shorthand built from thousands of adoptions. But it captures something real: safety is not a switch. It is a process, and the animal has to believe it slowly, one uneventful day at a time. That means the happiest scenes in this video are not the ones that look like celebrations. They are the quiet ones. A dog that stops scanning the room. A body that finally lets go. Look for the moment the shoulders drop. Once you see it, you'll never unsee it. THE COST OF STOPPING: NINETY SECONDS Let's do the math on the thing that most people are afraid of. How long does it actually take to stop for an animal in trouble? Not the whole rescue. Just the decision, the pulling over, the first attempt. Ninety seconds. Sometimes less. Ninety seconds is the length of a bad song on the radio. It is the time you spend waiting for a light to change. It is a scroll through a feed you won't remember. And on the other side of those ninety seconds is the difference between a living animal and a statistic. I'm not saying this to make anyone feel guilty. Guilt is a terrible motivator. It makes people avoid the feeling instead of acting on it. I'm saying it because the barrier is almost always imagined. We inflate the cost of helping in our heads, and the imagined price is what stops us, not the real one. The person in this video paid the real price. It was small. What they got in return is something no one could have planned for. That is the part you should watch closely. IF YOU'RE EVER THE ONE ON THAT ROAD Save this section. Someday, someone reading it will need it. Put your safety first. Pull over where it's safe and turn on your hazard lights before anything else. A second accident helps no one. Do not chase. A frightened dog runs faster than you and directly into the worst possible place. Chasing turns a rescue into a pursuit. Get low and go slow. Sit down if you can. Turn your body sideways. Avoid direct staring. Speak softly, or don't speak at all. Use food, if you have any. Something plain, tossed a little closer each time, works better than any technique. Check for a tag and, if you can get near enough, ask a vet or shelter to scan for a microchip. Someone may be looking for this animal right now. Call for help early. Local rescues, animal control, and vets can handle what you cannot. Sometimes the bravest thing you can do is make the right phone call. Take photos and note the location. If you can't keep the animal, those details are what let someone else finish the job. None of this is complicated. The reason it is rare is that most people have never been told that it is allowed. You are allowed. THE REAL STAKES OF A SMALL DOG Here is a bigger picture, and it's a heavy one. Millions of companion animals enter shelters every year in the United States alone. That is just one country. Many are lost pets that never get reclaimed. Many are strays. Many are animals whose owners ran out of money, time, or hope. Shelters are often crowded, underfunded, and staffed by people running on love and very little else. Every animal that finds a home, or a foster, or a stranger with ninety seconds to spare, frees up a space for the next one in line. That means every single rescue is bigger than the animal in it. It is a small change to a very large system, and the system is nothing but small changes stacked on top of one another. This is not an argument for guilt. It's an argument for scale. One dog saved is one dog saved, but it is also proof of concept, a demonstration that the chain can hold, that the odds can be beaten, that a person and a road and a decision can end well. And proof of concept is contagious. That is why you are seeing it. WHO REALLY GOT RESCUED? If you talk to people who have taken in strays, you'll hear the same sentence over and over, in different words. "I thought I was saving him. It turned out he was saving me." Skeptics roll their eyes at that. It sounds like a greeting card. And research on pets and wellbeing is more mixed than social media would like. It doesn't say every dog fixes every life. But there is something real underneath it, and it's not mystical. A dog is a machine for creating routine, attention, and reasons to leave the house. It needs you at a certain hour. It notices when you come home. It doesn't care about your job title, your follower count, or what you failed at last week. For some people, that is the first unconditional witness they have had in years. The rescue, in this light, is not one-way. Two lonely creatures, one who knew it and one who didn't, found out that they could take care of each other. Nobody can prove that from a video. But there is a version of the story that runs in the background of every rescue, and you can feel it if you let yourself. Tell me whether you feel it here. THE ATTENTION PARADOX Here is a strange fact about the platform you're reading this on. The average post gets a glance. A few words, a flick of the thumb, gone. Brands spend billions every year trying to buy three seconds of your attention, and most of what they buy evaporates before it lands. And yet a video of one dog, with no budget, no celebrity, and no script, can hold a stranger for a full minute. Without a single trick. Why? Because attention is not really about tricks. It is about stakes. Your brain is built to track living things whose outcome is uncertain. The moment there is a creature on screen and you don't yet know if it will be okay, some ancient part of you leans in and refuses to look away. That is the secret behind every great story ever told. Someone we care about. Something that could go wrong. A question we need answered. Marketers call it a hook. Your nervous system calls it worry. This video has both, and it pays off the worry honestly, which is why you leave feeling better instead of used. That is rare enough to deserve a full minute of your life. HOW TO WATCH THIS Most people will watch it wrong. They'll half-look at it between two other things, mid-scroll, thumb already moving. Here is how to get the actual effect. Turn the sound on. There is more happening in the audio than you expect. Make it full screen. This is a story about faces, and faces need room. Watch the first ten seconds without expecting anything. The film is quiet at the start. That is deliberate, or at least it works as if it were. Do not skip ahead. The whole thing depends on the distance between where it starts and where it ends. Skip the middle and the ending is just a nice clip. Then, once it's over, watch it again. The second time, you won't be watching for the story. You'll be watching for the small things you missed: a hesitation, a glance, a change in how a body carries itself. That second watch is where it gets you. I said I have watched it more times than I'll admit. That is the honest reason. It doesn't wear out. It gets deeper. THE CHALLENGE I want to try something with this post. If the video moved you, leave one comment: the second it happened. Not a review, not an analysis. Just the moment. I'm curious whether it's the same one for everyone. My guess is that it isn't, and that the spread of answers will say more about what people carry around with them than about the video. If it didn't move you, that is fine too. I'd like to hear that as well. Honest is better than polite. And if you have ever been the one who stopped, and I know some of you have, write that instead. Tell the story in two lines. No one has ever regretted the ninety seconds. Someone reading this thread might need to know that. Reposting this is the simplest way to put it in front of someone who's scrolling right now, in a bad week, thinking that nothing good happens by accident anymore. Something did. THE LAST THING Let me end where I started. A dog made a decision on an empty road. It could not have known how it would turn out. It had no reason to believe that the next hand would be different from the last. It went ahead anyway. That is the whole difference between a life that changes and one that doesn't. Not certainty. Not a plan. A willingness to move toward the unknown when the alternative is more of the same. The animal in this video did that. Then someone did the same in return. That's it. That's the entire story. Two beings, each of whom took a small, terrifying step toward the other, and a road that was, for a few seconds, the most important place in the world. Scroll up. Press play. Watch the ending. Then come back and tell me I was exaggerating. P.S. If you read all of this, you are exactly the kind of person this video was made for. Most people never make it past the first screen of a long post. You did. That tells me you are someone who stays: through the slow part, through the uncertain part, all the way to the end. Which is, when you think about it, the only quality that mattered in the story you're about to watch. Follow for more like this. I only post the ones that earn it. Bookmark it for days you forget the feeling. #Rescue #DogsOfX #SecondChances #AdoptDontShop #Dogs #AnimalRescue #RescueDog

Earth Unveiled

15,706 просмотров • 4 дней назад

What if I told you ripple:native just moved closer to a financial universe doing $17.5 TRILLION in FX and interest-rate derivatives every single day? I’m not talking about some random prediction. I’m talking about BIS Working Paper No. 1374. This is going to be a long read, because the headline barely scratches the surface. Four of the five authors work at the Bank for International Settlements, and instead of only mentioning XRP Ledger in theory, the researchers actually built, tested and published an open-source XRPL-based prototype. That distinction matters. This is a research implementation, not a production BIS deployment. But the technical choice itself is what caught me. The researchers needed a public blockchain that could help prove official economic and financial data had not been altered. They chose XRP Ledger. And they explained why: low fees, fast finality, developer resources and existing research around its consensus system. This wasn’t somebody adding an XRP logo to a presentation. They built the gateway. They created XRPL transactions. They used institutional anchoring wallets. They put cryptographic proofs inside transaction memos. They linked publisher identities to XRPL addresses. They retrieved those transactions again during verification. Then they measured how the system performed. Median publication latency came in around 3–5 seconds. Verification took around 1–2 seconds. That is where my brain immediately went beyond the headline. Because what exactly were they trying to verify? The kind of information the entire financial system runs on. -Inflation. -GDP. -Interest rates. -Banking statistics. -Debt information. -Financial-stability data. -Regulatory reporting. Imagine a central bank publishes an inflation number. Today that number gets copied everywhere. -Websites. -News terminals. -Databases. -Screenshots. -AI models. -Trading systems. Once it spreads across the internet, how does another machine independently prove that the number it received is exactly what the institution originally published? That is the problem BIS researchers were attacking. Their model creates a cryptographic fingerprint of the official dataset. Individual statistical series can receive fingerprints too. Those hashes are combined through a Merkle tree. A final Merkle root gets anchored to XRPL. The underlying economic data do not need to be dumped onto the blockchain. XRPL simply keeps the proof. Think of it like this: The official institution publishes the document. XRPL holds the tamper-proof receipt. Someone changes even one part of the underlying file? The cryptographic fingerprint changes. Now a bank, regulator, investor, trading engine or AI agent can check: Is this the original data? Has it been changed? Did it really come from the institution claiming to publish it? And that second part is where this paper gets even more serious. The BIS prototype combines the data proof with a W3C Verifiable Credential for the publisher. The publisher’s cryptographic identity is connected to an XRPL address. The paper even uses the format: did:xrpl: So you are not only verifying the information. You are verifying who published it. Now picture a financial world where machines can check both automatically. A central bank publishes CPI. A model receives it. Before touching money, the software checks XRPL. Correct file. Correct publisher. No alteration. Then it acts. That sounds simple until you realize what financial markets actually do with official data. -Rates move. -Currencies move. -Bond prices move. -Derivatives reprice. -Collateral requirements change. -Loans reset. -Inflation-linked instruments adjust. -Portfolio risk changes. And this is where BIS Working Paper 1374 stops being a boring statistics paper for me. Because the authors themselves discuss putting verified information beside digital financial assets. They specifically mention: -CBDCs -stablecoins -tokenized deposits -derivatives. That one section changes the entire way I look at this. The vision is not simply: “Put a hash on a blockchain.” It becomes: verified economic information + digital money + tokenized assets + automated execution. Now remember what Ripple has been building around XRPL. -Multi-Purpose Tokens. -Credentials. -Permissioned Domains. -Permissioned DEX infrastructure. -Confidential Transfers. -Stablecoins. -Institutional lending. -Tokenized collateral. -FX. -Onchain credit. And Ripple has repeatedly positioned XRP across payments, liquidity and credit. Now put those pieces beside what the BIS researchers are exploring. An official institution needs an identity. XRPL can represent identity and credentials. A regulated participant needs permission to enter a market. XRPL is building permissioned infrastructure. A bond needs trustworthy economic information. The BIS prototype shows one way that information can be authenticated through XRPL. A financial asset needs a digital representation. XRPL is being built for tokenization. A transaction needs money. Stablecoins and tokenized deposits can provide the cash side. Then all those different assets need liquidity. That is where ripple:native becomes much more interesting to me. But before getting there, look at the scale surrounding BIS itself. The BIS does not process the world’s $9.6 trillion of daily FX transactions. It measures that market through its Triennial Central Bank Survey. That distinction matters. According to the numbers in the context here: global OTC FX turnover = $9.6 TRILLION every day. Then add: OTC interest-rate derivatives turnover = $7.9 TRILLION every day. Together: $17.5 TRILLION per day. Just the FX number annualized across roughly 250 trading days comes to around: $2.4 QUADRILLION per year. That is the financial universe BIS research sits over. -Currencies. -Banks. -Central banks. -FX swaps. -Rates. -Derivatives. -Cross-border capital. -Collateral. -Dollar funding. And researchers inside that institution just chose XRP Ledger for an actual technical prototype. That is why I keep telling people not to reduce this to transaction fees. Yes, the worked example uses an XRPL Payment transaction. Yes, the reference cost is only: 10 drops = 0.00001 XRP. Yes, transaction fees on XRPL are destroyed. So if this kind of anchoring eventually ran on mainnet, publishing data itself would consume XRP. But that is not the part that gets me excited. The fee is intentionally tiny. The much bigger question is: What happens when verified information starts triggering financial activity on the same broader infrastructure? The paper itself talks about: inflation-linked products perpetual futures tokenized financial instruments derivative settlement interest payments automated compliance and even: automated monetary-policy applications. Now we are talking about information causing money to move. Imagine an inflation-linked bond. The government publishes inflation. That release gets cryptographically anchored. The bond checks the proof. The CPI number is verified. The contract adjusts what is owed. Digital cash settles the payment. No one has to manually copy a number from a website into another system. No one has to blindly trust a third-party data feed. The financial instrument can verify the economic input itself. That is the idea I keep coming back to: self-verifying finance. And the researchers even discuss using the XRPL EVM-compatible sidechain for more advanced applications where data verification and programmable financial execution exist in the same broader ecosystem. They mention: access controls, permissioning, automated compliance, multisignature requirements, oracle integration, programmable validation. Now connect that with Ripple’s institutional roadmap. Credentials can prove who a participant is. Permissioned Domains can define who belongs inside a regulated environment. Tokenized assets can represent financial instruments. RLUSD can represent digital dollar liquidity. Lending can make those assets productive. XRP can provide native network resources and, where economically useful, liquidity between fragmented assets. That is a very different picture of XRPL than the one people were arguing about years ago. It is not simply: “Can XRP send a payment quickly?” The question becomes: Can XRPL sit underneath parts of a machine-readable financial system? And Working Paper 1374 just gave that question much more weight for me. There is another section that barely gets discussed. The architecture is not limited to one data publisher. The researchers designed a multi-publisher system. Different institutions can create their own Merkle roots. Those roots can be combined into one larger super-root. One XRPL transaction can anchor that shared proof. Yet each publisher remains independently accountable for its own data. Now imagine the participants. Central Bank A. Central Bank B. Regulator C. Statistical Office D. International Organization E. One public verification system. Different publishers. Independent cryptographic accountability. That begins to resemble infrastructure for cross-border public-sector data exchange. And the paper’s own conclusion talks about trustworthy exchange among: national statistical offices central banks international organizations. Then look at who already uses the statistical standard the paper builds around. SDMX is sponsored by institutions including: BIS European Central Bank Eurostat International Monetary Fund OECD United Nations World Bank Group International Labour Organization. That does not mean those institutions are adopting XRPL. But it tells you something important about the design philosophy. The researchers did not create a blockchain system that requires the existing financial world to throw everything away. They designed it to sit underneath an existing institutional standard. That matters a lot. Because the easiest technology to adopt is often the technology that does not force everyone to rebuild from zero. Existing systems can continue publishing. XRPL can provide the cryptographic proof underneath. Then comes BIS Open Tech. The paper says the open-source reference implementation is being released as a prototype through BIS Open Tech and the SDMX community. That means other institutions can inspect it. Reuse it. Modify it. Build on it. This is how technical ideas can spread inside serious institutions. Not through hype. Through code. Documentation. Standards. Reuse. That is the kind of adoption path I pay attention to. Then there is the AI angle. This is where the whole thesis becomes almost unfairly interesting. The authors explicitly discuss AI agents. An AI system receives economic information. Instead of blindly trusting what it scraped from somewhere, it can ask: Is this data authentic? It checks the XRPL proof. Valid? Continue. Invalid? Do nothing. Now compare that with what Ripple launched in June 2026: the XRPL AI Starter Kit, designed around autonomous agents making payments with XRP and RLUSD. Two completely separate directions suddenly sit beside each other. BIS research: AI verifies information through XRPL. Ripple ecosystem: AI moves value through XRPL. Now imagine both ideas eventually meeting. An agent receives official inflation data. It verifies the release cryptographically. It recalculates risk. It reprices a bond. It adjusts collateral. It changes an FX position. It executes a payment. It settles in RLUSD. It routes through XRP where XRP is the best available liquidity path. That is machine-native finance. And now go back to the scale. The BIS 2025 Triennial Survey says: $9.6T/day FX. The dollar appears on one side of 89% of FX trades. The euro is involved in 28.9%. The Japanese yen in 16.8%. FX swaps alone are around $4T every day. Then another $7.9T/day exists in OTC interest-rate derivatives turnover. Think about what happens if only part of those markets becomes tokenized. Digital USD deposits. Digital EUR deposits. Tokenized JPY. RLUSD. CBDCs. Tokenized Treasuries. Interest-rate derivatives. FX derivatives. Collateral. Money-market instruments. The first problem is getting the assets onchain. The second is verifying the information those assets depend on. The third is moving liquidity between all the different forms of value. This BIS paper attacks the second problem using XRPL. Ripple has spent years attacking the first and third. That is why the combination gets my attention. And you do not need XRPL to capture the whole market for the numbers to become enormous. For scale only: 0.1% of $9.6T daily FX turnover = $9.6B per day. 1% = $96B per day. Again, that is not a forecast. It shows what even tiny percentages mean when the underlying market is measured in trillions every day. And that is only FX. It does not include the additional $7.9T/day of interest-rate derivatives turnover BIS measures. This is where the XRP liquidity thesis changes from a crypto argument into a market-structure argument. Suppose the future has hundreds of tokenized currencies and financial products. Every possible pair cannot maintain perfect direct liquidity. USD token / EUR token. EUR token / JPY token. JPY token / RLUSD. RLUSD / Treasury token. Treasury token / derivative. Derivative / deposit token. The combinations explode. A common intermediate asset becomes useful whenever routing through it provides a better market. That is where XRP’s role becomes interesting. Not replacing the dollar. Not replacing the euro. Not replacing CBDCs. Not replacing bank deposits. Connecting liquidity between them when that route makes economic sense. Now imagine the system is automated. No trader needs to shout: “Use XRP.” Software looks at: price, spread, depth, settlement, availability. If the XRP path wins, the software uses XRP. That is the outcome I care about. Machine-selected liquidity. And if those transactions grow large enough, the XRP market itself has to change. Institutional market makers need inventory. Liquidity providers need inventory. Prime brokers need financing capacity. Order books need deeper capital. Large transactions need to clear without huge price impact. That is where the price thesis becomes different from retail speculation. If XRP ever helps support institutional flows inside markets measured in trillions per day, the relevant question is not: “How many retail holders bought today?” It becomes: How much dollar liquidity does the XRP market need to represent? That is an entirely different valuation conversation. There is one more thing I think people are missing. BIS Working Paper 1374 does not only talk about SDMX statistics. The researchers say the same architecture can extend to: XBRL regulatory filings FINREP COREP and other forms of structured official information. Now imagine banks submitting regulatory reports that receive immutable XRPL proofs. The bank cannot quietly change an old filing later. The regulator can verify the exact version. Auditors can verify it. Another authority can verify it. AI software can consume it. One system can prove both: who submitted the data and whether it changed. That gives XRPL a potential role far beyond payments. It starts touching the information layer of finance. And this is why the line “BIS used XRP Ledger” actually undersells the paper. What happened is more specific. Researchers inside BIS took a real institutional problem. They selected XRPL. They built a working implementation. They measured performance. They published the code direction. Then they explored how authenticated data could coexist with: CBDCs, stablecoins, tokenized deposits, derivatives, AI agents, automated financial instruments. That is what I am bullish on. Not a logo. Not a rumor. Not a screenshot. Technical work. And when I look at the direction Ripple is independently pushing XRPL, the overlap is hard for me to ignore. Trusted identities. Verified information. Regulated participants. Tokenized assets. Digital money. Automated execution. Credit. Collateral. FX. Liquidity. AI. Put together, the long-term architecture can look like this: Official institutions publish information. XRPL anchors the proof. Banks and regulators verify it. AI consumes it. Tokenized instruments use it. Stablecoins and tokenized deposits provide cash. Institutional markets execute trades. XRP supplies native network resources and can supply cross-asset liquidity where the route makes sense. That is not simply a faster payment network. That starts looking like part of a digital financial operating system. And then remember where this conversation is happening. Inside the research world of the institution that measures: $9.6 trillion of FX turnover every day plus $7.9 trillion of interest-rate derivatives turnover every day. A combined: $17.5 TRILLION DAILY. No, that is not XRPL volume. No, BIS does not process those trades. The significance is that BIS researchers just tested XRP Ledger while working inside the institutional world surrounding markets of that size. That is the fact. And now I’m asking the question that matters to me as an ripple:native holder: What happens if XRPL earns even a small role inside the tokenized version of that financial system? Because 0.1% of a trillion-dollar market is not small. And this market is not one trillion. It is trillions every single day. That is why Working Paper 1374 changed the scale of the conversation for me. For years, people asked whether XRP could become part of the future financial system. Now researchers inside the BIS have taken XRP Ledger, built institutional infrastructure on it, and explicitly discussed a future combining trusted information with digital money and programmable financial assets. We are still at the prototype stage. But for me, the direction is the real story. The next financial system will need trusted data, tokenized assets, automated execution and deep liquidity. XRPL is now showing up in all four conversations. And XRP sits natively underneath the network where those pieces can eventually meet. $17.5T a day. Now look at your ripple:native bag again. Enough?
0:26

What if I told you ripple:native just moved closer to a financial universe doing $17.5 TRILLION in FX and interest-rate derivatives every single day? I’m not talking about some random prediction. I’m talking about BIS Working Paper No. 1374. This is going to be a long read, because the headline barely scratches the surface. Four of the five authors work at the Bank for International Settlements, and instead of only mentioning XRP Ledger in theory, the researchers actually built, tested and published an open-source XRPL-based prototype. That distinction matters. This is a research implementation, not a production BIS deployment. But the technical choice itself is what caught me. The researchers needed a public blockchain that could help prove official economic and financial data had not been altered. They chose XRP Ledger. And they explained why: low fees, fast finality, developer resources and existing research around its consensus system. This wasn’t somebody adding an XRP logo to a presentation. They built the gateway. They created XRPL transactions. They used institutional anchoring wallets. They put cryptographic proofs inside transaction memos. They linked publisher identities to XRPL addresses. They retrieved those transactions again during verification. Then they measured how the system performed. Median publication latency came in around 3–5 seconds. Verification took around 1–2 seconds. That is where my brain immediately went beyond the headline. Because what exactly were they trying to verify? The kind of information the entire financial system runs on. -Inflation. -GDP. -Interest rates. -Banking statistics. -Debt information. -Financial-stability data. -Regulatory reporting. Imagine a central bank publishes an inflation number. Today that number gets copied everywhere. -Websites. -News terminals. -Databases. -Screenshots. -AI models. -Trading systems. Once it spreads across the internet, how does another machine independently prove that the number it received is exactly what the institution originally published? That is the problem BIS researchers were attacking. Their model creates a cryptographic fingerprint of the official dataset. Individual statistical series can receive fingerprints too. Those hashes are combined through a Merkle tree. A final Merkle root gets anchored to XRPL. The underlying economic data do not need to be dumped onto the blockchain. XRPL simply keeps the proof. Think of it like this: The official institution publishes the document. XRPL holds the tamper-proof receipt. Someone changes even one part of the underlying file? The cryptographic fingerprint changes. Now a bank, regulator, investor, trading engine or AI agent can check: Is this the original data? Has it been changed? Did it really come from the institution claiming to publish it? And that second part is where this paper gets even more serious. The BIS prototype combines the data proof with a W3C Verifiable Credential for the publisher. The publisher’s cryptographic identity is connected to an XRPL address. The paper even uses the format: did:xrpl: So you are not only verifying the information. You are verifying who published it. Now picture a financial world where machines can check both automatically. A central bank publishes CPI. A model receives it. Before touching money, the software checks XRPL. Correct file. Correct publisher. No alteration. Then it acts. That sounds simple until you realize what financial markets actually do with official data. -Rates move. -Currencies move. -Bond prices move. -Derivatives reprice. -Collateral requirements change. -Loans reset. -Inflation-linked instruments adjust. -Portfolio risk changes. And this is where BIS Working Paper 1374 stops being a boring statistics paper for me. Because the authors themselves discuss putting verified information beside digital financial assets. They specifically mention: -CBDCs -stablecoins -tokenized deposits -derivatives. That one section changes the entire way I look at this. The vision is not simply: “Put a hash on a blockchain.” It becomes: verified economic information + digital money + tokenized assets + automated execution. Now remember what Ripple has been building around XRPL. -Multi-Purpose Tokens. -Credentials. -Permissioned Domains. -Permissioned DEX infrastructure. -Confidential Transfers. -Stablecoins. -Institutional lending. -Tokenized collateral. -FX. -Onchain credit. And Ripple has repeatedly positioned XRP across payments, liquidity and credit. Now put those pieces beside what the BIS researchers are exploring. An official institution needs an identity. XRPL can represent identity and credentials. A regulated participant needs permission to enter a market. XRPL is building permissioned infrastructure. A bond needs trustworthy economic information. The BIS prototype shows one way that information can be authenticated through XRPL. A financial asset needs a digital representation. XRPL is being built for tokenization. A transaction needs money. Stablecoins and tokenized deposits can provide the cash side. Then all those different assets need liquidity. That is where ripple:native becomes much more interesting to me. But before getting there, look at the scale surrounding BIS itself. The BIS does not process the world’s $9.6 trillion of daily FX transactions. It measures that market through its Triennial Central Bank Survey. That distinction matters. According to the numbers in the context here: global OTC FX turnover = $9.6 TRILLION every day. Then add: OTC interest-rate derivatives turnover = $7.9 TRILLION every day. Together: $17.5 TRILLION per day. Just the FX number annualized across roughly 250 trading days comes to around: $2.4 QUADRILLION per year. That is the financial universe BIS research sits over. -Currencies. -Banks. -Central banks. -FX swaps. -Rates. -Derivatives. -Cross-border capital. -Collateral. -Dollar funding. And researchers inside that institution just chose XRP Ledger for an actual technical prototype. That is why I keep telling people not to reduce this to transaction fees. Yes, the worked example uses an XRPL Payment transaction. Yes, the reference cost is only: 10 drops = 0.00001 XRP. Yes, transaction fees on XRPL are destroyed. So if this kind of anchoring eventually ran on mainnet, publishing data itself would consume XRP. But that is not the part that gets me excited. The fee is intentionally tiny. The much bigger question is: What happens when verified information starts triggering financial activity on the same broader infrastructure? The paper itself talks about: inflation-linked products perpetual futures tokenized financial instruments derivative settlement interest payments automated compliance and even: automated monetary-policy applications. Now we are talking about information causing money to move. Imagine an inflation-linked bond. The government publishes inflation. That release gets cryptographically anchored. The bond checks the proof. The CPI number is verified. The contract adjusts what is owed. Digital cash settles the payment. No one has to manually copy a number from a website into another system. No one has to blindly trust a third-party data feed. The financial instrument can verify the economic input itself. That is the idea I keep coming back to: self-verifying finance. And the researchers even discuss using the XRPL EVM-compatible sidechain for more advanced applications where data verification and programmable financial execution exist in the same broader ecosystem. They mention: access controls, permissioning, automated compliance, multisignature requirements, oracle integration, programmable validation. Now connect that with Ripple’s institutional roadmap. Credentials can prove who a participant is. Permissioned Domains can define who belongs inside a regulated environment. Tokenized assets can represent financial instruments. RLUSD can represent digital dollar liquidity. Lending can make those assets productive. XRP can provide native network resources and, where economically useful, liquidity between fragmented assets. That is a very different picture of XRPL than the one people were arguing about years ago. It is not simply: “Can XRP send a payment quickly?” The question becomes: Can XRPL sit underneath parts of a machine-readable financial system? And Working Paper 1374 just gave that question much more weight for me. There is another section that barely gets discussed. The architecture is not limited to one data publisher. The researchers designed a multi-publisher system. Different institutions can create their own Merkle roots. Those roots can be combined into one larger super-root. One XRPL transaction can anchor that shared proof. Yet each publisher remains independently accountable for its own data. Now imagine the participants. Central Bank A. Central Bank B. Regulator C. Statistical Office D. International Organization E. One public verification system. Different publishers. Independent cryptographic accountability. That begins to resemble infrastructure for cross-border public-sector data exchange. And the paper’s own conclusion talks about trustworthy exchange among: national statistical offices central banks international organizations. Then look at who already uses the statistical standard the paper builds around. SDMX is sponsored by institutions including: BIS European Central Bank Eurostat International Monetary Fund OECD United Nations World Bank Group International Labour Organization. That does not mean those institutions are adopting XRPL. But it tells you something important about the design philosophy. The researchers did not create a blockchain system that requires the existing financial world to throw everything away. They designed it to sit underneath an existing institutional standard. That matters a lot. Because the easiest technology to adopt is often the technology that does not force everyone to rebuild from zero. Existing systems can continue publishing. XRPL can provide the cryptographic proof underneath. Then comes BIS Open Tech. The paper says the open-source reference implementation is being released as a prototype through BIS Open Tech and the SDMX community. That means other institutions can inspect it. Reuse it. Modify it. Build on it. This is how technical ideas can spread inside serious institutions. Not through hype. Through code. Documentation. Standards. Reuse. That is the kind of adoption path I pay attention to. Then there is the AI angle. This is where the whole thesis becomes almost unfairly interesting. The authors explicitly discuss AI agents. An AI system receives economic information. Instead of blindly trusting what it scraped from somewhere, it can ask: Is this data authentic? It checks the XRPL proof. Valid? Continue. Invalid? Do nothing. Now compare that with what Ripple launched in June 2026: the XRPL AI Starter Kit, designed around autonomous agents making payments with XRP and RLUSD. Two completely separate directions suddenly sit beside each other. BIS research: AI verifies information through XRPL. Ripple ecosystem: AI moves value through XRPL. Now imagine both ideas eventually meeting. An agent receives official inflation data. It verifies the release cryptographically. It recalculates risk. It reprices a bond. It adjusts collateral. It changes an FX position. It executes a payment. It settles in RLUSD. It routes through XRP where XRP is the best available liquidity path. That is machine-native finance. And now go back to the scale. The BIS 2025 Triennial Survey says: $9.6T/day FX. The dollar appears on one side of 89% of FX trades. The euro is involved in 28.9%. The Japanese yen in 16.8%. FX swaps alone are around $4T every day. Then another $7.9T/day exists in OTC interest-rate derivatives turnover. Think about what happens if only part of those markets becomes tokenized. Digital USD deposits. Digital EUR deposits. Tokenized JPY. RLUSD. CBDCs. Tokenized Treasuries. Interest-rate derivatives. FX derivatives. Collateral. Money-market instruments. The first problem is getting the assets onchain. The second is verifying the information those assets depend on. The third is moving liquidity between all the different forms of value. This BIS paper attacks the second problem using XRPL. Ripple has spent years attacking the first and third. That is why the combination gets my attention. And you do not need XRPL to capture the whole market for the numbers to become enormous. For scale only: 0.1% of $9.6T daily FX turnover = $9.6B per day. 1% = $96B per day. Again, that is not a forecast. It shows what even tiny percentages mean when the underlying market is measured in trillions every day. And that is only FX. It does not include the additional $7.9T/day of interest-rate derivatives turnover BIS measures. This is where the XRP liquidity thesis changes from a crypto argument into a market-structure argument. Suppose the future has hundreds of tokenized currencies and financial products. Every possible pair cannot maintain perfect direct liquidity. USD token / EUR token. EUR token / JPY token. JPY token / RLUSD. RLUSD / Treasury token. Treasury token / derivative. Derivative / deposit token. The combinations explode. A common intermediate asset becomes useful whenever routing through it provides a better market. That is where XRP’s role becomes interesting. Not replacing the dollar. Not replacing the euro. Not replacing CBDCs. Not replacing bank deposits. Connecting liquidity between them when that route makes economic sense. Now imagine the system is automated. No trader needs to shout: “Use XRP.” Software looks at: price, spread, depth, settlement, availability. If the XRP path wins, the software uses XRP. That is the outcome I care about. Machine-selected liquidity. And if those transactions grow large enough, the XRP market itself has to change. Institutional market makers need inventory. Liquidity providers need inventory. Prime brokers need financing capacity. Order books need deeper capital. Large transactions need to clear without huge price impact. That is where the price thesis becomes different from retail speculation. If XRP ever helps support institutional flows inside markets measured in trillions per day, the relevant question is not: “How many retail holders bought today?” It becomes: How much dollar liquidity does the XRP market need to represent? That is an entirely different valuation conversation. There is one more thing I think people are missing. BIS Working Paper 1374 does not only talk about SDMX statistics. The researchers say the same architecture can extend to: XBRL regulatory filings FINREP COREP and other forms of structured official information. Now imagine banks submitting regulatory reports that receive immutable XRPL proofs. The bank cannot quietly change an old filing later. The regulator can verify the exact version. Auditors can verify it. Another authority can verify it. AI software can consume it. One system can prove both: who submitted the data and whether it changed. That gives XRPL a potential role far beyond payments. It starts touching the information layer of finance. And this is why the line “BIS used XRP Ledger” actually undersells the paper. What happened is more specific. Researchers inside BIS took a real institutional problem. They selected XRPL. They built a working implementation. They measured performance. They published the code direction. Then they explored how authenticated data could coexist with: CBDCs, stablecoins, tokenized deposits, derivatives, AI agents, automated financial instruments. That is what I am bullish on. Not a logo. Not a rumor. Not a screenshot. Technical work. And when I look at the direction Ripple is independently pushing XRPL, the overlap is hard for me to ignore. Trusted identities. Verified information. Regulated participants. Tokenized assets. Digital money. Automated execution. Credit. Collateral. FX. Liquidity. AI. Put together, the long-term architecture can look like this: Official institutions publish information. XRPL anchors the proof. Banks and regulators verify it. AI consumes it. Tokenized instruments use it. Stablecoins and tokenized deposits provide cash. Institutional markets execute trades. XRP supplies native network resources and can supply cross-asset liquidity where the route makes sense. That is not simply a faster payment network. That starts looking like part of a digital financial operating system. And then remember where this conversation is happening. Inside the research world of the institution that measures: $9.6 trillion of FX turnover every day plus $7.9 trillion of interest-rate derivatives turnover every day. A combined: $17.5 TRILLION DAILY. No, that is not XRPL volume. No, BIS does not process those trades. The significance is that BIS researchers just tested XRP Ledger while working inside the institutional world surrounding markets of that size. That is the fact. And now I’m asking the question that matters to me as an ripple:native holder: What happens if XRPL earns even a small role inside the tokenized version of that financial system? Because 0.1% of a trillion-dollar market is not small. And this market is not one trillion. It is trillions every single day. That is why Working Paper 1374 changed the scale of the conversation for me. For years, people asked whether XRP could become part of the future financial system. Now researchers inside the BIS have taken XRP Ledger, built institutional infrastructure on it, and explicitly discussed a future combining trusted information with digital money and programmable financial assets. We are still at the prototype stage. But for me, the direction is the real story. The next financial system will need trusted data, tokenized assets, automated execution and deep liquidity. XRPL is now showing up in all four conversations. And XRP sits natively underneath the network where those pieces can eventually meet. $17.5T a day. Now look at your ripple:native bag again. Enough?

X Finance Bull

68,367 просмотров • 19 дней назад

Apple’s iPad “Crush” Ad Is Bleak, Ominous and Threatening I don’t know if you’ve seen Apple’s just-released commercial for the “New” iPad Pro, but it’s pretty awful. It is dark, humorless, and feels like a not-so-thinly veiled threat to writers, musicians, game makers, developers, and artists of all kinds. …and children, even. I’ve watched it at least five times today alone, and I’m left with one big question. “Who on earth approved this?” It’s absolutely baffling that the world’s largest technology company, with the world’s biggest marketing budget, thought this would be a good idea. What kind of idiot—or idiots, since dozens or hundreds of people had to be involved in the writing, staging, producing, recording, and editing—felt this kind of ad would somehow create a positive emotional connection with consumers? Seriously, it’s terrifying. In a dank, cold warehouse, devoid of all life and humanity, an industrial crusher comes to life, and slowly starts destroying a collection of musical, philosophical, and artistic devices and instruments. For no apparent reason, everything starts getting smashed: first, a trumpet, then an arcade video game, then cans of paint, a piano, a globe, a metronome, a guitar… on and on it goes, obliterating everything in sight into a colorful, gooey, explosive mess. Books, camera lenses, lamps, a guitar, a sculpture, and a typewriter—all tools of the liberal arts—get mangled into a garbage heap as Sonny & Cher cheerfully sing, “All I ever need is you.” In the penultimate moment, a goofy yellow smiley emoji becomes a bug-eyed scary-clown freak as it, too, is crushed to death. Worse, if you enable closed captions like I do by default, the video says: “[POPPING] [SPLAT]” right as its eyeballs pop out of its head when Cher sings, “Give me a reason to build my world around you.” It’s enough to make a child cry. It has all the comforting vibes of the burnt pink teddy bear floating in the swimming pool on Breaking Bad after two planes crash in mid-air. I have so many questions (aside from simply wondering the names of the soon-to-be ex-employees who greenlit this abomination). First of all, as a trumpet player myself, I am personally offended that they made me watch a perfectly good trumpet get smashed to smithereens like it’s no big deal. Why would they torture me like this? Second of all, what is the message here? No, not that “the most powerful iPad ever is also the thinnest,” as the voiceover artist states in the last few seconds of the clip. I mean: what is the message? Ostensibly, pulverizing children’s toys, arcade games, architectural models, and ceramic Angry Birds into a paste implies something like “We’re taking all the best of humanity; all the collective works of Western Civilization, smashing it into pieces and putting it inside this remarkably thin device so you can have all of it in the palm of your hand.” But my oh my, is there an elephant in this room… he’s hiding behind the monstrous destroying machine. Did anyone inside Apple realize that everyone outside Apple will recognize this imagery in a metaphorical sense, but not the one Apple intended? We don’t see a crushing machine gently consolidating the greatest output of all our artistic endeavors, simply reformatted for a digital age and consumed by everyone with instant, fingertip access. We see what is painstakingly obvious to us, and the timing couldn’t possibly be worse. We see a giant, soulless machine consuming our work in a very different way. Right now, AI models are training themselves on our intellectual property and even our very own personally-identifying data. We aren’t the ones doing the consuming. We’re the ones being consumed. The tech industry has become one massive gaping maw, opening wide and swallowing everything in sight, chewing it up into little bits and pieces of comminuted waste, like a paper shredder or a garbage disposal. It’s destruction in its most literal form. And for what? For a newer version of the iPad that is only slightly thinner than its predecessor? For an only marginally improved version of Apple’s tablet device that has been around for 14 years? For increased profits? This is a terrible look for Apple. They may as well be saying: “All your work are belong to us.” Personally, I am a fan of artificial intelligence. I am eagerly embracing our robot overlords and I welcome our new CSV god (as the actual developers of AI models like to say). I look forward to the freedom and innovation that will come as a result of humanity augmenting our intelligence with AI like a force multiplier on a battlefield. But if Apple has the same perspective I do, they’re selling it in the worst possible way. When I see this video, I see that Apple is definitely crushing something… but I’m not sure what. -Crushing small companies that develop apps for the extremely heavy-handed App Store, which imposes byzantine restrictions on what they can and can’t do with their own apps? -Crushing competitors by limiting what they can do on the iOS and MacOS platforms with arbitrary and capricious rules about enabling functionalities that Apple doesn’t like, even if users do? -Crushing publishers and content creators with a punitive 30% fee on all subscriptions and in-app purchases? -Crushing choice and competition by not allowing app makers to make apps and programs that do the same thing that native apps already do, even if they do it better? -Crushing all human creativity and innovation by automating and systematizing everything? In the early days of the “Google vs. Apple” fight over the web and app stores, I was really concerned that Google was becoming way, way too powerful. Specifically, in 2015, when Google came up with “app streaming,” they announced a desire to form a “web of apps.” This was concerning. Especially when coupled with Google’s efforts to steal content from other websites and provide it to users via the “knowledge graph” results, ending up with the creation of “zero-click” search results pages, which absolutely punished website owners and content creators. By taking the most valuable content off a website and showing it to Google users without them needing to click through to the website itself, Google had essentially stolen everybody’s intellectual property with only the most minimal attribution possible (to fend off lawsuits no doubt, but with no intention of users actually visiting the website in question anymore). “Google is eating the internet,” I thought, and said out loud, (although I probably wasn’t the first person to use that phrase) But what I meant was purely an analogy. It was vague and ambiguous, almost silly. Maybe I was wrong, though: maybe it’s Apple that’s doing the eating. Maybe Apple is not only gobbling up everyone else’s work, but also homogenizing it—and us—and forcing us to use their platform, pay their fees, abide by their rules, and constantly keep upgrading, upgrading, upgrading, to an ever-thinner iPad in order to use it. Watch the video again. This is the stuff of nightmares. To be perfectly fair, even if I were to take the commercial at face value and ignore it’s off-the-charts creepiness and just stick to its one stated claim—that the new iPad Pro is thinner—it still fails as a commercial. Why? Because nobody cares how thin an iPad is. Seriously. I’ve owned an iPad since 2010: that means I’ve carried around a version of Apple’s already-thin tablet every day for over a dozen years. Never once have I said to myself: “You know what improvement I’d really like to see in this thing? I wish it were thinner.” Never. That thought has never crossed my mind, even once. You know what has? -Better battery life. -I’d like my iPad to not get hot to the touch when I use the Apple Pencil to take notes. -I wish it wasn’t so fragile: I dropped my brand-new iPad 2 back in the day when it slipped out of the arm-hold I was carrying it in, it bounced on the pavement, and the screen shattered into a thousand pieces, making it unusable. -I wish it had more storage. -I wish Apple would stop changing the type of cable connector it uses: I’ve gone from the original 30-pin connector to the Lightning connector, and now to the current USB-C/Thunderbolt connector. -I wish I could view the screen in direct sunlight. -I wish it wouldn’t overheat and turn off automatically when I use it outdoors in the summertime. Those are announcements I would welcome in a new iPad Pro commercial. None of this “now even thinner” nonsense nobody needs or cares about. So, back to the commercial. In my opinion, whoever made this ad should be fired. I almost never say that about other companies, especially for good-faith marketing efforts gone wrong… those of us who work in marketing make mistakes sometimes, and we learn from them. But cases like this warrant a special exception. Marketing and advertising are designed to make people want to buy your products. This commercial doesn’t just not make me want to buy Apple’s products. It makes me not want to buy Apple’s products, which is something altogether different. It turns me from someone who likes iPads into someone who is almost rethinking iPads entirely. That’s not just a bad advertisement; it’s a harmful advertisement. Apple’s usually known for great commercials. The legendary 1984 Super Bowl commercial was, of course, their best. I thought “Hello, I’m a Mac” was absolutely brilliant. They have made some missteps along the way, but this one is really bad. Not even their nauseatingly preachy and woke “Mother Nature” ad from a few years ago was this bad. Steve Jobs once said, “Technology alone is not enough—it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing.” My goodness, that last line alone is poetry itself! This ad seems to be Apple signaling that they don’t believe in that anymore. And I don’t think all this handwringing is an overreaction to where you could say “Oh, c’mon, it’s just a commercial! What’s the big deal?” It is a big deal. It tells you about the values of the company, and what they intend to communicate. Really, how is this the same company that used to sell iPhones by showing grandmas using FaceTime to connect with their baby grandchildren from afar during the holidays? Everything about it is wrong: even the thumbnail they chose for it (the bulging-eyed smiley face) and the fact that they gave it the title “Crush!” It was fun to see the reactions to the video online today. I find it fascinating that Apple shared it on YouTube but turned off the comments. On X, Tim Cook shared it Tuesday, and the video, which so richly deserves to be mocked, is getting it in spades. Some people are calling it “anti-art.” One user called it “soul-crushing,” which was about as literal and logical a response as you’d expect. It turns out Apple actually made an announcement about the commercial. In response to the (apparently unexpected) poor welcome it got, Apple wrote: “We missed the mark with this video, and we’re sorry.” Lame response from a tone-deaf tech behemoth, but still, they hopefully got the message. C’mon, Apple. I have seen the future, and this ain’t it.
1:08

Apple’s iPad “Crush” Ad Is Bleak, Ominous and Threatening I don’t know if you’ve seen Apple’s just-released commercial for the “New” iPad Pro, but it’s pretty awful. It is dark, humorless, and feels like a not-so-thinly veiled threat to writers, musicians, game makers, developers, and artists of all kinds. …and children, even. I’ve watched it at least five times today alone, and I’m left with one big question. “Who on earth approved this?” It’s absolutely baffling that the world’s largest technology company, with the world’s biggest marketing budget, thought this would be a good idea. What kind of idiot—or idiots, since dozens or hundreds of people had to be involved in the writing, staging, producing, recording, and editing—felt this kind of ad would somehow create a positive emotional connection with consumers? Seriously, it’s terrifying. In a dank, cold warehouse, devoid of all life and humanity, an industrial crusher comes to life, and slowly starts destroying a collection of musical, philosophical, and artistic devices and instruments. For no apparent reason, everything starts getting smashed: first, a trumpet, then an arcade video game, then cans of paint, a piano, a globe, a metronome, a guitar… on and on it goes, obliterating everything in sight into a colorful, gooey, explosive mess. Books, camera lenses, lamps, a guitar, a sculpture, and a typewriter—all tools of the liberal arts—get mangled into a garbage heap as Sonny & Cher cheerfully sing, “All I ever need is you.” In the penultimate moment, a goofy yellow smiley emoji becomes a bug-eyed scary-clown freak as it, too, is crushed to death. Worse, if you enable closed captions like I do by default, the video says: “[POPPING] [SPLAT]” right as its eyeballs pop out of its head when Cher sings, “Give me a reason to build my world around you.” It’s enough to make a child cry. It has all the comforting vibes of the burnt pink teddy bear floating in the swimming pool on Breaking Bad after two planes crash in mid-air. I have so many questions (aside from simply wondering the names of the soon-to-be ex-employees who greenlit this abomination). First of all, as a trumpet player myself, I am personally offended that they made me watch a perfectly good trumpet get smashed to smithereens like it’s no big deal. Why would they torture me like this? Second of all, what is the message here? No, not that “the most powerful iPad ever is also the thinnest,” as the voiceover artist states in the last few seconds of the clip. I mean: what is the message? Ostensibly, pulverizing children’s toys, arcade games, architectural models, and ceramic Angry Birds into a paste implies something like “We’re taking all the best of humanity; all the collective works of Western Civilization, smashing it into pieces and putting it inside this remarkably thin device so you can have all of it in the palm of your hand.” But my oh my, is there an elephant in this room… he’s hiding behind the monstrous destroying machine. Did anyone inside Apple realize that everyone outside Apple will recognize this imagery in a metaphorical sense, but not the one Apple intended? We don’t see a crushing machine gently consolidating the greatest output of all our artistic endeavors, simply reformatted for a digital age and consumed by everyone with instant, fingertip access. We see what is painstakingly obvious to us, and the timing couldn’t possibly be worse. We see a giant, soulless machine consuming our work in a very different way. Right now, AI models are training themselves on our intellectual property and even our very own personally-identifying data. We aren’t the ones doing the consuming. We’re the ones being consumed. The tech industry has become one massive gaping maw, opening wide and swallowing everything in sight, chewing it up into little bits and pieces of comminuted waste, like a paper shredder or a garbage disposal. It’s destruction in its most literal form. And for what? For a newer version of the iPad that is only slightly thinner than its predecessor? For an only marginally improved version of Apple’s tablet device that has been around for 14 years? For increased profits? This is a terrible look for Apple. They may as well be saying: “All your work are belong to us.” Personally, I am a fan of artificial intelligence. I am eagerly embracing our robot overlords and I welcome our new CSV god (as the actual developers of AI models like to say). I look forward to the freedom and innovation that will come as a result of humanity augmenting our intelligence with AI like a force multiplier on a battlefield. But if Apple has the same perspective I do, they’re selling it in the worst possible way. When I see this video, I see that Apple is definitely crushing something… but I’m not sure what. -Crushing small companies that develop apps for the extremely heavy-handed App Store, which imposes byzantine restrictions on what they can and can’t do with their own apps? -Crushing competitors by limiting what they can do on the iOS and MacOS platforms with arbitrary and capricious rules about enabling functionalities that Apple doesn’t like, even if users do? -Crushing publishers and content creators with a punitive 30% fee on all subscriptions and in-app purchases? -Crushing choice and competition by not allowing app makers to make apps and programs that do the same thing that native apps already do, even if they do it better? -Crushing all human creativity and innovation by automating and systematizing everything? In the early days of the “Google vs. Apple” fight over the web and app stores, I was really concerned that Google was becoming way, way too powerful. Specifically, in 2015, when Google came up with “app streaming,” they announced a desire to form a “web of apps.” This was concerning. Especially when coupled with Google’s efforts to steal content from other websites and provide it to users via the “knowledge graph” results, ending up with the creation of “zero-click” search results pages, which absolutely punished website owners and content creators. By taking the most valuable content off a website and showing it to Google users without them needing to click through to the website itself, Google had essentially stolen everybody’s intellectual property with only the most minimal attribution possible (to fend off lawsuits no doubt, but with no intention of users actually visiting the website in question anymore). “Google is eating the internet,” I thought, and said out loud, (although I probably wasn’t the first person to use that phrase) But what I meant was purely an analogy. It was vague and ambiguous, almost silly. Maybe I was wrong, though: maybe it’s Apple that’s doing the eating. Maybe Apple is not only gobbling up everyone else’s work, but also homogenizing it—and us—and forcing us to use their platform, pay their fees, abide by their rules, and constantly keep upgrading, upgrading, upgrading, to an ever-thinner iPad in order to use it. Watch the video again. This is the stuff of nightmares. To be perfectly fair, even if I were to take the commercial at face value and ignore it’s off-the-charts creepiness and just stick to its one stated claim—that the new iPad Pro is thinner—it still fails as a commercial. Why? Because nobody cares how thin an iPad is. Seriously. I’ve owned an iPad since 2010: that means I’ve carried around a version of Apple’s already-thin tablet every day for over a dozen years. Never once have I said to myself: “You know what improvement I’d really like to see in this thing? I wish it were thinner.” Never. That thought has never crossed my mind, even once. You know what has? -Better battery life. -I’d like my iPad to not get hot to the touch when I use the Apple Pencil to take notes. -I wish it wasn’t so fragile: I dropped my brand-new iPad 2 back in the day when it slipped out of the arm-hold I was carrying it in, it bounced on the pavement, and the screen shattered into a thousand pieces, making it unusable. -I wish it had more storage. -I wish Apple would stop changing the type of cable connector it uses: I’ve gone from the original 30-pin connector to the Lightning connector, and now to the current USB-C/Thunderbolt connector. -I wish I could view the screen in direct sunlight. -I wish it wouldn’t overheat and turn off automatically when I use it outdoors in the summertime. Those are announcements I would welcome in a new iPad Pro commercial. None of this “now even thinner” nonsense nobody needs or cares about. So, back to the commercial. In my opinion, whoever made this ad should be fired. I almost never say that about other companies, especially for good-faith marketing efforts gone wrong… those of us who work in marketing make mistakes sometimes, and we learn from them. But cases like this warrant a special exception. Marketing and advertising are designed to make people want to buy your products. This commercial doesn’t just not make me want to buy Apple’s products. It makes me not want to buy Apple’s products, which is something altogether different. It turns me from someone who likes iPads into someone who is almost rethinking iPads entirely. That’s not just a bad advertisement; it’s a harmful advertisement. Apple’s usually known for great commercials. The legendary 1984 Super Bowl commercial was, of course, their best. I thought “Hello, I’m a Mac” was absolutely brilliant. They have made some missteps along the way, but this one is really bad. Not even their nauseatingly preachy and woke “Mother Nature” ad from a few years ago was this bad. Steve Jobs once said, “Technology alone is not enough—it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing.” My goodness, that last line alone is poetry itself! This ad seems to be Apple signaling that they don’t believe in that anymore. And I don’t think all this handwringing is an overreaction to where you could say “Oh, c’mon, it’s just a commercial! What’s the big deal?” It is a big deal. It tells you about the values of the company, and what they intend to communicate. Really, how is this the same company that used to sell iPhones by showing grandmas using FaceTime to connect with their baby grandchildren from afar during the holidays? Everything about it is wrong: even the thumbnail they chose for it (the bulging-eyed smiley face) and the fact that they gave it the title “Crush!” It was fun to see the reactions to the video online today. I find it fascinating that Apple shared it on YouTube but turned off the comments. On X, Tim Cook shared it Tuesday, and the video, which so richly deserves to be mocked, is getting it in spades. Some people are calling it “anti-art.” One user called it “soul-crushing,” which was about as literal and logical a response as you’d expect. It turns out Apple actually made an announcement about the commercial. In response to the (apparently unexpected) poor welcome it got, Apple wrote: “We missed the mark with this video, and we’re sorry.” Lame response from a tone-deaf tech behemoth, but still, they hopefully got the message. C’mon, Apple. I have seen the future, and this ain’t it.

Ron Stauffer

19,249 просмотров • 2 лет назад