正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

✍️I noticed something remarkable about the massive cloud that went viral after the July 28 Kumamoto (Japan) earthquake. ☁️Leading up to the earthquake, a very similar cloud formation appeared over the same region for three consecutive days. 👇 🛰️ The Himawari satellite time-lapse reveals a consistent daily cycle: 📍...

jeoalbant's profile picture

Jeo Albant

41,830 subscribers

314,082 次观看 • 11 天前 •via X (Twitter)

科学技术教育新闻政治
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Stop saying Cloud Seeding! You are all so close to understanding. Cloud Seeding introduces a CCN (cloud condensing nuclei) into the atmosphere, which will make available moisture condense and precipitate. The key to understanding the man-made nature of these floods is looking at the sheer volume of water, and comparing that to what is naturally available. According to Grok, over 8000 square miles, at 50% relative humidity, 160 billion gallons of rain can be produced from cloud seeding. In Texas we saw 2 TRILLION GALONS fall from the sky, over that same area. 2 TRILLION - in a few hours! Where did all that water vapor come from? I watched it live on Satellite. Hint, it comes from the ground. It always does. On-land, in-place, rapid water evaporation. The exposure op is clearly underway. The CEO of Rainmaker was just on Shawn Ryan. This is no coincidence. It's time for the people to know. You can only seed available moisture. You've seen this with your own eyes and just didn't realize what you were seeing. Pray for the victims. This is a crime and must stop.
1:24

Stop saying Cloud Seeding! You are all so close to understanding. Cloud Seeding introduces a CCN (cloud condensing nuclei) into the atmosphere, which will make available moisture condense and precipitate. The key to understanding the man-made nature of these floods is looking at the sheer volume of water, and comparing that to what is naturally available. According to Grok, over 8000 square miles, at 50% relative humidity, 160 billion gallons of rain can be produced from cloud seeding. In Texas we saw 2 TRILLION GALONS fall from the sky, over that same area. 2 TRILLION - in a few hours! Where did all that water vapor come from? I watched it live on Satellite. Hint, it comes from the ground. It always does. On-land, in-place, rapid water evaporation. The exposure op is clearly underway. The CEO of Rainmaker was just on Shawn Ryan. This is no coincidence. It's time for the people to know. You can only seed available moisture. You've seen this with your own eyes and just didn't realize what you were seeing. Pray for the victims. This is a crime and must stop.

Parallel 8 Media

45,122 次观看 • 1 年前

⃤ Video of a Black Triangle - What's the Frequency, Gerry? ⃤ "A very clear visual representation of what was on the radar. It resembled a very black, triangular or delta shape to it" "It was always slightly out of focus for some reason." "Garry Nolan told us to watch for the cloud formations." (If you scroll down to the bottom, I'll tell you the exact time stamps for each the UAP videos that were shown.) "We believe [it's NHI]. Either that or some very sophisticated technology that maybe we're reverse engineering." "There was a specific electronic signature (frequency) emanating from them when they were going into or coming out of the water, so they were easy to track." ~Bob Fish ~ Gerry Tedesco: August 29th, "we were in the RV, running tests on our equipment because we was planning on going out that weekend." John Tedesco: "And we noticed that we had a signature (on their spectrum analyzer) there that was well presented, very unusual for the area. And we kind of collaborated that with some radar data. Radar seemed to align with what we had on the spectrum analyzer. The object, we believe, was over the water at that point, simply because of the distance that we were able to capture it on the radar. It presented in a cloud layer, exited a cloud layer, produced a signature." Gerry; "This was a single thunderstorm cloud in the sky and the weather was great. We had cumulous clouds out there, mostly clear. And this was a dark, cumulonimbus cloud. It was a very dark thunderstorm cloud, and it looked out a place. " Ross Coulthart: "Do you think that that cloud might have been a fake cloud?" Donna Lee Nardo: "So Garry P. Nolan, he came out with us for our field study one night. He told us, Watch for the cloud formations.' And John, Gerry, and I saw one really nasty-looking...it looked like 10 motherships situated...oriented north to south, one night when we were doing the field study. And I believe this was early on in 2022. And it also was a clear night, but it just looked out of place. It was dark, yet there were lighted portions. But it was just so humongous. And we always remember that Garry had said, look at the cloud formations." Gerry: "Yeah, we definitely had some oddities out there." Coulthart: "I've had people, multiple people have sent me imagery. There's quite famous ones on YouTube where you see what looks like a cloud, and it's shaped just ever so slightly like a disc or a craft. And it's got the fluffy edges of a cloud, and then it suddenly maneuvers and just moves away. And I sometimes wonder whether something or someone is using clouds as a form of stealth or signature management." Gerry: "That's a possibility. We look at that, we look to see if it is a cloud. We use shortwave infrared, which does pick up moisture. And it'll actually differentiate the precipitation in a cloud, or moisture in a cloud, so we know it is a real cloud." Coulhart: "Did you do that with this cloud that night?" John: "Exactly, exactly. And this is something that we could determine that there wasn't moisture content." Coulthart: "So you were able to show it wasn't a classic cumulonimbus cloud, even though it looked like one." John: "No, no. Yeah, and the object was well hidden for a short period of time. Actually, relatively long period of time before it emerged from the cloud body." Coulthart: "So Donna is probably right: This is probably some kind of intelligent stealth management by something." Gerry: "It's a possibility." Donna: "Possibly." John: "It could very well be." (I like how all three will only go as far as, Possible and Could be.) Coulthart: "This is where it gets really interesting. Talk me through what happens next. " Gerry: "Okay, so we watched an object emerge from the cloud on radar. John and I quickly went to get our binoculars, we have what's called Vortex binoculars. These are high-end binoculars, great optical glass. John had began looking at the cloud with those, and he told me, we both went outside. I was trying to find one of the other cameras, scrambling, trying to get one of the other cameras going. "And John said, 'There's a black object moving between the cloud.' And then it was emerging from the cloud. So I grabbed my cell phone and videotaped it. While John was looking at them, we switched. And what we saw was something...originally it resembled a very black, triangular or delta shape to it, or bell shape to it. It had that Delta shape, or triangular shape." Coulthart: "And was this showing up on radar at this stage, that delta shape?" Gerry: "Yes." John: "Yes." Coulthart: "Wow!" John: "Yes, we did have a radar target." Gerry: "We tracked it on radar. On radar, it appears to separate into two more objects, which is quite interesting." Coulthart: "You found something interesting in the frequency, and you can't talk about it, can you? Has the FBI asked you, not to talk about it?" Gerry: "Yes, that's the sensitive part. There was quite a bit of interesting signals, but that goes into signals intelligence, which we can't talk about." Coulthart: "Just let me guess. 1.6 by any chance?" (They all laugh) Donna: "You've been talking to people." Gerry: "No comment." Coulthart: "No, it just fascinates me. Is it 1.6 gigahertz, or megahertz? I'm trying to remember." John: "It's gigahertz. Yeah, I know with Skinwalker Ranch, I know the one, 1.6 seems to come up quite a bit. There's also a three-gigahertz signal, supposedly." Gerry: "There's a few others, too. We'll leave it at that." Coulthart: "No, but it's interesting. It's such a consistent thing, and I'm really interested because all around the world, people are contacting me, talking about 1.6, in particular, but also about three gigahertz. And nobody's explaining it. But often it's an indicator." ~~~From My Bob Fish Blog~~~ Bob Fish: "In that same TS/SCI building cafeteria in El Segundo, I had lunch with a senior USAF NCO who had worked for Project Blue Book in the 1970s (after it had been 'officially disbanded'). He was an ELINT technician (electronic intelligence) who flew in RC-135s from MacDill AFB in Florida. The 'normal' target was Cuba where they did lots of snooping and sometimes challenging the Cubans to turn on radar and other systems. "He said there were times when they were diverted from these missions to track UFOs off the east coast of Florida. His claim was that UFOs had a landing and takeoff spot in the ocean east of Miami, north of Bermuda. He also claimed there was a specific electronic signature (frequency) emanating from them when they were going into or coming out of the water, so they were easy to track. On several occasions they filmed the UFO as it transitioned from water to air or vice versa. High quality film of UFOs is 'out there' somewhere!" (What was the signature? 1.6 gigahertz? 3.0?) ~~~End Bob Fish Excerpt~~~ Coulthart: "And as you say - without giving away the frequency that you detected - you detected a frequency anomaly on your spectrum analyzer. You saw it there. Then you got it on your radar. And then when you visually observed it with the binoculars, the vortex binoculars, you then corroborated that object on the radar as well. So you've got four separate data points to corroborate something anomalous." John: "And a very, very clear visual representation of what was on the radar. The interesting thing I will say that we had observed flights of commercial aircraft at the same time through these lenses, these very clear lenses that we use. The commercial aircraft was extremely detailed, in focus. You can even make out the writing on the on the aircraft. The object itself? No." Gerry: "It was always slightly out of focus for some reason." John: "It was poorly presented." Coulthart: "And you gents would understand, and I'm sure Donna as well, that the Alcubierre-drive principles. That, essentially, if something is coming, if it's warping space time, there's allegedly some kind of plasma or some kind of distortion field around the object. Do you think that might explain what you were seeing? Gerry: That's a possibility." John: "That's a very strong possibility." Gerry: "It's something we're looking into. There was also, there was a shimmer around it. Definitely a possibility of some kind of field effect around it." ~~~ Time Stamps Extremely bright, luminous sphere over the ocean. Not visible to the naked eye. - 13:33 The Black Triangle - 33:31 Orb-Like Object Over Land in Farmingville, N.Y. (Where my sister lives) ~ 58:18 Similar to what @MeaganOurada saw - 1:14:05
8:29

⃤ Video of a Black Triangle - What's the Frequency, Gerry? ⃤ "A very clear visual representation of what was on the radar. It resembled a very black, triangular or delta shape to it" "It was always slightly out of focus for some reason." "Garry Nolan told us to watch for the cloud formations." (If you scroll down to the bottom, I'll tell you the exact time stamps for each the UAP videos that were shown.) "We believe [it's NHI]. Either that or some very sophisticated technology that maybe we're reverse engineering." "There was a specific electronic signature (frequency) emanating from them when they were going into or coming out of the water, so they were easy to track." ~Bob Fish ~ Gerry Tedesco: August 29th, "we were in the RV, running tests on our equipment because we was planning on going out that weekend." John Tedesco: "And we noticed that we had a signature (on their spectrum analyzer) there that was well presented, very unusual for the area. And we kind of collaborated that with some radar data. Radar seemed to align with what we had on the spectrum analyzer. The object, we believe, was over the water at that point, simply because of the distance that we were able to capture it on the radar. It presented in a cloud layer, exited a cloud layer, produced a signature." Gerry; "This was a single thunderstorm cloud in the sky and the weather was great. We had cumulous clouds out there, mostly clear. And this was a dark, cumulonimbus cloud. It was a very dark thunderstorm cloud, and it looked out a place. " Ross Coulthart: "Do you think that that cloud might have been a fake cloud?" Donna Lee Nardo: "So Garry P. Nolan, he came out with us for our field study one night. He told us, Watch for the cloud formations.' And John, Gerry, and I saw one really nasty-looking...it looked like 10 motherships situated...oriented north to south, one night when we were doing the field study. And I believe this was early on in 2022. And it also was a clear night, but it just looked out of place. It was dark, yet there were lighted portions. But it was just so humongous. And we always remember that Garry had said, look at the cloud formations." Gerry: "Yeah, we definitely had some oddities out there." Coulthart: "I've had people, multiple people have sent me imagery. There's quite famous ones on YouTube where you see what looks like a cloud, and it's shaped just ever so slightly like a disc or a craft. And it's got the fluffy edges of a cloud, and then it suddenly maneuvers and just moves away. And I sometimes wonder whether something or someone is using clouds as a form of stealth or signature management." Gerry: "That's a possibility. We look at that, we look to see if it is a cloud. We use shortwave infrared, which does pick up moisture. And it'll actually differentiate the precipitation in a cloud, or moisture in a cloud, so we know it is a real cloud." Coulhart: "Did you do that with this cloud that night?" John: "Exactly, exactly. And this is something that we could determine that there wasn't moisture content." Coulthart: "So you were able to show it wasn't a classic cumulonimbus cloud, even though it looked like one." John: "No, no. Yeah, and the object was well hidden for a short period of time. Actually, relatively long period of time before it emerged from the cloud body." Coulthart: "So Donna is probably right: This is probably some kind of intelligent stealth management by something." Gerry: "It's a possibility." Donna: "Possibly." John: "It could very well be." (I like how all three will only go as far as, Possible and Could be.) Coulthart: "This is where it gets really interesting. Talk me through what happens next. " Gerry: "Okay, so we watched an object emerge from the cloud on radar. John and I quickly went to get our binoculars, we have what's called Vortex binoculars. These are high-end binoculars, great optical glass. John had began looking at the cloud with those, and he told me, we both went outside. I was trying to find one of the other cameras, scrambling, trying to get one of the other cameras going. "And John said, 'There's a black object moving between the cloud.' And then it was emerging from the cloud. So I grabbed my cell phone and videotaped it. While John was looking at them, we switched. And what we saw was something...originally it resembled a very black, triangular or delta shape to it, or bell shape to it. It had that Delta shape, or triangular shape." Coulthart: "And was this showing up on radar at this stage, that delta shape?" Gerry: "Yes." John: "Yes." Coulthart: "Wow!" John: "Yes, we did have a radar target." Gerry: "We tracked it on radar. On radar, it appears to separate into two more objects, which is quite interesting." Coulthart: "You found something interesting in the frequency, and you can't talk about it, can you? Has the FBI asked you, not to talk about it?" Gerry: "Yes, that's the sensitive part. There was quite a bit of interesting signals, but that goes into signals intelligence, which we can't talk about." Coulthart: "Just let me guess. 1.6 by any chance?" (They all laugh) Donna: "You've been talking to people." Gerry: "No comment." Coulthart: "No, it just fascinates me. Is it 1.6 gigahertz, or megahertz? I'm trying to remember." John: "It's gigahertz. Yeah, I know with Skinwalker Ranch, I know the one, 1.6 seems to come up quite a bit. There's also a three-gigahertz signal, supposedly." Gerry: "There's a few others, too. We'll leave it at that." Coulthart: "No, but it's interesting. It's such a consistent thing, and I'm really interested because all around the world, people are contacting me, talking about 1.6, in particular, but also about three gigahertz. And nobody's explaining it. But often it's an indicator." ~~~From My Bob Fish Blog~~~ Bob Fish: "In that same TS/SCI building cafeteria in El Segundo, I had lunch with a senior USAF NCO who had worked for Project Blue Book in the 1970s (after it had been 'officially disbanded'). He was an ELINT technician (electronic intelligence) who flew in RC-135s from MacDill AFB in Florida. The 'normal' target was Cuba where they did lots of snooping and sometimes challenging the Cubans to turn on radar and other systems. "He said there were times when they were diverted from these missions to track UFOs off the east coast of Florida. His claim was that UFOs had a landing and takeoff spot in the ocean east of Miami, north of Bermuda. He also claimed there was a specific electronic signature (frequency) emanating from them when they were going into or coming out of the water, so they were easy to track. On several occasions they filmed the UFO as it transitioned from water to air or vice versa. High quality film of UFOs is 'out there' somewhere!" (What was the signature? 1.6 gigahertz? 3.0?) ~~~End Bob Fish Excerpt~~~ Coulthart: "And as you say - without giving away the frequency that you detected - you detected a frequency anomaly on your spectrum analyzer. You saw it there. Then you got it on your radar. And then when you visually observed it with the binoculars, the vortex binoculars, you then corroborated that object on the radar as well. So you've got four separate data points to corroborate something anomalous." John: "And a very, very clear visual representation of what was on the radar. The interesting thing I will say that we had observed flights of commercial aircraft at the same time through these lenses, these very clear lenses that we use. The commercial aircraft was extremely detailed, in focus. You can even make out the writing on the on the aircraft. The object itself? No." Gerry: "It was always slightly out of focus for some reason." John: "It was poorly presented." Coulthart: "And you gents would understand, and I'm sure Donna as well, that the Alcubierre-drive principles. That, essentially, if something is coming, if it's warping space time, there's allegedly some kind of plasma or some kind of distortion field around the object. Do you think that might explain what you were seeing? Gerry: That's a possibility." John: "That's a very strong possibility." Gerry: "It's something we're looking into. There was also, there was a shimmer around it. Definitely a possibility of some kind of field effect around it." ~~~ Time Stamps Extremely bright, luminous sphere over the ocean. Not visible to the naked eye. - 13:33 The Black Triangle - 33:31 Orb-Like Object Over Land in Farmingville, N.Y. (Where my sister lives) ~ 58:18 Similar to what @MeaganOurada saw - 1:14:05

Joe Murgia

14,232 次观看 • 9 个月前

🚨The CCP Had Satelites over Maui (LAHAINA, OLINDA, & KULA), at the EXACT same Time of the Fires!!!! Steve Favis, Computer Science & Advanced Robotics Expert, has compiled sufficient evidence the CCP had multiple satellites capable of an attack above Maui at the same exact time of the fires! He determined the laser would have needed to be in a wave length range to minimize scatter through the atmosphere, so a near infrared range laser would be needed to allow a more precise transmission…. And….. would have minimal reaction to the color BLUE! THE OLINDA FIRE Was ignited at approximately at 10:47pm On August 7th.—— At this Exact Time, CCP Satellite NORAD53299 was directly over this location!!!! Holy shit! THE LAHAINA FIRE Was ignited at approximately at 6:37am on August 8th.—— At this exact time CCP Satellite NORAD55836 was directly this location! HOLY SHIT! THE KULA FIRE Was ignited at approximately at 11:30am on August 8th.—— At this exact time CCP Satellite NORAD53299 was directly this location! HOLY SHIT! Steve Favis also has calculated the CCP has up to 70 Gigawatt lasers in earth orbit right now. IN ADDITION… This is not the first time CCP Satellites have been over Hawaii recently. Back in January of this year, mysterious green lasers were spotted over the skies of Maunakea. The troubling thing is that there were lots of conflicting reports from NASA the first week where they insisted it was one of their satellites, but it was ultimately declared (“Likely”) a Chinese satellite, Daqi-1/AEMS, a week later. This happened almost immediately before multiple Chinese spy balloons were spotted all Over America. The Fact NASA had no clue and said “it’s likely” a Chinese satellite is very alarming. They still to this day only speculate what China was doing.
4:34

Sensitive content

🚨The CCP Had Satelites over Maui (LAHAINA, OLINDA, & KULA), at the EXACT same Time of the Fires!!!! Steve Favis, Computer Science & Advanced Robotics Expert, has compiled sufficient evidence the CCP had multiple satellites capable of an attack above Maui at the same exact time of the fires! He determined the laser would have needed to be in a wave length range to minimize scatter through the atmosphere, so a near infrared range laser would be needed to allow a more precise transmission…. And….. would have minimal reaction to the color BLUE! THE OLINDA FIRE Was ignited at approximately at 10:47pm On August 7th.—— At this Exact Time, CCP Satellite NORAD53299 was directly over this location!!!! Holy shit! THE LAHAINA FIRE Was ignited at approximately at 6:37am on August 8th.—— At this exact time CCP Satellite NORAD55836 was directly this location! HOLY SHIT! THE KULA FIRE Was ignited at approximately at 11:30am on August 8th.—— At this exact time CCP Satellite NORAD53299 was directly this location! HOLY SHIT! Steve Favis also has calculated the CCP has up to 70 Gigawatt lasers in earth orbit right now. IN ADDITION… This is not the first time CCP Satellites have been over Hawaii recently. Back in January of this year, mysterious green lasers were spotted over the skies of Maunakea. The troubling thing is that there were lots of conflicting reports from NASA the first week where they insisted it was one of their satellites, but it was ultimately declared (“Likely”) a Chinese satellite, Daqi-1/AEMS, a week later. This happened almost immediately before multiple Chinese spy balloons were spotted all Over America. The Fact NASA had no clue and said “it’s likely” a Chinese satellite is very alarming. They still to this day only speculate what China was doing.

MJTruthUltra

280,429 次观看 • 2 年前

AMD might have disrupted Nvidia's entire cloud GPU rental business. In January at CES, AMD CEO Lisa Su demonstrated a $1,499 mini PC running the same class of AI model that currently costs companies $2,500 to $3,000 every month to rent from Nvidia-powered cloud servers. AMD's own branded version opened pre-orders this month at $3,999. Third party manufacturers have been selling the same chip since 2025 starting at $1,499. Here is exactly why this is dangerous for Nvidia. Nvidia's $75 billion quarterly revenue is built almost entirely on one business model, companies rent access to Nvidia GPUs through cloud providers like AWS and Lambda Labs to run AI. They pay monthly. Nvidia gets paid every time someone runs an AI model in the cloud. That recurring rental income is what turned Nvidia into a $5 trillion company. The AMD box eliminates that monthly fee permanently. One AI consultant switched from $2,800 per month in Nvidia cloud rental costs to $8 per month in electricity. The hardware paid for itself in 11 days. Over 8 months he generated $47,000 running the same AI workloads that previously left him paying Nvidia's ecosystem $2,800 every single month. Multiply that across thousands of enterprise customers and the revenue erosion becomes structural. Every business that buys this box stops paying cloud rental fees forever. Lawyers, doctors, banks, accountants, and financial advisors, businesses with sensitive data that cannot legally go to a cloud server represent billions in annual cloud GPU fees that Nvidia is now at risk of losing permanently. The threat is also closing in from the top. Google signed deals worth tens of billions with Anthropic and Meta to replace Nvidia with its own chips. Amazon built its own AI chips across AWS. Apple trained its AI on Google's chips, not Nvidia's. Custom silicon has grown from 21% of the AI chip market in 2025 to 28% in 2026. Nvidia's rental model only worked because serious AI compute had no alternative.
1:42

AMD might have disrupted Nvidia's entire cloud GPU rental business. In January at CES, AMD CEO Lisa Su demonstrated a $1,499 mini PC running the same class of AI model that currently costs companies $2,500 to $3,000 every month to rent from Nvidia-powered cloud servers. AMD's own branded version opened pre-orders this month at $3,999. Third party manufacturers have been selling the same chip since 2025 starting at $1,499. Here is exactly why this is dangerous for Nvidia. Nvidia's $75 billion quarterly revenue is built almost entirely on one business model, companies rent access to Nvidia GPUs through cloud providers like AWS and Lambda Labs to run AI. They pay monthly. Nvidia gets paid every time someone runs an AI model in the cloud. That recurring rental income is what turned Nvidia into a $5 trillion company. The AMD box eliminates that monthly fee permanently. One AI consultant switched from $2,800 per month in Nvidia cloud rental costs to $8 per month in electricity. The hardware paid for itself in 11 days. Over 8 months he generated $47,000 running the same AI workloads that previously left him paying Nvidia's ecosystem $2,800 every single month. Multiply that across thousands of enterprise customers and the revenue erosion becomes structural. Every business that buys this box stops paying cloud rental fees forever. Lawyers, doctors, banks, accountants, and financial advisors, businesses with sensitive data that cannot legally go to a cloud server represent billions in annual cloud GPU fees that Nvidia is now at risk of losing permanently. The threat is also closing in from the top. Google signed deals worth tens of billions with Anthropic and Meta to replace Nvidia with its own chips. Amazon built its own AI chips across AWS. Apple trained its AI on Google's chips, not Nvidia's. Custom silicon has grown from 21% of the AI chip market in 2025 to 28% in 2026. Nvidia's rental model only worked because serious AI compute had no alternative.

Bull Theory

26,668 次观看 • 1 个月前

We Have Been Lied To About EVERYTHING Testimony: Challenger Astronauts Allegedly Alive “I think we all remember the Challenger explosion that took place in 1986 that tragically took the lives of all seven astronauts on board. It launched not too far from where we're standing here today. Well the interesting thing is a couple decades later this thing called the internet came about and someone allegedly found almost all of those astronauts alive and well, many using the same exact names. As you can see here, we have Challenger astronaut Judith Resnick and also a Judith Resnick Yale Law Professor. Michael J. Smith, the pilot of the Challenger astronaut, and also professor at University of Wisconsin, now retired, Michael J. Smith. Commander Dick Scobie, who is now president of cows and trees. Now if you'll notice, (See video for pictures) they all have the exact same faces 30 some odd years later, the same exact name, and they are the same age. Now we all have a doppelganger out there, right? No big deal. But to have the same face, the same age, and the same exact name is extremely rare. So where I could only find one case in the last 120 years. And we're supposed to believe that three people from one space flight have exact lookalikes have the same age and same exact names, this, ladies and gentlemen, is beyond statistically impossible. Miss Resnick was questioned at Yale by a journalist and she panicked and ran from the camera. Why?” I transcribed a very small potion of this testimony. Watch this video, this is nuts. NASA is laundering our money and feeding us lies.
5:49

We Have Been Lied To About EVERYTHING Testimony: Challenger Astronauts Allegedly Alive “I think we all remember the Challenger explosion that took place in 1986 that tragically took the lives of all seven astronauts on board. It launched not too far from where we're standing here today. Well the interesting thing is a couple decades later this thing called the internet came about and someone allegedly found almost all of those astronauts alive and well, many using the same exact names. As you can see here, we have Challenger astronaut Judith Resnick and also a Judith Resnick Yale Law Professor. Michael J. Smith, the pilot of the Challenger astronaut, and also professor at University of Wisconsin, now retired, Michael J. Smith. Commander Dick Scobie, who is now president of cows and trees. Now if you'll notice, (See video for pictures) they all have the exact same faces 30 some odd years later, the same exact name, and they are the same age. Now we all have a doppelganger out there, right? No big deal. But to have the same face, the same age, and the same exact name is extremely rare. So where I could only find one case in the last 120 years. And we're supposed to believe that three people from one space flight have exact lookalikes have the same age and same exact names, this, ladies and gentlemen, is beyond statistically impossible. Miss Resnick was questioned at Yale by a journalist and she panicked and ran from the camera. Why?” I transcribed a very small potion of this testimony. Watch this video, this is nuts. NASA is laundering our money and feeding us lies.

Wall Street Apes

4,123,721 次观看 • 2 年前

Florida Senator Jason Pizzo @senpizzo questions Augustus Doricko CEO of Rainmaker Technology Corporation about Cloud Seeding and Weather Modification during the Senate Committee Hearing on Florida's Weather Modification Bill SB56 Transcript- Senator Pizzo : St Thomas Aquinas proved that that which is of matter cannot be of matter as a conclusive proof from a theological perspective. But here's a question I have, is there a fixed amount of water molecules in a local or in a universal atmosphere? Because it would seem to follow that if whatever you're taking from the atmosphere, naturally occurring from the atmosphere, to seed a particular targeted area is taking a natural precipitation or weather pattern from some other area that might be depending on natural cyclical precipitation schedule. Augustus Doricko : The question of stealing from Peter to pay Paul. That is a question that is old as cloud seeding itself and it's one that requires sophisticated permitting to ensure that that's not going on. What I'm saying is that there is a fixed amount of water on the planet and in the atmosphere, however, 91% of all the water that traverses the continental United States does not precipitate over the United States. Moreover, precipitating clouds are only about 20% to 40% efficient so most of the water from precipitating clouds does not actually come down. Moreover, lots of clouds don't ever naturally precipitate and so what you can do with sophisticated radar processing like we've developed is identify clouds that are never going to naturally precipitate or that are going to precipitate over the oceans and then purely do positive sum seeding by targeting those clouds rather depleting other watershed. Senator Pizzo : There's a tipping point when you reach a saturation level of a cloud formation that lets go and just lets loose, so even if in its travels and I agree with you, but the supposition is that even in its travels it may be picking up more and becoming more dense and then at some point falling wherever it falls. But if you were to go ahead and target an area, let's say for instance by way of exercise, to bring potable water to the West we wanted to go ahead and Dam up and then fill the Grand Canyon. That is placing and depositing a large volume of water which would otherwise be precipitation somewhere else in the world. So my question is if you're going to deposit a large volume of water in one particular area doesn't it naturally follow that it's taking away from some other area later on? Full Conversation here -
4:05

Florida Senator Jason Pizzo @senpizzo questions Augustus Doricko CEO of Rainmaker Technology Corporation about Cloud Seeding and Weather Modification during the Senate Committee Hearing on Florida's Weather Modification Bill SB56 Transcript- Senator Pizzo : St Thomas Aquinas proved that that which is of matter cannot be of matter as a conclusive proof from a theological perspective. But here's a question I have, is there a fixed amount of water molecules in a local or in a universal atmosphere? Because it would seem to follow that if whatever you're taking from the atmosphere, naturally occurring from the atmosphere, to seed a particular targeted area is taking a natural precipitation or weather pattern from some other area that might be depending on natural cyclical precipitation schedule. Augustus Doricko : The question of stealing from Peter to pay Paul. That is a question that is old as cloud seeding itself and it's one that requires sophisticated permitting to ensure that that's not going on. What I'm saying is that there is a fixed amount of water on the planet and in the atmosphere, however, 91% of all the water that traverses the continental United States does not precipitate over the United States. Moreover, precipitating clouds are only about 20% to 40% efficient so most of the water from precipitating clouds does not actually come down. Moreover, lots of clouds don't ever naturally precipitate and so what you can do with sophisticated radar processing like we've developed is identify clouds that are never going to naturally precipitate or that are going to precipitate over the oceans and then purely do positive sum seeding by targeting those clouds rather depleting other watershed. Senator Pizzo : There's a tipping point when you reach a saturation level of a cloud formation that lets go and just lets loose, so even if in its travels and I agree with you, but the supposition is that even in its travels it may be picking up more and becoming more dense and then at some point falling wherever it falls. But if you were to go ahead and target an area, let's say for instance by way of exercise, to bring potable water to the West we wanted to go ahead and Dam up and then fill the Grand Canyon. That is placing and depositing a large volume of water which would otherwise be precipitation somewhere else in the world. So my question is if you're going to deposit a large volume of water in one particular area doesn't it naturally follow that it's taking away from some other area later on? Full Conversation here -

Florida Sky Watchers

10,611 次观看 • 1 年前

A video-text summary of my argument that we now live in the age of TECHNOFEUDALISM (in 16', 2000 words): Wherever we turn, we witness the triumph of capital. Capital has prevailed everywhere: in warehouses, factories, offices, universities, public hospitals, the media – in space but also in the microcosm of genetic engineering. So, how do I dare claim that capitalism has been killed? By whom? The deliciously ironic answer is that capitalism was killed by its own hand… by capital! If I am right, the issue is not what AI will do to us in the future but what has already happened: Capital became so dominant that it mutated into a variant so toxic that, like a stupid virus, it killed off its host, capitalism, replacing it with something far, far worse. This new mutant capital, that killed capitalism, lives in the proverbial cloud – so, let us call it cloud capital. What is cloud capital? What makes it so different? Cloud capital, of course, does not really live up in the cloud. It lives down on Earth, comprising networked machines, server farms, cell towers, software, AI-driven algorithms – and of course it lives on our oceans’ floors where untold miles of optic fibre cables rest. Unlike traditional capital, from fishing rods to the steam-engines of the Industrial Revolution to today’s modern industrial robots that are produced means of production, cloud capital does not produce anything – it comprises machines manufactured so as to modify human behaviour. That’s what Amazon’s Alexa or Google’s Assistant or Apple’s Siri is: It is a produced means of behavioural modification. It is a machine, a piece of capital, which we train to train us to train it to determine that which we want. And, once we want it, the same networked machine sells it to us, directly, bypassing markets. As if that were not enough, the same machinery succeeds in making us sustain the enormous behavioural modification machine network to which it belongs with our free voluntary labour. We are sustaining it as we post reviews, rate products, upload videos, rants, photos - we help reproduce cloud capital without getting a penny for our labour. In essence, it has turned us into its cloud serfs! Meanwhile, in the factories and the warehouses, where waged proletarians work under increasingly precarious conditions, the same algorithms that modify our behaviour and sell products to us directly – those algorithms are deployed, usually by digital devices tied to the workers’ wrists, to make proletarians, workers in the warehouses, in the factories work faster, to direct and to monitor them in real time. I started by saying that wherever we turn, we stumble on the triumph of capital. But it is cloud capital that is the real winner. It is amazing how it performs, at once, five roles that used to be beyond capital’s capacities: Cloud capital grabs our attention. It manufactures our desires. It sells to us, directly, outside any traditional markets, that which is going to satiate the desires it made us have. It drives proletarian labour inside the workplaces. And it elicits massive free labour from us, its cloud-serfs. Is it surprising that the owners of this cloud capital – let’s call them cloudalists – have a hitherto undreamt power to extract? To extract gargantuan surplus value from proletarians; untold quantities of free labour from almost everyone; and mind-numbing cloud rents from vassal capitalists – from sellers? Is it a wonder that they are vastly more powerful than Henry Ford or Rupert Murdoch could ever be? “Hang on”, I hear you say. “Is Jeff Bezos really different to Henry Ford? Aren’t they all a species of monopoly capitalists? Monopolists?” No, is not a monopolistic capitalist enterprise. The moment you enter you have exited capitalism altogether! Sure enough, the place is teaming with buyers and sellers. So, yes, it is an enormous trading platform but, no, a market it certainly is not! One man called Jeff owns everything. But he is much, much more than a mere monopolist. Jeff doesn’t own the factories that produce the stuff sold on his platform by traditional capitalists who have to use it to ply their trade. What he does own is more important: Jeff owns the algorithm that decides which products you see and which you don’t – the very algorithm that you have trained to know you perfectly so that it matches youwith a seller, whom it also knows perfectly well, with a view to maximising the probability that every such match, transaction, will generate, for Jeff, the highest rent that Jeff can charge the seller for what you buy: up to 40% of what you pay is pocketed by Jeff, the cloudalist! The mind rebels at the enormity but also the radical novelty of this kind of exploitation: The same algorithm that we help train in real time to know us inside out - that same algorithm both modifies our preferences and administers the selection and delivery of commodities that will satisfy these preferences. If you and I were to type “electric bicycles” or “binoculars” while in you and I would get totally different recommendations. In a traditional market or shopping mall it would be as if you and I were walking next to each other, our eyes trained in the same direction, the same shop window, but we were to see different things depending on what Jeff’s algorithm wants each one of us to see. Everyone navigating around – except Jeff Bezos of course – everyone in is wandering around in algorithmically constructed isolation as if in a Panopticon where, unable to see each other, we only see Jeff’s all-seeing algorithm or, more accurately, only what his algorithm allows us to see with a view to maximising his cloud rent – which is, of course, today’s version of the ground rent that the feudal lords used to extract from their vassals and their peasants. This is not capitalism. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to technofeudalism! How did cloud capital kill capitalism? How did it rise up? Who paid for it? Capitalism, lest we forget, had two pillars: markets and profit. Of course, markets and profit remain ubiquitous. Nevertheless, cloud capital has evicted both markets and profit from the centre of our socioeconomic system, pushing them out to its margins, and replacing them: Markets, the medium of capitalism, have been replaced by cloud fiefs – digital trading platforms like or Alibaba which, as we saw, look like, but are not, markets. And Profit? The fuel of capitalism? Well, that has been replaced by its feudal predecessor: rent. But, specifically, a new form of rent, a cloud rent that must be paid for access to those cloud fiefs or digital platforms. But how did cloud capital emerge?It began life in the late 1990s when the original Internet, which was a Commons – it functioned as a capitalism-free-zone – that original Internet, Internet 1.0 if you want, was privatised by the emergent Big Tech. Who paid for the trillions it cost to manufacture and to accumulate cloud capital so quickly in the hands of so very few cloudalists? The startling answer is: The G7 countries’ central banks, mostly! How did that happen? Well, by accident, or – to be more precise – by… crisis! After the financial sector collapse of 2008, our central bankers printed up to $35 trillion to bail out the bankers at a time when the governments were subjecting our peoples to harsh austerity. Capitalists were clever enough to foresee that the many would be too impecunious to buy their stuff. So, instead of investing, they took the central bank money to the stock exchange and the bond markets, where they bought shares, bonds – along with yachts, art, bitcoin, NFTs any ‘asset’ they could lay their hands on. The only capitalists who actually invested in capital were Big Tech owners. For example, 9 out of every 10 dollars that went into creating Facebook came from these central bank monies! That’s how cloud capital was financed and how the cloudalists became our new ruling class. As a result, real power today resides not with the owners of machinery, buildings, railway and phone networks, industrial robots. These old-fashioned, terrestrial capitalists continue to extract surplus value from waged labour, but they are no longer in charge, as they used to be. They have become vassals in relation to the owners of cloud capital, of the cloudalists. As for the rest of us, we have returned to our former status as serfs, contributing to the wealth and power of the new ruling class with our unpaid labour — in addition to the waged labour we perform, when we get the chance to do it. But surely, someone will say, this is still capitalism, isn’t it? So, you are still unconvinced? I know, it is hard to part with the term, with the word, capitalism. It is not just liberals who think of capitalism like fish think of the water they swim in – as natural. Socialists too need to feel that our purpose in life, the reason we landed on this Earth, is to overthrow capitalism. The news that I bring that capital beat us to it, and now we have something worse in capitalism’s place, that news is hard to accept. Indeed, it is mostly my fellow-travelling leftist friends who try to dissuade me – to convince me that, yes, cloud capital may be important but “this is still capitalism mate”. Let’s call it rentier capitalism or monopoly capitalism, they suggest. But that simply will not do! Cloud rent is not like ground rent, because it requires massive investment in new tech. And it is not monopoly rent either, because Bezos and Zuckerberg, instead of monopolising markets to sell their manufactures (like Ford and Eddison did), Bezos and Zuckerberg have replaced markets and have no interest in manufacturing anything (unlike Henry Ford and Thomas Eddison). How about surveillance capitalism? Again, no, it won’t do. Cloudalists do not simply use algorithms to brain wash us on behalf of advertisers in an otherwise capitalist setting. No, cloud capital reproduces itself through our free-labour, it directly exploits waged labour, and it squeezes cloud rents from vassal capitalists in trading platforms that are not markets. This is not capitalism folks! Any kind of capitalism. But what about the observation that technofeudalism is parasitic on the capitalist sector within it? Yes, it is true. Were the conventional capitalists to die out, cloudalists would perish, unable to skim off cloud rents from the manufacturers. So what? After capitalism overthrew feudalism, capitalists were also parasitic on landowners, in the sense that, without private land producing food, capitalism would wither. Similarly, now: While the traditional capitalist sector feeds technofeudalism, it is cloud capital and cloud rent that dominate. Does it matter whether we call it technofeudalism or some form of capitalism? At this point, it is important to recall Marx’s maxim that the point is not to interpret but to change the world. So, does it matter if this is still capitalism or whether we call it technofeudalism? I think it does. Recognising that our world has become technofeudal helps us grasp the enormity of what it will take to organise the victims of exorbitant power, the exploited who, now, include not only waged labourers but also the hordes of cloud serfs who are reproducing the very cloud capital that keeps them in a state of deepening precarity. The concept of technofeudalism drives home the point that organising auto-workers and nurses, while still essential, is insufficient. It elucidates what it will take to organise the movements against the fossil fuel cartel when our means of communication are run on cloud capital primed to poison public opinion. It explains how the shift to electric cars caused German deindustrialisation, as profits due to precision mechanical engineering are being replaced by rents extracted by owners of the cloud capital keeping tabs on the drivers’ routes and in-cabin habits. Elon Musk’s decision to buy Twitter suddenly makes a lot more sense. Twitter for Musk is an interface between his mechanical capital stock at Tesla and SpaceX and cloud capital. The New Cold War between the USA and China, especially after the war in Ukraine, is explained as the repercussion of an underlying clash between two technofeudalisms, one whose cloud rents are denominated in dollars the other in yuan. Isn’t it mindboggling? It took mind-bending scientific breakthroughs, fantastical neural networks, and imagination-defying AI programs to accomplish what? To create a world where, while privatisation and private equity asset-strip all physical wealth around us, cloud capital goes about the business of asset-stripping our brains. To own our minds individually, we must own cloud capital collectively. Once we have reclaimed our minds, we can put them collectively to work out a way to create a new cloud capital commons. It will be damned hard. But it’s the only way we can turn our cloud-based artefacts from a produced means of behaviour modification to a produced means of human collaboration and emancipation. Cloud serfs, cloud proles and cloud vassals of the world, unite! We have nothing to lose but our mind-cloud chains! US Edition: UK Edition: Greek Edition:
17:20

A video-text summary of my argument that we now live in the age of TECHNOFEUDALISM (in 16', 2000 words): Wherever we turn, we witness the triumph of capital. Capital has prevailed everywhere: in warehouses, factories, offices, universities, public hospitals, the media – in space but also in the microcosm of genetic engineering. So, how do I dare claim that capitalism has been killed? By whom? The deliciously ironic answer is that capitalism was killed by its own hand… by capital! If I am right, the issue is not what AI will do to us in the future but what has already happened: Capital became so dominant that it mutated into a variant so toxic that, like a stupid virus, it killed off its host, capitalism, replacing it with something far, far worse. This new mutant capital, that killed capitalism, lives in the proverbial cloud – so, let us call it cloud capital. What is cloud capital? What makes it so different? Cloud capital, of course, does not really live up in the cloud. It lives down on Earth, comprising networked machines, server farms, cell towers, software, AI-driven algorithms – and of course it lives on our oceans’ floors where untold miles of optic fibre cables rest. Unlike traditional capital, from fishing rods to the steam-engines of the Industrial Revolution to today’s modern industrial robots that are produced means of production, cloud capital does not produce anything – it comprises machines manufactured so as to modify human behaviour. That’s what Amazon’s Alexa or Google’s Assistant or Apple’s Siri is: It is a produced means of behavioural modification. It is a machine, a piece of capital, which we train to train us to train it to determine that which we want. And, once we want it, the same networked machine sells it to us, directly, bypassing markets. As if that were not enough, the same machinery succeeds in making us sustain the enormous behavioural modification machine network to which it belongs with our free voluntary labour. We are sustaining it as we post reviews, rate products, upload videos, rants, photos - we help reproduce cloud capital without getting a penny for our labour. In essence, it has turned us into its cloud serfs! Meanwhile, in the factories and the warehouses, where waged proletarians work under increasingly precarious conditions, the same algorithms that modify our behaviour and sell products to us directly – those algorithms are deployed, usually by digital devices tied to the workers’ wrists, to make proletarians, workers in the warehouses, in the factories work faster, to direct and to monitor them in real time. I started by saying that wherever we turn, we stumble on the triumph of capital. But it is cloud capital that is the real winner. It is amazing how it performs, at once, five roles that used to be beyond capital’s capacities: Cloud capital grabs our attention. It manufactures our desires. It sells to us, directly, outside any traditional markets, that which is going to satiate the desires it made us have. It drives proletarian labour inside the workplaces. And it elicits massive free labour from us, its cloud-serfs. Is it surprising that the owners of this cloud capital – let’s call them cloudalists – have a hitherto undreamt power to extract? To extract gargantuan surplus value from proletarians; untold quantities of free labour from almost everyone; and mind-numbing cloud rents from vassal capitalists – from sellers? Is it a wonder that they are vastly more powerful than Henry Ford or Rupert Murdoch could ever be? “Hang on”, I hear you say. “Is Jeff Bezos really different to Henry Ford? Aren’t they all a species of monopoly capitalists? Monopolists?” No, is not a monopolistic capitalist enterprise. The moment you enter you have exited capitalism altogether! Sure enough, the place is teaming with buyers and sellers. So, yes, it is an enormous trading platform but, no, a market it certainly is not! One man called Jeff owns everything. But he is much, much more than a mere monopolist. Jeff doesn’t own the factories that produce the stuff sold on his platform by traditional capitalists who have to use it to ply their trade. What he does own is more important: Jeff owns the algorithm that decides which products you see and which you don’t – the very algorithm that you have trained to know you perfectly so that it matches youwith a seller, whom it also knows perfectly well, with a view to maximising the probability that every such match, transaction, will generate, for Jeff, the highest rent that Jeff can charge the seller for what you buy: up to 40% of what you pay is pocketed by Jeff, the cloudalist! The mind rebels at the enormity but also the radical novelty of this kind of exploitation: The same algorithm that we help train in real time to know us inside out - that same algorithm both modifies our preferences and administers the selection and delivery of commodities that will satisfy these preferences. If you and I were to type “electric bicycles” or “binoculars” while in you and I would get totally different recommendations. In a traditional market or shopping mall it would be as if you and I were walking next to each other, our eyes trained in the same direction, the same shop window, but we were to see different things depending on what Jeff’s algorithm wants each one of us to see. Everyone navigating around – except Jeff Bezos of course – everyone in is wandering around in algorithmically constructed isolation as if in a Panopticon where, unable to see each other, we only see Jeff’s all-seeing algorithm or, more accurately, only what his algorithm allows us to see with a view to maximising his cloud rent – which is, of course, today’s version of the ground rent that the feudal lords used to extract from their vassals and their peasants. This is not capitalism. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to technofeudalism! How did cloud capital kill capitalism? How did it rise up? Who paid for it? Capitalism, lest we forget, had two pillars: markets and profit. Of course, markets and profit remain ubiquitous. Nevertheless, cloud capital has evicted both markets and profit from the centre of our socioeconomic system, pushing them out to its margins, and replacing them: Markets, the medium of capitalism, have been replaced by cloud fiefs – digital trading platforms like or Alibaba which, as we saw, look like, but are not, markets. And Profit? The fuel of capitalism? Well, that has been replaced by its feudal predecessor: rent. But, specifically, a new form of rent, a cloud rent that must be paid for access to those cloud fiefs or digital platforms. But how did cloud capital emerge?It began life in the late 1990s when the original Internet, which was a Commons – it functioned as a capitalism-free-zone – that original Internet, Internet 1.0 if you want, was privatised by the emergent Big Tech. Who paid for the trillions it cost to manufacture and to accumulate cloud capital so quickly in the hands of so very few cloudalists? The startling answer is: The G7 countries’ central banks, mostly! How did that happen? Well, by accident, or – to be more precise – by… crisis! After the financial sector collapse of 2008, our central bankers printed up to $35 trillion to bail out the bankers at a time when the governments were subjecting our peoples to harsh austerity. Capitalists were clever enough to foresee that the many would be too impecunious to buy their stuff. So, instead of investing, they took the central bank money to the stock exchange and the bond markets, where they bought shares, bonds – along with yachts, art, bitcoin, NFTs any ‘asset’ they could lay their hands on. The only capitalists who actually invested in capital were Big Tech owners. For example, 9 out of every 10 dollars that went into creating Facebook came from these central bank monies! That’s how cloud capital was financed and how the cloudalists became our new ruling class. As a result, real power today resides not with the owners of machinery, buildings, railway and phone networks, industrial robots. These old-fashioned, terrestrial capitalists continue to extract surplus value from waged labour, but they are no longer in charge, as they used to be. They have become vassals in relation to the owners of cloud capital, of the cloudalists. As for the rest of us, we have returned to our former status as serfs, contributing to the wealth and power of the new ruling class with our unpaid labour — in addition to the waged labour we perform, when we get the chance to do it. But surely, someone will say, this is still capitalism, isn’t it? So, you are still unconvinced? I know, it is hard to part with the term, with the word, capitalism. It is not just liberals who think of capitalism like fish think of the water they swim in – as natural. Socialists too need to feel that our purpose in life, the reason we landed on this Earth, is to overthrow capitalism. The news that I bring that capital beat us to it, and now we have something worse in capitalism’s place, that news is hard to accept. Indeed, it is mostly my fellow-travelling leftist friends who try to dissuade me – to convince me that, yes, cloud capital may be important but “this is still capitalism mate”. Let’s call it rentier capitalism or monopoly capitalism, they suggest. But that simply will not do! Cloud rent is not like ground rent, because it requires massive investment in new tech. And it is not monopoly rent either, because Bezos and Zuckerberg, instead of monopolising markets to sell their manufactures (like Ford and Eddison did), Bezos and Zuckerberg have replaced markets and have no interest in manufacturing anything (unlike Henry Ford and Thomas Eddison). How about surveillance capitalism? Again, no, it won’t do. Cloudalists do not simply use algorithms to brain wash us on behalf of advertisers in an otherwise capitalist setting. No, cloud capital reproduces itself through our free-labour, it directly exploits waged labour, and it squeezes cloud rents from vassal capitalists in trading platforms that are not markets. This is not capitalism folks! Any kind of capitalism. But what about the observation that technofeudalism is parasitic on the capitalist sector within it? Yes, it is true. Were the conventional capitalists to die out, cloudalists would perish, unable to skim off cloud rents from the manufacturers. So what? After capitalism overthrew feudalism, capitalists were also parasitic on landowners, in the sense that, without private land producing food, capitalism would wither. Similarly, now: While the traditional capitalist sector feeds technofeudalism, it is cloud capital and cloud rent that dominate. Does it matter whether we call it technofeudalism or some form of capitalism? At this point, it is important to recall Marx’s maxim that the point is not to interpret but to change the world. So, does it matter if this is still capitalism or whether we call it technofeudalism? I think it does. Recognising that our world has become technofeudal helps us grasp the enormity of what it will take to organise the victims of exorbitant power, the exploited who, now, include not only waged labourers but also the hordes of cloud serfs who are reproducing the very cloud capital that keeps them in a state of deepening precarity. The concept of technofeudalism drives home the point that organising auto-workers and nurses, while still essential, is insufficient. It elucidates what it will take to organise the movements against the fossil fuel cartel when our means of communication are run on cloud capital primed to poison public opinion. It explains how the shift to electric cars caused German deindustrialisation, as profits due to precision mechanical engineering are being replaced by rents extracted by owners of the cloud capital keeping tabs on the drivers’ routes and in-cabin habits. Elon Musk’s decision to buy Twitter suddenly makes a lot more sense. Twitter for Musk is an interface between his mechanical capital stock at Tesla and SpaceX and cloud capital. The New Cold War between the USA and China, especially after the war in Ukraine, is explained as the repercussion of an underlying clash between two technofeudalisms, one whose cloud rents are denominated in dollars the other in yuan. Isn’t it mindboggling? It took mind-bending scientific breakthroughs, fantastical neural networks, and imagination-defying AI programs to accomplish what? To create a world where, while privatisation and private equity asset-strip all physical wealth around us, cloud capital goes about the business of asset-stripping our brains. To own our minds individually, we must own cloud capital collectively. Once we have reclaimed our minds, we can put them collectively to work out a way to create a new cloud capital commons. It will be damned hard. But it’s the only way we can turn our cloud-based artefacts from a produced means of behaviour modification to a produced means of human collaboration and emancipation. Cloud serfs, cloud proles and cloud vassals of the world, unite! We have nothing to lose but our mind-cloud chains! US Edition: UK Edition: Greek Edition:

Yanis Varoufakis

1,816,715 次观看 • 2 年前

Dear ICP community, the Internet Computer has now been running strong for 5 years 👏👏👏 Here is a celebratory preview of ICP "cloud engines," the sovereign frontier cloud technology the network shall soon provide from Main points: — Cloud engines enable anyone to spin up their own sovereign frontier cloud. The technology involves an extraordinary inventive step, in which cloud is created from a mathematically secure network of nodes. The nodes run as part of the Internet Computer network ( but are selected and configured by the cloud engine's owner. — The frontier cloud provided by engines is strongly focused on enabling AI agents to build and update online applications and services for us. The world is changing fast, and nearly all new online apps and services are already being built with the help of AI, and thus cloud engines target the future of cloud. — Software hosted on cloud engines is tamperproof, which means that it is immune to infrastructure hacks, because it runs inside a mathematically secure network protocol, rather than on computers directly. This means that AI agents, and those building with them, don't need to have a security team in the loop, or to trust someone else's security team. This is crucial, because in the future, non technical people will demand the freedom to build with full automation — where they just need to issue instructions to AI about what to build, and don't need to worry about anything or anyone else. Of course, apps and services running on engines are also vastly safer from the new breed of hacker being enabled by frontier AI. (The cloud engines themselves are also "tamperproof." Even if a hacker gains physical access to some portion of a cloud engine's nodes, and can make arbitrary changes, the computations and data of the hosted apps and services cannot be corrupted or interrupted so long as the network's fault bounds aren't exceeded. The recent hack of Vercel, a major cloud platform, which gave hackers access to the apps it hosted, provides additional perspective on the importance of this advantage.) — Software hosted on cloud engines is guaranteed to run, so long as a sufficient number of the engine's nodes are running. This means that AI can build applications and services without the need to have a human systems admin team constantly tinkering with the underlying platform to keep it running, which is again crucial, because in the future, non technical people will expect the freedom to use AI to build without the support of others. — New frontier programming language technology, in the form of the Motoko language developed by Caffeine Labs, leverages seminal "orthogonal persistence" technology that unifies program logic and data to deliver further unlocks for AI (Motoko is the first computer language being developed that targets agents that are writing software rather than humans engineers per se). Nowadays, AI can build and update production apps at a prodigious rate, even at the speed of conversation. But it can also make mistakes, and there's a risk that an update it creates might be "lossy" in the sense it causes some transformed data to be lost. Again, in this new world, it's both undesirable and impractical for everyone to have to have a systems admin team on-hand to detect lossy updates and roll them back, but Motoko provides a solution: it can detect new software updates are lossy before they are applied, reducing potentially catastrophic errors by AI to harmless coding retries. — Software hosted on cloud engines is "serverless" but unlike traditional serverless software, directly it directly incorporates data through "orthogonal persistence." Another key purpose is simplify backend software logic and fuel the modeling power of AI by increasing abstraction (sorry for the technical language!!!). Put simply, this enables AI to produce more sophisticated backends, faster, and at dramatically lower costs, as measured by the number AI API tokens consumed during coding. (Tip for the technical: orthogonal persistence is a new paradigm where "the program is the database," and data lives inside program variables, which is possible because it's as if hosted software runs forever in persistent memory). — An expanding database of skills at shall make it possible to develop and directly deploy apps and services to your cloud engines directly from Claude Code, Perplexity, Codex and other AI platforms. Further, your account on can be connected, so that new apps and updates created through conversation automatically appear hosted from your cloud engine. In the future, R&D is going to be very seamless. You converse with AI, and your secure and unstoppable apps or services are created or updated. Cloud engines are designed to directly support this "self-writing cloud" future where we can work hands-free. — Tech sovereignty is becoming a huge issue worldwide, with governments and corporations seeking to create sovereign tech stacks owing to geopolitical tensions. Increasingly, people are realizing that tech provided by foreign nations can come with hidden backdoors and kills switches, from the base platform, right up through hosted apps and services. ICP technology is open source, and those building on ICP using AI own their own source code. When you have the source code, you can verify that there are no backdoors, and when you own the source code thanks to AI, you can update it at will, freeing you from vendor lock-in. But cloud engines take sovereignty much further... — You create a cloud engine by selecting the nodes that will be combined. You can choose the class of nodes used, and their number, but more importantly, you can choose who operates the nodes, and where they are located. Almost any configuration is possible, because the Internet Computer scales the security privileges afforded to hosted software within the network according to configuration (software hosted on cloud engines can directly interoperate with software on other engines and traditional subnets, but base restrictions are applied according to security rules). A cloud engine can be created within a region such as Europe, to comply with regs such as GDPR, or completely within a sovereign state like Switzerland or Pakistan. But cloud engines go further still... — Sovereignty is also about freedom from vendor lock-in. Cloud engines are essentially ICP (Internet Computer Protocol) network configurations, and this means the underlying compute nodes they combine can be swapped out without interrupting their hosted apps and services. This is a big deal. In addition, cloud engines now support nodes that are instances running on Big Tech's clouds, in addition to nodes that are dedicated specialized hardware, as per the Gen I and Gen II nodes that dominate the Internet Computer today. For example, it is possible to have an engine running across different AWS data centers, say, and then reconfigure the engine to run across a mixture of AWS, Google, Azure and Hetzner for even more resilience, without the users of hosted apps and services noticing a thing. That's true freedom. — Sovereign AI is becoming increasingly important too, and cloud engines allow special "AI nodes" to be added to them, so that hosted software can perform inference on hardware provisioned by the owner from a location the owner has selected. Even though the AI nodes are only accessible within the cloud engine, they can still benefit from the forthcoming Internet Intelligence Gateway (IG), which will make it possible to validate inference performed on key frontier open weights LLMs, even when the inference is performed on completely independent AI clouds. When the results of inference are received, this technology can verify that neither the prompt+context (input) nor the inference result (output) have been modified, and that the results were produced by the precise LLM expected. This ensures that AI clouds don't cheat by running inference on cheaper models than are being paid for, and bad actors aren't modifying the inputs or outputs to surreptitiously insert advertising into results, say, or change facts, or insert malware when code is being generated. What's super cool about this technology is the cost of the verification is scalable. A very valuable additional security can be achieved with only 1-2% of extra cost. — Scaling apps and services when they hit capacity limits is another thorny problem that cloud engines help the world address. Engines make scaling possible without rewriting or reconfiguring software. The query workload capacity of hosted software can be horizontally scaled simply by adding new nodes to an engine, and nodes can also be added in geographical proximity to demand. Meanwhile, update workload capacity can first be scaled-up by swapping an engine's nodes out for the next class up, and then when no larger class of node is available, horizontally scaled-out by "splitting" the engine into two, which doubles available capacity. (Technical tip: horizontally scaling update capacity by splitting engines requires multi-canister architectures). — For those who have been following how Caffeine builds apps that can efficiently store large numbers of files, I should mention that apps built on cloud engines will also support the new ICP Blob Storage cloud network (since cloud engines currently have up to about 3 TB of memory, which apps storing large amounts of files can easily exceed). We are also working on allowing blob storage nodes to be added to cloud engines, to enable sovereign mass blob storage within an engine, similarly to how AI nodes can be added currently. — Lastly, but certainly not least, I should mention that cloud engines are multi-blockchain capable, and ready for digital assets, thanks to the clever math at their core. For example, an e-commerce service built on a cloud engine can securely accept and custody stablecoin payments, or a multi-chain DEX could be hosted. Further, engines can support software autonomy (software orchestrated and controlled by other autonomous software, in a decentralized way) and can themselves be orchestrated by SNS technology, and thus run autonomously too. Today, though, the focus is on *mainstream* cloud. This year, the cloud industry will generate approximately one trillion dollars in revenue. That number is already huge, but is expected to grow to two trillion dollars by 2030. After years of continuous development, which have seen more than $500m spent on R&D, the Internet Computer network is now tacking directly toward this mainstream cloud market with cloud engine technology. In their first version, cloud engines are not meant to be a cloud panacea. For example, currently they are not ideal for working with big data. You should use something like DataBricks for that. Cloud engines are carefully targeted at enabling AI to produce traditional online applications and services, including SaaS, in a safer and more productive way, which represents a new market segment with tremendous potential. Of course, DFINITY will continue to work relentlessly to push forward ICP's capabilities, so expect further developments. It's worth mentioning that this cloud segment isn't just about creating new apps and services using AI, it's also about replacing legacy systems and apps built on super expensive SaaS services. Caffeine Labs is working to produce technology (Caffeine Snorkel) that can study an enterprise's legacy systems and app built on SaaS, create replacement systems and apps, and migrate the data, while supporting key stakeholders through the process over email and chat, with full automation. Thus the legacy systems and SaaS markets shall also be addressed by cloud engines. Zooming out, and reasoning in a more metaphysical way, we believe, as we always have, that there is room for a new kind of cloud created by mathematical networks, that provides seminal advances in the fields of security and resilience, as well as true sovereignty and freedom from lock-in. That this same technology, with the help of additional technologies like orthogonal persistence and Motoko, enables AI to build for us without the need for so much oversight, and to create more backend sophistication while consuming fewer AI API tokens, enables ICP to bring game-changing advances to the world. Cloud engines will work synergistically with the Intelligence Gateway, which will enable apps and services running on engines to seamlessly leverage AI, wherever that AI is running, while providing verifiability at extremely low cost for open weights frontier models. We believe that cloud engines represent an inflection point in the storied history of the Internet Computer project, and I'm very proud to be sharing the details with you on the network's fifth birthday 💪 I'll be back with more news soon!!
19:06

Dear ICP community, the Internet Computer has now been running strong for 5 years 👏👏👏 Here is a celebratory preview of ICP "cloud engines," the sovereign frontier cloud technology the network shall soon provide from Main points: — Cloud engines enable anyone to spin up their own sovereign frontier cloud. The technology involves an extraordinary inventive step, in which cloud is created from a mathematically secure network of nodes. The nodes run as part of the Internet Computer network ( but are selected and configured by the cloud engine's owner. — The frontier cloud provided by engines is strongly focused on enabling AI agents to build and update online applications and services for us. The world is changing fast, and nearly all new online apps and services are already being built with the help of AI, and thus cloud engines target the future of cloud. — Software hosted on cloud engines is tamperproof, which means that it is immune to infrastructure hacks, because it runs inside a mathematically secure network protocol, rather than on computers directly. This means that AI agents, and those building with them, don't need to have a security team in the loop, or to trust someone else's security team. This is crucial, because in the future, non technical people will demand the freedom to build with full automation — where they just need to issue instructions to AI about what to build, and don't need to worry about anything or anyone else. Of course, apps and services running on engines are also vastly safer from the new breed of hacker being enabled by frontier AI. (The cloud engines themselves are also "tamperproof." Even if a hacker gains physical access to some portion of a cloud engine's nodes, and can make arbitrary changes, the computations and data of the hosted apps and services cannot be corrupted or interrupted so long as the network's fault bounds aren't exceeded. The recent hack of Vercel, a major cloud platform, which gave hackers access to the apps it hosted, provides additional perspective on the importance of this advantage.) — Software hosted on cloud engines is guaranteed to run, so long as a sufficient number of the engine's nodes are running. This means that AI can build applications and services without the need to have a human systems admin team constantly tinkering with the underlying platform to keep it running, which is again crucial, because in the future, non technical people will expect the freedom to use AI to build without the support of others. — New frontier programming language technology, in the form of the Motoko language developed by Caffeine Labs, leverages seminal "orthogonal persistence" technology that unifies program logic and data to deliver further unlocks for AI (Motoko is the first computer language being developed that targets agents that are writing software rather than humans engineers per se). Nowadays, AI can build and update production apps at a prodigious rate, even at the speed of conversation. But it can also make mistakes, and there's a risk that an update it creates might be "lossy" in the sense it causes some transformed data to be lost. Again, in this new world, it's both undesirable and impractical for everyone to have to have a systems admin team on-hand to detect lossy updates and roll them back, but Motoko provides a solution: it can detect new software updates are lossy before they are applied, reducing potentially catastrophic errors by AI to harmless coding retries. — Software hosted on cloud engines is "serverless" but unlike traditional serverless software, directly it directly incorporates data through "orthogonal persistence." Another key purpose is simplify backend software logic and fuel the modeling power of AI by increasing abstraction (sorry for the technical language!!!). Put simply, this enables AI to produce more sophisticated backends, faster, and at dramatically lower costs, as measured by the number AI API tokens consumed during coding. (Tip for the technical: orthogonal persistence is a new paradigm where "the program is the database," and data lives inside program variables, which is possible because it's as if hosted software runs forever in persistent memory). — An expanding database of skills at shall make it possible to develop and directly deploy apps and services to your cloud engines directly from Claude Code, Perplexity, Codex and other AI platforms. Further, your account on can be connected, so that new apps and updates created through conversation automatically appear hosted from your cloud engine. In the future, R&D is going to be very seamless. You converse with AI, and your secure and unstoppable apps or services are created or updated. Cloud engines are designed to directly support this "self-writing cloud" future where we can work hands-free. — Tech sovereignty is becoming a huge issue worldwide, with governments and corporations seeking to create sovereign tech stacks owing to geopolitical tensions. Increasingly, people are realizing that tech provided by foreign nations can come with hidden backdoors and kills switches, from the base platform, right up through hosted apps and services. ICP technology is open source, and those building on ICP using AI own their own source code. When you have the source code, you can verify that there are no backdoors, and when you own the source code thanks to AI, you can update it at will, freeing you from vendor lock-in. But cloud engines take sovereignty much further... — You create a cloud engine by selecting the nodes that will be combined. You can choose the class of nodes used, and their number, but more importantly, you can choose who operates the nodes, and where they are located. Almost any configuration is possible, because the Internet Computer scales the security privileges afforded to hosted software within the network according to configuration (software hosted on cloud engines can directly interoperate with software on other engines and traditional subnets, but base restrictions are applied according to security rules). A cloud engine can be created within a region such as Europe, to comply with regs such as GDPR, or completely within a sovereign state like Switzerland or Pakistan. But cloud engines go further still... — Sovereignty is also about freedom from vendor lock-in. Cloud engines are essentially ICP (Internet Computer Protocol) network configurations, and this means the underlying compute nodes they combine can be swapped out without interrupting their hosted apps and services. This is a big deal. In addition, cloud engines now support nodes that are instances running on Big Tech's clouds, in addition to nodes that are dedicated specialized hardware, as per the Gen I and Gen II nodes that dominate the Internet Computer today. For example, it is possible to have an engine running across different AWS data centers, say, and then reconfigure the engine to run across a mixture of AWS, Google, Azure and Hetzner for even more resilience, without the users of hosted apps and services noticing a thing. That's true freedom. — Sovereign AI is becoming increasingly important too, and cloud engines allow special "AI nodes" to be added to them, so that hosted software can perform inference on hardware provisioned by the owner from a location the owner has selected. Even though the AI nodes are only accessible within the cloud engine, they can still benefit from the forthcoming Internet Intelligence Gateway (IG), which will make it possible to validate inference performed on key frontier open weights LLMs, even when the inference is performed on completely independent AI clouds. When the results of inference are received, this technology can verify that neither the prompt+context (input) nor the inference result (output) have been modified, and that the results were produced by the precise LLM expected. This ensures that AI clouds don't cheat by running inference on cheaper models than are being paid for, and bad actors aren't modifying the inputs or outputs to surreptitiously insert advertising into results, say, or change facts, or insert malware when code is being generated. What's super cool about this technology is the cost of the verification is scalable. A very valuable additional security can be achieved with only 1-2% of extra cost. — Scaling apps and services when they hit capacity limits is another thorny problem that cloud engines help the world address. Engines make scaling possible without rewriting or reconfiguring software. The query workload capacity of hosted software can be horizontally scaled simply by adding new nodes to an engine, and nodes can also be added in geographical proximity to demand. Meanwhile, update workload capacity can first be scaled-up by swapping an engine's nodes out for the next class up, and then when no larger class of node is available, horizontally scaled-out by "splitting" the engine into two, which doubles available capacity. (Technical tip: horizontally scaling update capacity by splitting engines requires multi-canister architectures). — For those who have been following how Caffeine builds apps that can efficiently store large numbers of files, I should mention that apps built on cloud engines will also support the new ICP Blob Storage cloud network (since cloud engines currently have up to about 3 TB of memory, which apps storing large amounts of files can easily exceed). We are also working on allowing blob storage nodes to be added to cloud engines, to enable sovereign mass blob storage within an engine, similarly to how AI nodes can be added currently. — Lastly, but certainly not least, I should mention that cloud engines are multi-blockchain capable, and ready for digital assets, thanks to the clever math at their core. For example, an e-commerce service built on a cloud engine can securely accept and custody stablecoin payments, or a multi-chain DEX could be hosted. Further, engines can support software autonomy (software orchestrated and controlled by other autonomous software, in a decentralized way) and can themselves be orchestrated by SNS technology, and thus run autonomously too. Today, though, the focus is on *mainstream* cloud. This year, the cloud industry will generate approximately one trillion dollars in revenue. That number is already huge, but is expected to grow to two trillion dollars by 2030. After years of continuous development, which have seen more than $500m spent on R&D, the Internet Computer network is now tacking directly toward this mainstream cloud market with cloud engine technology. In their first version, cloud engines are not meant to be a cloud panacea. For example, currently they are not ideal for working with big data. You should use something like DataBricks for that. Cloud engines are carefully targeted at enabling AI to produce traditional online applications and services, including SaaS, in a safer and more productive way, which represents a new market segment with tremendous potential. Of course, DFINITY will continue to work relentlessly to push forward ICP's capabilities, so expect further developments. It's worth mentioning that this cloud segment isn't just about creating new apps and services using AI, it's also about replacing legacy systems and apps built on super expensive SaaS services. Caffeine Labs is working to produce technology (Caffeine Snorkel) that can study an enterprise's legacy systems and app built on SaaS, create replacement systems and apps, and migrate the data, while supporting key stakeholders through the process over email and chat, with full automation. Thus the legacy systems and SaaS markets shall also be addressed by cloud engines. Zooming out, and reasoning in a more metaphysical way, we believe, as we always have, that there is room for a new kind of cloud created by mathematical networks, that provides seminal advances in the fields of security and resilience, as well as true sovereignty and freedom from lock-in. That this same technology, with the help of additional technologies like orthogonal persistence and Motoko, enables AI to build for us without the need for so much oversight, and to create more backend sophistication while consuming fewer AI API tokens, enables ICP to bring game-changing advances to the world. Cloud engines will work synergistically with the Intelligence Gateway, which will enable apps and services running on engines to seamlessly leverage AI, wherever that AI is running, while providing verifiability at extremely low cost for open weights frontier models. We believe that cloud engines represent an inflection point in the storied history of the Internet Computer project, and I'm very proud to be sharing the details with you on the network's fifth birthday 💪 I'll be back with more news soon!!

dom | icp

281,367 次观看 • 3 个月前

Local from Dinga, Pakistan, have claimed that a massive fire broke out on farmland on the night of 8 May, reportedly started by farmers. Shortly afterward, two Pakistan Air Force (PAF) fighter jets were observed flying at very low altitude over the area, leading residents to believe that an aircraft may have crashed. According to local accounts, the PAF later stated that the fighter jets were conducting a low-level flight to inspect the wildfire. However, the incident has raised serious questions, as the same area had earlier yielded debris believed to be from an S-400 40N6 missile booster. A local resident quoted a conversation with the Station House Officer (SHO) of Gujrat district, stating: “Nothing to worry about what happened at Dinga last night. I called the SHO Gujrat. Ignore all the videos and TikToks that are circulating about the fire.” Despite these assurances, satellite imagery reportedly shows a large fire signature in the same location. Furthermore, Pakistani police were seen cordoning off the area — with photographic and video evidence available — adding to suspicions surrounding the incident. Key unanswered questions remain: Why were PAF fighter jets deployed at low altitude over a civilian farmland fire? Why was the area sealed off by police if it was merely a routine wildfire? Why was debris from an S-400 40N6 missile booster found in the same location? Was this a standard Search and Rescue (SAR) protocol operation? Is the PAF attempting to conceal the loss of an aircraft? The coincidence of a major fire, restricted access, military air activity, and missile debris in the same area suggests that the incident may be far more serious than officially acknowledged.
3:07

Local from Dinga, Pakistan, have claimed that a massive fire broke out on farmland on the night of 8 May, reportedly started by farmers. Shortly afterward, two Pakistan Air Force (PAF) fighter jets were observed flying at very low altitude over the area, leading residents to believe that an aircraft may have crashed. According to local accounts, the PAF later stated that the fighter jets were conducting a low-level flight to inspect the wildfire. However, the incident has raised serious questions, as the same area had earlier yielded debris believed to be from an S-400 40N6 missile booster. A local resident quoted a conversation with the Station House Officer (SHO) of Gujrat district, stating: “Nothing to worry about what happened at Dinga last night. I called the SHO Gujrat. Ignore all the videos and TikToks that are circulating about the fire.” Despite these assurances, satellite imagery reportedly shows a large fire signature in the same location. Furthermore, Pakistani police were seen cordoning off the area — with photographic and video evidence available — adding to suspicions surrounding the incident. Key unanswered questions remain: Why were PAF fighter jets deployed at low altitude over a civilian farmland fire? Why was the area sealed off by police if it was merely a routine wildfire? Why was debris from an S-400 40N6 missile booster found in the same location? Was this a standard Search and Rescue (SAR) protocol operation? Is the PAF attempting to conceal the loss of an aircraft? The coincidence of a major fire, restricted access, military air activity, and missile debris in the same area suggests that the incident may be far more serious than officially acknowledged.

idrw

12,611 次观看 • 7 个月前

Cloud capital versus AI - What DeepSeek’s spectacular success means for technofeudalism & the New Cold War DeepSeek, a Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company, this week changed the global AI landscape, not to mention caused $1 trillion losses in the New York stock exchange and the NASDAC. In the process, it demonstrated the difference between cloud capital, which drives technofeudalism onward and upward, and AI-services, which were always a bubble waiting to burst. What remains to be seen is DeepSeek's impact on the New Cold War between the US and China which, from its beginning, was motivated by the clash between US and Chinese cloud capital. DeepSeek is China's response to OpenAI's ChatGPT. Its models perform as efficiently as their US counterparts. The difference is that DeepSeek is offered for free, making money only by selling services to developers - not to the public – at a fraction of the price OpenAI charges! The gist of DeepSeek’s arrival on the AI scene is a sudden transition from proprietary to open source technology. It is, therefore, no great wonder that, the moment DeekSeek became the most downloaded app on the Apple Store, it pulverised the market capitalisation of the, hitherto overinflated, US Big Tech companies. But how did this happen? How is a private commodity suddenly being offered for free? And does this mean that technofeudalism is in trouble? To begin with it is important to note AI was never a proprietary technology in itself. The underlying code has always been open source. What made AI quasi-private was the way these models were trained using huge amounts of privatised (that is stolen from us) data. A leaked Google memo in 2017, that was widely discussed in the industry at the time, but also widely refuted, explained: "If an open source LLM trained for a few million dollars outperforms the effectiveness of proprietary models... There will be no firewall to safeguard OpenAI either." DeepSeek pierced the US AI companies’ bubble by decommodifying the results of the model’s training, shifting them from behind a paywall to the public arena. Within days, developers around the world started building their own models on top of DeepSeek's. This is was the nightmare for US Big Tech's AI service providers who offered the results of prompts as a commodity, in the form of subscriptions. DeepSeek-type applications can now produce high-quality translations for free and, in so doing, undermine companies specialising in, for example, translation services, such as Germany's Deepl. In the broader scheme of things, this means that the morsels of cloud capital that Europe owns has lost its market value. Nevertheless, and this is a huge nevertheless, it is only AI-as-a-commodity that has lost its (grossly exaggerated) value. In sharp contrast, cloud capital utilised not as a commodity producing piece of tech but as produced means of behavioural modification is not at all threatened by companies like DeepSeek. And since technofeudalism is powered by cloud capital working that way, rather than commodity-like AI services of the ChaptGPT type, our technofeudal order is not threatened by competitors such as DeepSeek. To help understand the difference between cloud capital and AI-based commodified services it helps to compare and contrast Alexa and ChatGPT. Alexa is not offering you a commodified service. It is your free pretend-slave. Unlike ChatGPT you do not pay a subscription to Amazon for the right to order Alexa to order you milk or to switch off your lights. Instead, you train Alexa to train you to train it to know you so that it wins your trust with good recommendations so that it can modify your behaviour – ‘encourage’ you to buy a commodity from with Bezos retaining up to 40% of the price you pay (as a cloud rent). In short, the work that Alexa performs for you is not a commodity, unlike ChatGPT which works to sell you a commodity. In other words, ChatGPT is subject to market competition, to the likes of DeepSeek, but Alexa is not. This is why OpenAI, ChatGPT’s maker, is seriously damaged by the emergence of DeepSeek but Amazon is not. Thus, my basic point: Cloud capital is in a league of its own, beyond market competition from DeepSeek-like upstarts, because its power lies in its capacity to modify our behaviour and remove us from any market (e.g., to shift us from real markets to cloud fiefs like Amazon and Alibaba). In conclusion, cloud capital’s capacity to drive technofeudalism is not challenged by companies like DeepSeek. Only companies like OpenAI, which invested so much and so foolishly in providing a commodified service, stand to lose enormously. Yet another sign that capitalism is dead at the hand of cloud capital while technofeudalism is going from strength to strength and, as it does so, fuels even further the New Cold War between the US and China which in my book, Technofeudalism, I have explained away as the clash of the two huge concentrations of cloud capital: the American dollar-denominated super cloudalist power and the Chinese yuan-denominated one. Speaking of this New Cold War, which I have argued is mostly fuelled by the clash between American and Chinese cloud capital, I wonder what impact DeepSeek’s success will have on the US government. Silicon Valley and Washington DC had convinced themselves that America had a huge AI lead over China. Now, a tiny Chinese company has destroyed that confidence by producing on a shoestring better AI tech than Sillicon Valley had imagined possible. I can almost hear the whirring inside the heads of people in power on both America’s East and West Coast thinking that if the Chinese can do this out of the blue, what else can they do tomorrow? It is reminiscent of the Sputnik moment, isn’t it? It will be interesting to see how Trump reacts to this threat to companies American AI companies, especially since Elon Musk understands, and has spoken out against, the folly of commodifying AI services rather than going full on technofeudal. These are interesting times, in the traditional Chinese sense of the phrase.
9:27

Cloud capital versus AI - What DeepSeek’s spectacular success means for technofeudalism & the New Cold War DeepSeek, a Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company, this week changed the global AI landscape, not to mention caused $1 trillion losses in the New York stock exchange and the NASDAC. In the process, it demonstrated the difference between cloud capital, which drives technofeudalism onward and upward, and AI-services, which were always a bubble waiting to burst. What remains to be seen is DeepSeek's impact on the New Cold War between the US and China which, from its beginning, was motivated by the clash between US and Chinese cloud capital. DeepSeek is China's response to OpenAI's ChatGPT. Its models perform as efficiently as their US counterparts. The difference is that DeepSeek is offered for free, making money only by selling services to developers - not to the public – at a fraction of the price OpenAI charges! The gist of DeepSeek’s arrival on the AI scene is a sudden transition from proprietary to open source technology. It is, therefore, no great wonder that, the moment DeekSeek became the most downloaded app on the Apple Store, it pulverised the market capitalisation of the, hitherto overinflated, US Big Tech companies. But how did this happen? How is a private commodity suddenly being offered for free? And does this mean that technofeudalism is in trouble? To begin with it is important to note AI was never a proprietary technology in itself. The underlying code has always been open source. What made AI quasi-private was the way these models were trained using huge amounts of privatised (that is stolen from us) data. A leaked Google memo in 2017, that was widely discussed in the industry at the time, but also widely refuted, explained: "If an open source LLM trained for a few million dollars outperforms the effectiveness of proprietary models... There will be no firewall to safeguard OpenAI either." DeepSeek pierced the US AI companies’ bubble by decommodifying the results of the model’s training, shifting them from behind a paywall to the public arena. Within days, developers around the world started building their own models on top of DeepSeek's. This is was the nightmare for US Big Tech's AI service providers who offered the results of prompts as a commodity, in the form of subscriptions. DeepSeek-type applications can now produce high-quality translations for free and, in so doing, undermine companies specialising in, for example, translation services, such as Germany's Deepl. In the broader scheme of things, this means that the morsels of cloud capital that Europe owns has lost its market value. Nevertheless, and this is a huge nevertheless, it is only AI-as-a-commodity that has lost its (grossly exaggerated) value. In sharp contrast, cloud capital utilised not as a commodity producing piece of tech but as produced means of behavioural modification is not at all threatened by companies like DeepSeek. And since technofeudalism is powered by cloud capital working that way, rather than commodity-like AI services of the ChaptGPT type, our technofeudal order is not threatened by competitors such as DeepSeek. To help understand the difference between cloud capital and AI-based commodified services it helps to compare and contrast Alexa and ChatGPT. Alexa is not offering you a commodified service. It is your free pretend-slave. Unlike ChatGPT you do not pay a subscription to Amazon for the right to order Alexa to order you milk or to switch off your lights. Instead, you train Alexa to train you to train it to know you so that it wins your trust with good recommendations so that it can modify your behaviour – ‘encourage’ you to buy a commodity from with Bezos retaining up to 40% of the price you pay (as a cloud rent). In short, the work that Alexa performs for you is not a commodity, unlike ChatGPT which works to sell you a commodity. In other words, ChatGPT is subject to market competition, to the likes of DeepSeek, but Alexa is not. This is why OpenAI, ChatGPT’s maker, is seriously damaged by the emergence of DeepSeek but Amazon is not. Thus, my basic point: Cloud capital is in a league of its own, beyond market competition from DeepSeek-like upstarts, because its power lies in its capacity to modify our behaviour and remove us from any market (e.g., to shift us from real markets to cloud fiefs like Amazon and Alibaba). In conclusion, cloud capital’s capacity to drive technofeudalism is not challenged by companies like DeepSeek. Only companies like OpenAI, which invested so much and so foolishly in providing a commodified service, stand to lose enormously. Yet another sign that capitalism is dead at the hand of cloud capital while technofeudalism is going from strength to strength and, as it does so, fuels even further the New Cold War between the US and China which in my book, Technofeudalism, I have explained away as the clash of the two huge concentrations of cloud capital: the American dollar-denominated super cloudalist power and the Chinese yuan-denominated one. Speaking of this New Cold War, which I have argued is mostly fuelled by the clash between American and Chinese cloud capital, I wonder what impact DeepSeek’s success will have on the US government. Silicon Valley and Washington DC had convinced themselves that America had a huge AI lead over China. Now, a tiny Chinese company has destroyed that confidence by producing on a shoestring better AI tech than Sillicon Valley had imagined possible. I can almost hear the whirring inside the heads of people in power on both America’s East and West Coast thinking that if the Chinese can do this out of the blue, what else can they do tomorrow? It is reminiscent of the Sputnik moment, isn’t it? It will be interesting to see how Trump reacts to this threat to companies American AI companies, especially since Elon Musk understands, and has spoken out against, the folly of commodifying AI services rather than going full on technofeudal. These are interesting times, in the traditional Chinese sense of the phrase.

Yanis Varoufakis

96,306 次观看 • 1 年前

Sometimes the thing that hurts you, isn’t the moment itself, it’s the fact that you keep reliving it. Not once. Not twice. But in patterns that look different outside and feel identical inside. You start wondering why it keeps happening. Why the same fears return. Why the same version of you shows up even when you swore you were done with him. Most people think life moves in a straight line. But the Vishnu Purana says something completely different: “Krita, Treta, Dvapara and Kali, these ages turn like a wheel.” A wheel. Not a timeline. A rotation that keeps circling back until something in you changes. Centuries later, Nietzsche said almost the same thing, his idea of “eternal recurrence.” If you had to live this day again and again, would you be proud of it, or terrified that you’re still choosing the same life? And even modern physics keeps stumbling toward the same shape, cyclic universe models, Big Bangs followed by cosmic “bounces,” universe after universe rising from the ashes of the last. Once you see this, your own life starts making a different kind of sense. You stop blaming fate and start noticing your habits. You stop praying for a new life while living the old one on autopilot. Because you’re not trapped in a cycle. You’re participating in one. So ask yourself, What keeps returning because you haven’t faced it yet? What pattern keeps knocking like a teacher you ignore? What moment repeats because you haven’t shown up differently? In a universe where time moves in circles, even the smallest choice isn’t small. It becomes a pattern. A future. A repetition, or a release. Maybe this is the moment where the wheel comes back around and you finally choose a different version of you. Maybe this is your cycle break.
2:55

Sometimes the thing that hurts you, isn’t the moment itself, it’s the fact that you keep reliving it. Not once. Not twice. But in patterns that look different outside and feel identical inside. You start wondering why it keeps happening. Why the same fears return. Why the same version of you shows up even when you swore you were done with him. Most people think life moves in a straight line. But the Vishnu Purana says something completely different: “Krita, Treta, Dvapara and Kali, these ages turn like a wheel.” A wheel. Not a timeline. A rotation that keeps circling back until something in you changes. Centuries later, Nietzsche said almost the same thing, his idea of “eternal recurrence.” If you had to live this day again and again, would you be proud of it, or terrified that you’re still choosing the same life? And even modern physics keeps stumbling toward the same shape, cyclic universe models, Big Bangs followed by cosmic “bounces,” universe after universe rising from the ashes of the last. Once you see this, your own life starts making a different kind of sense. You stop blaming fate and start noticing your habits. You stop praying for a new life while living the old one on autopilot. Because you’re not trapped in a cycle. You’re participating in one. So ask yourself, What keeps returning because you haven’t faced it yet? What pattern keeps knocking like a teacher you ignore? What moment repeats because you haven’t shown up differently? In a universe where time moves in circles, even the smallest choice isn’t small. It becomes a pattern. A future. A repetition, or a release. Maybe this is the moment where the wheel comes back around and you finally choose a different version of you. Maybe this is your cycle break.

Wisdom Walk

11,296 次观看 • 8 个月前

𝗤 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗺 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀. It's just these simple patterns. I talk about it all the time. These channels, like you have a big momentum stock, goes up a lot, builds a channel. You have a big momentum stock, it builds a channel this way. You have a big momentum stock, it maybe does something like this with higher lows. You have a big momentum stock, it maybe goes up a lot and then maybe does something like this. These triangles and channels. High-tight flags. It's the same patterns over and over again. It doesn't matter if you learn them from Minervini, Dan Zanger, it's the same things, or Stockbee, right? It's the same things over and over. It's just so easy. You just need to train your brain to see these patterns on the strongest stocks. That's the key. The strongest stocks, not some random piece of shit. People keep posting these random stocks that have these bull flags, but you need the strongest stocks. You don't have an edge trading some random shit stock that happens to have a good chart pattern. I get these every day, people are posting and asking me about them. It has to be a momentum leader. Just the same patterns over... just look at the stocks I'm in, right? NVDA, I bought it last week, okay? Very simple. A big momentum stock, look at the pattern. What is it? Do you see this? Do you see this pattern? I bought it here. NIO, I bought it a couple of days ago. What's the pattern, right? Do you see it? I bought it on this day here, like somewhere here, right? LVGO, what's the pattern? Okay, I bought it here, so it was a little bit of a chase. FSLY, I bought it here. What's the pattern? You see this? DDOG, where did I buy it? I bought it here. This wasn't a clean one, but it was showing relative strength. But again, same patterns. You see higher lows and Z, I bought it here. I also bought it here initially. The same patterns over and over again. There's absolutely no rocket science involved. Anyone who's trying to sell you rocket science, just unfollow them and run the other way. They're all frauds. They don't make any money. Same thing, these simple patterns: triangles, channels, high-tight flags. We bought TSLA here, right? Same thing. I bought TSLA here, right? Same thing. I also bought TSLA down here. Same thing. This is just the same patterns over and over again. All you have to do to succeed in the stock market is don't be a fucking retard. Really. I mean, really. That's all you have to do. You don't need any intelligence to make tens of millions. All you need to know is risk management, portfolio management, and these patterns. And then you need to have sit-out power when the market is bad. That's all you need. You literally need five things. And yes, CRWD... where did I buy it? On this day here. You see the pattern. LAC, I bought it here. You see the pattern. I bought it here, or was it here? I don't remember. One of... the same thing over and over again. Exactly, the big... yeah, exactly. All the... Zanger, Jesse Livermore, Darvas, Ruppel, O'Neil... exactly, it's the same thing. They're all momentum traders. They trade these momentum stocks, relative strength stocks, the stocks that funds are dying to get in, okay? You want the stocks that the funds want to buy, okay? The funds leave footprints, the big institutions, they leave footprints. Your job is to sniff out the stocks the funds are buying. You don't want some piece-of-shit random stock. You're never going to make money over time. You want buyers coming in after you.
3:30

𝗤 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗺 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀. It's just these simple patterns. I talk about it all the time. These channels, like you have a big momentum stock, goes up a lot, builds a channel. You have a big momentum stock, it builds a channel this way. You have a big momentum stock, it maybe does something like this with higher lows. You have a big momentum stock, it maybe goes up a lot and then maybe does something like this. These triangles and channels. High-tight flags. It's the same patterns over and over again. It doesn't matter if you learn them from Minervini, Dan Zanger, it's the same things, or Stockbee, right? It's the same things over and over. It's just so easy. You just need to train your brain to see these patterns on the strongest stocks. That's the key. The strongest stocks, not some random piece of shit. People keep posting these random stocks that have these bull flags, but you need the strongest stocks. You don't have an edge trading some random shit stock that happens to have a good chart pattern. I get these every day, people are posting and asking me about them. It has to be a momentum leader. Just the same patterns over... just look at the stocks I'm in, right? NVDA, I bought it last week, okay? Very simple. A big momentum stock, look at the pattern. What is it? Do you see this? Do you see this pattern? I bought it here. NIO, I bought it a couple of days ago. What's the pattern, right? Do you see it? I bought it on this day here, like somewhere here, right? LVGO, what's the pattern? Okay, I bought it here, so it was a little bit of a chase. FSLY, I bought it here. What's the pattern? You see this? DDOG, where did I buy it? I bought it here. This wasn't a clean one, but it was showing relative strength. But again, same patterns. You see higher lows and Z, I bought it here. I also bought it here initially. The same patterns over and over again. There's absolutely no rocket science involved. Anyone who's trying to sell you rocket science, just unfollow them and run the other way. They're all frauds. They don't make any money. Same thing, these simple patterns: triangles, channels, high-tight flags. We bought TSLA here, right? Same thing. I bought TSLA here, right? Same thing. I also bought TSLA down here. Same thing. This is just the same patterns over and over again. All you have to do to succeed in the stock market is don't be a fucking retard. Really. I mean, really. That's all you have to do. You don't need any intelligence to make tens of millions. All you need to know is risk management, portfolio management, and these patterns. And then you need to have sit-out power when the market is bad. That's all you need. You literally need five things. And yes, CRWD... where did I buy it? On this day here. You see the pattern. LAC, I bought it here. You see the pattern. I bought it here, or was it here? I don't remember. One of... the same thing over and over again. Exactly, the big... yeah, exactly. All the... Zanger, Jesse Livermore, Darvas, Ruppel, O'Neil... exactly, it's the same thing. They're all momentum traders. They trade these momentum stocks, relative strength stocks, the stocks that funds are dying to get in, okay? You want the stocks that the funds want to buy, okay? The funds leave footprints, the big institutions, they leave footprints. Your job is to sniff out the stocks the funds are buying. You don't want some piece-of-shit random stock. You're never going to make money over time. You want buyers coming in after you.

Qullamaggie Wisdom

14,653 次观看 • 1 个月前

🚨 BTC BOTTOM IS GETTING CLOSER 🚨 Think about this for a second Every time Bitcoin crashed, everyone said the same thing - this time it's different, this time it's really over - 2018 ($3k) - People were selling at a loss just to escape. - 2022 ($15.5k) - Same "Bitcoin is dead" story Both of those bottoms are now considered the best entries in history Here is what nobody talks about There is a trendline on this chart that has connected every single bottom since 2017 It has held through nine years and three full cycles without a single break The average drawdown from ATH to this trendline is 75% Apply that to the current cycle - and the logical bottom lands around $33k Tbh i think we don't go that low this cycle What do you think? I predicted the BTC 2025 ATH (check the pinned thread) All the local moves and bear market patterns you could have known too if you'd been following me The next updates will be the most important ones as we're standing on the verge of a structure change I'll let you know as soon as I start actively loading spot Turn on notifications and you'll realize how much valuable info you've been missing by not doing it sooner
1:05

🚨 BTC BOTTOM IS GETTING CLOSER 🚨 Think about this for a second Every time Bitcoin crashed, everyone said the same thing - this time it's different, this time it's really over - 2018 ($3k) - People were selling at a loss just to escape. - 2022 ($15.5k) - Same "Bitcoin is dead" story Both of those bottoms are now considered the best entries in history Here is what nobody talks about There is a trendline on this chart that has connected every single bottom since 2017 It has held through nine years and three full cycles without a single break The average drawdown from ATH to this trendline is 75% Apply that to the current cycle - and the logical bottom lands around $33k Tbh i think we don't go that low this cycle What do you think? I predicted the BTC 2025 ATH (check the pinned thread) All the local moves and bear market patterns you could have known too if you'd been following me The next updates will be the most important ones as we're standing on the verge of a structure change I'll let you know as soon as I start actively loading spot Turn on notifications and you'll realize how much valuable info you've been missing by not doing it sooner

NoName

30,753 次观看 • 1 个月前

Some will already know this, but William Gibson collaborated with the Japanese workwear brand Buzz Rickson about 20 years ago to create a line of military-inspired garments. As far as I know, the line has stayed totally the same — same material, same details, same cuts — even as fashion trends have moved from full to slim and back to full again. How great is it that you could have saved up and splurged on a really nice garment 20 years ago, and if you went to the same store today, it would be totally the same? There's no pressure to "update" your wardrobe. No feeling like you might miss out on the latest drop. If you lose the jacket, you can go to the store and get the same one, even two decades later. There's something special about having that kind of confidence in your aesthetic. Also, not pressuring people to constantly buy buy buy. They purchase one nice thing and wear it for years. Should they decide the garment is not for them, guess what? They can sell it on the second-hand market for about 50% of what they paid because retailers are still selling the same thing. That fashion model is very inspiring to me. Plus, the stuff looks great. The videos below are from the wonderful London-based shop Son of Stag. You can also find at Self Edge, my favorite retailer for denim. They have locations in the United States and Mexico. Both stores specialize in this kind of clothing. You can find both shops on Instagram at the handles sonofastag and selfedge.
2:40

Some will already know this, but William Gibson collaborated with the Japanese workwear brand Buzz Rickson about 20 years ago to create a line of military-inspired garments. As far as I know, the line has stayed totally the same — same material, same details, same cuts — even as fashion trends have moved from full to slim and back to full again. How great is it that you could have saved up and splurged on a really nice garment 20 years ago, and if you went to the same store today, it would be totally the same? There's no pressure to "update" your wardrobe. No feeling like you might miss out on the latest drop. If you lose the jacket, you can go to the store and get the same one, even two decades later. There's something special about having that kind of confidence in your aesthetic. Also, not pressuring people to constantly buy buy buy. They purchase one nice thing and wear it for years. Should they decide the garment is not for them, guess what? They can sell it on the second-hand market for about 50% of what they paid because retailers are still selling the same thing. That fashion model is very inspiring to me. Plus, the stuff looks great. The videos below are from the wonderful London-based shop Son of Stag. You can also find at Self Edge, my favorite retailer for denim. They have locations in the United States and Mexico. Both stores specialize in this kind of clothing. You can find both shops on Instagram at the handles sonofastag and selfedge.

derek guy

430,311 次观看 • 4 个月前

At a show on his Solo Tour, John Mayer confessed: “I wait for most things to be over. I wait for this to be over to do the next thing and the next thing and the next thing and the next thing...” To counter this tendency, he implemented a rule. “Because I’ve realized, he said, “Everything you love and hate leaves at the same speed: Done. Done. Done. The thing you hate that you have to do tomorrow will be over before you know it, and the thing you're looking forward to tomorrow will be over before you know it.” “So I have a new rule in my life,” Mayer said, “and the rule is: Never wish for less time. Waiting for things to be over is just wishing for less time. Waiting for this to be over to get to the next thing—that's just wishing for less time.” “So wherever you go, just make a home right there and do that thing…Wherever you are, go, 'this is where it's all at right now.' I’ve been having the time of my life because I figured that out…” Takeaway 1: John's realization—that “everything you love and hate leaves at the same speed”—made me think of something that Dr. Anna Lembke writes about in her book Dopamine Nation: “One of the most remarkable neuroscientific findings in the past century is that the brain processes pleasure and pain in the same place. Further, pleasure and pain work like opposite sides of a balance.” “And one of the overriding rules governing this balance,” she said, “is that it wants to stay level…With any deviation from neutrality, the brain will work very hard to restore a level balance—what scientists call ‘homeostasis.’ … With any stimulus to one side, there will be a tip of an equal and opposite amount to the other side.” Pain and pleasure, good days and bad days, the things you're dreading and the things you're looking forward to—everything leaves at the same speed. Takeaway 2: The brain’s tendency to think about the next thing is called “prospection.” “Our brains were made for nexting,” the psychologist Daniel Gilbert writes in a chapter titled “Prospection” in his book Stumbling On Happiness. “When researchers count the items that float along in the average person’s stream of consciousness, they find that about 12 percent of our daily thoughts are about the future.” In other words, the average person spends 1 out of every 8 hours thinking about the next thing, “which is to say…each of us is a part-time resident of tomorrow.” We are constantly nexting, Gilbert explains, because of “the illusion of foresight”—the illusion that “prospection can provide pleasure and prevent pain.” The reality is that “the future is fundamentally different than it appears through the prospectiscope.” The reality is that (whether through the prospectiscope or in the present) everything—pain and pleasure, the things you're dreading and the things you're looking forward to—leaves at the same speed. - - - “So wherever you go, just make a home right there and do that thing…Wherever you are, go, 'this is where it's all at right now.' ... I’ve been having the time of my life because I figured that out...” — John Mayer Follow Billy Oppenheimer for more content like this!
1:47

At a show on his Solo Tour, John Mayer confessed: “I wait for most things to be over. I wait for this to be over to do the next thing and the next thing and the next thing and the next thing...” To counter this tendency, he implemented a rule. “Because I’ve realized, he said, “Everything you love and hate leaves at the same speed: Done. Done. Done. The thing you hate that you have to do tomorrow will be over before you know it, and the thing you're looking forward to tomorrow will be over before you know it.” “So I have a new rule in my life,” Mayer said, “and the rule is: Never wish for less time. Waiting for things to be over is just wishing for less time. Waiting for this to be over to get to the next thing—that's just wishing for less time.” “So wherever you go, just make a home right there and do that thing…Wherever you are, go, 'this is where it's all at right now.' I’ve been having the time of my life because I figured that out…” Takeaway 1: John's realization—that “everything you love and hate leaves at the same speed”—made me think of something that Dr. Anna Lembke writes about in her book Dopamine Nation: “One of the most remarkable neuroscientific findings in the past century is that the brain processes pleasure and pain in the same place. Further, pleasure and pain work like opposite sides of a balance.” “And one of the overriding rules governing this balance,” she said, “is that it wants to stay level…With any deviation from neutrality, the brain will work very hard to restore a level balance—what scientists call ‘homeostasis.’ … With any stimulus to one side, there will be a tip of an equal and opposite amount to the other side.” Pain and pleasure, good days and bad days, the things you're dreading and the things you're looking forward to—everything leaves at the same speed. Takeaway 2: The brain’s tendency to think about the next thing is called “prospection.” “Our brains were made for nexting,” the psychologist Daniel Gilbert writes in a chapter titled “Prospection” in his book Stumbling On Happiness. “When researchers count the items that float along in the average person’s stream of consciousness, they find that about 12 percent of our daily thoughts are about the future.” In other words, the average person spends 1 out of every 8 hours thinking about the next thing, “which is to say…each of us is a part-time resident of tomorrow.” We are constantly nexting, Gilbert explains, because of “the illusion of foresight”—the illusion that “prospection can provide pleasure and prevent pain.” The reality is that “the future is fundamentally different than it appears through the prospectiscope.” The reality is that (whether through the prospectiscope or in the present) everything—pain and pleasure, the things you're dreading and the things you're looking forward to—leaves at the same speed. - - - “So wherever you go, just make a home right there and do that thing…Wherever you are, go, 'this is where it's all at right now.' ... I’ve been having the time of my life because I figured that out...” — John Mayer Follow Billy Oppenheimer for more content like this!

Billy Oppenheimer

3,006,714 次观看 • 2 年前

Qullamaggie on Dan Zanger “Dan Zanger, I think he is great. I learned a lot from Dan Sanger. Love your stops, not your stocks. Best motto ever. It’s the same; it’s the same thing again. Dan Zanger too—like he studied what works in the markets. He made tens of millions, and in a few years, he’s probably made 100 million since. Well, he has a lot of articles on the internet, but you can also subscribe to his - I went through all his old newsletters from the 90s to like 2012, reviewing every single newsletter. I just looked at what he looked for regarding the chart patterns. It’s the same thing I look for now. It’s just these simple patterns I talk about all the time, like these channels. You have a big momentum stock that goes up and builds a channel. You have a big momentum stock builds a channel this way. You have a momentum stock does something like this with higher lows. These triangles channels high tight flags. It doesn’t matter if you learn from Minervini, Zanger, it’s the same thing. Or Stockbee. It’s the same thing over and over. It’s so easy you just need to train your brain to see these patterns. On the strongest stocks that’s the key. Not some random piece of shit. People keep posting these random stocks that have these bull flags. But you need the strongest stocks. You don’t have an edge trading some random shit stock.”
1:43

Qullamaggie on Dan Zanger “Dan Zanger, I think he is great. I learned a lot from Dan Sanger. Love your stops, not your stocks. Best motto ever. It’s the same; it’s the same thing again. Dan Zanger too—like he studied what works in the markets. He made tens of millions, and in a few years, he’s probably made 100 million since. Well, he has a lot of articles on the internet, but you can also subscribe to his - I went through all his old newsletters from the 90s to like 2012, reviewing every single newsletter. I just looked at what he looked for regarding the chart patterns. It’s the same thing I look for now. It’s just these simple patterns I talk about all the time, like these channels. You have a big momentum stock that goes up and builds a channel. You have a big momentum stock builds a channel this way. You have a momentum stock does something like this with higher lows. These triangles channels high tight flags. It doesn’t matter if you learn from Minervini, Zanger, it’s the same thing. Or Stockbee. It’s the same thing over and over. It’s so easy you just need to train your brain to see these patterns. On the strongest stocks that’s the key. Not some random piece of shit. People keep posting these random stocks that have these bull flags. But you need the strongest stocks. You don’t have an edge trading some random shit stock.”

Lone

99,822 次观看 • 7 个月前

August 9, 1945. Three days after Hiroshima, a second atomic bomb destroys a second Japanese city. But Nagasaki was not even the target that morning. It died largely by chance, because of clouds over another city and a few gallons of fuel. The bomb was called Fat Man, a plutonium weapon, more powerful than the one that hit Hiroshima and of the same design as the one tested in the desert three weeks before. It was carried by a B-29 named Bockscar, flown by Major Charles Sweeney. The primary target that day was not Nagasaki at all. It was the city of Kokura, which held a large arsenal. Almost everything went wrong on the flight. A fuel pump problem meant Bockscar could not use some of its fuel, leaving it dangerously short for the long mission. When the aircraft reached Kokura, the city was covered in cloud and haze and drifting smoke from a conventional raid on a nearby town the day before. The crew had strict orders to bomb visually, by eye, not by radar. They made three passes over Kokura trying to find a gap in the cloud, flak coming up at them, fuel running down, and they could not see the aiming point. So they turned away. To this day, to have a narrow escape is called in Japanese the luck of Kokura, though the people there never knew how close they came. Running low on fuel, Bockscar flew on to its secondary target, Nagasaki. There too the city was mostly covered by cloud, and they had nearly decided to bomb by radar in violation of orders, or to give up and ditch, when a break appeared for a few seconds. Through that gap the bombardier caught sight of the ground and released. The bomb missed the planned aiming point by a wide margin and detonated instead over the Urakami valley, a district that happened to contain the largest Christian community in Japan, its great cathedral, schools, and hospitals. The hills around the valley confined the blast somewhat, which spared parts of the city, but where it struck, the destruction was total, the same searing flash and fire and shockwave as at Hiroshima. Around 40,000 people were killed almost instantly. By the end of the year the dead numbered perhaps 80,000, out of a city of around 250,000. Among the many killed were, in a bitter irony, thousands of Japanese Christians at prayer and Allied prisoners of war held in the city. Within days of Nagasaki, and of the Soviet invasion that had begun the day before, Japan surrendered. Nagasaki was the second atomic bombing in history, and it remains, so far, the last. A city that was not the target, hit through a gap in the clouds in the last minutes of a failing mission, and tens of thousands of people who died because the weather over Kokura happened to be bad.
11:30

August 9, 1945. Three days after Hiroshima, a second atomic bomb destroys a second Japanese city. But Nagasaki was not even the target that morning. It died largely by chance, because of clouds over another city and a few gallons of fuel. The bomb was called Fat Man, a plutonium weapon, more powerful than the one that hit Hiroshima and of the same design as the one tested in the desert three weeks before. It was carried by a B-29 named Bockscar, flown by Major Charles Sweeney. The primary target that day was not Nagasaki at all. It was the city of Kokura, which held a large arsenal. Almost everything went wrong on the flight. A fuel pump problem meant Bockscar could not use some of its fuel, leaving it dangerously short for the long mission. When the aircraft reached Kokura, the city was covered in cloud and haze and drifting smoke from a conventional raid on a nearby town the day before. The crew had strict orders to bomb visually, by eye, not by radar. They made three passes over Kokura trying to find a gap in the cloud, flak coming up at them, fuel running down, and they could not see the aiming point. So they turned away. To this day, to have a narrow escape is called in Japanese the luck of Kokura, though the people there never knew how close they came. Running low on fuel, Bockscar flew on to its secondary target, Nagasaki. There too the city was mostly covered by cloud, and they had nearly decided to bomb by radar in violation of orders, or to give up and ditch, when a break appeared for a few seconds. Through that gap the bombardier caught sight of the ground and released. The bomb missed the planned aiming point by a wide margin and detonated instead over the Urakami valley, a district that happened to contain the largest Christian community in Japan, its great cathedral, schools, and hospitals. The hills around the valley confined the blast somewhat, which spared parts of the city, but where it struck, the destruction was total, the same searing flash and fire and shockwave as at Hiroshima. Around 40,000 people were killed almost instantly. By the end of the year the dead numbered perhaps 80,000, out of a city of around 250,000. Among the many killed were, in a bitter irony, thousands of Japanese Christians at prayer and Allied prisoners of war held in the city. Within days of Nagasaki, and of the Soviet invasion that had begun the day before, Japan surrendered. Nagasaki was the second atomic bombing in history, and it remains, so far, the last. A city that was not the target, hit through a gap in the clouds in the last minutes of a failing mission, and tens of thousands of people who died because the weather over Kokura happened to be bad.

Voices of WW2

80,419 次观看 • 1 天前

List of Tornado in Tamil Nadu in last 15 years, we stand that Yesterday event in Thoothukudi was indeed a Tornado. 1. Chennai (Uthandi) September 12, 2013 (1st Photo enclosed) 2. Sankarankoil in Tirunelveli November 18, 2015 3. Nazareth in Thoothukudi October 26, 2016 4. Thoothukudi on June 21, 2026 (yesterday event, 2nd photo enclosed) In 2013, it was hard to see whether the funnel cloud touched the ground. But IMD officials confirmed that it was Tornado after thorough analysis. This time, IMD has stated that the Thoothukudi event of June 2026 was not a tornado. However, instead of undertaking a detailed investigation into why such an unusual phenomenon occurred and whether similar events could become more frequent in the future, the matter appears to have been closed rather hastily. There are compelling reasons why the Thoothukudi event warrants closer scientific scrutiny. What makes the event noteworthy is the combination of: • A visible funnel cloud/vortex; • Reported injuries (6 members of the public) • Structural damage and uprooted trees see the video - • Occurrence beneath an active thunderstorm. Taken together, these characteristics are consistent with features commonly associated with weak tornadoes or landspouts. While the final classification should be based on detailed meteorological and damage assessments, the available evidence suggests that the event deserves a comprehensive post event study rather than a summary dismissal. The damage patterns visible in the photographs and videos shared through the links, together with eyewitness accounts, appear to indicate that the rotating funnel extended from the cloud base to the ground. The visual evidence suggests a continuous connection between the cloud and the surface, accompanied by localized damage along its path. Attention should be given to understanding why such tornado like phenomena have been observed repeatedly in Tamil Nadu over the past decade and whether changing atmospheric and oceanic conditions are making them more likely.
3:45

List of Tornado in Tamil Nadu in last 15 years, we stand that Yesterday event in Thoothukudi was indeed a Tornado. 1. Chennai (Uthandi) September 12, 2013 (1st Photo enclosed) 2. Sankarankoil in Tirunelveli November 18, 2015 3. Nazareth in Thoothukudi October 26, 2016 4. Thoothukudi on June 21, 2026 (yesterday event, 2nd photo enclosed) In 2013, it was hard to see whether the funnel cloud touched the ground. But IMD officials confirmed that it was Tornado after thorough analysis. This time, IMD has stated that the Thoothukudi event of June 2026 was not a tornado. However, instead of undertaking a detailed investigation into why such an unusual phenomenon occurred and whether similar events could become more frequent in the future, the matter appears to have been closed rather hastily. There are compelling reasons why the Thoothukudi event warrants closer scientific scrutiny. What makes the event noteworthy is the combination of: • A visible funnel cloud/vortex; • Reported injuries (6 members of the public) • Structural damage and uprooted trees see the video - • Occurrence beneath an active thunderstorm. Taken together, these characteristics are consistent with features commonly associated with weak tornadoes or landspouts. While the final classification should be based on detailed meteorological and damage assessments, the available evidence suggests that the event deserves a comprehensive post event study rather than a summary dismissal. The damage patterns visible in the photographs and videos shared through the links, together with eyewitness accounts, appear to indicate that the rotating funnel extended from the cloud base to the ground. The visual evidence suggests a continuous connection between the cloud and the surface, accompanied by localized damage along its path. Attention should be given to understanding why such tornado like phenomena have been observed repeatedly in Tamil Nadu over the past decade and whether changing atmospheric and oceanic conditions are making them more likely.

Tamil Nadu Weatherman

58,400 次观看 • 1 个月前