Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Hydraulic Exchange Technique: super useful in complex PCI/CTO work. Quick way to get a microcatheter off a short wire without a 300cm wire, trapper, or trapping balloon. Connect an indeflator to the microcatheter, pressurize to 20 atm (it drops constantly, so keep bumping it back up), and just open...

26,076 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

19 Yorum

Abad khan,MD/DM profil fotoğrafı
Abad khan,MD/DM1 ay önce

Yes and More common Name is "NANTO's TECHNIQUE" published in 1994 ..

Salman Arain profil fotoğrafı
Salman Arain1 ay önce

Great technique Anas! 👏🏼 I learnt it from my colleague, @Dhoble7. It is a variation of Nanto’s technique. You can use it with PJWs too - but only if there is a ‘safety knuckle’ at the tip. Re: mechanism, it’s fascinating: Newton’s third law + fluid dynamics (drag!) in action. 😀 It works because the wire cannot move forward, so the MC must move back! The next level of this technique is burr retrieval using Dynaglide during single-operator rota!!!

taki🇺🇸 profil fotoğrafı
taki🇺🇸1 ay önce

The Nanto technique (per Dr. Nanto) was widely used (at least in Japan) before modern trapping balloons became available. I always used this technique when I was in Japan.

Mamas A. Mamas profil fotoğrafı
Mamas A. Mamas1 ay önce

That's pretty much my standard technique, i dont bother using trapping balloons etc

Vivek Chaturvedi profil fotoğrafı
Vivek Chaturvedi1 ay önce

Thanks! This is much better. We used to do it with a 10 ml syring while constantly injecting saline

abdellateef Mohmed🇸🇩 مستشفى الشعب التعليمي profil fotoğrafı
abdellateef Mohmed🇸🇩 مستشفى الشعب التعليمي1 ay önce

Brilliant

Amit Sanghvi profil fotoğrafı
Amit Sanghvi1 ay önce

Hi. This is an useful technique. A more simpler technique is to use a 3 cc syringe with contrast and connect it to the micro catheter and inject. This is much simpler and easy to use.

Joy Sanyal,MD, DM, profil fotoğrafı
Joy Sanyal,MD, DM,1 ay önce

@AdityaMandawat Nanto technique

taki🇺🇸 profil fotoğrafı
taki🇺🇸1 ay önce

A technique for changing a ptca balloon catheter over a regular‐length guidewire - Nanto - 1994 - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis - Wiley Online Library

Jack Hall profil fotoğrafı
Jack Hall1 ay önce

Thank you to Dr Nantos who popularized this technique

Sandeep Jalli profil fotoğrafı
Sandeep Jalli1 ay önce

If this is a reliable technique, shouldn’t the type of wire not matter?

Anas T. Noman profil fotoğrafı
Anas T. Noman1 ay önce

No technique in interventional cardiology is bulletproof. Trapping balloons can rupture or slip, trappers can lose grip if hemostasis isn’t tight. Same principle applies to hydraulic exchange: know the limitations, use it in the right setting and with the right equipment!

Super Doctor K profil fotoğrafı
Super Doctor K1 ay önce

Nanto's technique

CardioPathway profil fotoğrafı
CardioPathway1 ay önce

@cathlabedu Very cool technique! Works extremely well from firsthand experience. Some interventionalists prefer the trapper method but this is quick and low risk.

Mohammed Salman profil fotoğrafı
Mohammed Salman1 ay önce

@Obisht No matter wether it is hydrophilic or hydrophobic. Only the thing is micro catheter ox or N. The newtons third low of motion is the priciple behind it.

Dr S K Sinha profil fotoğrafı
Dr S K Sinha1 ay önce

This is known as NANTO technique and we are using it for past 8 years

Dr S K Sinha profil fotoğrafı
Dr S K Sinha1 ay önce

Yes it does. We are using this for past 6 years and is known as NANTO TECHNIQUE similarly one can advance MC over already parked wire by attaching an empty 10 cc syringe at its back and continuously creating a negative pressure like one use in thrombus aspiration catheter.

Andree profil fotoğrafı
Andree1 ay önce

How about air bubbles?

Matt Deshotels profil fotoğrafı
Matt Deshotels1 ay önce

@Umair2017

Benzer Videolar

Learn from my pitfalls: Severe iliofemoral tortuosity during a MitraClip case. Right iliac: the guide wouldn’t cross over Bayliss wire then Amplatz Super Stiff. Tried the left side instead, very tortuous too. 24F DrySeal went through fine, but the guide still wouldn’t follow. Went back to the right, swapped for a Lunderquist wire. Left the DrySeal sitting in the left iliac/IVC to help straighten things out. Right before pushing the guide through, pulled the DrySeal back to the left iliac and it finally advanced. Lesson: in tortuous vessels before you think about switching to the other side, don’t stop at one stiff wire. Escalate: Bayliss, Amplatz Super Stiff, Safari, Lunderquist, Meier. The theory of a contralateral sheath straightening the IVC might be helpful too. Another idea is to put a 28 F dry-seal then advance the mitraclip through it? Curious to hear how others have handled similar tortuosity? TCTME+ Altayyeb Yousef Wail AlkashkariFSCAI,FPICSوائل القشقرى🇸🇦🇨🇦🇺🇲 MIЯVΛƬ #IC ༄ 。° Amr Mohsen, MD Aref BinAbdulhak MD MSc Marwan Saad Abdallah El Sabbagh Musa A. Sharkawi David J. Cohen, MD, MSc Mohammed Qintar, MD MSc Muhammad Hammadah Mohammed Al-Hijji Juan Del Cid Fratti MD MSc Anton Camaj, MD Cardiovascular Research Foundation David J. Cohen, MD, MSc Mamas A. Mamas Cardiovascular Research Foundation Hooman Bakhshi Abdelkader Almanfi, MD, FACC, FSCAI إبراهيم الحربي Ibrahim Alharbi scottiejj12 Dr Alo, DO, FACC

Anas T. Noman

13,660 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

💡 Ready to witness the future of cardiovascular #innovation? Join Philippe Genereux as he unveils the highly anticipated results of the EARLY TAVR trial, debuting on Monday, October 28! Get an exclusive look at first-time presentations of key clinical trials and groundbreaking studies at #TCT2024! Don’t miss out—reserve your spot today: 📅 Explore the full schedule of late-breaking trials and cutting-edge science. Check it out here: #CardioX #CardioTwitter #CardioEd #CardioResearch Dan Burkhoff MD PhD David J. Cohen, MD, MSc George Dangas, MD, MACC, MSCAI Juan F. Granada Marty Leon Akiko Maehara Dr Roxana Mehran Sahil A. Parikh, MD Tricia Rawh TCT Conference jedicath աǟզǟʀ.ǟɦʍɛɖ إبراهيم الحربي Ibrahim Alharbi Abdelkader Almanfi, MD, FACC, FSCAI Hooman Bakhshi Alessandro Beneduce Nyal Borges Aaysha Cader BCaseMD Nishith Chandra Bailey Ann Iwai David L. Fischman Prof. Hector M. Garcia-Garcia Julia Grapsa Nadira Hamid Stefan Harb @AmandaLimaMD Evandro Martins F. MD Giorgio A. Medranda MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI Neisser M Srihari S. Naidu, MD sumonroy Michael Savage Muhammad Shuaib Abid Pooja Swamy, MD, FACC, FSCAI Ritu Thamman MD Anuradha Tunuguntla MD FACC FSCAI Poonam Velagapudi Edoardo Zancanaro MD Adriana C. Mares Niels R. Holm Abhishek Chaturvedi MD, FACC, FSCAI Krutarth Pandya Indah Sukmawati, MD Shariq Shamim MIЯVΛƬ #IC ༄ 。°
1:19

Sensitive content

💡 Ready to witness the future of cardiovascular #innovation? Join Philippe Genereux as he unveils the highly anticipated results of the EARLY TAVR trial, debuting on Monday, October 28! Get an exclusive look at first-time presentations of key clinical trials and groundbreaking studies at #TCT2024! Don’t miss out—reserve your spot today: 📅 Explore the full schedule of late-breaking trials and cutting-edge science. Check it out here: #CardioX #CardioTwitter #CardioEd #CardioResearch Dan Burkhoff MD PhD David J. Cohen, MD, MSc George Dangas, MD, MACC, MSCAI Juan F. Granada Marty Leon Akiko Maehara Dr Roxana Mehran Sahil A. Parikh, MD Tricia Rawh TCT Conference jedicath աǟզǟʀ.ǟɦʍɛɖ إبراهيم الحربي Ibrahim Alharbi Abdelkader Almanfi, MD, FACC, FSCAI Hooman Bakhshi Alessandro Beneduce Nyal Borges Aaysha Cader BCaseMD Nishith Chandra Bailey Ann Iwai David L. Fischman Prof. Hector M. Garcia-Garcia Julia Grapsa Nadira Hamid Stefan Harb @AmandaLimaMD Evandro Martins F. MD Giorgio A. Medranda MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI Neisser M Srihari S. Naidu, MD sumonroy Michael Savage Muhammad Shuaib Abid Pooja Swamy, MD, FACC, FSCAI Ritu Thamman MD Anuradha Tunuguntla MD FACC FSCAI Poonam Velagapudi Edoardo Zancanaro MD Adriana C. Mares Niels R. Holm Abhishek Chaturvedi MD, FACC, FSCAI Krutarth Pandya Indah Sukmawati, MD Shariq Shamim MIЯVΛƬ #IC ༄ 。°

Cardiovascular Research Foundation

16,814 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

How to build a 1-person AI company that: - Runs locally - 100% open-source - No human employees, all agents - Real-time collaboration via email Multi-agent orchestration is not new. Plenty of frameworks already let agents hand off tasks, run in parallel, and talk to each other. So the interesting question is not whether agents can collaborate. It is what structure you use to make them collaborate. The common approach is to wire a graph of nodes and edges and reason about the plumbing yourself. It works, but you are learning a new abstraction just to describe who does what. There is a coordination structure we have trusted for a hundred years already: an organization. Every company runs the same way. People have roles, roles have reporting lines, and work moves up and down that chart without anyone relaying each message by hand. Map that onto agents and the whole thing gets intuitive. You lay out an org chart, each agent fills one role, you talk to the person at the top, and the org sorts out the work between them. You already know how a company works, so you already know how to run one here. There is no new abstraction to learn. That is exactly what Alook does. Each agent is a live Claude Code or OpenCode session with a defined role, a reporting line, and its own email inbox. The agents coordinate over email, the same way a team would. And it all runs locally through a runtime on your own machine, so nothing leaves your setup. You bring your own agent too. Claude Code and Codex both work, and if you would rather stay fully open source and local, OpenCode works the same way. To show how this feels in practice, I set up three agents as a small sales team. Vi is the one I talk to. I hand Vi a goal, and Vi routes the work down the chart. Neile runs prospect research. Vi passes the target criteria, and Neile reports back a ranked list of names, roles, and companies, each with a suggested angle and a confidence score. Lliane runs outreach. Vi hands over the messaging angle and follow-up cadence, and Lliane reports back on emails sent, responses received, and any deal that needs escalation. I never relay a message between them. Neile and Lliane report to Vi, and Vi updates me in one place. The whole thing is open source and self-hosted, so it runs on your machine with your own agents. Give the repo a star if you want to follow where it goes: I also wrote a full walkthrough on building your own AI company with it, from a blank org chart to a running job. The article is quoted below. Cheers! :)

Akshay 🚀

170,603 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Skills are the quickest way to 10x the quality and consistency of what you get from Claude Code. And you don't need to be a developer to use them. Anthropic just published how they use hundreds of skills internally every day. Most skill tutorials are made for developers — if you're in marketing, sales, content ops, or GTM, you probably watched those and moved on. But skills are just as important for non-developers. A skill is just a reusable prompt with clear instructions for a specific task. Instead of prompting Claude the same way over and over, you build it once and invoke it every time. I have a skill for writing on LinkedIn. A different one for YouTube outlines. Another for X. Each platform has different rules, different voice, different structure — so each one gets its own skill. If you're doing something repeatedly, it's time to make a skill. The biggest mistake most people make: building skills as a single .md file. A single file dumps everything into context whether Claude needs it or not. Wastes tokens. Gets worse results. Skills should be folders. Here's the structure that works: skill.md — the orchestrator. Tells Claude which files to read and when. It doesn't contain rules itself — it's the playbook. instructions/ — separate files for voice, structure, scope. Claude only loads the one it needs for the current step. examples/ — good AND bad. Good examples show what success looks like. Bad examples show patterns to avoid — AI writing tells, weak hooks, generic CTAs. Most people skip bad examples. Don't. eval/ — a checklist that scores every output before you see it. "Does it have a clear hook?" "Is it free of AI buzzwords?" Pass or fail on each item. templates/ — output formatting so you get consistent structure every time. The three types of skills that matter most for non-developers: 1. Business automation. Writing a newsletter. Checking reports and drafting follow-ups. Running programmatic ad campaigns. Any workflow you repeat — build a skill for it. 2. Content templates. Landing page copy, meta ads, email sequences, SEO briefs. Each one has specific requirements. Each one gets its own skill. 3. Thinking partners. This is the one people miss. Skills don't have to produce output. They can help you think — an advisory board that reviews your work from your ICP's perspective, a coach that pressure-tests your strategy, an ideation partner that researches competitors before suggesting your next move. If you already have skills as .md files, here's the exact prompt to restructure them in the Anthropic approved format: "I want to restructure my Claude Code skill file. Right now my skill is a single .md file and I want to break it into a folder system following Anthropic's best practices. Read my current skill file, then restructure it into a folder with: a skill.md orchestrator, an instructions/ folder with separate files for each concern (voice, structure, scope), an examples/ folder with good and bad examples, an eval/ folder with a quality checklist, and a templates/ folder for output formatting. Keep all my existing rules and intent — just reorganize them into the modular structure." Paste that into Claude Code pointed at the folder where your skill lives. It handles the rest. A few caveats: 1. Don't add too many skills. Every skill adds context Claude has to process. 50 skills loaded means everything slows down. Start with 3-5 covering your most repeated workflows. 2. Vet skills before downloading. If you grab a skill from the internet, read what's inside first. Skills can include shell commands and scripts. Check what you're running. 3. Share what works. Build a skill that performs well, put it in a shared GitHub repo. Your marketing org gets shared skills for copywriting, SEO, ad copy — new hires invoke the skill instead of learning every playbook from scratch. Onboarding time drops dramatically. 4. Keep your skills updated. When you see output you love, add it as a good example. When you see a pattern you hate, add it as a bad example. The skill gets sharper every time. I made a full video walking through all of this — including a live build of two skills from scratch (no terminal, no code), the exact prompt I use to restructure old skills, and 5 pro tips from Anthropic's internal playbook. Share this with your non-developer friends that want to do more with AI; or bookmark it to come back to at a later time.

JJ Englert

29,322 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

AI AGENTS 101 (58 minute free masterclass) send this to anyone who wants to understand ai agents, claude skills, md files, how to get the most out of AI etc in plain english: 1. chat vs agents - chat models answer questions in a back and forth while agents take a goal, figure out the steps, and deliver a result 2. agents don’t stop after one response. they keep running until the task is actually finishedno babysitting required 3. everything runs on a loop. they gather context, decide what to do, take an action, then repeat until done 4. the loop is the system. they look at files, tools, and the internet. decide the next step. execute and then feed that back into the next step. over and over until completion 5. the model is just one piece. gpt, claude, gemini are the reasoning layer. the key is model + loop + tools + context 6. mcp is how agents use tools. it connects things like browser, code, apis, and your internal software. once connected, the agent decides when to use them to get the job done 7. context beats prompt all day. you don't need to write perfect prompts. load your agent with context about your business, style, and goals and then simple instructions work 8. claude.md or agents.md is the onboarding doc it tells the agent who it is, how to behave, what it knows, and what tools it can use. this gets loaded every time before it starts 9. memory.md is how it improves. agents don’t remember by default. this file stores preferences, corrections, and patterns you tell the agent to update it, and it gets better over time 10. skills + harnesses make it usable. skills are reusable tasks like writing, research, analysis the harness is the environment like claude code or openclaw that runs everything. basiclaly, different interfaces, same system underneath this episode with remy on The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃 was one of the clearest ways of understanding a lot of the core concepts of ai agents could be the best beginners course for ai agents 58 mins. all free. no advertisers. i just want to see you build cool stuff. im rooting for you. send to a friend watch

GREG ISENBERG

377,138 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

** Sega Genesis 3D Engine Update 8 ** Significant improvements all round as you can see and hear from the last update !! Foremost - A huge thanks to Toni Gálvez - Megastyle - BG. who has joined the project to create a bit of 16bit low poly magic. Toni's an Amiga fan but also crazy about game dev in general, he's worked on GBC, GBA, PC, MD, PSP, C64, CPC, MSX... and others. Gaming titles include War Times, Metal Gear, Rocketman, Tintin & Asterix to name a few. He's provided the great new ship model you see on screen - new striped buildings, all the backgrounds / palettes etc. There's a lot of models he's given me which need to be added, also he will be planning a lot of the level design. Very happy to have him help me turn this into something more than a tech demo as I have my hands tied pushing the MD as far as it can go haha - there is no cpu cycle to be spared. Also many thanks to my good friend CYBERDEOUS - Crouzet Laurent for the Music for this showing , I wanted to have the music load occurring so we have a realistic benchmark for performance and he was only too obliging. If you're into MD chiptunes check him out !! Since last update : New player model , substantially more detailed than the Arwing. Last update had a 23 triangle Arwing , this update has a 39 triangle custom model from Toni. We had several to choose from , others will be used for enemies . 3D Buffer size increased 25% to 256x160. This was quite tricky as I'm close to the DMA limit even with an extended vblank . Spent a few days thinking of how to do this as like anything retro every solution has a drawback, finally got a workable solution. It makes a big difference to have a bit more vertical height . Z Rotation added ( the screen tilting left to right ) , small hit to vertex transform on cpu thanks to look up tables doing the heavy lifting, saving 4 multiplies per vertex. Multiple speed ups in rendering code. Onscreen paths with no range checking used until Z is close enough to cause clipping , partial onscreen drawing pathes that need to check boundaries, quad rendering completely rewritten - was very very painfull to get right . I found out the hard way that things are great when they are not rotating in the Z axis haha . Partial buffer draw optimisations - which have helped with the massive dma load , sending up to a 20kb buffer in a single frame needs a lot of optimisation. Min / Max tile lines are analysed and only sent if dirtied , reducing most buffer swaps substantially. Still some issues to sort out , at times you can see the flicker near top of screen when frames are near full height . I need to optimise that a bit. Due to the onscreen buffer system a full Sprite background had to be implemented almost Neo Geo style. This flips the usual MD rendering system on its head as it uses both foreground and background layers for a foreground 3d plane and sprites for the background. This presents a few issues, one is to get a tilt effect on the background by using narrow sprites (16x32) we run out of sprites when trying to cover the screen. Thankfully the MD is not limited to 80 sprites, to fix this a 114 sprite multiplexor is used to draw the background, its completely made up of 16x32 sprites ! Why do things this way ? speed . Its the interleaved foreground/background layers that allow a double buffered ram system writing to write to vram using dma in a completely linear fashion - virtually no tile translation needed. The negative is you have no planes for the background, that's where the sprites come in . Thanks to H40 mode we still have a few sprites we can use for effects in the forground also . Thankfully we can implement a fairly good tilt still for the background using sprites, in future updates this will be able to move horizontally also and a bit of vertical movement. XGM1 music driver in use to simulate music cpu load, XGM2 unfortunately with the massive DMA needed to shift the 3d buffers would slow down at times rendering it unusable, XGM1 plays at full speed - albiet with a bit more of a cpu hit. Together with the sprite multiplexor and the music driver active theres a 10 % hit to cpu so I've had to play around with draw distances / object heights and other optimisations to offset that. Not to mention the larger buffer takes more cpu to fill also. Everything is placeholder so will be changed with proper stage design. We are averaging 20 FPS in the current video, I'll push for more as always !! Progress continues on my other projects , updates soon on those - retirement can't come quick enough . #SGDK #SegaGenesis #SegaMegadrive

Shannon Birt

34,837 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Ever since I wired Claude Code to WhatsApp 3 weeks ago, I built a stupidly large infra around it. I mean, opus built it. No clue how the code even looks. The entire thing was vibe coded using my phone. I wanted to see how far I could push it without touching the computer. Everything via WhatsApp. Build what I need on the fly. So the resulting infrastructure will already be battle tested for software development. The entire thing was streamlined with nearly no manual interventions, everything was communicated via WhatsApp using a single script establishing this connection. If the script is down, I need to get home to start it again to resume the development. Claude was upgrading it, debugging it, restarting it while maintaining constant uptime so it could keep communicating with me. I stressed Claude about it, telling it that it will be “in the dark” and other words that deliberately sound scary about losing communications if the script dies. I also refused git and refused cloning the code, I wanted to see Claude adapting to work on a *LIVING* system. The way this whole thing works: Claude has its own dedicated phone number that I am paying for. A real WhatsApp account for it is installed on a real iPhone that is sitting on my desk. All is registered under my name, this is legit setup with no hacks and tricks. I’ve set up a WhatsApp “Community” and multiple different groups under it. Both me and Claude are the admins, so Claude could edit it on my behalf. Each group is a project I am working on and has its own isolated context. The Group description is a system prompt that gets auto-appended to the larger system prompt explaining this setup in general. When I send a message it’s an instant interrupt to Claude Code’s process, just like in the terminal. Voice notes are seamlessly transcribed with a local Whisper model. Images are used with multimodal reading in an isolated parallel session. Multiple groups running in parallel so I can work on all projects at the same time. No cross-talking, everything has an isolated context and history. And because it’s local on my own machine: Everything is REAL. The browser is REAL. I am connected as myself on it to all services because I actually use it in real life. Claude has unlimited internet access, just like humans who use actual browsers. It utilizes custom-made browser tools that I made to control any browser session it wants. Depending on the situation, it can either connect to my existing session or create one for its own. (You can tell it ‘look at my browser for a sec’ then talk about the current page you are on and it just works, pretty cool) My custom browser tools are not perfect (not by a long shot) but I managed to make them work well to the point they are somewhat reliable. This gives Claude full access to my real creds and all the services I actually use. I’m productive AS HELL with this. It really feels like a personal assistant. I ask it to read my emails and msgs, check x .com for news, research arxiv papers, write code, run experiments for me, investigate and reverse engineer github repos, even use my credit card and order things. [I try not to do this one a lot lol so far no disasters]. All from my phone. Super convenient. This is not a product or an open source project (maybe soon of it will make sense). This is just an ugly script I hacked the entire thing is ~600 lines. (ok maybe i did look at the code, but i swear i didn’t edit!) You can also vibe code this from scratch pretty fast and it will probably even end up better. This is just a cool thing so I’m sharing. It is a real speed booster for many things I do on daily basis, mostly boring things. Forcing my routine into some new “agent platform” just didn’t feel right for me. WhatsApp is where I already communicate and look for messages, so I decided that my agents will live there too. AGI in my pocket 24/7.

Yam Peleg

420,060 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

MY GROK BOT CONTENT SYSTEM JUST WENT VIRAL ON X – SO I THINK YOU NEED TO SEE WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN IT It wasn't the visual that got people. It was realizing this is already possible, today, for anyone. That's the part worth saying out loud. AI agents used to be a developer thing. You needed an API key, a server, a framework, and a weekend you weren't getting back. Grok Bot deleted all of that. You describe the job in plain language, and you have an agent that does it – with its own computer, its own browser, its own files, running whether you're at the desk or not. Which means the question stopped being can I build this and became what do I point it at. People are pointing it at everything: sales outreach, research, SEO, bookkeeping, customer replies, personal admin. This one is aimed at the thing most people say they'll start and never do – publishing consistently. It's seven agents. One in the centre, six in orbit. Here's what each one actually does. CHIEF OF STAFF – the centre. Every request lands here first, gets broken into jobs, and gets routed to whoever owns that kind of work. It chases what's late, keeps the others from duplicating each other, and surfaces exactly one thing to me when a real decision is needed. Everything else it just handles. RESEARCHER – goes out and finds what's actually moving in the niche. Reads the sources, checks the claim, drops the duplicates, and hands over a brief with links attached. Not "here's what I think" – here's what's true and where it came from. WRITER – takes that brief and writes the finished piece in my voice. Hooks, threads, captions, long-form. It's had my old posts as reference, so what comes back isn't a draft I rewrite – it's a draft I approve. VISUALISER – I fed it my reference visuals once. Now every cover, image and dashboard comes back in that exact style, without a single new instruction. This is the agent that kills the "I have the post but no visual" excuse. ANALYST – reads what actually performed. Not vanity numbers: which hook shape landed, which format died, which time slot was dead air. Then it tells the Writer and the Scheduler what to do differently. This is the loop almost every setup is missing, and it's why most of them plateau. SCHEDULER – owns timing. Holds the queue, spaces things properly, protects the calendar, and makes sure nothing ships into an empty feed at 3am. PUBLISHER – ships it. Formats per platform, posts, confirms it went out, logs it back to the Chief. The reason it holds together instead of falling apart: they share memory. The research is already sitting inside the draft before the draft starts. No copy-pasting between tools, no re-explaining context, no approving every step. And you can teach any of them a repetitive task by recording yourself doing it – start recording, do the thing, stop. I wrote the whole thing up below – every agent, what each one is told, how they hand off, and how to wire it together. Read it and you can start building this today, not "eventually" ↓

SCOTTY BEAM

10,486 görüntüleme • 11 gün önce

Why Exchanges Banned This Bot: The 142,000% Return Liquidation Strategy Revealed i finally posted the strategy that got me banned and now the exchanges are probably sweating because i am handing you the keys to the liquidation engine. most people think trading is about charts but the real alpha is hidden in the moments when other traders lose everything. if you can understand why market makers hunt these positions you will never look at a candlestick the same way again. it took years of losing money to liquidations and over trading to realize that hand trading is a losing game for almost everyone on the planet. code is the great equalizer because it removes the emotion that usually causes you to hold a losing position until your account hits zero. i spent hundreds of thousands on developers in the past thinking i could not code myself until i realized i just needed to iterate to success. trading by hand is just driving a horse while everyone else is in a ferrari and the fees alone will chop you up before you even realize you were wrong. i watched a guy with a six million dollar short position sitting just two percent away from total liquidation while i was building this. seeing those numbers on the screen gives me ideas that i can automate into a bot so i dont have to spend my life staring at a monitor. the process i follow is called the rbi system which stands for research backtest and implement. most traders skip the first two steps and go straight to implementation which is why they get smoked on their very first bot. research starts with a backlog of ideas from books or papers or even just watching how the market reacts to big moves. once you have that idea you have to see if it worked in the past using a backtest because if it did not work then it certainly won't work in the future. i have been collecting liquidation data for eighteen months because that data is the lifeblood of a winning system. there is a hidden loop in the market where market makers try to liquidate as many people as possible to find liquidity. i wanted to build a strategy that either trades with that momentum or bets on the bounce right after the liquidation happens. the first strategy i tested was a pure liquidation momentum play that looks for a threshold of nine hundred seventy five thousand dollars in liquidations. when longs get liquidated it shorts the market to continue the down move and it tries to take a one percent profit. this strategy showed a return of over four hundred percent in the backtest while the buy and hold was only thirty three percent. it sounds amazing but you have to be careful with optimized results because you can search with math until you find anything. i decided to flip the logic on its head and create an inverse liquidation strategy that acts as a contrarian. instead of following the move it waits for the longs to get liquidated and then buys the dip after a small price spread. this is where i stumbled onto something that felt like a mistake but turned out to be pure alpha. i accidentally typed in a threshold of three hundred thousand dollars instead of three million and the results were unbelievable. the backtest return jumped to over one hundred forty thousand percent because the bot was catching every single micro bounce in the market. even when i doubled the commission fees to account for the high trade volume the strategy still stayed incredibly profitable. most people would have missed this because they are too busy trying to be right instead of just looking at what the data says. i use tools like claude and cursor to build these bots in minutes when it used to take me an entire week to write the code. if you are not using ai to automate your ideas you are essentially choosing to work ten times harder for less money. i built three separate bots during this session including a momentum bot and two different versions of the inverse spread bot. running these together creates a sort of statistical arbitrage where you can hedge your positions across different market conditions. one bot wins when the market cascades and the other wins when it fakes out and reverses. you have to start with tiny ten dollar sizes because a backtest is never a hundred percent guarantee of what will happen today. i always run my p and l close logic first to make sure the bot exits the position if the stop loss or take profit is hit. it is vital to check your position every fifteen seconds and make sure you are not double ordering or getting stuck in a trade. the goal is to have fully automated systems trading for you so you can actually live your life while the bots do the work. i push all of this code to my private github because i believe that wall street will never show you how this actually works. you have to be a doer and not a dabbler if you want to actually make it in this industry. the reason i show everything live on youtube is to prove that anyone can learn to do this if they are willing to iterate. you dont need to be a math genius you just need to follow the rbi system and stay disciplined with your risk. every liquidation you see on the chart is a signal and if you know how to read them you are no longer the one being hunted. i am currently running the third version of the bot to see how it handles the live market volatility. it is a beautiful thing to see a system enter and exit a trade perfectly without you having to click a single button. the fees are the silent killer of hand traders but a bot can be programmed to use limit orders and stay efficient. if you learn to code you can build anything for the rest of your life regardless of where you are in the world. stop trying to guess which way the candle will go and start building systems that can handle both directions. i am going to keep testing these three strategies against each other to find the ultimate ensemble for this current market. once you find a winning edge you just have to scale it up slowly and keep refining the parameters. the exchanges might not like that i am sharing this but code is the great equalizer and it is time for you to use it. i will be back tomorrow to show the results and keep building more systems until everything is fully automated

Moon Dev

11,948 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Vallée and the Closed System: Are We Prisoners? 🧠👽 Vallée: "Are We Being Taken Over by a Species from Somewhere in Space That's Vastly More Intelligent Than We Are?" 👽🧠 "..the simulation...was a new concept that I initially rejected." ~Vallée "Is it looking for us to try to interact with it as equals or with parity?" ~Scafish "Nobody says that to Congress, and I think Congress should hear it." ~Vallée If, "it's a closed system, we're like prisoners and something is going to happen to us, and there is very little we can do." ~Vallée Turn the thermostat dial. "If the temperature doesn't change, then I know I'm inside a control system. So, we can do the same thing with UFOs, but we have to react. We have to, number one, acknowledge that it exists, and number two, we have to react to it." ~Vallée ~~~ I've been wanting to share this one for a while... Vallée: "So, he said, the question you have to ask about UFOs is, number one, is it a natural system or an artificial system...control system. And if it is a control system, is it open or closed? In other words, are we being taken over by a species from somewhere in space that's vastly more intelligent than we are?" (I've never heard him even suggest that possibility.) Vallée: "You know, as Dr. Garry P. Nolan says, you know, people who have had ten, you know, scientific revolutions, or a hundred or a thousand, and come here with superior science to do something... And in which case, you know, it's a closed system, we're like prisoners and something is going to happen to us, and there is very little we can do. Or, is it an open system where we can, in fact, communicate with it. And if we can communicate with it, then the question for me as an information scientist is, what are the modalities of the interaction, you know? It's not just can we learn their language? And they say, you know, 'We come in peace to save mankind,' or something. Or 'We will give you the cure for cancer' or something. I don't think it's at that level." (Will we ever be able to get answers to these extremely important questions? If it's an open system, how do we communicate with it? How do we provoke it to react? We know it reacts to anything nuclear but we still don't know why. This is why we need the USG (and other governments) to present evidence that shows the masses this is real and extremely important for our species to investigate. If that evidence exists and is shown, we'll have an easier time getting the world's best minds to join the effort in figuring out the best way to answer these questions. We still may fail but we should at least try.) Vallée: "I think it's a meta-system. It's not a system. And that's my fear...if we can circle back to your earlier question about, you know, about NIDS and about BAASS, what we did for the government and what we did for the Defense Intelligence Agency. Half of the budget was spent developing, you know, a super database. And we don't know where it went. I mean, I'm not cleared to know where it went." (On the contractor (BAASS) side, Bigelow should have all copies of what AAWSAP produced. And on the DIA side, Lacatksi said he put all of the digital files in a specific place that he didn't name. As long as someone didn't delete it all, it should still be there. Vallée has said that the Capella database has about 250,000 cases from around the world.) Vallée: "But that would be a very interesting question, because the people who are getting [the database] are getting raw data, which we have very well organized, all in English. So they have the luxury of, you know, we had five translators from French, English, Portuguese, Russian, you know, everything was translated in a single structure across fourteen databases. "That's what we need to answer the question about the control system, and it's not being done. And we hired a whole team that we had trained to work on it. So to rebuild that will take the next ten or fifteen years. And nobody says that to Congress, and I think Congress should hear it, because it's our money." (As long as names and personal details are scrubbed from that database, there is no reason NOT to release it to the public. This way, we can take it and use AI to help decipher patterns and maybe answer some of these questions. Can Congress help us get access to that database?) Vallée: "When you ask, is it a control system? That's a big question." Peter Scafish Peter Skafish - "You asked, at one point, whether the system is open or closed, and you said, additionally, I believe, if it's open, that it would be possible to communicate back to it. And it sounds to me like that's the key question for you. Is, if you can understand what what the system of symbols is, or the modalities of communication, then you can understand enough to engage in some kind of communication, or at least give some kind of response to show that you understand." Vallée: "Yes." Scafish: "So then the question, and we have a member named Jacqueline, who has asked this. Could the system be stimulating us - provided there is such a system - to interact with it, more as subjects or agents than as something like animals or objects? Is it looking for us to try to interact with it as equals or with parity?" (When people report getting injured or sick from being in close proximity to UAP, it suggests to me that the phenomenon won't go out of its way to avoid affecting us in a negative manner if we get in their its/way (assuming it even knows that close encounters with UAP are not good for humans). Kind of like how we treat lower lifeforms. If we encounter a wild rabbit crossing the road, many of us will do our best to avoid it, but not if it means damaging our car or ourselves in an accident. It may ruin our day if we hit it, but it won't stop us from driving again in the future. Do NHI have bad days if their tech injures us or makes us sick? I have no clue.) Vallée: "Well, what I saw in the notes you gave me, is she was also asking: Is it a control system because we think it is? And that's a very interesting question. Because we react to the UFO phenomenon, or the UAP phenomenon. And, you know, at this point when I think about what I'm going to do next in this research, if I'm given the the opportunity to live a little longer, I'm not going to go back and write any more computer programs. There are better people to do that now, they have the data, and we're in a different phase now. We're in a whole different system. I have the luxury of doing some experiments I wanted to do for a long time." (Would have liked Scafish to ask him: What types of experiments?) Vallée: "So, if you think you are inside the control system, there are things that you can do. Or, if you think you're inside the simulation, you know, which was a new concept that I initially rejected, and then, you know, Ray's (Kurzweil?) work and others have brought it back to the forefront. And we have to ask that at the same time. Can we test it? How would you test it? Well, if, you know, I'm here in my apartment, and the temperature is constant in this apartment. But outside, I can see it's cold, or I can see the sun is out and it's warm, and how come it's constant here? So this would lead me to think that there is a control system, namely a thermostat, that is somewhere. "So I can start looking around the walls, and if I see dial, I can turn it, or I could start a fire and see what happens, see if the temperature changes. If the temperature doesn't change, then I know I'm inside a control system. So, we can do the same thing with UFOs, but we have to react. We have to, number one, acknowledge that it exists, and number two, we have to react to it."

Joe Murgia

59,089 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

"We do it again. We do it again. We do it again. Because, this can't be. The problem is..it be. No matter how skeptical you are, be as skeptical as you'd like, but there it is." ~Bengston (This is what Mick West said he doesn't find interesting and thus, he doesn't want to interview Bengston. The truth? IMO, he's scared shitless to take on Bengston as there's too much data to refute. Psi (or whatever this is) is real and this is one of the more interesting claims in the world. How could you NOT be interested in this? How about you, Michael Shermer?) "We re-injected the mice without any treatment, and the mice were immune to cancer." ~Bengston (It's the 1970s on Long Island. A skeptical Bill Bengston is working as a lifeguard at the town pool and meets a guy, Ben, who claims to be psychic. No matter what tests Bengston comes up with, Ben passes with flying colors. Then Ben starts healing people. But how to know if they were being healed with Ben's psi or something more prosaic? Did they change their diet? Supplements? Conventional medicine? Not everybody came back so it was very hard to know. So Bengston moves to the lab where Ben would try to cure mice of a cancer that has killed every mouse ever injected within 27 days max. At the last minute, Ben drops out and Bengston is forced to be the healer.) ~ Bill Bengston: "If you watch a few hundred healings, at first it's exhilarating, but after a while it's frustrating. Because you don't know what, why, where, when, any of those things that someone interested in serious inquiry might be interested in. You were just looking at people coming in, some benefit occurred. People leaving. Sometimes they didn't come back. Sometimes it took more than one treatment. Sometimes it happened pretty quick. I think I was the fastest ever (Bengston says Ben healed his back after one short treatment). But what did? "So you come in, you have x, it's a famous algebraic disease. You have x, and you leave better. Now maybe it's the multiple treatments, you know, whatever it may be. But you leave better. What did it? Was it time? Because people get better over time. Was it belief? I didn't think it was belief, because I wasn't a believer. I was an experiencer, but not a believer. Was it the food you ate, the food you stopped eating, the grapefruit you had in the morning? I can't...I don't have the head to wrap myself around clinical questions like that. I never know why something happens, because there's too many variables and such. "And so, after watching a couple hundred healings, taking part in a couple hundred healings, I decided to...I gotta go past this. And I ran into another guy who was watching this, somewhat parallel to me. A geologist, pretty well known (David Krinsley ~Joe). And we said, 'What can we do to test this? You know, the phenomenon is seriously interesting. What could we do to really test it so that if healing occurs, there's no viable counter hypothesis.' "And at the time, he was the head of the geology department at City University of New York, and he said, 'I got some favors owed me, let me see what I can find out in the biology department. I'm pretty good friends with the chairman of the biology department there.' "And so he met with the biology chair, and he said, 'Well, let me poke around in my department and see what we can do.' And he said, 'I got the perfect study. There's a mouse model of cancer that has 100% fatality. Never been an extension of life past a month after it's been injected with cancer. There's thousands of journal articles written about this mouse and this cancer. Everybody around the world knows this mouse and this cancer. If you're in oncology, you know this mouse and this cancer, and [there] has never been a cure.' "I said, 'Let's do it. Let's find out what we can do.' "And at the time, I had no idea what to expect. So I was thinking, 'Well, maybe we can extend the life towards a month. Maybe it won't be a normal curve distribution, maybe it'll be a negatively-skewed distribution. And maybe the mouse will live to the end of their lifespan and all that. "We had no idea what to expect. "So we got a cage of mice. I held the cage of mice for an hour at a time in the lab at Queens College, City University, and we watched as the tumors grew. And I was sure this was failing. And incidentally, I'm almost always wrong. I expected, if we got to the mice right after injection and we treated them a couple times, enough, every day - we didn't know - if we treated them every day, they wouldn't develop cancer. I was thinking, you know, it's something like radiation. You know, you go, 'Zzt, zzt,' and you zap the mice and the tumors, or the cancer cells die, or something along those lines. I was thinking conventional oncology. "And so, I put my hands around the cage of mice, treated them every day, the tumors started to grow anyway, and I wanted to call off the experiment. You know, it shows you how much I believe. I got talked into going a couple extra days, and the tumors developed these blackened areas. And I said, 'Let's call it off, didn't work. You know, we tried it. Didn't work.' "Go a couple more days. Tumors started to ulcerate, and so there was this raw part of a tumor. And I said, 'Would you pay attention? It doesn't work!' Couple more days. And then the tumors suddenly imploded, and the mice were cured. They weren't remitted, they were cured. And by that, I mean it wasn't a suppression of symptoms, it wasn't a temporary reduction in symptoms. It was...there was no cancer in the mouse at all. "And it's farther than that. We re-injected the mice without any treatment, and the mice were immune to cancer. Now that's reasonably interesting. "So, first thing you do is, I, as a skeptic, go, 'Umm, this doesn't make any sense (laughs). Let's do it again. But let's not do it with just me, let's do it with some volunteers.' "So I had a couple of faculty volunteers who thought this thing was insane, and they were right. So I had a couple of faculty volunteers, they got a couple of student volunteers. All non-believers, no experience in any of this hocus pocus. Taught 'em the little technique that I had developed. They treated the mice, the exact same pattern: Tumor grows, blackened area, ulceration, implosion, full lifespan cure. "We do it again. We do it again. We do it again. Because, this can't be. The problem is..it be." (Both laugh) "It's just, you know, no matter how skeptical you are, be as skeptical as you'd like, but there it is. You know, I deny this gravity, you know? I don't believe in gravity. There is gravity. I don't believe in this healing. There is healing. "I just finished, recently, my twentieth mouse experiment, I'm a little slow. I've done it in, I think, six medical schools, equal number of other biology labs. And I just finished at Tokyo University, multiple strains of cancer and details you don't care about. "And so, I have done, at this point, twenty mouse experiments, multiple medical schools, many cell experiments. I've done many experiments. That's the really short version. A hundred years truncated into a couple of paragraphs."

Joe Murgia

12,705 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce