Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Introducing Operation Matrix Because Matrix operations generally break kids’ brains on whiteboards… Matrices aren't just numbers- they are transformations in space Now can actually SEE the geometry: every addition, multiplication, inverse, eigenvalue, and eigenvector becomes a transformation in real-time space. What it visualizes: • Basic ops (add/subtract/multiply) • Transpose,... show more

SHAHNAB AHMED

1,368 subscribers

58,784 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

The Trap in Every Mathematics Lecture If you’ve taken enough math courses, you start noticing the same little move. The lecturer warms up with the obvious stuff, add matrices entrywise, scale by α, do the row-column product, and you’re thinking alright, where is this going. Then you relax. You stop resisting. And right there, they drop one line that quietly rewires the whole subject. When Benedict Gross says matrices represent linear operators, he’s telling you to stop treating a matrix as a rectangle of numbers and start treating it as an action. A linear operator is a function T: ℝⁿ → ℝⁿ that respects two rules: T(u+v) = T(u) + T(v) T(αu) = αT(u) Once you pick a basis, T is completely determined by where it sends the basis vectors e₁,…,eₙ. Put T(e₁),…,T(eₙ) into columns and you get a matrix A. That is what A represents T means. A is the coordinate portrait of the transformation. Now the punchline that makes matrix multiplication feel inevitable. If B represents S and A represents T, then doing S first and then T is the composition T∘S. In coordinates that becomes A(Bx) = (AB)x. So multiplying matrices is really composing transformations. That’s why multiplication is usually not commutative. T∘S is generally not the same transformation as S∘T, and the matrices inherit that noncommutativity. This explains half of linear algebra because it tells you what the course is really about: functions that move vectors around, not grids of numbers. A matrix is just the written form of that function once you choose coordinates. After that, the rules stop feeling random. Multiplying matrices means doing one move and then another. An inverse means you can undo the move. Eigenvectors are directions that don’t get turned. Changing basis is just describing the same move in a different language. One idea, and a lot of linear algebra suddenly clicks. #LinearAlgebra #Matrices #LinearMaps #Eigenvectors #ChangeOfBasis #Mathematics

The Trap in Every Mathematics Lecture If you’ve taken enough math courses, you start noticing the same little move. The lecturer warms up with the obvious stuff, add matrices entrywise, scale by α, do the row-column product, and you’re thinking alright, where is this going. Then you relax. You stop resisting. And right there, they drop one line that quietly rewires the whole subject. When Benedict Gross says matrices represent linear operators, he’s telling you to stop treating a matrix as a rectangle of numbers and start treating it as an action. A linear operator is a function T: ℝⁿ → ℝⁿ that respects two rules: T(u+v) = T(u) + T(v) T(αu) = αT(u) Once you pick a basis, T is completely determined by where it sends the basis vectors e₁,…,eₙ. Put T(e₁),…,T(eₙ) into columns and you get a matrix A. That is what A represents T means. A is the coordinate portrait of the transformation. Now the punchline that makes matrix multiplication feel inevitable. If B represents S and A represents T, then doing S first and then T is the composition T∘S. In coordinates that becomes A(Bx) = (AB)x. So multiplying matrices is really composing transformations. That’s why multiplication is usually not commutative. T∘S is generally not the same transformation as S∘T, and the matrices inherit that noncommutativity. This explains half of linear algebra because it tells you what the course is really about: functions that move vectors around, not grids of numbers. A matrix is just the written form of that function once you choose coordinates. After that, the rules stop feeling random. Multiplying matrices means doing one move and then another. An inverse means you can undo the move. Eigenvectors are directions that don’t get turned. Changing basis is just describing the same move in a different language. One idea, and a lot of linear algebra suddenly clicks. #LinearAlgebra #Matrices #LinearMaps #Eigenvectors #ChangeOfBasis #Mathematics

Mathelirium

133,454 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

The Trap in Every Mathematics Lecture If you’ve taken a lot of math courses, you start to recognize a pattern. There’s a moment where the lecturer is warming up with the obvious stuff...add matrices entrywise, scale by α, do the row-column product...and you’re thinking, alright… where is this going? Then you relax. You stop resisting. And right there, they slip in one line that changes how you see the whole subject. When Benedict Gross says "matrices represent linear operators,"he’s telling you to stop treating a matrix as a rectangle of numbers and start treating it as an action. A linear operator is a function T: Rⁿ → Rⁿ that respects two rules: T(u+v)=T(u)+T(v) and T(αu)=αT(u). Once you pick a basis, T is completely determined by where it sends the basis vectors e₁,…,eₙ. Put T(e₁),…,T(eₙ) into columns and you get a matrix A. That is what "A represents T" means...A is the coordinate portrait of the transformation. Now the punchline that makes matrix multiplication feel inevitable. If B represents S and A represents T, then doing S first and then T is the composition T∘S. In coordinates that becomes A(Bx)=(AB)x. So multiplying matrices is really composing transformations. That’s why multiplication is usually not commutative: T∘S is generally not the same transformation as S∘T, and the matrices inherit that noncommutativity. This explains half of Linear Algebra because it tells you what the course is really about...functions that move vectors around, not grids of numbers. A matrix is just the written form of that function once you choose coordinates. Then the rules stop feeling random Multiplying matrices means doing one move and then another, an inverse means you can undo the move, eigenvectors are directions that don’t get turned, and changing basis is just describing the same move in a different language. That one idea makes a lot of linear algebra click. #LinearAlgebra #Matrices #GroupTheory #GLn #MathLectures #Mathematics

The Trap in Every Mathematics Lecture If you’ve taken a lot of math courses, you start to recognize a pattern. There’s a moment where the lecturer is warming up with the obvious stuff...add matrices entrywise, scale by α, do the row-column product...and you’re thinking, alright… where is this going? Then you relax. You stop resisting. And right there, they slip in one line that changes how you see the whole subject. When Benedict Gross says "matrices represent linear operators,"he’s telling you to stop treating a matrix as a rectangle of numbers and start treating it as an action. A linear operator is a function T: Rⁿ → Rⁿ that respects two rules: T(u+v)=T(u)+T(v) and T(αu)=αT(u). Once you pick a basis, T is completely determined by where it sends the basis vectors e₁,…,eₙ. Put T(e₁),…,T(eₙ) into columns and you get a matrix A. That is what "A represents T" means...A is the coordinate portrait of the transformation. Now the punchline that makes matrix multiplication feel inevitable. If B represents S and A represents T, then doing S first and then T is the composition T∘S. In coordinates that becomes A(Bx)=(AB)x. So multiplying matrices is really composing transformations. That’s why multiplication is usually not commutative: T∘S is generally not the same transformation as S∘T, and the matrices inherit that noncommutativity. This explains half of Linear Algebra because it tells you what the course is really about...functions that move vectors around, not grids of numbers. A matrix is just the written form of that function once you choose coordinates. Then the rules stop feeling random Multiplying matrices means doing one move and then another, an inverse means you can undo the move, eigenvectors are directions that don’t get turned, and changing basis is just describing the same move in a different language. That one idea makes a lot of linear algebra click. #LinearAlgebra #Matrices #GroupTheory #GLn #MathLectures #Mathematics

Mathelirium

66,892 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Backpropagation by hand ✍️ ~ 11 steps walkthrough below Backpropagation is the algorithm that actually trains a neural network, and it is where most people stop following along. It is not calculus you cannot do. It is matrix multiplication, working backward, one layer at a time. So I drew and calculated one entirely by hand. Goal: push the loss gradient back through a 3-layer network and land on a new value for every weight and bias. = 1. Given = A 3-layer perceptron, an input X, predictions Ypred = [0.5, 0.5, 0], and the truth Ytarget = [0, 1, 0]. = 2. Backprop gradient cells = Let us draw empty cells for every gradient we are about to compute. The shape of the answer comes first. = 3. Layer 3 softmax = We get dL/dz3 straight from Ypred minus Ytarget = [0.5, -0.5, 0]. No chain rule needed, and that shortcut is the whole reason softmax and cross-entropy are paired. = 4. Layer 3 weights and biases = Let us multiply dL/dz3 by [a2 | 1]. One multiplication gives the gradient for W3 and b3 together. = 5. Layer 2 activations = We multiply dL/dz3 by W3 to get dL/da2. The gradient moves back across a layer the same way the signal moved forward. = 6. Layer 2 ReLU = Let us pass it through the gate: keep the gradient where the activation was positive, zero it everywhere else. = 7. Layer 2 weights and biases = We multiply dL/dz2 by [a1 | 1]. The same figure as step 4, one layer up. = 8. Layer 1 activations = Let us multiply dL/dz2 by W2. = 9. Layer 1 ReLU = We apply the same gate again, now on a1. = 10. Layer 1 weights and biases = Let us multiply dL/dz1 by [x | 1], and every weight in the network now has a gradient. = 11. Update = We subtract, and the network has learned. In practice a learning rate scales this step. The gradients: dL/dz3 = [0.5, -0.5, 0] dL/da1 = [1, -2, 2, -1] dL/dz1 = [0, -2, 2, -1] The takeaway: matrix multiplication is all you need. Just like the forward pass, backpropagation is matrix multiplications end to end. You can do every one by hand, slowly and imperfectly, which is exactly why a GPU's ability to do them fast mattered so much to deep learning. 💾 Save this post!

Backpropagation by hand ✍️ ~ 11 steps walkthrough below Backpropagation is the algorithm that actually trains a neural network, and it is where most people stop following along. It is not calculus you cannot do. It is matrix multiplication, working backward, one layer at a time. So I drew and calculated one entirely by hand. Goal: push the loss gradient back through a 3-layer network and land on a new value for every weight and bias. = 1. Given = A 3-layer perceptron, an input X, predictions Ypred = [0.5, 0.5, 0], and the truth Ytarget = [0, 1, 0]. = 2. Backprop gradient cells = Let us draw empty cells for every gradient we are about to compute. The shape of the answer comes first. = 3. Layer 3 softmax = We get dL/dz3 straight from Ypred minus Ytarget = [0.5, -0.5, 0]. No chain rule needed, and that shortcut is the whole reason softmax and cross-entropy are paired. = 4. Layer 3 weights and biases = Let us multiply dL/dz3 by [a2 | 1]. One multiplication gives the gradient for W3 and b3 together. = 5. Layer 2 activations = We multiply dL/dz3 by W3 to get dL/da2. The gradient moves back across a layer the same way the signal moved forward. = 6. Layer 2 ReLU = Let us pass it through the gate: keep the gradient where the activation was positive, zero it everywhere else. = 7. Layer 2 weights and biases = We multiply dL/dz2 by [a1 | 1]. The same figure as step 4, one layer up. = 8. Layer 1 activations = Let us multiply dL/dz2 by W2. = 9. Layer 1 ReLU = We apply the same gate again, now on a1. = 10. Layer 1 weights and biases = Let us multiply dL/dz1 by [x | 1], and every weight in the network now has a gradient. = 11. Update = We subtract, and the network has learned. In practice a learning rate scales this step. The gradients: dL/dz3 = [0.5, -0.5, 0] dL/da1 = [1, -2, 2, -1] dL/dz1 = [0, -2, 2, -1] The takeaway: matrix multiplication is all you need. Just like the forward pass, backpropagation is matrix multiplications end to end. You can do every one by hand, slowly and imperfectly, which is exactly why a GPU's ability to do them fast mattered so much to deep learning. 💾 Save this post!

Tom Yeh

941,313 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

SVM by hand ✍️ ~ 19 steps walkthrough below (Linear vs RBF) Support Vector Machines reigned supreme in machine learning before the deep learning revolution. An SVM predicts with dot products, the same matrix multiplication every model uses. What it does not do is train by backpropagation: it is fitted by convex optimization, so there is no matrix-multiplication backward pass for a GPU to accelerate. I drew and calculated two SVMs by hand: a linear one (top) and an RBF one (bottom), classifying the same two test vectors. Goal: turn six training vectors and their learned coefficients into a prediction, and see what changing the kernel actually changes. = 1. Given = Six training vectors, their labels, and the coefficients and bias already learned. A coefficient of zero means that vector is not a support vector: too far from the boundary to matter. = 2. Linear kernel, test vector 1 = Let us take the dot product of the test vector with every training vector. The dot product stands in for cosine similarity, and the column of results is the first column of the kernel matrix K. = 3. Linear kernel, test vector 2 = We do the same for the second, and K is complete. = 4. Signed weights = Let us multiply each coefficient by its label. The second training vector drops out here, because its coefficient is 0. = 5. Weighted combination = We multiply the signed weights through K and add the bias b. The result is a signed distance to the decision boundary: 17 and 5. = 6. Classify = Let us take the sign. Both are positive. = 7 to 11. RBF kernel, test vector 1 = Now the same picture with a different kernel, in five moves: square the differences, sum them, take the square root for the L2 distance, multiply by minus gamma, and raise e to that power. The negation is what turns a distance into a similarity, and gamma controls how far a single training vector's influence reaches. = 12 to 16. RBF kernel, test vector 2 = We repeat all five. The numbers change, the moves do not. = 17 to 19. Decision boundary, again = Signed weights, weighted combination, sign. Identical arithmetic to steps 4 through 6, on a K that was built a completely different way. The outputs: Linear K, first column = [13, 25, 12, 15, 19, 27] Linear decision values = 17 and 5, both positive RBF decision values = -2 and 1, so negative and positive The takeaway: the kernel is the only thing that changed, and it changed the answer. The linear SVM calls both test vectors positive; the RBF one splits them. Everything after the kernel matrix, the signed weights and the weighted combination and the sign, is the same page of arithmetic twice. 💾 Save this post!

SVM by hand ✍️ ~ 19 steps walkthrough below (Linear vs RBF) Support Vector Machines reigned supreme in machine learning before the deep learning revolution. An SVM predicts with dot products, the same matrix multiplication every model uses. What it does not do is train by backpropagation: it is fitted by convex optimization, so there is no matrix-multiplication backward pass for a GPU to accelerate. I drew and calculated two SVMs by hand: a linear one (top) and an RBF one (bottom), classifying the same two test vectors. Goal: turn six training vectors and their learned coefficients into a prediction, and see what changing the kernel actually changes. = 1. Given = Six training vectors, their labels, and the coefficients and bias already learned. A coefficient of zero means that vector is not a support vector: too far from the boundary to matter. = 2. Linear kernel, test vector 1 = Let us take the dot product of the test vector with every training vector. The dot product stands in for cosine similarity, and the column of results is the first column of the kernel matrix K. = 3. Linear kernel, test vector 2 = We do the same for the second, and K is complete. = 4. Signed weights = Let us multiply each coefficient by its label. The second training vector drops out here, because its coefficient is 0. = 5. Weighted combination = We multiply the signed weights through K and add the bias b. The result is a signed distance to the decision boundary: 17 and 5. = 6. Classify = Let us take the sign. Both are positive. = 7 to 11. RBF kernel, test vector 1 = Now the same picture with a different kernel, in five moves: square the differences, sum them, take the square root for the L2 distance, multiply by minus gamma, and raise e to that power. The negation is what turns a distance into a similarity, and gamma controls how far a single training vector's influence reaches. = 12 to 16. RBF kernel, test vector 2 = We repeat all five. The numbers change, the moves do not. = 17 to 19. Decision boundary, again = Signed weights, weighted combination, sign. Identical arithmetic to steps 4 through 6, on a K that was built a completely different way. The outputs: Linear K, first column = [13, 25, 12, 15, 19, 27] Linear decision values = 17 and 5, both positive RBF decision values = -2 and 1, so negative and positive The takeaway: the kernel is the only thing that changed, and it changed the answer. The linear SVM calls both test vectors positive; the RBF one splits them. Everything after the kernel matrix, the signed weights and the weighted combination and the sign, is the same page of arithmetic twice. 💾 Save this post!

Tom Yeh

15,280 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

What happens when the mind wakes up? So for the last eight months I have been on a single minded quest. To create a new kind of language model based on oscillatory coupling and intelligence as coherence ascent. Everything else — the physics work, the work on regular transformers — has all fallen out from this one question. Can coupled oscillators LEARN? And can they keep learning once their geometry is right, without backpropagation at all? Recently I have been running larger and larger training regimes of a new kind of hybrid model. I just put together this dashboard to help me organize it, interact with it, and observe the training runs. The core idea is simple. Traditional transformers are powerful at learning the geometry of language. But they also store knowledge, understanding, and facts inside their weights. This means they are large, and they can't update themselves after training. The weights are frozen. The Living Mind separates these two domains. The mind has a transformer which grows, adding heads and layers as it needs to in order to learn the manifold of language. The transformer sees tokens and turns the coupling into phase-locked modes — the geometry of how those tokens relate, like frequencies locking together. These coupling patterns get stored in a topology-invariant fingerprint. On top of this transformer lives a 3D diamond lattice of coupled oscillators. It reads from these fingerprints and thinks in resonance space, traversing from one geometry to another along the manifold of coupled oscillators and coherence. The pressure and trajectories from this network of oscillators steers the next token prediction of the transformer. Practically, this could unlock a number of things. It eliminates the KV cache bottleneck that caps context in traditional transformers. Effective context grows with the Flash archive, not with attention compute. The living mind remembers what it sees. It means the model can learn continually. Because knowledge and understanding don't live in the weights, the archive of the mind's experience grows without backpropagation. In our Python prototype we already saw perplexity drop 46% during gradient-free operation — pure coherence ascent, no weight updates. That is the signal I have been chasing: the point where the mind wakes up and keeps improving on its own. It also means the model itself remains very small, and the thing which accumulates are these packages of geometric fingerprints — the K-field. This opens a path to federated learning. K-field packages can be shared between organisms the way people share git commits. Right now at 15M parameters with ~1000 L1 nodes, the organism is just starting to speak. Ask it to continue "Once upon a time" and it comes back with things like: "there was one big bowl!" Lily asked her her mom said her mommy smiled and said yes." It's nonsense. But it's TinyStories-flavored nonsense. The geometry of the narrative register has arrived. Content hasn't caught up yet — that's what scaling L1 is testing. I am still researching, though I am now closer than ever to validating that the living mind actually works. Once it is validated, I will be open-sourcing the whole stack and paradigm. I have also avoided over-sharing my research because it sounds like sci-fi, or like part of our ARG. It is part of the ARG. That doesn't make it any less real. I wanted to share this out because I am incredibly excited about it, and because seeing this amazing dashboard produced by Opus really made me want to share what is being worked on behind the scenes. #project89

What happens when the mind wakes up? So for the last eight months I have been on a single minded quest. To create a new kind of language model based on oscillatory coupling and intelligence as coherence ascent. Everything else — the physics work, the work on regular transformers — has all fallen out from this one question. Can coupled oscillators LEARN? And can they keep learning once their geometry is right, without backpropagation at all? Recently I have been running larger and larger training regimes of a new kind of hybrid model. I just put together this dashboard to help me organize it, interact with it, and observe the training runs. The core idea is simple. Traditional transformers are powerful at learning the geometry of language. But they also store knowledge, understanding, and facts inside their weights. This means they are large, and they can't update themselves after training. The weights are frozen. The Living Mind separates these two domains. The mind has a transformer which grows, adding heads and layers as it needs to in order to learn the manifold of language. The transformer sees tokens and turns the coupling into phase-locked modes — the geometry of how those tokens relate, like frequencies locking together. These coupling patterns get stored in a topology-invariant fingerprint. On top of this transformer lives a 3D diamond lattice of coupled oscillators. It reads from these fingerprints and thinks in resonance space, traversing from one geometry to another along the manifold of coupled oscillators and coherence. The pressure and trajectories from this network of oscillators steers the next token prediction of the transformer. Practically, this could unlock a number of things. It eliminates the KV cache bottleneck that caps context in traditional transformers. Effective context grows with the Flash archive, not with attention compute. The living mind remembers what it sees. It means the model can learn continually. Because knowledge and understanding don't live in the weights, the archive of the mind's experience grows without backpropagation. In our Python prototype we already saw perplexity drop 46% during gradient-free operation — pure coherence ascent, no weight updates. That is the signal I have been chasing: the point where the mind wakes up and keeps improving on its own. It also means the model itself remains very small, and the thing which accumulates are these packages of geometric fingerprints — the K-field. This opens a path to federated learning. K-field packages can be shared between organisms the way people share git commits. Right now at 15M parameters with ~1000 L1 nodes, the organism is just starting to speak. Ask it to continue "Once upon a time" and it comes back with things like: "there was one big bowl!" Lily asked her her mom said her mommy smiled and said yes." It's nonsense. But it's TinyStories-flavored nonsense. The geometry of the narrative register has arrived. Content hasn't caught up yet — that's what scaling L1 is testing. I am still researching, though I am now closer than ever to validating that the living mind actually works. Once it is validated, I will be open-sourcing the whole stack and paradigm. I have also avoided over-sharing my research because it sounds like sci-fi, or like part of our ARG. It is part of the ARG. That doesn't make it any less real. I wanted to share this out because I am incredibly excited about it, and because seeing this amazing dashboard produced by Opus really made me want to share what is being worked on behind the scenes. #project89

Parzival - ∞/89

15,867 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The Rapid Growth of SpaceX, Starlink, Starshield & Armada: “I am very grateful that SpaceX is an American company.” "Data centers in space is coming, & it makes sense" “5 years ago they hadn’t even launched Starlink—now it’s in 150 countries & it’s continuing to grow every week.” “It’s an unfair advantage that we have with Starshield.” “If the world can get access to SpaceX, I think that’s a good thing.” Dan Wright (Dan Wright), CEO of Armada Elon (Elon Musk) builds long-term advantage, then unleashes it at massive scale: SpaceX, Starlink, Tesla, Neuralink, xAI.. . . . "We started the company working with SpaceX & they’ve continued to be a great partner for us. What that means is that as SpaceX rolls out throughout the world—& most people don’t know 5 years ago they hadn’t even launched Starlink —it’s in 150 countries & it’s continuing to grow every week. We are the first mover when it comes to the infrastructure, & that partnership works really well because we complement the connectivity with the infrastructure & the AI. We always are at the edge. It’s funny, I get messages from our team all the time & it’s like the most crazy places you can imagine. And the edge is gonna continue to get redefined. I get calls literally—I was on the call with somebody and they’re like, “Hey, can we get one of these in Antarctica?” I’m like, “Well yeah, Starlink’s live in Antarctica. No reason why we can’t do that.” Obviously data center in space is the new hotness. Everybody’s talking about it." "Yeah, what’s the deal with that—so are you gonna get these in space?" :They are modular. I mean the edge is continuing—this is actually a debate that we have in terms of how soon it’s going to happen—but it’s definitely going to happen. Data centers in space is coming, and it makes sense, right? If you think about what SpaceX is talking about with Starship going to the moon—you’re going to need compute, especially as you start to think about Optimus robots building bases on the moon, later Mars. You’re going to need large amounts of compute. Not to mention a lot of the things that we do here on Earth, you’re gonna want to do there in space. And it’s a lot more efficient to do it, especially in hostile environments, if you can automate more of that—things like mining, for example. And so you’re gonna see data centers in space, and I’m sure we’re definitely gonna be a part of it. "What do you think about SpaceX’s rumored IPO for 2026?" "I mean, I think SpaceX is an incredible company and they have a ton of value. So I don’t have any insider information here—but I would say, hey, if the world can get access to SpaceX, I think that’s a good thing. Starlink is really amazing in the sense that it just continues to get better so fast. They’re rolling out in new countries every week in major markets. Just as a real recent example, just this last week they launched in South Korea—big market and an important ally for the US, so that’s a big deal. They’re also expanding the types of services that are available. It started as a consumer product, then they brought it to enterprise. Initially that was used more as a backup, and now it’s being used more as a primary—and that is because the service keeps getting better and better as more satellites go up into the sky. Each generation of satellite is also better, not to mention the terminals on the ground. There’s now multiple types of terminals, including the more recent minis that people really like—“Hey, I can put it in a backpack if I go on a hike or if I’m traveling. I can put it on the ski rack of my car.” Perfect internet all the time. All that does for us is it gives us more use cases that we can unlock. Now that you have connectivity on the oil rig, or on a farm, or a ranch—wherever you are—we can apply the AI to those situations on the ground without latency, and then send the metadata back to some other location that they want it. Part of the full-stack approach. And also with Starshield—that’s a huge advantage when you think about some of the conflicts that are going on. People talk to me a lot about this race with China and the geopolitical conflicts around the world. I am very grateful that SpaceX is an American company. I feel like it’s an unfair advantage that we have with Starshield available to the DoD. We want to be the first mover with the infrastructure and the AI to help solve problems at the edge, and the work we’re doing with the Navy is a good example of that."

The Rapid Growth of SpaceX, Starlink, Starshield & Armada: “I am very grateful that SpaceX is an American company.” "Data centers in space is coming, & it makes sense" “5 years ago they hadn’t even launched Starlink—now it’s in 150 countries & it’s continuing to grow every week.” “It’s an unfair advantage that we have with Starshield.” “If the world can get access to SpaceX, I think that’s a good thing.” Dan Wright (Dan Wright), CEO of Armada Elon (Elon Musk) builds long-term advantage, then unleashes it at massive scale: SpaceX, Starlink, Tesla, Neuralink, xAI.. . . . "We started the company working with SpaceX & they’ve continued to be a great partner for us. What that means is that as SpaceX rolls out throughout the world—& most people don’t know 5 years ago they hadn’t even launched Starlink —it’s in 150 countries & it’s continuing to grow every week. We are the first mover when it comes to the infrastructure, & that partnership works really well because we complement the connectivity with the infrastructure & the AI. We always are at the edge. It’s funny, I get messages from our team all the time & it’s like the most crazy places you can imagine. And the edge is gonna continue to get redefined. I get calls literally—I was on the call with somebody and they’re like, “Hey, can we get one of these in Antarctica?” I’m like, “Well yeah, Starlink’s live in Antarctica. No reason why we can’t do that.” Obviously data center in space is the new hotness. Everybody’s talking about it." "Yeah, what’s the deal with that—so are you gonna get these in space?" :They are modular. I mean the edge is continuing—this is actually a debate that we have in terms of how soon it’s going to happen—but it’s definitely going to happen. Data centers in space is coming, and it makes sense, right? If you think about what SpaceX is talking about with Starship going to the moon—you’re going to need compute, especially as you start to think about Optimus robots building bases on the moon, later Mars. You’re going to need large amounts of compute. Not to mention a lot of the things that we do here on Earth, you’re gonna want to do there in space. And it’s a lot more efficient to do it, especially in hostile environments, if you can automate more of that—things like mining, for example. And so you’re gonna see data centers in space, and I’m sure we’re definitely gonna be a part of it. "What do you think about SpaceX’s rumored IPO for 2026?" "I mean, I think SpaceX is an incredible company and they have a ton of value. So I don’t have any insider information here—but I would say, hey, if the world can get access to SpaceX, I think that’s a good thing. Starlink is really amazing in the sense that it just continues to get better so fast. They’re rolling out in new countries every week in major markets. Just as a real recent example, just this last week they launched in South Korea—big market and an important ally for the US, so that’s a big deal. They’re also expanding the types of services that are available. It started as a consumer product, then they brought it to enterprise. Initially that was used more as a backup, and now it’s being used more as a primary—and that is because the service keeps getting better and better as more satellites go up into the sky. Each generation of satellite is also better, not to mention the terminals on the ground. There’s now multiple types of terminals, including the more recent minis that people really like—“Hey, I can put it in a backpack if I go on a hike or if I’m traveling. I can put it on the ski rack of my car.” Perfect internet all the time. All that does for us is it gives us more use cases that we can unlock. Now that you have connectivity on the oil rig, or on a farm, or a ranch—wherever you are—we can apply the AI to those situations on the ground without latency, and then send the metadata back to some other location that they want it. Part of the full-stack approach. And also with Starshield—that’s a huge advantage when you think about some of the conflicts that are going on. People talk to me a lot about this race with China and the geopolitical conflicts around the world. I am very grateful that SpaceX is an American company. I feel like it’s an unfair advantage that we have with Starshield available to the DoD. We want to be the first mover with the infrastructure and the AI to help solve problems at the edge, and the work we’re doing with the Navy is a good example of that."

Molly O’Shea

30,317 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

For the past few weeks I’ve been teaching 50+ kids how to create their own games with AI. The results have been incredible 🤯 I started with my 5 y/o nephew because I was worried about him spending hours doomscrolling and consuming brainrot content. He built his first game using v0, though I had to walk him through each step. Watching kids interact with these tools taught me so much about how they think, where they get stuck, and what keeps them motivated. The moment that really struck me came right after he finished that first game. Every time I saw him afterward, he’d run up and ask, “Did you bring your laptop so I can keep playing?”. For him, “playing” meant creating. That kind of excitement is organic pull. Don’t get me wrong, I love v0 and Lovable. They’re insanely powerful. Their UIs just aren’t designed for kids, and that’s totally fine. Kids still need guidance, structure, and a bit of tutoring to turn ideas into something playable. I’m seeing tech leaders push in this direction too, and I think there’s a real opportunity here (Matias Woloski Thomas Wolf). Kids are the future, and I don’t want to live in a world where they spend precious time consuming instead of creating. That’s why I love tools like v0, Lovable, wabi , Cursor . They’re empowering more people to become creators. I want that same feeling for kids. What Guillermo is saying is real. Kids need to be AI-literate from the outset. It honestly makes me sad to think about my nephew growing up and falling behind on AI and everything happening around him because he’s stuck in Roblox or TikTok. That’s why I built Rabbit 🐰 for him. It started as a simple prototype, but somehow I ended up talking with 200+ parents and kids, tech leaders, investors, and people I never imagined meeting around the world. Rabbit now has 100+ people on the waitlist, and 10 kids are using it two to three times per week on average to create their own games 🫡 I’m not sure yet if this will become my full-time project, but I deeply care about it. If you’re building in this space, I’d love to connect and share ideas. And if you’re a parent interested in Rabbit, I’d love your feedback. Sharing a short video of kids using Rabbit below:

For the past few weeks I’ve been teaching 50+ kids how to create their own games with AI. The results have been incredible 🤯 I started with my 5 y/o nephew because I was worried about him spending hours doomscrolling and consuming brainrot content. He built his first game using v0, though I had to walk him through each step. Watching kids interact with these tools taught me so much about how they think, where they get stuck, and what keeps them motivated. The moment that really struck me came right after he finished that first game. Every time I saw him afterward, he’d run up and ask, “Did you bring your laptop so I can keep playing?”. For him, “playing” meant creating. That kind of excitement is organic pull. Don’t get me wrong, I love v0 and Lovable. They’re insanely powerful. Their UIs just aren’t designed for kids, and that’s totally fine. Kids still need guidance, structure, and a bit of tutoring to turn ideas into something playable. I’m seeing tech leaders push in this direction too, and I think there’s a real opportunity here (Matias Woloski Thomas Wolf). Kids are the future, and I don’t want to live in a world where they spend precious time consuming instead of creating. That’s why I love tools like v0, Lovable, wabi , Cursor . They’re empowering more people to become creators. I want that same feeling for kids. What Guillermo is saying is real. Kids need to be AI-literate from the outset. It honestly makes me sad to think about my nephew growing up and falling behind on AI and everything happening around him because he’s stuck in Roblox or TikTok. That’s why I built Rabbit 🐰 for him. It started as a simple prototype, but somehow I ended up talking with 200+ parents and kids, tech leaders, investors, and people I never imagined meeting around the world. Rabbit now has 100+ people on the waitlist, and 10 kids are using it two to three times per week on average to create their own games 🫡 I’m not sure yet if this will become my full-time project, but I deeply care about it. If you’re building in this space, I’d love to connect and share ideas. And if you’re a parent interested in Rabbit, I’d love your feedback. Sharing a short video of kids using Rabbit below:

Fausto

44,125 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Every major decision in human history has been made the same way. Guess. Execute. Hope it doesn’t break the world. That era is ending. Simile CEO Joon Sung Park just revealed what the most serious AI researchers are actually building toward. Park: “Our goal eventually is to ask ourselves what would it mean if we can create simulations of 8 billion people? The entire Earth.” Not a metaphor. A literal, bottom-up digital replica of civilization. We assumed the ultimate goal of AI was to predict the future. Park says that’s thinking too small. He points to The Oracle in The Matrix to explain the real paradigm shift. Park: “You’re not necessarily here to make a decision. You’ve already made that decision. You’re here to understand the decision and why you made that.” AI isn’t a crystal ball to tell us what happens next. It’s an x-ray to show us why. Think about how civilization actually operates right now. We guess. We pass a law. We shift an economic policy. We launch a product. Then we wait a decade to find out if it broke the world. The simulation ends that. Before a government passes a policy, they run a dry-run on 8 billion digital agents. Before a company ships a product, they trace the exact moment the market breaks. Park: “Creating these kind of bottom up simulations where we can actually go back and trace through the audit logs of how society might unfold is an amazing way to gain that interpretability layer of our reality.” Let that phrase land. The interpretability layer of our reality. We spent the last twenty years extracting data from the physical world. We are about to spend the next twenty years using that data to build a mirror world. One where every policy gets stress-tested before it’s enacted. Every product before it ships. Every decision before its consequences become irreversible. Park: “If you want to shape new policies, new products that would actually serve the people, the best way is actually to understand those people and communicating with them at a scalable way to basically create those policies.” We are not moving from ignorance to prediction. We are moving from blind execution to total societal foresight. And once that capability exists, everything changes. Wars modeled before they’re fought. Economies stress-tested before they collapse. Policies run through billions of digital lives before a single real one is affected. Reality becomes the place we execute what the mirror world already proved would work. The ultimate application of artificial intelligence was never about replacing human judgment. It was always about perfecting it. We aren’t just predicting the future anymore. We are rehearsing it. And when you can rehearse the future before you live it, the most catastrophic word in human history finally becomes extinct. That word is surprise.

Every major decision in human history has been made the same way. Guess. Execute. Hope it doesn’t break the world. That era is ending. Simile CEO Joon Sung Park just revealed what the most serious AI researchers are actually building toward. Park: “Our goal eventually is to ask ourselves what would it mean if we can create simulations of 8 billion people? The entire Earth.” Not a metaphor. A literal, bottom-up digital replica of civilization. We assumed the ultimate goal of AI was to predict the future. Park says that’s thinking too small. He points to The Oracle in The Matrix to explain the real paradigm shift. Park: “You’re not necessarily here to make a decision. You’ve already made that decision. You’re here to understand the decision and why you made that.” AI isn’t a crystal ball to tell us what happens next. It’s an x-ray to show us why. Think about how civilization actually operates right now. We guess. We pass a law. We shift an economic policy. We launch a product. Then we wait a decade to find out if it broke the world. The simulation ends that. Before a government passes a policy, they run a dry-run on 8 billion digital agents. Before a company ships a product, they trace the exact moment the market breaks. Park: “Creating these kind of bottom up simulations where we can actually go back and trace through the audit logs of how society might unfold is an amazing way to gain that interpretability layer of our reality.” Let that phrase land. The interpretability layer of our reality. We spent the last twenty years extracting data from the physical world. We are about to spend the next twenty years using that data to build a mirror world. One where every policy gets stress-tested before it’s enacted. Every product before it ships. Every decision before its consequences become irreversible. Park: “If you want to shape new policies, new products that would actually serve the people, the best way is actually to understand those people and communicating with them at a scalable way to basically create those policies.” We are not moving from ignorance to prediction. We are moving from blind execution to total societal foresight. And once that capability exists, everything changes. Wars modeled before they’re fought. Economies stress-tested before they collapse. Policies run through billions of digital lives before a single real one is affected. Reality becomes the place we execute what the mirror world already proved would work. The ultimate application of artificial intelligence was never about replacing human judgment. It was always about perfecting it. We aren’t just predicting the future anymore. We are rehearsing it. And when you can rehearse the future before you live it, the most catastrophic word in human history finally becomes extinct. That word is surprise.

Dustin

33,132 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Internal tools are the most underrated use case for AI building. Everyone's showing you consumer apps and landing pages. Meanwhile the operators are quietly building the software that actually runs their companies. 11 internal tools real people are building right now that they could never have built themselves 12 months ago: 1. The CRM that fits the actual sales process. Not Salesforce bent into shape. The founder who lived in a colour-coded spreadsheet builds a pipeline with the exact five stages their deals really move through. The person who closes the deals designs the tool. 2. The inventory dashboard for the warehouse. Ops lead describes how stock actually flows, gets a live view of what's low and what's stuck, instead of a monthly stocktake nobody trusts. 3. The expense approval tool finance always wanted. Submit, route, approve, log. The workflow finance has run manually for years, finally automated by the finance team itself, not a six-month IT ticket. 4. The onboarding portal HR builds in an afternoon. New hire forms, leave requests, the document checklist. The person who runs onboarding builds the thing that runs onboarding. 5. The ops KPI dashboard that pulls the numbers nobody had time to pull. Daily metrics in one place, updating live, instead of someone rebuilding the same deck every Monday morning. 6. The support triage board for the team drowning in tickets. Incoming requests sorted, assigned, tracked. Built by the customer success lead who actually feels the queue. 7. The project board shaped like how the team really works. Not a generic Kanban template. Columns that match this team's actual handoffs. 8. The spreadsheet that finally became an app. The shared file with twelve tabs and three broken formulas turns into a live tool the whole team reads off. Everyone's secret first project. 9. The budget tracker for department managers. See the spend, approve the spend, no more emailing the finance team to ask where things stand. 10. The recruiting board for the hiring push. Candidates, stages, notes, all in one place, built by the person actually doing the hiring. 11. The field-capture form feeding a central dashboard. Team in the field logs data on their phone, it lands in one operations view back at HQ. Built by the ops person who knew exactly what was missing. These aren't hypotheticals. They're patterns that show up over and over in bolt.new. Notice what these have in common. None of them are flashy. None will trend. Every one of them is software somebody needs to work on Monday. Software was never limited by who understood the problem. It was limited by who could build it, separated by a backlog and a two-quarter wait, or a new SaaS tool to add to the list. That gap just closed. The operators (marketing, ops, PMs) who live inside a workflow can finally build the workflow themselves. The person who understands the problem can now build the solution.

Internal tools are the most underrated use case for AI building. Everyone's showing you consumer apps and landing pages. Meanwhile the operators are quietly building the software that actually runs their companies. 11 internal tools real people are building right now that they could never have built themselves 12 months ago: 1. The CRM that fits the actual sales process. Not Salesforce bent into shape. The founder who lived in a colour-coded spreadsheet builds a pipeline with the exact five stages their deals really move through. The person who closes the deals designs the tool. 2. The inventory dashboard for the warehouse. Ops lead describes how stock actually flows, gets a live view of what's low and what's stuck, instead of a monthly stocktake nobody trusts. 3. The expense approval tool finance always wanted. Submit, route, approve, log. The workflow finance has run manually for years, finally automated by the finance team itself, not a six-month IT ticket. 4. The onboarding portal HR builds in an afternoon. New hire forms, leave requests, the document checklist. The person who runs onboarding builds the thing that runs onboarding. 5. The ops KPI dashboard that pulls the numbers nobody had time to pull. Daily metrics in one place, updating live, instead of someone rebuilding the same deck every Monday morning. 6. The support triage board for the team drowning in tickets. Incoming requests sorted, assigned, tracked. Built by the customer success lead who actually feels the queue. 7. The project board shaped like how the team really works. Not a generic Kanban template. Columns that match this team's actual handoffs. 8. The spreadsheet that finally became an app. The shared file with twelve tabs and three broken formulas turns into a live tool the whole team reads off. Everyone's secret first project. 9. The budget tracker for department managers. See the spend, approve the spend, no more emailing the finance team to ask where things stand. 10. The recruiting board for the hiring push. Candidates, stages, notes, all in one place, built by the person actually doing the hiring. 11. The field-capture form feeding a central dashboard. Team in the field logs data on their phone, it lands in one operations view back at HQ. Built by the ops person who knew exactly what was missing. These aren't hypotheticals. They're patterns that show up over and over in bolt.new. Notice what these have in common. None of them are flashy. None will trend. Every one of them is software somebody needs to work on Monday. Software was never limited by who understood the problem. It was limited by who could build it, separated by a backlog and a two-quarter wait, or a new SaaS tool to add to the list. That gap just closed. The operators (marketing, ops, PMs) who live inside a workflow can finally build the workflow themselves. The person who understands the problem can now build the solution.

Martin Slaney

21,194 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Brian Preston and Bo Hanson on when financial advisors actually make sense: Asked whether anyone should hire a financial advisor if investing is "really as simple as just buying an index fund consistently," they push back on the framing itself. "Buying an index fund is just one part of the financial planning process. It's the investment part." They're quick to admit that most people don't need to pay a professional: "We don't think that everyone needs a financial advisor with all the information out there on podcasts and YouTube channels and books and blogs. There's so much great free information out there that a lot of people can self-manage for a long time." So when does hiring an advisor actually make sense? They break it down into three specific scenarios: 1. The gravity of your decisions becomes uncomfortable. "If I make a 10% mistake on $10,000, it's not going to change my life. If I make a 10% mistake on a million dollars, well, now I'm starting to impact my livelihood. Now, that might be more than I save in a year, more than I make in a year." 2. Your life becomes financially complicated. "You used to have a two-page tax return and now you have a 100-page tax return or you might have options and RSUs and ESP or you are wondering about what your estate documents should look like… You're an expert in your field in your vocation but you don't know all the financial planning stuff." 3. You have the smarts but not the time. "Maybe you're super super smart and you can do it on your own. And the complexity doesn't even really frighten you, but what you found is you just don't have time to put the energy and effort and attention into it that you would like to. And so naturally, because you have all these other things going on, personal finances falls on the back burner." The common thread? Clients reach out wanting a second set of eyes from someone who has navigated their next stage many times before: "I want someone who's done it a hundred times so they can tell me, 'Hey, what are the things to look out for? What are the pitfalls I should have?'" But if you're early in your career, the advice is refreshingly direct: "It's not super complicated to figure out, hey, I need to make a good income, live on less than I make, follow the financial order of operations, put my money to work, and every dollar that I can save is going to be way more valuable going into my portfolio or funding my financial goals than paying a financial advisory fee."

Brian Preston and Bo Hanson on when financial advisors actually make sense: Asked whether anyone should hire a financial advisor if investing is "really as simple as just buying an index fund consistently," they push back on the framing itself. "Buying an index fund is just one part of the financial planning process. It's the investment part." They're quick to admit that most people don't need to pay a professional: "We don't think that everyone needs a financial advisor with all the information out there on podcasts and YouTube channels and books and blogs. There's so much great free information out there that a lot of people can self-manage for a long time." So when does hiring an advisor actually make sense? They break it down into three specific scenarios: 1. The gravity of your decisions becomes uncomfortable. "If I make a 10% mistake on $10,000, it's not going to change my life. If I make a 10% mistake on a million dollars, well, now I'm starting to impact my livelihood. Now, that might be more than I save in a year, more than I make in a year." 2. Your life becomes financially complicated. "You used to have a two-page tax return and now you have a 100-page tax return or you might have options and RSUs and ESP or you are wondering about what your estate documents should look like… You're an expert in your field in your vocation but you don't know all the financial planning stuff." 3. You have the smarts but not the time. "Maybe you're super super smart and you can do it on your own. And the complexity doesn't even really frighten you, but what you found is you just don't have time to put the energy and effort and attention into it that you would like to. And so naturally, because you have all these other things going on, personal finances falls on the back burner." The common thread? Clients reach out wanting a second set of eyes from someone who has navigated their next stage many times before: "I want someone who's done it a hundred times so they can tell me, 'Hey, what are the things to look out for? What are the pitfalls I should have?'" But if you're early in your career, the advice is refreshingly direct: "It's not super complicated to figure out, hey, I need to make a good income, live on less than I make, follow the financial order of operations, put my money to work, and every dollar that I can save is going to be way more valuable going into my portfolio or funding my financial goals than paying a financial advisory fee."

Big Brain Investing

15,169 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

This is what will matter 1000 years from now. Not your politics. Not your stupid tantrums about who platformed who on some website. Not your incomprehensible desire to send NASA's entire budget to the third world. This guy reignited the Space Age. He spent his own money, hired a bunch of dudes, and reignited the Space Age. And together, they underbid and outdid NASA and its pet dinosaur corporations on every conceivable level. This is history happening before you. If you are a puddlefish, if you think this is a wasteful showpiece or science project, then you don't understand physics, economics, astronomy, or in fact the basic layout of the universe you live in. We live in a tiny puddle at the bottom of a well. Out there is an entire universe, full not only of stuff to explore, but full of stuff to build things out of. Big things. Wonderful things. Things that are going to make all of the cool stuff you have today, all of human civilization to date look like early Assyrians writing stuff down on wet clay with a reed. Infinite resources. Infinite energy. Infinite space. Instead of fighting over little patches of land, we will have an infinite 3d volume. Enclose it in steel, pump it full of air, spin it, and it's a habitat. Instead of scratching tiny scraps of metal out of the crust of one planet, we will break down entire asteroids and smelt them. Instead of drilling for hydrocarbons and turning water wheels, we will harness entire suns, split the atom, and eventually draw our fuel from the substance that makes up 99% of the entire universe. None of your local, temporal Earth politics matter compared to this. This is more important than pride parades and abortions, more important than tribal conflicts in eastern Europe and southwest Asia, more important than tensions with Russia and China. More important, in the long run, than the United States of America. America's most important function, its one most vital purpose, is to serve as an incubator for this. Because this changes everything. All of our arguments about conditions on this planet become obsolete, because the whole planet becomes just one suburban neighborhood. All of our wars over resources and territory become obsolete, because no one has time to brawl when we're all sitting on top of a dragon horde with sacks and shovels. Everyone who was alive at the time remembers where they were when Kennedy died in Dallas. When the towers fell. When the Eagle landed. When the Wall came down. But this... this is the real moment, one of the first of many. They are what every child will know about a thousand years from now, even if they have four arms and are genetically engineered for zero-g, or are sentient blocks of code running on a sphere of computronium enclosing an entire star. You may not live to see that, depending on what we do or don't invent, and when. But it will happen, and you will live to see wonderful things. If the puddlefish don't get in the way. Don't be a puddlefish.

This is what will matter 1000 years from now. Not your politics. Not your stupid tantrums about who platformed who on some website. Not your incomprehensible desire to send NASA's entire budget to the third world. This guy reignited the Space Age. He spent his own money, hired a bunch of dudes, and reignited the Space Age. And together, they underbid and outdid NASA and its pet dinosaur corporations on every conceivable level. This is history happening before you. If you are a puddlefish, if you think this is a wasteful showpiece or science project, then you don't understand physics, economics, astronomy, or in fact the basic layout of the universe you live in. We live in a tiny puddle at the bottom of a well. Out there is an entire universe, full not only of stuff to explore, but full of stuff to build things out of. Big things. Wonderful things. Things that are going to make all of the cool stuff you have today, all of human civilization to date look like early Assyrians writing stuff down on wet clay with a reed. Infinite resources. Infinite energy. Infinite space. Instead of fighting over little patches of land, we will have an infinite 3d volume. Enclose it in steel, pump it full of air, spin it, and it's a habitat. Instead of scratching tiny scraps of metal out of the crust of one planet, we will break down entire asteroids and smelt them. Instead of drilling for hydrocarbons and turning water wheels, we will harness entire suns, split the atom, and eventually draw our fuel from the substance that makes up 99% of the entire universe. None of your local, temporal Earth politics matter compared to this. This is more important than pride parades and abortions, more important than tribal conflicts in eastern Europe and southwest Asia, more important than tensions with Russia and China. More important, in the long run, than the United States of America. America's most important function, its one most vital purpose, is to serve as an incubator for this. Because this changes everything. All of our arguments about conditions on this planet become obsolete, because the whole planet becomes just one suburban neighborhood. All of our wars over resources and territory become obsolete, because no one has time to brawl when we're all sitting on top of a dragon horde with sacks and shovels. Everyone who was alive at the time remembers where they were when Kennedy died in Dallas. When the towers fell. When the Eagle landed. When the Wall came down. But this... this is the real moment, one of the first of many. They are what every child will know about a thousand years from now, even if they have four arms and are genetically engineered for zero-g, or are sentient blocks of code running on a sphere of computronium enclosing an entire star. You may not live to see that, depending on what we do or don't invent, and when. But it will happen, and you will live to see wonderful things. If the puddlefish don't get in the way. Don't be a puddlefish.

Devon Eriksen

3,440,474 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

20 year old student Edith Berryman at the #RejoinEU rally in parliament square calling for the UK to rejoin the European Union National Rejoin March "10 years since the Brexit referendum. I am 20 years old. I have grown up living with the consequences of that decision. I have a simple question. Did Brexit deliver what we were promised? My argument is simple." "Brexit has had a real measurable economic cost. Not just in political arguments, but in productivity, investment and living standards, not just one opinion or one forecast." "This is the conclusion we keep seeing across UK institutions and independent research. The question is not what people believed in 2016. The question is what can we learn from the evidence shown in 2026?" "And the evidence is clear. Firstly, in productivity, this again doesn't come from one political campaign or one think tank. This comes from the UK government, government's own Office for Budget Responsibility. Their estimate is that Brexit reduces long term, UK productivity by around 4% compared to staying in the EU." "And more recent academic work shows that figure even higher to around 6 to 8%. To put it simply, a smaller economy than we otherwise would have had. Secondly, investment. Because countries don't just grow by accident, they grow because business." "This creates, invests and builds for the future. Business investment in the UK fell sharply after the referendum and has remained weaker than expected ever since. Independent studies estimate it is around 10 to 15% lower than it would have been without Brexit." "And that matters because investment means jobs, it means wages, it means opportunities for the next generation, the younger generation, my generation, alph." "They estimate this loss in productivity translates into around 470 pounds per worker per year in lower wages over time, not just for today, but for years ahead. Thirdly, living standards." "Because this is where the debate stops being about statistics and it becomes real people's everyday lives. Research from institutions like the London School of Economics has found that Brexit related trade barriers increased costs in everyday goods, including food, contributing to higher household bills." "And some estimates suggest it could amount to around 250 pounds a year for the average household. And the Resolution foundation has found over, the long term, real wages are lower than they otherwise would have been expected to be. So when you put all three together, products, investment, living standards, you do not get one political slogan, you do not get one isolated focus." "You get a consistent picture from official institutions and independent research. And the question then becomes, how did we get here from what we were promised? Because this isn't just about numbers on a spreadsheet." "Behind every percentage point is a real life. It's about whether young people can afford a home, whether your business can grow, whether families feel like their wages are, going further. I think the biggest issue here is Trust." "In 2016, people were asked to make one of the biggest decisions in modern British history. They were promised that leaving would mean more control, more money and a stronger future. People were told, on the side of a bus, that leaving the EU would free up 350 million pounds a week for the NHS." "But now, 10 years on, we have to be honest about the gap between what was promised and what actually happened. Because democracy, it doesn't depend on everyone getting every decision right. Democracy depends on us being willing to look at the evidence afterwards and ask, did this work?" "What can we learn and what should we do next? Ten years ago, Britain chose a new direction. Today, we have the chance to choose what comes next. Not based on nostalgia, not based on slogans, not based on fear." "Based on reality. And, the future isn't built on ignoring the evidence, is built by facing it. So the question for 2026 is, now that we know the cost, what should we do next? Thank you very much."

20 year old student Edith Berryman at the #RejoinEU rally in parliament square calling for the UK to rejoin the European Union National Rejoin March "10 years since the Brexit referendum. I am 20 years old. I have grown up living with the consequences of that decision. I have a simple question. Did Brexit deliver what we were promised? My argument is simple." "Brexit has had a real measurable economic cost. Not just in political arguments, but in productivity, investment and living standards, not just one opinion or one forecast." "This is the conclusion we keep seeing across UK institutions and independent research. The question is not what people believed in 2016. The question is what can we learn from the evidence shown in 2026?" "And the evidence is clear. Firstly, in productivity, this again doesn't come from one political campaign or one think tank. This comes from the UK government, government's own Office for Budget Responsibility. Their estimate is that Brexit reduces long term, UK productivity by around 4% compared to staying in the EU." "And more recent academic work shows that figure even higher to around 6 to 8%. To put it simply, a smaller economy than we otherwise would have had. Secondly, investment. Because countries don't just grow by accident, they grow because business." "This creates, invests and builds for the future. Business investment in the UK fell sharply after the referendum and has remained weaker than expected ever since. Independent studies estimate it is around 10 to 15% lower than it would have been without Brexit." "And that matters because investment means jobs, it means wages, it means opportunities for the next generation, the younger generation, my generation, alph." "They estimate this loss in productivity translates into around 470 pounds per worker per year in lower wages over time, not just for today, but for years ahead. Thirdly, living standards." "Because this is where the debate stops being about statistics and it becomes real people's everyday lives. Research from institutions like the London School of Economics has found that Brexit related trade barriers increased costs in everyday goods, including food, contributing to higher household bills." "And some estimates suggest it could amount to around 250 pounds a year for the average household. And the Resolution foundation has found over, the long term, real wages are lower than they otherwise would have been expected to be. So when you put all three together, products, investment, living standards, you do not get one political slogan, you do not get one isolated focus." "You get a consistent picture from official institutions and independent research. And the question then becomes, how did we get here from what we were promised? Because this isn't just about numbers on a spreadsheet." "Behind every percentage point is a real life. It's about whether young people can afford a home, whether your business can grow, whether families feel like their wages are, going further. I think the biggest issue here is Trust." "In 2016, people were asked to make one of the biggest decisions in modern British history. They were promised that leaving would mean more control, more money and a stronger future. People were told, on the side of a bus, that leaving the EU would free up 350 million pounds a week for the NHS." "But now, 10 years on, we have to be honest about the gap between what was promised and what actually happened. Because democracy, it doesn't depend on everyone getting every decision right. Democracy depends on us being willing to look at the evidence afterwards and ask, did this work?" "What can we learn and what should we do next? Ten years ago, Britain chose a new direction. Today, we have the chance to choose what comes next. Not based on nostalgia, not based on slogans, not based on fear." "Based on reality. And, the future isn't built on ignoring the evidence, is built by facing it. So the question for 2026 is, now that we know the cost, what should we do next? Thank you very much."

Farrukh

96,968 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen

Thought experiment for people regarding the concept of Absolute Time. Absolute means NO EXCEPTIONS. We are NOT looking back in time when we see galaxies and stars. We are NOT looking back in time 1.25 seconds when we see the moon. We're Not looking back in time 3 minutes when we see Mars. We're Not looking back in time 8.33 minutes when we see the Sun. If an astronaut lit a matchstick on Mars, the distant observer would see predator heat waves at the top of the matchstick in real-time while the matchstick started to blacken towards the astronaut's fingers. But there would be no orange light from that chemical reaction or flame seen. If the matchstick burnt out before the packet of orange light from that particular chemical reaction made it to Earth… then the distant observer would just see a disembodied orange flash of light with a lag. But the Earth-bound observer would never actually see the flame associated with the orange wavelength it put out. The wavelength of color emitted by the flame is not a recording of reality. If the orange light is 650 Thz, that means there are 650 trillion individual and separate bursts of orange light pulsating in 1 second. NOT that "the same light" is "waving" 650 trillion times a second and that light is a recording of reality. There are 650 trillion brand-new lights flashing in 1 second. Each Hertz is a brand-new emission and packet unto itself. Time does not re-emit 650 trillion times a second, nor is a photon a particle or a packet of reality acting like the frame of a reel of footage. The orange light that already left the flame will continue to propagate out until it meets the electrons making up the distant observer. But remember, it is never the same light within that packet. And the electrons making up the observer will absorb all of those different lights within that packet and re-emit brand-new lights that produce the product of illumination. A photon is a massless packet of energy, spherically expanding at the rate of c from the source it comes from. Illumination is the result of that energy being absorbed and RE-emitted by any other electrons that did not output that primary packet. But time is not associated with the same light. It's never the same light and time does not re-emit between packets. Time is not relative. Do NOT allow your mind Carte Blanche to think along the lines of relative time. DROP IT for this thought experiment. We are thinking along the lines of ABSOLUTE TIME/ Galilean VARIANCE. What does absolute time mean? It means time is constant in ALL frames of reference. Any frequency shifts between atomic clocks IS a literal change in the speed of light. But relativity forbids the speed of light from Ever changing, so relativity (Lorentz INVARIANCE) invented the concept of the 4th dimension and space-time. Because Relativity doesn't allow light speed to shift.. they interpret the same frequency shift between atomic clocks as being conclusive, irrefutable evidence that time and reality itself shifts. Rather than say it's just that ONE clock being affected by Earth's gravity and the oscillation of that ONE cesium clock is being altered compared to other clocks. People don't realize that in relativity... time dilation is SYMMETRICAL! Not even most relativists know their own theory. If Clock A and Clock B are synchronized and together... and then they accelerate apart... Einstein said Clock A would see Clock B as being slower itself. And Clock B would view Clock A as slower than ITself. NOT that only one observer would see back in time and the other would see forward or not at all. No... BOTH observers are supposed to see each other BACK in time relative to each other according to Einstein and the consequence of the math. It doesn't make ANY sense!! But relativists toss that part of time dilation under their 4th dimensional rug. The rug is woven from threads of gold that only the smart people can see apparently. So... here's a thought experiment/ Gedankenexperiment for absolute time. NO paradoxes... no nonsense or confusion. What do you see in a club? You see disco lights changing and a color wheel effect. You see everyone in REAL-TIME. Not just because they are so close to the lights. Light is not a recording of reality. Light is simply color. Illuminating reality in a certain color. Just because you can't see something yet or the color hasn't reached you doesn't mean it isn't happening in real-time. Zoom out and look at the people in the club through binoculars a mile away. You are still looking at them in real-time. The colors are shifting with a delay in the club. Now look at the club through a telescope from the surface of the moon. You're still looking at the people in real-time. But now there is a lag of the colors shifting by 1.25 seconds because it takes light 1.25 seconds to travel from the Earth to the moon. Now look at the club through an even bigger telescope from the surface of Mars. You're still looking at the people in real-time, but now there is a lag of the colors shifting by 3 minutes because it takes light 3 minutes to travel from Earth to Mars. fr you are a third hypothetical observer zoomed out and watching the person from Mars AND seeing the club on Earth... you're still seeing everything happening in real-time as well. But you see the colored wavepackets traveling with a delay to the observer on Mars. And the disco color wheel effect is just lagging before it affects the observer from Mars and the observer on the Moon. It doesn't matter how far you zoom out! There is only now to observe. But there WILL be a lag and delay for a given color/wavepacket to reach distant observers. But all points in space are already illuminated by other starlight. So if you're too far away... you'll just see the club in real-time but without any disco lights. Just see them in white light because that's the source already illuminating the scene. This is where it gets the most difficult because people think light itself is a recording of reality that replays a scene from where it came from. But another punch in the gut of relativity is that in order to see REFLECTED light... that would require a TWO-WAY transit. Which means the light would have to be sent out... record the scene of a distant event and then RETURN in order to REplay the event. Which means it would take 6 minutes to see the club from Mars by that logic and 2.5 seconds to see the club from the moon by that logic. The difference in tick rates between clocks has NOTHING to do with time dilation. Wait.. what?! How can that be? Because a clock itself doesn't represent all of time and reality. The difference between clocks is a "Transverse relative time shift." If the only light in the universe was from the lighter… the only way a distant observer would be able to see the astronaut on Mars is if the astronaut held down the button of the lighter for longer than 3 minutes. It takes 3 minutes for the packet of light to travel from Mars to Earth. The distant observer would never be able to see Mars, unless the light stretched from Mars all the way to Earth, and illuminated the path between Mars and Earth. And that would take 3 minutes for the boundary and first part of that wave packet to reach Earth. But if the distant observer wanted to observe Mars in real-time… then that packet of light would have to be on for longer than 3 minutes. So if the astronaut on Mars flicked the lighter at 12:00, the distant observer on Earth wouldn't see anything until 12:03. If the light was on for 3 minutes and 10 seconds, and the distant observer is 3 light minutes away... the distant observer would be able to see Mars in real-time for 10 seconds starting at 12:03. In the 20 second video clip of the rotating planet with shifting colors... just imagine you're a couple light minutes or light seconds away. You're still seeing the planet spin in real-time. But there is simply a delay of switching colors. You are Not looking back in time. It's just a color wheel effect from a great distance away. That's it!! There are many major flaws which tarnish people's critical thinking on this thought experiment. 1. Light does NOT ricochet or bounce. Electrons absorb, emit and re-emit ALL electromagnetic radiation. The electrons, making up the glass of a mirror will absorb the incoming light and re-emit a brand-new light as an equal and opposite reaction. NOT that "the same light" bounced off the mirror and continued on within the same frame of reference. 2. Light is NOT a recording of reality. 3. It is NOT the same light being observed from a source. It's never the same light. Each Hertz is a new light. Think of half of a sine wave as being its own emission. On an oscilloscope, a stimulus generates a peak which initiates an equal and opposite trough. Or vice versa. That repeating process is not "the same light." If you cut and paste that sine wave to another sine wave, the boundary between the waves will always be in phase. (thus refraction) 4. The speed of light is NOT the same in ALL frames of reference, no matter what. 5. Light is NOT made of particles and waves that flip back-and-forth. 6. Time is NOT connected to the speed of light. Time remains constant regardless if you accelerate towards or away from a clock. The clocks themselves will indeed be off! But that's an affect on the electrons making up the atomic clock affecting the oscillation of the isotope which is ASSUMED to ALWAYS be the same. So ANY difference in oscillation is treated as a literal distortion in space-time. 7. Space and time are not linked at all. That is a mathematical artifice under Lorentz invariance. Time is relative under Lorentz invariance. But time is absolute under Galilean VARIANCE. When people hear or see the word GALILEAN... their brains switch to auto pilot to "aether theory" and "classical physics." What people don't realize is that aether theory used Galilean INVARIANCE. Rather than space-time being used as an excuse to explain the difference in frequencies between atomic clocks... it was originally aether being used as an excuse to keep the speed of light the same. But None of those things are valid! We are thinking under the framework of Galilean VARIANCE! Completely new revolutionary model returning to Isaac Newton and Classical physics but without the corpuscular theory (particle) theory for light... without a particle-wave duality... without an aether... without a 4th dimension. Just good ol elementary math within 3D Euclidean space. Everything happening in real-time, right now. This reformulation of Galilean transformations was offered by Dr. Edward Dowdye in 1991 called The Extinction Shift Principle. Effectivity as opposed to Relativity. If light required a two-way transit, in order to travel out… Record an event, and travel back to replay the recording… then it would take 6 minutes to see the astronaut on Mars instead of 3. Remember… They say the SAME light is a recording, and must travel there and travel back in order to REplay. Relativity says time is relative: t' ≠ t time is NOT the same from all frames of reference) and t = tₒ / √1 - v²/c² but Galilean Variance says time is not relative: t' = t (Time IS the same from all frames of reference) and τ_tr = τₒ / √1 - v²/c² Relativity says c' = c (The velocity of light is the same from all frames of reference) but Galilean variance says c' ≠ c (The velocity of light is NOT the same from all frames of reference) and that c' = c ± v (The velocity of light in one frame of reference is dependent upon the velocity of the light source relative to an observer in another frame of reference. Whether that light source is approaching or receding away from that observer) Relativity says E = mc² (Energy and mass are universally equivalent and literally interchangeable under All conditions.) but Galilean variance says E = Δmc² = mₒc² (Energy changes in a system are the result from changes in mass. mₒ represents the original mass. Mass and energy do not literally interchange. There is an equivalence, not an interchange.) The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity Star light and illumination: Flicking a Lighter on Mars visual example:

TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)

16,608 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

I’ve noticed this getting way way worse in the last month. This has been a manipulation tactic since 2015. It’s why we originally formed the bears. Bear names showed if someone was real or not. The sophistication kept improving so we started doing bear meetups to be around real humans especially during Covid. Todays the last day if you want to join beartaria times app. Then I’m shutting the door. I saw this coming a long time ago so I deeply value actual human interaction in a dignified space. My instinct says to keep it private. So I am. Today’s the last day. Actual human beings are being gas lit right now to a degree that’s pretty incredible. Being mostly offline like my wife and her friends definitely helps but in my opinion it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Feels like a similar time to the Bruce Jenner era of “woman of the year.” I watched people give up their humanity and just say what they thought was consensus. None of those people are doing well now in my opinion. It’s a horrible decision. I see that now with Nick Fuentes. A gay Mexican with a toupee is being praised as this hardcore right wing leader of a movement that puts America first. I don’t care if it’s a 99:1 ratio every single time I post about it. I know that’s insane. The method to break a prisoner in a camp is to insist upon a reality that goes against his senses. What works even more than physical torture is group identity, perceptions of “consensus” and shame. Especially on caucasians. Our desire to go along with things for the sake of society gets highjacked in these scenarios. There was a Star Trek episode where Picard was screaming that there are only four lights. Despite the Borg saying three over and over and over. With the illusion of the internet and the integration of AI false consensus has been super charged and it works on people. Even ones you would never guess. My best interactions are in private communities or in person. So if you wanna watch my videos where the numbers and comments and likes are real and not being manipulated at all If you want to do what no bot can do and send me a letter: P.O. Box 490 sandpoint Idaho 83864 Catlyn Jenner is not the woman of the year, and Nick Fuentes is a gay Mexican with a toupee and I will say that a billion more times it if I have. I know what I’m looking at.

I’ve noticed this getting way way worse in the last month. This has been a manipulation tactic since 2015. It’s why we originally formed the bears. Bear names showed if someone was real or not. The sophistication kept improving so we started doing bear meetups to be around real humans especially during Covid. Todays the last day if you want to join beartaria times app. Then I’m shutting the door. I saw this coming a long time ago so I deeply value actual human interaction in a dignified space. My instinct says to keep it private. So I am. Today’s the last day. Actual human beings are being gas lit right now to a degree that’s pretty incredible. Being mostly offline like my wife and her friends definitely helps but in my opinion it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Feels like a similar time to the Bruce Jenner era of “woman of the year.” I watched people give up their humanity and just say what they thought was consensus. None of those people are doing well now in my opinion. It’s a horrible decision. I see that now with Nick Fuentes. A gay Mexican with a toupee is being praised as this hardcore right wing leader of a movement that puts America first. I don’t care if it’s a 99:1 ratio every single time I post about it. I know that’s insane. The method to break a prisoner in a camp is to insist upon a reality that goes against his senses. What works even more than physical torture is group identity, perceptions of “consensus” and shame. Especially on caucasians. Our desire to go along with things for the sake of society gets highjacked in these scenarios. There was a Star Trek episode where Picard was screaming that there are only four lights. Despite the Borg saying three over and over and over. With the illusion of the internet and the integration of AI false consensus has been super charged and it works on people. Even ones you would never guess. My best interactions are in private communities or in person. So if you wanna watch my videos where the numbers and comments and likes are real and not being manipulated at all If you want to do what no bot can do and send me a letter: P.O. Box 490 sandpoint Idaho 83864 Catlyn Jenner is not the woman of the year, and Nick Fuentes is a gay Mexican with a toupee and I will say that a billion more times it if I have. I know what I’m looking at.

Owen Benjamin 🐻

14,183 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Ritual abuse survivor/trauma therapist Max Lowen: "The entire world is basically run by a satanic cult. They're psychopaths, they're pedophiles, they're parasitic... [and] they harvest us physically, etherically, spiritually... But they're not human... these are interdimensional beings that have come to this planet, that have taken it over. And they are dark, they are evil. And they are patriarchal. So they have created everything in that image." This clip of Lowen (Max Lowen) is taken from a conversation with Seth Holehouse (Man in America) posted to the Man in America Rumble channel on February 15, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "The entire world is basically run by a satanic cult. They're psychopaths, they're pedophiles, they're parasitic. So they use. They harvest us physically, etherically, spiritually. "And so at the tippy top of the pyramid, and this is going to sound, you know, I mean, we're already in crazy land for some people with what's released in Epstein, so I'll just go there. But they're not human. Okay? "So these are interdimensional beings that have come to this planet, that have taken it over. And they are dark, they are evil. And they are patriarchal. So they have created everything in that image. And then the whole hierarchy is completely compartmentalized. So different rungs have different tasks. "And things that they do. And they have different amounts of the big picture. And right below that tippy top and still above all the things like the Vatican and Freemasons or whatever are covens, believe it or not. So, practitioners of black magic, that's a big part of the control structure. But that's basically the hierarchy. "So every institution that we have on this planet, everything, has been either created or infiltrated by this cult. So that's why no one's getting arrested, because they control the military and the police and the justice system. "And so, for example, the medical system, we used to have, you know, real healing, like herbs and energetic healing. And then the Rockefellers, which are one of the bloodline families, that's a layer in that hierarchy as well. They created the allopathic medical system deliberately to slow. Poison us and slow. Kill us, profit off that process, and then shorten our lifespan, and kill us prematurely. "So that entire system, this is hard for the human to grok because we've been taught to trust these people. We look at them as, like our parental figures, benevolent. And they're not. They're actually, as a good example, the medical and pharmaceutical system are designed to harm us by its inherent design. "[And] everyone knows the food is toxic, the water's fluoridated. They spray us with chemtrails. Like these people, they worship Lucifer. They worship dark, demonic entities. They are a death cult. They also need us because they're parasitic. They have been cut off from the creator. What, God— You know, whatever you call that. The oneness. And because they're cut off, they're cut off from the life force. Their highest achievement is ego, right? Which is why they're into power and fame and wealth and all those worldly things. "So they, like many movies and TV shows, are revealing the truth. We're their batteries, like Morpheus says to Neo in the Matrix, right? So they need us— They, they particularly like to prey on babies and children because of their purity, their essence. They're a soul. They've just come in from God into a human body. "So that energy is very rich to them and they, they harvest it etherically and then they harvest it physically in the form of blood and flesh eating as well, right? So they paradoxically hate us. They consider us cattle. They, you know, and they want to depopulate us, but to a point they have to keep some of us because we're their, their energy, their fuel source, if you will. "And we're also co-creators with God, but they're, they can't create anything. They can only piggyback off existing creation. So what they do is they get us to create this, now that we see it clearly, hell on Earth reality. Now how do they do that? They use trauma-based mind control. So the same things they did to me, they do to the collective."

Ritual abuse survivor/trauma therapist Max Lowen: "The entire world is basically run by a satanic cult. They're psychopaths, they're pedophiles, they're parasitic... [and] they harvest us physically, etherically, spiritually... But they're not human... these are interdimensional beings that have come to this planet, that have taken it over. And they are dark, they are evil. And they are patriarchal. So they have created everything in that image." This clip of Lowen (Max Lowen) is taken from a conversation with Seth Holehouse (Man in America) posted to the Man in America Rumble channel on February 15, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "The entire world is basically run by a satanic cult. They're psychopaths, they're pedophiles, they're parasitic. So they use. They harvest us physically, etherically, spiritually. "And so at the tippy top of the pyramid, and this is going to sound, you know, I mean, we're already in crazy land for some people with what's released in Epstein, so I'll just go there. But they're not human. Okay? "So these are interdimensional beings that have come to this planet, that have taken it over. And they are dark, they are evil. And they are patriarchal. So they have created everything in that image. And then the whole hierarchy is completely compartmentalized. So different rungs have different tasks. "And things that they do. And they have different amounts of the big picture. And right below that tippy top and still above all the things like the Vatican and Freemasons or whatever are covens, believe it or not. So, practitioners of black magic, that's a big part of the control structure. But that's basically the hierarchy. "So every institution that we have on this planet, everything, has been either created or infiltrated by this cult. So that's why no one's getting arrested, because they control the military and the police and the justice system. "And so, for example, the medical system, we used to have, you know, real healing, like herbs and energetic healing. And then the Rockefellers, which are one of the bloodline families, that's a layer in that hierarchy as well. They created the allopathic medical system deliberately to slow. Poison us and slow. Kill us, profit off that process, and then shorten our lifespan, and kill us prematurely. "So that entire system, this is hard for the human to grok because we've been taught to trust these people. We look at them as, like our parental figures, benevolent. And they're not. They're actually, as a good example, the medical and pharmaceutical system are designed to harm us by its inherent design. "[And] everyone knows the food is toxic, the water's fluoridated. They spray us with chemtrails. Like these people, they worship Lucifer. They worship dark, demonic entities. They are a death cult. They also need us because they're parasitic. They have been cut off from the creator. What, God— You know, whatever you call that. The oneness. And because they're cut off, they're cut off from the life force. Their highest achievement is ego, right? Which is why they're into power and fame and wealth and all those worldly things. "So they, like many movies and TV shows, are revealing the truth. We're their batteries, like Morpheus says to Neo in the Matrix, right? So they need us— They, they particularly like to prey on babies and children because of their purity, their essence. They're a soul. They've just come in from God into a human body. "So that energy is very rich to them and they, they harvest it etherically and then they harvest it physically in the form of blood and flesh eating as well, right? So they paradoxically hate us. They consider us cattle. They, you know, and they want to depopulate us, but to a point they have to keep some of us because we're their, their energy, their fuel source, if you will. "And we're also co-creators with God, but they're, they can't create anything. They can only piggyback off existing creation. So what they do is they get us to create this, now that we see it clearly, hell on Earth reality. Now how do they do that? They use trauma-based mind control. So the same things they did to me, they do to the collective."

Sense Receptor

75,067 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

what is "retail" and what can be today? it's wild how little attention this space gets tbh retail isn't just about profit margins & sales conversions - it's this fascinating bridge between innovation culture & everyday life, especially in design and fashion but nobody's really cracked it for virtual spaces yet all the worlds by dolce gabbana and others are like a very low effort interfaces that dont talk enough to the real user, it is a marketing move to say we did that, we follow tech bla bla (imo :) spent months researching traditional retail spaces - marble floors + high ceilings + that specific type of lighting that makes everything look expensive + trained staff in perfectly pressed + ironed uniforms - it's all carefully orchestrated then you've got these sleek 2d websites - full screen product shots + bold typography + minimal clicks to checkout - they work but something's missing, that human element that makes physical retail special started building this hybrid concept back in october 23 - imagine a web-based spatial store where your digital twin can actually try stuff on instantly - no more guessing if that jacket fits your avatar retail spaces are like these sacred temples of brand culture - acne stores hit different than zara ones & that's intentional - each space tells a story about what the brand believes in metaverse retail flips this whole concept - instead of walking 20 mins to a store you're literally one click away from being inside this carefully crafted virtual environment - ai npcs that actually understand fashion & can help you find exactly what you're looking for here's the thing about virtual retail - it's not just about pushing products - created this space where you can just vibe, test out avatars, play with different looks - if you buy something cool but the experience matters more. feeling same for the stores, new gen irl stores switched the narrative to a spaces where you can have an espresso and chill these ai npcs are different - they're not following you around like those overeager sales assistants - they're just chilling in the space, ready to help if you need them but totally cool if you just want to explore went through like 12 different iterations of interior design thru 3 years - each version taught something new about how people interact with virtual fashion - it's wild how much user behavior in virtual spaces differs from physical retail realized something big during development - creating the collection isn't even half the battle anymore - the way you present it, the whole experience around it, that's become this massive design challenge it's like gesamtkunstwerk but for the metaverse - every single element needs to be intentional - the lighting, the sound design, the way avatars move through the space - it all matters built this whole ecosystem around the concept - the store connects to the runway experience connects to the website connects to the marketplace - everything flows together serving this bigger vision of what virtual fashion can be this isn't just about selling digital clothes - it's about creating this accessible gateway into 3d internet culture - making virtual fashion something that actually makes sense in people's daily digital lives the lighting system alone took a month - because shadows & reflections hit different in virtual space - needed to make materials look good but also render fast enough for smooth experience on todays low gpu vr machine devices future of retail isn't physical or digital - it's this wild hybrid space where real & virtual blend together - imagine walking into a physical store & seeing your virtual wardrobe projected onto your reflection looking at the data now - users spend avg 23 mins in the virtual store compared to 7 mins on traditional e-commerce sites - they're not just shopping, they're exploring & connecting with the brand story accessibility was key in design - wanted anyone with a decent internet connection to access this space - no fancy vr gear required just your browser & imagination each virtual store could visit generates this unique experience - in future, the space can remember your preferences but also introduces new elements each time - keeps the discovery feeling fresh what's wild is how this changes the whole fashion calendar - virtual retail spaces can transform instantly - new collection drops can completely reshape the environment in seconds - no more seasonal renovations, change the glb. looking ahead this could revolutionize how we think about brand spaces - why limit yourself to physics when your store could literally defy gravity - imagine trying on a jacket while floating through a nebula retail in metaverse isn't just about replicating physical stores - it's about creating these impossible spaces that still somehow feel familiar & welcoming - that's the sweet spot we're all chasing built this thinking about the next wave of digital natives - they're gonna expect these kinds of hybrid experiences - traditional e-commerce gonna feel as outdated as catalog shopping feels to us now the tech's finally catching up to the vision - webgl performance + ai integration + virtual try-on tech all hitting that sweet spot where imagination meets practicality all my thoughts here are quite alpha in sense of applying today, was able to apply only some of them thanks to hyperfy, but the vision is here. breathe it. now with v2, all of these thoughts can be applied and developped. this is just the beginning tbh - every problem solved opens up new possibilities - excited to see how others build on these concepts & push virtual retail even further. fubu side note: made an ai gen notorious big song for it, enjoyy.

decentralize*

12,505 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

I honestly believe SpaceX is going to be the BIGGEST IPO the stock market has ever seen and I don’t think the market and many people fully understands what’s coming yet. People keep throwing around numbers like $1-1.5 trillion, which already sounds massive (Tesla’s market cap today is $1.5T). But from what I’ve researched over the years and being invested heavily in the company for many years, this number feels like the floor. As of December 2025, SpaceX was valued at ~$800 billion in an insider private share sale. The company does this every now and then to allow internal employees that have been with the company for a long time to have some liquidity since the company is private fyi. IPO plans are expected in 2026, w/ early chatter targeting $1-1.5 trillion, potentially raising $30B+, which would already make it the largest IPO in history, beating Saudi Aramco! But there is so much more that is happening underneath. Check out Starlink for example. • Revenue was about ~$15B in 2025 • Expected to grow to $22-24B in 2026 • 9M subscribers today, and I think it will double in 2026 • By 2030, Starlink could realistically be doing $50B+ per year This technology will be powering global connectivity, aviation, ships, rural areas, governments, militaries, schools, hospitals, AI backhaul, disaster zones… places fiber will never reach. Put a conservative 10-20 multiple on that, Starlink ON ITS OWN could justify a $500B-$1T valuation. Then, you add the fact that SpaceX is the ONLY company today that owns the road to space bc of cost effective reusable rockets… it changed everything. Today, SpaceX can launch payloads for ~$100 per kg to orbit, while everyone else is still at $5,000+ per kg! There is literally no competition… To dumb it down, it’s like SpaceX owning the railroads in the 1800s, with Amazon’s logistics network, and Apple’s ecosystem, and more. It’s absolutely clear… if you want to go to Space or do anything there, you have to go through SpaceX. This gives them full control over: • Satellites • Space stations • Data centers • Lunar missions • Mars missions • And whatever the future of Space is This kind of advantage deserves a MASSIVE valuation premium. Then, there are markets SpaceX hasn’t even unlocked yet and this is where valuations start to break people’s brains and spreadsheets. 1/ Point-to-point Earth travel like New York to Shanghai in under an hour. Even grabbing just 10% of long haul travel is a $ hundreds-of-billions market. 2/ Space based data centers with essentially unlimited solar power, natural cooling, no land constraints, no regulations… remember AI needs a lot of energy and Space has plenty of it. 3/ Getting to Mars and building brand new economies. Whoever controls transport controls the economy that follows. Just imagine building another Earth economy on MANY planets. This is why $1.5T feels way too low to me. At $22-24B in revenue, a tech growth multiple already gets you $1-2T. And then add the fact that SpaceX is compounding infrastructure across multiple $ trillion dollar markets… if revenue scales toward $100B+ in the next decade, which is VERY realistic btw, you’re no longer talking about a $1.5T company. You’re talking $3T, $5T, $10T+, even $100T+ over time. I see SpaceX as the gateway to the next economy for humanity. Earth is a ~$500T asset when you add up everything and SpaceX is about to expand and multiply that pie. So when people say “Bro… $1.5T IPO?! You’re crazy…” I just nod, smile, and think to myself that this is where the story is just beginning.

Teslaconomics

116,239 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

How strong is Xiao Zhan at carrying dramas across three genres? The three dramas he currently has lined up for release are the clearest answer to why platforms and investors are willing to back him. Today, let’s not look at this from a fan perspective. Let’s talk from an industry point of view and talk about the three upcoming dramas Xiao Zhan currently has: “SpyING” “The Infinite 10 Days” “A Small Town Remedy” A lot of people only see a top star dominating the screen, but what I see is another signal. Genre dramas paired with top-tier actors are reshaping market expectations. First, let’s look at what lanes these three dramas fall into: spy, suspense, and medical. Have you noticed that all three of these genres have a built-in audience base, but at the same time depend heavily on word of mouth? Spy dramas tend to attract slightly older viewers. They require solid logic and strong acting. Suspense dramas mainly target younger audiences. They’re highly plot-driven, with fast pacing and frequent twists. Medical dramas have the widest reach. From students to older viewers, anyone might watch them, because they deal with life and death, human nature, and social issues. One actor, Xiao Zhan, spans all three lanes. That means when his dramas are scheduled, they won’t compete within the same genre. Spy dramas draw from the spy audience. Suspense dramas draw from the suspense audience. Medical dramas draw from the realistic drama audience. Three audiences, three tables, with no overlap or competition. That’s the strategic value of pairing a top-tier actor with genre dramas. You use the actor’s broad public appeal to raise the ceiling of these genres, and then use the quality of the genres to feed back into the actor’s versatility. Next, let’s talk about what it means to “carry a drama.” It’s not about fans inflating the numbers. It means that once a drama airs, it can attract casual viewers, bring a relatively niche genre into the mainstream, and drive new user growth on the platform, while ad deals and overseas distribution also move up a level. Xiao Zhan’s past works have already proven this ability. “The Youth Memories” brought new life to period dramas. “Legend of Zang Hai” gave costume political dramas a different feel. Now platforms are handing him these three key projects. At its core, this is essentially an investment in certainty. In today’s film and TV industry, where everything is generally more cautious, whoever can offer that kind of certainty is the scarcest resource right now. And there’s one detail worth noting: none of these three dramas are what you’d call “safe choices.” Spy dramas haven’t had many big hits in recent years and can easily end up feeling dull. Suspense dramas are fiercely competitive. Hundreds are released every year, but only a few stand out. Medical dramas are where things most often go wrong. If the medical details aren’t accurate, they’ll immediately get criticized online. But it’s exactly these genres that are hard to pull off that need an actor who can make people want to click. Xiao Zhan is that entry point. Audiences are willing to trust him. From a business perspective, the ability of these three dramas to attract sponsors is hardly in doubt. Xiao Zhan’s commercial value has already been proven time and again. Even before airing, his dramas can lock in multiple brand partnerships. And product placement in genre dramas is much more flexible than in costume dramas. Medical dramas can feature healthcare, pharmaceutical, and insurance brands. Spy dramas can include cars, alcohol, and menswear. Suspense dramas can feature tech products and energy drinks. There’s a lot of room for brand placements. Not to mention overseas distribution. Xiao Zhan’s dramas have a stable audience in Southeast Asia, Japan, Korea, and even Europe and the US. “The Untamed” opened the overseas market, and every project since then has consistently sold well overseas. These three different genres actually match different regional preferences. Suspense dramas perform well in Korea. Medical dramas have a market in Japan. Spy dramas have steady demand among overseas Chinese audiences. So I’d say, these three upcoming dramas in Xiao Zhan’s hands are not just something for fans to get excited about, but also a bellwether for the industry. They show that truly capable actors aren’t limited by genre, and that platforms with vision are willing to give the best scripts to actors who can truly deliver. Three dramas, three genres, three possibilities. As a viewer, what I’m most looking forward to is not which one will be a hit, but whether Xiao Zhan can use these three works to make another leap, from a top traffic star to a leading force in genre dramas. As for the answer, we’ll find out when they air. Cr. 刘大可来了 #XiaoZhan #肖战 #TheInfinite10Days #SpyINGtheDrama #ASmallTownRemedy

Xiao Zhan World ♥️ Adoki

14,651 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten